Get more Letters
 
Edmonton Journal
 
Re: "B.C. polygamy trial ramifications huge for religious freedom; Rights of women and children at stake in East Kootenays courtroom," by Daphne Bramham, Ideas, July 14.

Daphne Bramham's article on the prosecution of polygamy raises some interesting points, but misses completely what is probably the most significant issue for our society.

Of course the "religious discrimination" allegation will be trotted out, and there will be fine speeches in court (and at appeal) about Charter rights.

Bramham is correct in writing that, if the prohibition on polygamy is invalidated and a small number of residents of Bountiful, B.C., are allowed to practise polygamy legally, denying the same opportunity to Muslims would amount to discrimination on religious grounds.

Bramham falls short, however, in her analysis of the Bountiful problem. The existing law applies (or should apply) to all residents of Canada - it does not discriminate in any way. A political or judicial activist might claim that there is "adverse effect" discrimination involved, and it is this claim that needs to be analyzed carefully. We must ask how the prohibition of polygamy affects the practice of any faith. Does the sect in Bountiful "require" that all members practise polygamy? This is not the case; it simply "permits" the practice. Abiding by current legislation would not impair in any way the religious observance of the members of the Bountiful sect.

Let us look how this difference between what is required and what is permitted might play out in other religions. Christianity does not dictate whether a person should drive on the right or on the left side of the road. From a religious perspective driving on the left is, in and of itself, neither more moral nor less moral than driving on the right.

One might drive on the left without violating any religious code. (Good thing, if you happen to live in the UK or several other countries). However, the secular authorities in Canada have decided that, in the interests of public safety, drivers must stay to the right. This limitation on driving is binding on Christians and non-Christians alike, even though Christianity permits driving on the left. Christianity, of course, teaches that one must "render unto Caesar ...." Driving on the left in Canada is morally wrong, not because of any intrinsic value, but because it constitutes defiance of the duly-elected authority.

Returning to the polygamy issue, the current law prohibiting polygamy does not have any impact on the practise of their faith by the residents of Bountiful. It simply bans an activity that would otherwise be a religiously-acceptable "option," just like the law banning driving on the left in Canada. Seen in this light, applying the current legislation to Muslims should not be seen as unconstitutional discrimination.

In the past two or three decades, there have been far too many instances in which special interest groups and their counsel have pushed single principles and single "rights" without apparently taking into account conflicting principles and rights. Regrettably, these groups have not been adequately taken to task by opposing counsel or even by the judiciary. Furthermore, the media, who like to hold themselves out as the protectors of the common man, have all too often jumped on (or pushed) the popular bandwagon instead of undertaking any thoughtful analysis. If this situation continues, Canada can expect to have a very bumpy ride into the future. Bramham missed a good opportunity to call for more thorough analysis of the principles involved in this and other "rights" cases.

Dominic Willott, St. Albert
 
canada.com
Originally published Thursday, July 26, 2007
 
Back