And Unionist, if you are talking about his reference to laws being broken and rights being taken away I'd say he is using some inaccurate terminology. I don't agree with him that anything about this is unconstitutional (which he has also speculated). No it isn't removing their right to speech, but the end result is them being put in a situation where they are discriminated against for their beliefs.
Actually Smith, I just wanted to know what Christopherson said, in full if possible, in explanation of his vote. Once I get that straight, I'll be in a position to judge for myself why he took such a rare stance and whether I think it was justified. And yes, I'm familiar with that National Post article, having quoted from it in my question upthread.
So other than those three quotes from Christopherson in that piece, that was it? Just wondering.