For me, its not about rights or denying rights. Its about the Charter. Its about a slippery slope created by redefining a word. And its about parliamentarians abdicating their responsibility to permit the Electorate to drive social policy through them.
For decades (yes, under the Liberals) we’ve developed a culture whereby we expect the courts to essentially MAKE law by setting precedent. Then the legislative bodies, be they federal or provincial, have to make law to satisfy the new precedent.
The system is not supposed to work this way. Its supposed to go something like this. We (the Electorate) cast our ballots to elect members and parties who represent our values. Those representatives then go to Ottawa or Queen’s Park, or wherever and MAKE laws that express those values. And then the courts are supposed to simply interpret and apply those laws.
But when the courts, who are supposed to be independent of government and independent of the people, essentially create laws, they take the Electorate out of the equation. The courts now drive socially policy. That is a fact I am exceedingly uncomfortable with. Why do we still call our society a democracy? We are fooling ourselves if we do.
Now, about the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a tragically flawed document. It has noble intentions but is flawed. It is flawed because it can be used to support an argument in court for someone who has the audacity to say “My right to (whatever) supersedes your right to (whatever else).” Even if both rights can be interpreted as protected under the Charter; the one who whines wins.
Now, considering the tendency of Parliament to sit and wait for the courts to decide what it should do, can we really expect that they will have the strength or the inclination to intervene when a member of the Clergy is brought up on charges for infringing on the ‘rights’ of a same-sex couple when they demand to be married in a church and by that particular Clergy? This matter is all the more intractable given the perceived supremacy of the Charter. This will happen. Its only a matter of time. Indeed, people entrusted to perform secular marriages are already losing their jobs for refusing, on moral/religious grounds, to perform same-sex marriages.
I have a problem with the strategy of redefining the word ‘marriage’. Even France didn’t go so far. If it had been called a ‘civil union’, with all the same rights, privileges and duties as marriage, I would have been on-side. It would have been a whole lot cleaner to allow (not compel) clergy and secular bodies to perform either Marriages (between one man and one woman) or Civil Unions (between two people).
Another issue relates to the Charter and having taken the unnecessary step of redefining the word ‘marriage’. By doing so, we open the possibility of challenges, again argued under the Charter, for things like bigamy, polygamy, incest and such. Its only slightly less likely than the previous scenario. Its an unintended possibility not seen by those who did not have the foresight. Having to fight these challenges in court will be at the very least embarrassing. Imaging the headline; ‘Man challenges Canadian court to redefine marriage so he can marry his daughter’. And given how flawed the Charter is, these challenges could go either way. We’ve opened a Pandora’s box.
Democracy at work?
We don’t have Same-sex marriage in Canada because of any kind of groundswell of support by the people for the idea. I figure that the majority of voters in Canada either don’t care or oppose the idea. We have Same-sex marriage because of a few judges and three men in Ottawa. Jean Chretien and Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton whipped their members into voting as they were told. The Bloc and the NDP did it again yesterday, and the Liberals no doubt would have too if they thought it was needed. It was shamefully anti-democratic of the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The only party to uphold democracy was mine. Conservative members were free to vote as they felt compelled to. Only Conservative members were free to listen to their constituents. We have Same-sex marriage at the cost of democracy, not because of it.
Yes, it was a victory for supporters of Same-sex marriage. But it was a defeat for democracy.
And, may I remind the reader that the Liberal Party as of six years ago opposed Same-sex marriage. Why? And why the turn-about if not as a cynical ploy to get more votes? The Liberal Party is certainly not the champion of civil rights in Canada. They are masters of social engineering though, I give them that. To do a total 180 on this matter, create the ‘need’ and give us Same-sex marriage in three short years is pretty amazing.
No comments:
Post a Comment