I get creeped out by the relentless totalitarianism of Charterism; its tone-deafness, its self-referentiality, its inability to consider that there might be limits – not found in the Charter – to the range and depth of its reach into private conscience and public behaviour.
Yesterday the Post printed an op-ed called “The Religious Hospital Problem”. It argued that the calculations of rights embodied in the Charter were such that the only correct conclusion was that a Catholic hospital had no right to refuse a patient an “assisted death”.
The hospital had a trust relationship with the patient, and that the trust relationship trumped the religious rights – if any – of a Catholic institution.
The authors, Richard C. Owens and Ellen Wiebe, concluded:
Should Shearer really have had to accommodate someone’s religious convictions to the extent of the awful pain and degradation he suffered? No. That is not to say a Catholic doctor must be required to assist someone’s death — except perhaps in unusual circumstances. But an institution, per se, has no religion. It just happens to be under the control of those who wish to use it as a platform for advancing their beliefs. As such, every Catholic hospital should have at least one non-Catholic doctor with unimpeded access to terminal patients who is free to assist patients with their deaths. These rights must apply to patients of all creeds — including Catholics themselves.
1. An institution has no religion,it is merely the platform for the advancement of beliefs.
2. Therefore, since it has no religion, every Catholic hospital should have at least one non-Catholic doctor able to provide assisted deaths to allow for the proper exercise of patients’ rights to be killed.
3. A Catholic doctor (meaning a professed Christian) may, in circumstances not described but certainly not determined by him, be required to assist someone’s death, that is, stick a needle in someone’s arm and kill them, thus violating the Hippocratic oath and his conscience as a Christian.
In short, your religious convictions are without any weight or relevance to your requirement to be the obedient servant of the will of the state, as determined by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has already determined that denying assisted death would violate a citizen’s rights under section 7 of the Charter.
Thus, a right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person now includes the right to call in a doctor and have him give you a needle to kill you. Your right becomes his obligation.
And the doctor’s right to refuse you this unction is close to non-existent.
It is the same all over in any discussion of rights under the Charter. It is a totalitarian mental framework erected by lawyers, to place over their heads, and prevent them from thinking in any terms outside the framework erected by the Charter.
If a Canadian parliament passes a law, it may be declared to be outside its legislative competence, by reason of Charter violation or that it violates the division of powers between federal and provincial levels of government. But if the Supreme Court creates a law, there is no appeal. And these people are making bad law every month or so, as humans do, and only the very slow passage of time, and the appointments process, will reverse or hinder previous law-making. They are not evil, nor are they badly intended. The particular hell to which we are being sent is paved with the noblest of intentions, namely the Charter. My concern is that we have appointed a Supreme Court to do what no humans can do, which is to be infallible. And being human, they understand they have unchecked power and are using it to advance an agenda of their own devising.
William Buckley’s famous phrase was that he would rather the United States be governed by the first four hundred people out of the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. I feel the same way about Canada’s Supreme Court.