Editorial

By Paul Schratz

How ironic that the best argument in support of a Canadian law defending religious freedom comes as a result of news reports that Ottawa was considering such a law.

In a word, reaction was ballistic.

It was hard to know what upset the critics more: the absurd notion that Christians and other religious believers are so persecuted as to need such a law; or the audacious suggestion that they are entitled to one.

Both views were doled out in near equal measure. Media accounts, letters, and talk shows bandied around comments that the religious right was in high dudgeon again as it furthered its nefarious plot to turn Canada into a Christian-dominated theocracy.

This was an extension of the popular view that Christians have been getting too vocal lately and need to remember their place in this secular, post-Christian society, where religion is fine as long as you keep it to yourself.

Others seem simply not to understand, or not to want to understand, the need for such a law. Persuaded by assurances from opposition parties and political science professors that Christians were under no threat of persecution, they bury their heads, believing that the so-called protections already in place will guard against any growing intolerance toward orthodox views on faith and morals.

The government may or may not be considering a law that would guarantee that when people speak out on important religious issues, they can’t be hauled before any of the various tribunals that seem to specialize these days in cracking down on uppity religious types.

Given the hostility that greeted the reports, however, the idea of a law defending religious freedom deserves even more consideration. It wasn’t a bad idea to begin with. The growing list of abuses against religion and conscience in Canada has been recited so many times it should be rote for everyone by now. Too many groups and individuals have had to face courts, tribunals, or threats to employment as a result of having had the temerity to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” “gay rights,” abortion, and other modernist creeds.

At the very least, they risk being described as bigots and racists in the media and in the public. At the worst, they can be fired, fined, or convicted of a crime.

The hostile response to the government’s trial balloon, if that’s what it was, drove home the wisdom of such legislation.

In case there are still doubts, here is just a sample of clashes between established structures and religious freedom in recent years:

In Fredericton, police arrested a woman displaying signs with “disturbing images” outside an abortion clinic.

The Bishop of Calgary was threatened with loss of charitable status for criticizing Prime Minister Paul Martin’s support for abortion.

Coquitlam Knights of Columbus were fined by B.C.’s human rights tribunal for the way they turned down a lesbian wedding reception in one of their buildings.

A Saskatchewan nurse was fined by the nursing association for protesting against abortion and by the human rights commission for speaking out against homosexuality.

An Ontario Catholic school was ordered by a judge to permit a student to bring his boyfriend to the prom.

An Ontario printer was fined after turning down a printing job for a gay organization.

Civil marriage commissioners are being forced to resign because they refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies.

A Winnipeg Christian camp is before the human rights commission for turning away a gay choir from its premises.

A B.C. teacher has been suspended without pay for writing letters about homosexuality to the newspaper.

All of these occurred under existing freedoms, guarantees, and protections.

In a recent article, Janet Epp Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada wrote about The Becket Fund, a respected U.S. human rights legal organization that held a conference addressing the possible conflict between religious freedom and “same-sex marriage.” The result of the conference was, “Legal scholars most in favor of same-sex marriage were those who predicted the greatest impact on religious freedom. This was clearly because they valued the rights of gays and lesbians to marry far higher than the rights of anyone to stand in opposition.”

A defense of religious freedom act would be a helpful sign from the government that the confrontations we’ve been witnessing are not just a small sample of what’s to come.