So I am sure everyone's heard of how various members of the Order of Canada have decided to renounce their membership in light of Dr. Morgantaler's recent naming. Since Dr. Morgantaler's achievements are associated with the fight for abortion rights, some members of the Order who hold strong pro-life views have returned their membership in protest of his appointment. So far, these members are:
- Gilbert Finn, the former Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick
- The Madonna House, which owns a chain of soup kitchens in several countries, and was holding the Order of Canada that was awarded to its founder Catherine Doherty
- B.C. Priest Rev. Lucien Larré, who founded Bosco Homes, a Saskatchewan organization which operates homes for troubled youth
The fiasco over Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada demonstrates that a critical value confusion exists in Canada today. For some reason, many Canadians seem not to understand that legal regulations cannot possibly apply to an unborn entity that is not even a member of this or any society, and that women have full sovereignty over their bodies and what is in them. They also fail to understand that it is immoral to force women to give birth to a child if they are in less than acceptable socioeconomic situations, have been victims of rape, or simply do not feel emotionally mature or capable enough of giving birth to and raising a child. Many go so far as to call women who wish to undergo this medical procedure "murderers"--a title that is disgusting to award to an undeserving individual who is simply exercising her rights.
Individuals who continue to place religious values above human rights, and parade their own interpretations of "Christian Values" as integral to "Canadian Values", have apparently allowed themselves to forget about a particular body of written legal codes and unwritten conventions that form the legal foundation for what "Canadian Values" are. This body of legal tenets happens to be called the Constitution of Canada. I would like to take the liberty to kindly remind these people about the legal implications of potential legislation based on their beliefs.
Take a good look at the following written constitutional provisions, from the 1982 act:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Additionally, as part of this body of written and unwritten legal principles, it is a deeply upheld convention that the Supreme Court of Canada--the final court of appeal in the land--is vested with the final say on the constitutionality of all Canadian laws. In Janaury 1988, Canada's previous abortion law--which required women to appeal to a three-doctor abortion committee if she wished to have the procedure done--was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated section 7 of the constitution (provided above).
If a three-doctor abortion committee was ruled unconstitutional, imagine how the Supreme Court would rule on a law that attempted to ban abortions altogether. Such a law would likely be ruled unconstitutional, as it is an even deeper infringement on a woman's individual liberty to forbid abortion in all cases, than simply making it difficult for her to have this procedure if she desires to have it done. Therefore, individuals who are pro-life support the enactment of a law that would be unconstitutional.
In my view, individuals who believe that Canadian Values should include certain now-archaic elements of christian morality should remember that, once upon a time, a series of very harsh legal punishments, of a brutal physical nature, resembling the legal codes of contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia used to be awarded to individuals who committed crimes, such as adultery, which are no longer considered legitimately criminal acts in the West. If these legal tenets can come out of fashion through religious revision and re-interpretation, there is no reason why other elements of christian tradition that are inconsistent with modern universal conceptions of rights, morality, and reasonability, cannot be eliminated as well.
I would rather have, as members of the Order of Canada, individuals who fought in the cause of women's rights, instead of individuals who support the enactment of unconstitutional, liberty-infringing laws, and who wish to perpetuate an archaic element of christian-influenced morality that should have no further application in the current world. Although the individuals who have chosen to renounce their membership in the order complain about a compromise in the award's honour and prestige as a result of Dr. Morgantaler's appointment, they have, in effect, contributed to the tarnishing of their own honour and prestige by showing their support for an archaic belief and potentially unconstitutional legislation.
Associated Links:
CBC - Former Lieutenant-Governor Resigns Order of Canada in Protest
CBC - Abortion Rights: A Timeline of Developments
The Constitution Act, 1982
Supreme Court of Canada - Role of the Court
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Re: “... legal regulations cannot possibly apply to an unborn entity ... Canada's previous abortion law ... was struck down ...”
Not all of Canada's abortion laws have been struck down. Canada still has a law governing abortion.
Within the meaning of the Canadian Criminal Code, a “child becomes a human being” “during its birth” as a human being. The Criminal Code recognizes a “child” in “a living state” in the “body of its mother” “before” its birth as a human being.
A child, in the body of its mother, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, is that which could completely proceed, in a living state, from the body of its human mother, whether or not (a) it could ever breathe; (b) it could ever have an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.
Section 218 of the Criminal Code states:
“Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.”.
It is unlawful in Canada to abandon or expose a child so that its life is endangered. Aborting a child involves abandoning or exposing a child so that its life is endangered. Thus, an artificially induced abortion of a child is unlawful in Canada.
People should have the “right to choose” to enforce Section 218 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Post a Comment