The Canadian province of Ontario’s education minister appears to believe her government has the authority to decree an end to a debate that has been going on for at least four decades in North America. She is also claiming a right to tell Roman Catholic schools what they can and cannot promote as Catholic teaching. And all this on the pretext of putting an end to bullying.
Last month Laurel Broten convened a news conference at Queen’s Park, Toronto, to express her displeasure at three Progressive Conservative MPPs arguing against taxpayer support for abortion earlier that day. Citing Bill-13, the province’s controversial anti-bullying law, Broten castigated them for reopening an issue that should remain closed. “I think it is critically important for Ontario women to understand that our government, our Premier, Premier McGuinty, that we support a woman’s right to choose. That debate is over, it has ended and it should stay that way.”
Furthermore, Broten argued that Catholic schools should not be advancing the pro-life cause, because it violates this hallowed right to choose. “[W]e do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates [sic] human rights . . . . Bill 13 is about tackling misogyny, taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take.”
Three observations are in order.
First, name-calling is in effect an act of desperation and a tacit admission that one’s own arguments have been insufficient to carry the day. If you cannot through reasoned deliberation persuade your opponents of the rightness of your cause, then it is tempting to force an end to the discussion if you have the power to do so. If that means labelling your opponents misogynists, so be it. Broten may indeed think the debate ended long ago, but there are plenty of people in Ontario and elsewhere who would dispute her interpretation. Campaign Life Coalition and ProWomanProLife come to mind here. Broten’s pronouncement is wishful thinking at best.
Second, a government official lacks the normative competence to decide what a church’s teachings should be. Canada does not have an established church under government jurisdiction. A political office-holder obviously exceeds the mandate of her office when she dares to decide what a church is and is not allowed to teach as doctrine. Only ecclesiastical office-bearers have this right, which they exercise according to their own understanding of divine revelation. To run such teachings past the political authorities is not a requirement here in Canada. China may try legally to prevent Buddhist monks from reincarnating without government permission, but that’s not how we do things in this country. Broten should read Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms if she is unclear on this point.
Third and finally, Broten’s understanding of what constitutes a person’s identity is faulty in the extreme. Broten implicitly defines our identity as a mere assertion of autonomy, that is, of the right to choose apart from any “thick” conception of the human person dependent on norms not of our own making. If a woman wishes to harm her own body or the foetal life growing within her, it is her decision to make, whatever its impact on herself, her loved ones and the larger social fabric.
In reality, of course, human beings are far from autonomous, and the validity of their decisions can never be vindicated by a mere right to choose. After all, even Broten could hardly argue that a woman has the right to sell herself into slavery, even though its legal prohibition appears to constrain her freedom of choice.
Our world belongs to God, and we are not our own. We always answer to Another, who has called us to live for his honour and glory. Everything we do depends on the norms by which he upholds his creation. Such norms prohibit governments from overreaching their authority by interfering in areas outside their proper jurisdiction. Perhaps we need an anti-bullying law to prevent ministers of education from bullying faith-based schools and others who dare to dissent from their desire to dictate dogma.
David T. Koyzis teaches politics at Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada. He is the author of the award-winning Political Visions and Illusions, and is currently seeking a publisher for his new book on authority, office and the image of God. This piece appeared in slightly different form in the 12 November 2012 issue of Christian Courier.
November 13th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
Occasionally, we hear this argument in the States. I, for one, am at a loss as to why an otherwise intelligent person believes that the law ever constitutes some sort of infallible dogmatic statement of belief. In particular, I’ve heard it about abortion as “enshrined” in the Constitution. This in spite, on the one hand, the 27 amendments to said document and, on the other hand, there being no mention of birth let alone abortion.
Does Canada have a specific legal commitment to freedom of belief?
November 13th, 2012 | 5:54 pm
Mrs. Gay Caswell, an ex MP, has been complaining about this for awhile, along with how bureaucrats harass the First Nation folks who run charities/schools that are Christian.
November 14th, 2012 | 7:11 am
It’s at our back door, and coming to the USA. The end of the debate on abortion as well as the end of naming homosexual behavior as the grave sin that it is. The latter will be illegal soon, and clergy will be arrested.
November 14th, 2012 | 8:15 am
[...] Disallowing Debate, Dictating Dogma – David T. Koyzis, First Thoughts [...]
November 14th, 2012 | 9:19 am
Joe DeVet – I’ll take that bet. How much you want to put up, and in what timeframe?
November 14th, 2012 | 9:20 am
The latter will be illegal soon, and clergy will be arrested.
Joe DeVet,
Could you give a timeframe? Would you say clergy will begin to be arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin before the end of Obama’s second term? With 76% of the population being Christian, do you really foresee this happening?
Can you think of any other “grave sins” in America, or are there only two?
November 14th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Ms. Brotens comments were made in response to a press conference held by Campaign Life Coalition at Queens Park on defunding abortion in the province. The three MPPs were involved as sponsors for CLC to be there.
November 14th, 2012 | 10:23 am
Can you think of any other “grave sins” in America, or are there only two?
No, there’s plenty more. Arrogance and Calumny, Pride, Indiscretion, Imprudence..
Or..
There are no grave sins. We simply disposed them with quotes.
November 14th, 2012 | 4:53 pm
In Canada, with its unlimited abortion, so many women have had abortions that they and their men cannot bear to have the question re-opened. It is not a question of principles, of dispassionate discussion, but one of one’s own flesh and blood. One cannot look back. There is too much pain there. That is why the discussion is closed.
November 15th, 2012 | 11:17 am
On the bet: It has already happened in Nanada of the North. People have been arrested for speaking against homosexual acts. Who would have thought, even ten years ago, that such a thing could happen? By the way, marriage is in such free-fall in Canada that the state no longer logs divorces. There is no way, now, for a researcher to determine exactly how many people are getting divorced.
November 15th, 2012 | 12:08 pm
Mike Melendez,
While I do not disagree in any material way with your stated position on abortion, your assertion that “there (is) no mention of birth let alone abortion” in the U.S. Constitution is factually incorrect, on two counts:
• Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen….”
• Amendment 14 Section 1 states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens….”
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
November 15th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
Tony – I was betting with Joe DeVet’s prediction about it – his words, note – “coming to the USA”, as opposed to “Nanada”. If you want to bet on that, let me know.
November 15th, 2012 | 3:49 pm
@Martial: I could nit pick with you, but instead I accept that the two are an indirect reference to birth. But I have a question for you. Are you suggesting that abortion jurisprudence is somehow based on those two statements?
November 15th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
Are you suggesting that abortion jurisprudence is somehow based on those two statements?
Mike Melendez,
We do know that Justice Scalia, and I would assume a majority of the justices, do not believe person or persons in the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn. So interpreting the Constitution a bit more conservatively than the Court did in Roe, the Constitution neither permits nor prohibits abortion.
Catholic pro-life politicians who believe Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided because abortion is not in the Constitution and ought to be decided by the states are strictly speaking not in line with the Catholic position, which would be that no state has the right to legalize abortion, even if the majority of its citizens vote to do so.
November 15th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
No, simply pointing out that the Constitution does address birth, but does seem to leave open the question of whether a person who is not yet born has the legal status of a person under that very same Constitution. This might well have been because the document’s authors thought it wholly obvious that a person was a person from conception onward and was therefore so obvious as to not need explication, or because there was disagreement among them as to when personhood was achieved. I know not why it was not addressed, but so was the question of why they used the term “natural born” to modify “citizen” while leaving the former term undefined.
I would have thought that was pretty clear from the opening clause of my first sentence, to wit, “While I do not disagree in any material way with your stated position on abortion….”
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
November 15th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
P.S. I am tempted to assert that Roe v. Wade ought not qualify as jurisprudence because it was neither right (juris), nor does it display wisdom (prudentia). Alas, the same could be said for much of the produce of the U. S. Supreme Court over the lifespan of this republic.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact