Religious freedom in Canada

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza writes in Canada's National Post: Bringing soft totalitarianism into the classroom. An excerpt:

Ill winds are blowing across the land when it comes to parental rights, religious liberty and education policy.

Quebec's new "ethics and religious culture" curriculum aims to promote religious tolerance by teaching that religious differences don't matter. If you are a Muslim parent who wants to teach your child that Islam is superior to being an atheist or being a witch, the education system will be undermining that view in class. Quebec will brook no exceptions to the new groupthink: No child is permitted to be exempt from class when the teacher instructs her that her pious parents are teaching her falsehoods. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed this soft totalitarianism last month, saying in effect that parents ought to get with the program and get over their religious, moral and cultural obligations to instruct their children. That is the narrowing of liberty to the point of eliminating it; everyone is free to teach his kids what he wants at home, just as long as the state gets to teach the little ones the opposite at school.

After reading Fr. de Souza, I am reminded of this quotation from the great christian statesman Abraham Kuyper with more than a little relevance for current developments on both sides of the 49th parallel:

When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.

The CBC's misleading question

The CBC's website asks its readers to vote on this question: "Should Canada end its ties to the British monarchy?" The CBC is a Crown corporation and arguably it should know better than to ask so obviously anachronistic a question. Not since 1931 have we owed loyalty to the British monarch. Queen Elizabeth is queen in her own right of 16 Commonwealth realms, of which Canada is one. We owe allegiance to the Queen of Canada.

The CBC's confusion could perhaps be alleviated in part by officially recognizing our current Queen as Elizabeth I of Canada, rather than Elizabeth II. In fact, only in England — and possibly Newfoundland — should she bear the title of Elizabeth II.

Controversy over abortion remarks

Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Roman Catholic primate of Canada, has stirred up controversy by reiterating his church’s position on abortion at a recent pro-life conference. In response, Charles Lewis asks: Is the Pope Catholic?

Canadian court defends religious freedom . . . or does it?

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims to guarantee all Canadians certain fundamental freedoms, including “freedom of conscience and religion” and “freedom of association.” However, following American precedent this country’s courts have tended to interpret religious freedom rather narrowly, viz., as the right of individual citizens to worship freely. Whether communities are recognized to possess religious freedom is unclear in contemporary jurisprudence, given the dominating influence of liberalism.

Take the recent case of Heintz v. Christian Horizons. Christian Horizons is a more than 40-year-old organization dedicated to the care of mentally handicapped persons. Like many confessional organizations, it has a faith and lifestyle statement which employees are required to sign. Ten years ago an employee was dismissed for not living up to this statement. She filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in her favour two years ago, holding that a Christian ministry could not impose such requirements on its own employees if it served the larger community rather than its own members. On appeal, however, the Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto upheld the right of Christian Horizons to adopt such a statement. Or did it?

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada immediately claimed victory for charities across the country. Others were not so sure: Faith-based charity ruling too murky, experts say. Even the EFC’s general legal counsel Don Hutchinson, writing in the National Post, was less than favourably impressed by the ruling: Heintz v Christian Horizons: Solomon would not approve. So is religious freedom in Canada secure? Despite the Charter guarantees that appear to say yes, court interpretations leave the matter open.

While we are on the subject of religious freedom, I will take the opportunity to call American readers’ attention once more to the important work being done by my friend Stanley Carlson-Thies and the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance in Washington, DC, which “works to safeguard the religious identity and faith-shaped standards and services of faith-based organizations, enabling them to make their distinctive and best contributions to the common good.” Given the high stakes involved, it deserves the moral, financial and prayer support of the larger Christian community. Right now we could use such an effort in the True North Strong and Free.

Canada and the US

This has to be the best video ever made on the Canada-US relationship and ought to be widely distributed. It should also be viewed full screen.

True north

And while we're at it, see here for a powerpoint history of Canada's flag.

Canada's future: minority government

As usual, the most recent issue of Inroads is well worth reading, especially Henry Milner's article, Dr. Dion, or How I learned to stop worrying and love Minority Government. (Scroll down to p. 34 or p. 19 in the pdf file.) Although his essay was quickly dated by Harper's election call, it is worth reading due to his persuasive argument that we are in for a series of minority governments due to a changed federal political climate that began nearly two decades ago. Here's Milner:

To put it simply, we no longer have minority
governments; we have Minority Government.
Minority governments are no longer an aberration.
They have become standard fare, the
result of an important change in Canada’s
political makeup that has not received the
attention it deserves. . . .

The rise of the Bloc Québécois fundamentally
transformed Canadian federal politics
by making minority government the norm.
However, that transformation was masked
by another dramatic event: the disintegration
of the Progressive Conservatives. With the
resulting split of the centre-right vote between
Reform and what remained of the Conservatives,
the Liberals under Jean Chrétien were
able to win three successive majorities. But
when the centre-right reunited, the mask was
stripped away and the new reality became – or
should have become – apparent. With two
major parties, and with the Bloc entrenched
in roughly half of Quebec’s seats, Minority
Government replaced Majority Government
as the normal state of affairs.

Milner's prediction was borne out three days ago, with the re-election of the Conservatives to minority government status. Where he struck out was in his expectation that there would be no federal election until 2009:

But to judge from the way they cover the
current Parliament, our correspondents and
pundits see a minority government rather than
Minority Government, expecting the parties
to act as they did when minority governments
were short-lived exceptions. They take for
granted that this minority government will be
short-lived, and they interpret party behaviour
in that context. But the logic has changed.
Leaders and, especially, ordinary MPs know
that provoking an election will most likely not
result in the sought-after majority government.
Instead, there will be yet another minority
Parliament: overall party strength will have
changed little, but a bunch of incumbents will
have lost their seats.

Our leaders certainly should have known this, but it seems Milner erred in putting too much faith in their ability to recognize reality. If Minority Government is indeed here to stay, it may be time for our parties to abandon the pretence that majority status awaits them at the next election and to enter instead into co-operative alliances with other parties for purposes of governing. Otherwise we will have elections every two years, a pattern we should not wish to see settle into permanence.

Choose your poison

With a federal election looming next month, is the choice with which we are presented one "between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool"? That's the conclusion of David Warren, easily Canada's most curmudgeonly journalist: Stephen & Stéphane.

Canada's revolution

How could a devout Roman Catholic who attended mass several times a week have been responsible for bringing to this country a "culture of individualism, self-centredness, and of the hedonistic, nihilistic 'now!'"? Russ Kuykendall ponders this question in The Trudeau revolution.

As for the impact of the late prime minister's faith on his politics, you might wish to (re)read this: Trudeau's Catholic influences.

Misplaced honour

Our own Sir Frederick Banting was knighted in 1934 in recognition of his discovery of insulin and his contribution to extending the lives of diabetics. Three-quarters of a century later Dr. Henry Morgentaler is to be awarded the Order of Canada for his contribution to shortening the lives of infants in the womb. Makes us proud to be Canadians.

Protecting "rights", miscarrying justice

Like the bills of rights of many constitutional democracies, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims to protect "freedom of conscience and religion" and "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." That would seem straightforward enough. However, Canada's human rights tribunals are encroaching on these liberties in the name, ironically, of protecting human rights. Here are a few of the cases:

Three complaints have been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party, accusing them of fomenting hatred of and contempt for homosexuals.

A complaint has been made against the journal Catholic Insight on charges similar to those of which Gray and the CHP are accused.

Ezra Levant has been brought before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for republishing those infamous Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Western Standard.

The Canadian Islamic Congress has complained to two human rights tribunals that Columnist Mark Steyn and that venerable Canadian institution, Macleans, are guilty of publishing an article that "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" and is "islamophobic." The article, The future belongs to Islam, is excerpted from Steyn's controversial book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

Not surprisingly, while the first two cases were largely ignored by the press, the latter two have been given considerable publicity for reasons not too difficult to figure out. Even Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is not pleased with this development. Borovoy has said that he and others helped to create the human rights commissions "to deal with discriminatory deeds ... not discriminatory words. Nobody thought it would be used to censure freedom of expression." Canada's opinion moulders were apparently unwilling to come to the defence of Gray and Catholic Insight, perhaps because they were disseminating opinions that are deemed to be out of the mainstream. But of course the real test for freedom of speech is the toleration and protection of unpopular opinions.

We Canadians have a reputation for being bland and inoffensive. But we risk tyranny when we permit quasi-judicial tribunals, with few if any constitutional constraints, to enforce with coercive power this blandness and inoffensiveness to the detriment of healthy public debate. It is time to limit the jurisdiction of these tribunals or perhaps to abolish them altogether.

Short of these outcomes, I have another idea. What if Gray, Steyn, Levant, & al., were to file a counter-complaint against the complainants, charging that the latter are attempting to infringe on their human right of free speech under the Charter? Would it go anywhere? If nothing else, it would certainly test the commissions' creativity. It might be worth a try.

Later: You will have to register to see this, but here is Levant's appearance before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It's quite a performance.

O Canada, eh?

Today may be Canada's real independence day: The Statute of Westminster, 1931.

Watch it, Stephen!

It seems I am not the only one to think Stephen Harper may be warming up too quickly to a referendum on the Senate: Vote on Senate 'premature,' PM warned. Here is Preston Manning's view:

Mr. Manning said Tuesday that he supports the idea of a referendum, but that the question cannot be solely about abolition. Rather, Canadians should be asked to choose between abolition and reform. He also said that a referendum can be fair only if the government were to finance both sides of the issue so Canadians could be well-informed about the options before they go to the polls.

And now Liberal leader Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Dion said a referendum would be expensive and almost useless because of the possibility it would divide the country. He noted that even if a majority voted in favour, some provinces would almost certainly be opposed and that a constitutional change of such significance would require unanimity among the provinces. He suggested that the Prime Minister convene a meeting of premiers before pressing ahead with a referendum.

I suspect that most constitutional scholars would hold that a referendum on such an issue could be at most only advisory, and that the issue would have to be decided according to the procedures laid out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, requiring unanimous consent of each provincial legislature. Although the possibility of abolishing the Senate is not mentioned in this act, its existence is assumed in 41(1)(b). Of course, one might conceivably make a case, under section 42(b), that the general amending formula in 38(1) would be sufficient, viz., approval by both chambers of Parliament and at least 7 provinces containing at least 50 percent of Canada's population. Yet that subsection refers only to "the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators," which would seem to exclude abolition.

Thus I believe Dion is on solid constitutional ground, and both Manning and Dion are on solid political ground. Harper would be wise to heed their warnings.

Referendum on Senate?

NDP leader Jack Layton and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal have proposed a national referendum on abolishing Canada's Senate, the unelected upper chamber of Parliament. Now Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated that he would support such a referendum if the Senate cannot be reformed. If Harper is serious about this, he could effectively alienate the west, which is a key Conservative stronghold. In general, westerners prefer to see a "Triple E" Senate — elected, equal and effective. By giving each province the same number of Senators, by having them elected for fixed terms and by empowering them to check the Commons, a Triple-E Senate would more closely resemble the American and Australian Senates.

Needless to say, there is no enthusiasm for such a Senate in Ontario and Québec, whose dominance of Parliament as a whole would be curtailed under the new arrangement. They and New Democrats alike would prefer to see the Senate abolished. However, in supporting such a referendum, Harper would take a potentially huge risk. If voters in Ontario and Québec won a victory for abolition through sheer numbers, and if westerners had voted overwhelmingly to oppose such a move on grounds that it would eliminate any possibility of their having a greater voice in Ottawa, it could conceivably exacerbate the regional divisions in this country and in his own party.

Yet Harper has proved himself to be a crafty politician. He must know all this. Which makes me wonder whether he might have something up his sleeve. Stay tuned.

Cabinet shuffle

Here is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new cabinet. Three notable changes: Peter MacKay has been moved from Foreign Affairs to National Defence, Maxime Bernier from Industry to Foreign Affairs, and Jim Prentice from Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Industry.

Nunavik

In 1999 Nunavut was carved out of the Northwest Territories and given separate territorial status within Canada. Now we are told that regional government will be granted to a largely Inuit-inhabited territory in northern Québec, to be called Nunavik. Is this the beginning of a separate province, a separate territory or a tertium quid? How might this affect a future referendum on sovereignty should the PQ return to power? Might Nunavik decide to opt out of a sovereign Québec? Stay tuned.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

For the first years following Confederation in 1867, Canada had no federal supreme court, though it had the right to establish one under section 101 of what was then called the British North America Act. Not until 1875 was the Supreme Court of Canada set up, and even then it was not technically supreme. Those dissatisfied with rulings of this court could appeal one more level to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. After the Statute of Westminster of 1931, however, Canada was authorized to abolish such appeals which it did in 1949. Probably the most famous Privy Council ruling for this country was the 1929 "Persons" case, which established that women are persons under the law and thus eligible for Senate appointments.

Gradually most Commonwealth countries have abolished appeals to the Privy Council, including New Zealand as recently as 2004. However, appeals of cases decided before then have continued to make their way across two oceans to London for final decision. In what is apparently its last decision relevant to New Zealand, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has thrown out the murder convictions of David Bain, thereby calling into question the justice system of that country. Many New Zealanders see merit in cutting one more tie to the United Kingdom. However, the Campaign for the Privy Council is not persuaded, as indicated in the group's press release: Bain Decision Vindicates Privy Council Appeals. Supporters argue that "however good the New Zealand judiciary might be, there is nothing to equal an independent outside body to ensure quality control." Prime Minister Helen Clark defends the decision to abolish appeals and believes that access to a local Supreme Court may actually facilitate the appeal process.

The Charter at 25

A quarter century ago today Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau achieved his highest political dream of patriating Canada's constitution. Prior to that point this country had no entrenched constitutional documents on a par with the United States Constitution or the German Grundgesetz. We had the British North America Act of 1867, but this was no more than an act of the British Parliament, its validity originally resting on Canada's legal subordination to that Parliament. After the Statute of Westminster of 1931, Canada had the right to adopt its own entrenched constitution, but the anomaly of Canada's subordinate constitutional status continued right up to 1982, primarily because for 50 years federal and provincial leaders could not agree on how to amend such a document. With the "gentle" urging of Trudeau, this all changed on 17 April 1982, when the Queen signed the new constitution in Ottawa.


After this date the British North America Act became, with some modifications, the Constitution Act, 1867, an entrenched document possessing the status of "supreme law of the land," to quote its American counterpart. More significant yet was the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982, a completely new document consisting of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the formulae for amending these documents. Among the consequences of the adoption of entrenched constitution acts was the empowering of the courts, which now had the authority to invalidate federal and provincial laws deemed to conflict with these acts. Some would argue that this has strengthened constitutional government against the threat of majoritarian tyranny. Others see it as having diminished the democratic character of our political system and increased the threat of judicial tyranny.

Here, from the CBC archives, is a video timeline of the lengthy process of giving Canada its own constitution, as some would put it.