Major Acid's E-Rag
It Strikes Me...
That a Cliché Can Be a
Dangerous Thing
Cliches are boring, but sometimes they are appropriate. For example,
groups like the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family (ICMF) that
seem intent on bullying - sorry, lobbying - federal politicians into
voting against same-sex marriage legislation should beware a particular
cliché.
Be careful what
you wish for.
The ICMF (which
includes the Islamic Society of North America, the Ontario Conference of
Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Civil Rights League, and the Evangelical
Fellowship of Canada) and others, such as Sanctity of Marriage and
Marriage Canada, say the government should not be in the marriage
business. That, they say, is a religious prerogative, and government
should butt out. This is not a surprising position looked at as coming
from a single issue, but nothing is disconnected. Nothing sits in a
vacuum, including the same-sex marriage issue.
Consider the
fundamental contradiction: religious groups likes those in the ICMF
generally argue in favour of human rights, and one would expect no less
from groups with names that include "Civil Rights League"; yet, on this
one issue, those same groups now actively promote discrimination.1
This is close to a
hate crime, far worse than David Ahenekew's alleged hate crime. There
have yet to be (as far as I am aware) any claims made that Ahenekew
actively discriminated against any individual Canadian of Jewish
heritage. Nor has he, apparently, worked to deny individuals or groups
their rights under Canadian law. He has been charged for expressing a
personal opinion, albeit a repugnant one. But a personal opinion can't
and shouldn't be legislated. To do so is to create not a hate crime but
a thought crime.
ICMF et al,
however, are actively pursuing the denial to individual Canadians - gays
- the same liberties that non-gay Canadians legally take for granted.
Canadian courts have ruled on this, with close reference to the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, and to actively work to circumvent that ruling
is not the same as expressing an opinion. Still, this must be balanced
against an individual's or group's right to argue for a particular
opinion, and it would be fascinating to see the arguments played out in
court, say if someone were to charge the ICMF with disseminating hate.
The ICMF would
then be in the peculiar (and uncomfortable) position of depending on the
courts - the same courts that have ruled on gay rights - to defend the
ICMF's own rights to hold their own opinions. Likely the ICMF would win
even though their actions take them closer to hate crimes than anything
incautiously said by Ahenekew.
As fascinating as
that line of thought is, there is another point to consider. What the
ICMF and friends are also doing - and far more critically - is arguing
in favour of the separation of church and state. This is welcome news.
The separation of
church and state is one of the foundations on which Canadian (and
generally Western) democracy rests. As a Canadian, your religion (or
lack of it) is your business. The state has other, better things to
worry about. In reality, of course, this separation is anything but
clear. Churches, for example, get tax breaks, and those who donate to
the churches of their choice are subsidized by tax deductions. This is
not separation.
Even more glaring
is the public/state support for an explicitly religious education system
- the Catholic school boards. There are probably excellent Catholic
schools, and equally probably pathetically bad Catholic schools, the
same range as exists in the public school system. However, general
education goals notwithstanding, the Catholic system is also in the
business of promoting one particular religion, and this is done in large
part with tax dollars. This is not separation,2although there is a
little irony in the fact the Catholic boards call themselves "Separate".
The point is - to
trot out another cliché - you can't have it both ways. The ICMF and
friends want the government to stay out of what the ICMF says is the
ICMF's business. That's fine. In fact, it's an excellent idea.
For the ICMF,
however, success in this particular battle could set a precedent its
members would be horrified to contemplate - IF they bothered to think
beyond their knee-jerk, navel gazing, single issue level.
If the ICMF and
friends succeed here, at demanding and receiving a clearer separation of
church and state, then there's no reason that precedent can't and
shouldn't be extended to other areas. There's no good reason a private
club - a church - should get special tax treatment; no good reason that
religious based education should be publicly funded; no good reason any
religiously dictated custom up to and including tax deductions for each
child in a household, especially in a household whose numbers are driven
by religious dictates against, for example, birth control, should be
supported by the public at large.3
There's no good
reason to concede to ICMF and friends the concept of separation of
church and state on this on issue without rigourously applying that
concept. If the ICMF and friends looked past their single issue focus,
they would be - and should be - terrified at what awaits them.
And that's fine,
too, because it recalls the cliché - be careful what you wish for. That,
by the way, is the short version. The full version says this: be careful
what you wish for; it might come true.
1
In contrast, the Quakers apparently support the right to same-sex
marriage. Quakers have been, for a long time and consistently, active
workers in international human rights and the promotion of non-violent
means of achieving such rights. Perhaps this comes from being a true
minority religion, and an awareness of how that minority status has
played out historically. Or perhaps they just don't like to indulge in
hypocrisy.
2 The Catholic
school system is an historical/constitutional artifact. Other religious
groups have tried to gain similar standing in education but so far have
failed. Arguments that others, such as the Jewish religion, should be
similarly favoured have not (happily) impressed the courts, and this, I
think falls under yet another cliché - two wrongs don't make a right.
Good on the courts
3 I can hear
the howling. There may, indeed, be a perfectly good non-religious based
line of reasoning to support families through the tax system. And there
are also reverse arguments - there are always reverse arguments. A
complete separation of church and state, including religious rules for
how members of any particular faith hook up, may mean allowing multiple
spouses - the four wives Islam allows, for example, even though no woman
may have four husbands. But then, I would ask, should a husband be able
to claim deductions for each of his four wives thereby forcing all
Canadians to support his religious lifestyle? Considering the dictates
stating that each wife should be treated equally, which might be
interpreted as providing each wife with her own house, he could use the
help.
