I don't perceive that as a criticism, so much as a valid observation. There's a number of reasons for this. First, recent discussions and debates in this country have caused me to go and read the laws of the land in some detail, and I have begun to find this particular domain rather intriguing. Second, I find that many of the issues involve the application of law in domains that are heavily coloured by moral issues. In order to discuss those issues without descending into arguments that are founded on moral assumptions that may not be shared beyond my own inner dialogues, I find it useful to frame my observations in the context of law. I will also often argue that more subtle moral issues should not in fact be legislated at all for the simple reason that such legislation is simply unenforceable, and presupposes values which may not be commonly held in a society as varied as Canada's.
An excellent example of this appeared in a column on The Western Standard, Ezra Levant's attempt to resurrect the old "Alberta Report" magazine. What led me to this column was a series of comments in other parts of the Canadian political blogosphere talking about a campaign against the Charter of Rights going on in the Conservative party. Basically, there's a lot of sneering and snickering at the Charter right now because the Conservatives don't like how it is being applied in a number of domains.
In this column is a beautiful example of how an assumption of shared values can be so problematic:
Here’s what the charter really says, in its very first line: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law . . . ” Here’s what it says immediately afterward: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
You might remember that these are the same “reasonable limits” that allow the government to limit gun ownership and ban certain types of speech that it finds offensive. Yet, somehow, whenever it comes to Liberal causes--gay marriage, voting rights for prisoners--limits are deemed unreasonable.
First of all, the obvious comment would be "whose God"??? The Conservatives seem to conveniently desire to assume a quasi-Old Testament version of God, but what about Allah, the various dieties of the Hindu religion(s), Asian spirituality, etc. All of which are valid and perceived to be equal under section 2 of that same charter.
The complaint over Bill C-250 (an amendment to the hate crimes section of the Canadian Criminal Code) is possibly subject to challenge under the Charter. Those that are screaming so loudly about their "rights" to spew hatred against an identifiable minority group should take their challenge and put it to the courts as a legal case. If the law as written is in fact unreasonably constraining religious freedoms around that topic, there should be a fairly clear case to challenge the content of those provisions.
Of course, the author of the rant in Western Standard goes on to argue:
It’s obvious by the way Prime Minister Paul Martin has been trash-talking the charter’s Section 33 lately, that he doesn’t really consider the charter to be that sacrosanct after all. Just the parts that he likes. In fact, the notwithstanding clause is as valid a section of the charter as any other.
The Conservatives have long argued that Section 33 of the Charter should be invoked to suppress the same-gender marriage issue. It certainly could be done that way, but I question the wisdom of such an approach. All that Section 33's invocation would do is defer the issue for 5 years, and reopen the wounds all over at that time. Hardly what I would call "dealing with" the issue at all. Since Section 33 has only ever been used in Quebec, and it has been used in a manner that suppresses legitimate rights of non-francophone Quebecers, I find the notion of using in the marriage context to be deeply troubling. What's next? Laws that suppress freedoms of speech, association and belief with Section 33 invoked to "prop up public decency"?
Or would the 1950s "censorship boards" come back to life, their actions sanctioned by laws that could only be supported by invoking Section 33?
(If the Conservatives want to claim false associations between same-gender marriage, bestiality and polygamy, why can't I assert that they want to resurrect a bunch of dead government institutions for the "public good"???)
As Quixote has commented in his Blog, many of the so-called "Conservatives" are impossible to argue with rationally. Their positions are pre-assigned to them, and carefully filtered through the lens of their particular brand of Faith. It is important to make the counterpoint arguments heard. Knowledge is not the enemy of Faith (in spite of what some believe), ignorance is the enemy of liberty and justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment