Faithfully yours - We must respect the rights of all

Details

Published on Saturday, September 5, 2015

By Neil Strohschein

The Neepawa Banner

Today I wade into a discussion which has captivated our country since the days when Pierre Trudeau was Canada’s Prime Minister.

 As we recall, it was PM Trudeau who engineered the patriating of Canada’s constitution. In 1982, the Canadian and British parliaments passed legislation that rescinded the British North America Act and replaced it with the Constitution Act of Canada. Included in this act was a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that identified the privileges granted to all Canadians.

From the moment he began speaking of the Charter, Trudeau faced intense opposition. In its initial (and ultimately final) form, the Charter identified the Supreme Court of Canada as the final arbiter in Charter rights cases. “This will change the role of the Supreme Court,” his opponents  argued. “Instead of interpreting and enforcing the laws passed by Parliament, the Court will be making laws just like the US Supreme Court has been doing for years.” Trudeau’s response—“No court in Canada can tell Parliament what to do.”

We’ll never know if Trudeau really believed those words. History has proven them to be very, very wrong. On issues like abortion and same sex marriage (to name but two), the Court struck down existing laws and in some cases gave Parliament a set time in which to pass legislation that conformed to its ruling or face sanctions from the Court itself. The Court told Parliament what to do and Parliament obeyed; Pierre Trudeau notwithstanding.

The result has been a massive paradigm shift in Canadian society.

In today’s Canada, if something is legally right, then it is also considered to be morally right. Those who disagree, especially if their disagreement is based on the moral principles taught in the religious books of their particular faith, are told to keep their views to themselves. The courts have spoken. Parliament has obeyed the courts’ directive—and so must the people. Those who refuse to comply are pressured to conform and threatened with legal action if they do not.

Christians aren’t the only ones facing these challenges. For every Christian church or minister whose beliefs are being attacked, I am sure there will be at least one Muslim cleric, Hindu priest, Jewish rabbi, Sikh teacher or First Nations Elder who will have a similar experience to share.

That makes respect for human rights an election issue. In the past, our parliamentarians have been quite happy to pass legislation that they know will be tested in the courts. Then, when the courts rule, they pass the legislation they knew they should have passed in the first place. And when an election is called and the voters ask why their input was ignored when these laws were made, our legislators say: “The courts ruled and we complied. We had no choice.”

There has to be a better way. We don’t know what the next major issue will be. It might be euthanasia and assisted suicide. It might be gun control. It might be something else. But there will be an issue—and it will come within the mandate of the government we elect on October 19. What will be their approach? Same as always—or will they dare to try something different?

We need parliamentarians who, after identifying an issue (like euthanasia or assisted suicide) will first go to the voters and hear what they have to say on the issue. Then, having listened, they should .enact legislation that, in affording a privilege to some, respects and protects the rights of those who disagree to speak out publicly without fear of recrimination.