Archive for the ‘Ethics’ Category

Conscience Rights — with thanks to Graham Thomson and Danielle Smith

April 10, 2012

Alberta is in the midst of a great election campaign. Voters and the media are talking to each other, and listening to each other, and sometimes politicians join the conversation. Ideas are being tested, and sometimes changing, and all of us are being informed.

Graham Thomson’s column in today’s Edmonton Journal is a good example (see previous post).

His exchange with Wild Rose leader Danielle Smith provides some clarification about positions. The exchange also raises further questions.

Ms. Smith seems to be downplaying conscience rights as a matter of much concern for voters. Her argument is that the mechanics of operationalizing conscience rights make them more theoretical than real.

But, a provincial government could always use the “Notwithstanding” provision of the Charter (section 33) to override the Saskatchewan decision. Professional codes of conduct are always subject to provincial law, so the issue for government — and for voters — is not whether the government needs to get involved. The issue is whether the government wants to get involved.

As Ms. Smith makes clear, she is most often going to follow the direction set by her Party. If the Wild Rose party forms the government, as they have these wide-open conversations and set the direction for the government and the province, what arguments will Ms. Smith bring to the table, about ends. She says she is not going to be pre-emptory, and I accept that. But she is also not going to be silent — at least, I hope not. What personal leadership will she offer?

With all of her ‘clarification’ about process, Ms. Smith has not been any more clear about whether she herself favours or is opposed to legislating conscience rights. In the absence of any clear statement from her about her personal position, we have to believe that she would accept and implement whatever the Party decides. If the Party can find a way of overcoming the Saskatchewan decision, where would Ms. Smith go with conscience rights? If the Party decides to explore invoking the “Notwithstanding” clause, where would Ms. Smith stand on that issue, and then where would she go with conscience rights?

Grahams, give her another call.


Smith’s learning to adjust (Edmonton Journal, 10 Apr 2012, PageA12)

April 10, 2012

Smith’s learning to adjust
GRAHAM THOMSON gthomson@edmontonjournal. com
Edmonton Journal
10 Apr 2012

If public opinion polls are correct and Progressive Conservative Leader Alison Redford is piloting the political equivalent of the Titanic, the Wildrose Party is the iceberg and Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith is the tip bobbing telegenically on the…read more…

Tech Tags:

A conscience is a costly freedom, worth nothing if it is free

April 9, 2012

The concept of “conscience rights” has burst upon the Alberta election campaign in the past few days. This is not the same thing as having freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is already guaranteed by the much maligned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, “freedom of conscience and religion” is the first right guaranteed by the Charter.

As “conscience rights” are being promoted, they would apparently entail a legislated assurance that individual citizens could follow their own conscience to the extent of refusing to provide public services that are at odds with their own conscience. Doctors, it is suggested, should be able to refuse to provide abortions or birth control information or prescriptions, if the doctor, in good conscience, objects to abortion or birth control practices. A Marriage Commissioner, it is suggested, should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple, or an inter-racial couple if, in good conscience, the Commissioner believes that homosexual or inter-racial unions are wrong. A high school teacher, it is suggested, should be able to exclude an unveiled teen-aged girl from his/her classroom if the teacher believes, in good conscience, that post-pubescent girls should not be seen unveiled in public.

Given that we have freedom of conscience in Canada, the doctor, the Marriage Commissioner, and the teacher, and every other citizen, already have three options available to them if their conscience runs up against public policy and law. First, they can arrange their affairs to avoid the issue: For example, the doctor can practice outside the public health care system, or engage in a practice that doesn’t touch on the conscience issue; the Marriage Commissioner can decline the appointment; the teacher can seek work in an all-boys school. Second, they can practice civil disobedience, disobey the law, and publicly accept the consequences as a means of engaging a public debate about right laws. Civil disobedience is not disobedience in secret, with the intent of avoid the consequences. Civil disobedience is disobedience in public, with the intent of bringing bad law into disrepute, or ridicule, or dis-function. Third, they can obey in the meantime, and seek to have the law changed. The course of action any citizen would follow would depend upon how strongly s/he feels about the issue in the circumstances.

What, then, might be gained by instituting conscience rights? Any why haven’t we seen more of this before now? The concept is ill-formed and problematic.

It is not clear whether the concept is intended to be unconditional, or conditional. An unconditional conscience right would mean anyone could act freely in any situation on the simple declaration that they are exercising a “conscience right”.

There is an ancient east Indian sect, known as thuggees, who performed ritual murder. An unrestricted conscience rights would presumably allow a thuggee to express his conscientious belief that ritual murder is the right thing to do (freedom of conscience), and then commit ritual murder in compliance with his conscience (a conscience right).A conditional conscience right would entail the government deciding that conscience should trump public policy and the law in only some situations, and the government would be the arbiter of conscience rights.

The reference may seem ludicrous, for the simple reason that, while both church and secular society believe in conscience, both church and society also believe that the individual conscience is not, by itself, a constantly reliable determinant of action in the public sphere. The Judeo-Christian tradition does not believe that everyone’s conscience is equally “good”. So, in the Christian tradition, a framework is constructed by which the to judge if conscience is good or bad. (The framework is sometimes built on Scripture and sometimes on Church dogma, but it is there for every Church.) Since no organized society or theocracy recognizes unrestricted conscience, the introduction of conscience rights in Alberta would almost certainly depend upon the government (assume for a moment that it is Wild Rose) deciding on some limited number of situations in which conscience should trump public policy and law. Making the list would be an interesting political exercise. When a society, such as Alberta, includes faiths other than Christianity, including people who have no ‘faith’, then the construct might have to be built to respect a wider range of beliefs. But perhaps the list would not be more general. Perhaps Christian but not Muslim, perhaps Protestant but not Roman Catholic, perhaps evangelical but not liberal, perhaps citizens certified by government approved clergy, but not others. Perhaps the list would recognize conscience in some fields, such as medicine, but not others, such as housing.

For example, evangelical Christians have a strong sense of what constitutes good conscience or bad conscience. They also seem to have a strong sense of judgement — a strong sense that s/he who acts wrongly should be judged. It is hard to imagine that such citizens would want an unrestricted conscience right, although they may well want a conscience right that reflects their own views about which issues are important and what is right action in the context of the issue. But, of course, other citizens would say that if the conscience right is not unrestricted it should reflect their view of what issues are important, and what is right to do.

As the earlier reference to thuggees suggests, there is a reason why freedom of conscience (and freedom of speech) does not carry with it the unreseved right to follow our personal conscience or act on our speech. An unrestricted “conscience right” would convey rights to people of no conscience as well as those of very sensitive conscience. It would convey rights to those with a culturally developed conscience very much in accord with common experience in Alberta as well as those that might be very different from what is common in Alberta.

There would likely be considerable tension between conscience rights and human rights. Does the human right to housing trump the conscience right to deny housing to unmarried couples, or inter-racial couples, or vice versa? Does a father’s conscience right to keep his adult unmarried daughter isolated from the world trump the daughter’s right to freedom, or vice versa.

The only real value of a conscience is when exercising it is such a fragile experience that we must pay close attention. When the government explicitly allows citizens to act as they wish in any or all circumstances, without regard for the consequences, simply on the basis that the citizen claims a conscience right, society will be in deep trouble.

I support the right of any citizen to try to persuade me that birth control (for example) should be delisted. I applaud the citizen who will engage in civil disobedience to call attention to a law or public policy /she believes is wrong, and accept the consequences. I do not believe in giving anybody’s conscience a “get out of jail free” card. As human beings, we deserve better.