OUR RIGHTS ARE HERE TO STAY
VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, BUT ON ACTUAL ISSUES THAT ARE ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO PERFORMANCE OF THE NEXT PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.’ READ KARIN KLASSEN’S COLUMN ON PAGE
I don’t like capital punishment. From my very marrow, I know that it’s wrong, and no amount of emotion or debate could convince me that it’s OK in a civilized society to methodically take the life of another human being. It’s not an intellectual debate; it’s viscerally horrifying to me. Nobody, not a government, not even a God, could dictate this value to me, I just have it. If I was on a jury where capital punishment was a potential outcome, I could not convict under any circumstances. I would not, even if the law said I had no choice, and even if I pretended I could, and said I would, to avoid being punished.
Legislation can make me wear a seatbelt or a helmet, but it’s completely inept at influencing anything close to what the mind labels “belief.” I imagine I could even kill someone who killed my child, but I would be out of my mind, and it would still be wrong; the law protects me (and others) from myself in that case. That’s the law’s job, to take the issue out of the punitive control of individual conscience.
Furthermore, belief doesn’t even have to be consistent, because it’s not based on rationale, much as we try to support it with some. I can be against capital punishment, but still be pro-choice, and pro-not going to the wall to repatriate a Canadian on death row in Montana.
I can be quite NIMBY about it. I don’t have to defend myself with logic, because conscience isn’t logical. I could be a hypocrite to support this value. I could be duplicitous when confronted with a challenge to this belief; I can say all the right things at the right time, but behave in a completely different way in situ, maybe even sub-consciously, because I am a human being.
Conscience works two ways; you can no more be forced to do (or think) something that you believe is fundamentally wrong, than you can make someone do or believe something by issuing a directive, even in the strongest possible terms, even under threat, even if you’re an egocentric mayor who thinks it’s his business. In fact, people backed into a corner will often respond defensively, and with the pushback of moral outrage. The “you must accept the plurality of opinion — as long as it is mine”, rankles people. I’ll call this the “shove it down my throat” response. The issue and its merits can be beside-the-point; it’s the heavy-handed process that can make people dig in. No one likes a bully, on any side. But so righteous is the strength of belief that even acknowledging this undeniable foible of human nature, as I am in this column, will be deemed offensive by some.
This is why the issue of conscience rights is so fascinating, so divisive, so un-resolvable, and thankfully, because of Canada’s Human Rights Legislation, and our federal Health Act, substantively irrelevant to local or provincial politics. As Ralph Klein found out when he threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to fight gay marriage in Alberta in 2005, he simply couldn’t. Here was the premier with the highest level of support from its citizens ever recorded in his party’s history, trumped by a higher, excuse me, separate, but equal power.
Gay marriage is legal and available anywhere in this country. Abortion is legal and available anywhere in this country. It’s against the law to perpetrate hate or discriminate against anyone based on religion, race or gender. That won’t change regardless of who we vote in provincially. Those are issues decided at a federal level based on what’s best for all of us, thankfully despite individual beliefs, and in a domain protected by Supreme Court judges. I can personally acknowledge that individuals will always have their beliefs without having to force them to hold mine. This is a luxury and a privilege of being Canadian, not an Albertan.
Alberta is at an exciting precipice, and there is going to be a leap in any case. This has been a noisy election, and the vitriol is expected to send voters to the polls in droves to make their mark. Thankfully, if there’s one thing Albertans know — it’s how to separate the sound of the sizzle from the quality of the steak. Vote, vote, vote, but on actual issues that are actually relevant to performance of the next provincial government. Who knows, with our history, it could be around for the next 40 years.