Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Grace Mackintosh
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000226A
|
00:22 Welcome to the "Liberty Insider."
00:24 This is a program that brings you news 00:26 views, information, discussion and up to date 00:29 date analyses of religious liberty events around the world 00:32 and in today's world, a changing world. 00:34 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine. 00:38 And my guest on the program Grace Mackintosh, 00:40 Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty 00:43 for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada and a lawyer. 00:46 It seems like being a lawyer is a great help 00:49 to discussing religious liberty. 00:50 It shouldn't be necessary but I think 00:53 in the United States and Canada 00:55 so many of these issues have a legal dimension, don't they? 00:58 Yes. And on that vine 01:02 since you're dealing with religious liberty 01:04 for the church in Canada are there any recent cases 01:08 that you would like to share with our viewers? 01:11 Because I'm sure each of these gives you a sort of a different 01:14 twist on the real world dynamic of protecting 01:18 and practicing faith in Canada. 01:20 Well, I like to start with two cases that I think 01:23 are significant in Canada and they highlight 01:27 what a typical modernly secular government does, 01:33 when it's dealing with religious liberty. 01:36 A secular mindset or worldview will take religious liberty 01:42 and it will say, it's not doctrinal, 01:47 it's not theological, it's simply choice 01:49 and we're going to protect your choice. 01:51 Part of the diversity of a modern society. 01:53 Part of the diversity of a modern society 01:55 and we'll protect your choice in Canada. 01:57 Well, that happens up to a point 02:00 and when your choice as an individual 02:04 somehow threatens or conflicts 02:06 with what's good for the community 02:08 or what's good for Canada you'll loose your rights 02:12 because it's the discriminate 02:15 or the infringement on your right is justified. 02:18 And the two cases that I'm speaking of occurred in-- 02:24 were heard by the Supreme Court 02:26 and the decisions are released, in 1985 and 1986. 02:31 Pretty recent ones. 02:32 Yes, but they are not that recent. 02:33 But the ramifications are just working with them. 02:34 They are very significant. They completely highlight 02:38 my point about, you know, 02:39 a modernly secular government and what you can use that. 02:41 And when did the-- I wasn't just trying 02:44 the tip the upper cart there but. 02:46 I was wondering as you're talking when would you 02:49 really date Canada stilt towards secularism from? 02:53 Like I could remember not many years ago, 02:55 wasn't the stock hold day was running for Prime Minister 02:58 and he was conservative with the religious identity. 03:03 Oh, you actually questioned 03:05 that it's outside the area of my expertise. 03:07 But I'm going to give you my opinion anyway 03:10 and I would date it from the charter. 03:12 The charter came in-- it was meant to be a instrument 03:16 that would protect citizens 03:19 that we were doing really well before that. 03:22 But the charter is not very-- It's humanist. 03:24 It's a humanist document, you know, it was 1980. 03:27 Is it that far ago? Came in 1982 and so-- 03:33 So the charter Canada doesn't have in the same formal 03:36 ways as US constitutions of the charter was sort of 03:41 an overview document to put in place 03:45 to define Canadian law, isn't it? 03:49 Fine. What's the charter? That's what I'm pressing. 03:51 It's an end of the topic and I will just briefly say 03:55 that the charter was added to the constitution 03:59 that Canada already had and what it did to sort of-- 04:03 So didn't substitute. 04:04 I got the idea that it was placed it. 04:05 No, it was not a substitution. 04:06 What it served to do was to put in writing, 04:09 protection of the citizens 04:12 with respect to government and respecting rights. 04:17 So religious freedom-- And may be you're living 04:20 through some of what Madison was afraid of 04:23 with the first 10 amendments. 04:24 He didn't believe in those amendments 04:26 because they would tend to-- he thought limit 04:30 these broad philosophical rights 04:33 that were implicit in the constitution 04:36 by making them particular, as the charter done that. 04:39 You had a constitution before and here it sort of 04:42 nails down some secular sort of particulars 04:46 and squid the underline freedom. 04:48 It's definitely nailed down some secular particulars. 04:52 And it was a humanist document in my opinion. 04:56 And it has had an interesting fact 05:00 on shaping governmental values 05:04 and shaping the direction that the courts 05:06 went in and that legislation 05:08 and it's another topic all together. 05:11 Okay, tell us about the case. 05:14 In 1985 and the Supreme Court of Canada, 05:18 highest court in the land heard a case called Big M Drug Mart. 05:22 And the question before the court was 05:24 it had to do with the Lords Day Act 05:27 and the question was 05:29 "Are Sunday laws in violation of the constitution?" 05:33 Do you they discriminated that they're in violation in Canada. 05:38 And the Supreme Court said yes, they are. 05:40 And the result was that the Lords Day Act was repealed. 05:44 Same court, same question, 05:48 12 months later 1986, 05:53 case referred to his little Edwards book shop 05:56 is heard and the court says, 06:01 "Well, yes, Sunday laws are in violation of the constitution 06:07 and they discriminate with respective religious liberty" 06:11 but only against Saturday keepers, 06:14 only against people who keep Saturday 06:16 and this time the legislation in question 06:19 was business closing act or something similar 06:25 and the court said it's justified, 06:30 we're gonna keep it, we're not gonna repeal it. 06:35 I'm sorry to interrupt now-- Go ahead. 06:37 First of all many of our viewers 06:39 may not have heard about these Sunday Laws. 06:41 In the US they are often referred to his blue laws. 06:44 They don't have that terminology in canada? 06:46 We do but they wouldn't have been referred to as blue law 06:49 because they were enforced. 06:53 You know, people would hear to them across Canada. 06:56 So the court decided for certain reasons 07:03 that a Sunday Closing Law is justified. 07:05 And here's what they said, "What cannot be forgotten 07:09 as that the object of the legislation 07:11 is to benefit retail employees by making available to them 07:15 a weekly holiday which coincides 07:17 with that enjoyed by most of the community" 07:20 Now keep in mind because this is a secular court 07:22 and this is a decision and here are the reasons 07:25 justifying the protection of the observance of a day 07:31 that happens to have historical religious significance, okay. 07:35 So this is a secular court protecting this law 07:39 and here are the reasons and when I read them to you, 07:42 you think about news that you've heard internationally. 07:45 These are often the reasons that are given in Europe 07:48 for wanted a national Sunday Law and in the different countries. 07:51 I mean rest day in Europe at the moment. 07:53 Yes. Here's what the court said. 07:57 These employees do not 07:58 constitute a powerful group in society." 08:01 Okay, you have to be protected. 08:03 "In this context it is worth reiterating 08:05 some of remarks of the Law Reform Commissioner." 08:08 So here it is. 08:09 "The peculiar position of the retail employees 08:12 deserves comment here because an open commercial Sunday 08:15 would probably extract the highest toll from these people. 08:19 It is already been shown that less then 08:21 10% of this total group are unionized" 08:25 so there's a union issue" and this percentage would be 08:28 even lower if food store employee were included." 08:31 Because you have tent to have unions 08:33 in the glossaries stores but not in retail. 08:36 "The retail work force is distinguished by the fact 08:38 that the people are older, more likely to be female 08:41 and more heterogeneous than other labor groups." 08:45 Okay, so now its gender, age, 08:50 okay they are unionized and they go on. 08:54 "The concern, then, is mainly for low skilled, 08:57 non-union poorly educated employees 09:01 whose continued earnings are critical for family support, 09:04 people who have the least mobility 09:06 in terms of job alternatives 09:08 and are least capable of expressing themselves 09:11 to readdress their grievances. 09:13 Particularly in times high unemployment 09:16 these people are susceptible to economic coercion 09:19 and would unlikely be in any position to offer 09:22 effective resistance to Sunday employment 09:24 dictated by management 09:26 even though they were given a legal choice 09:28 as to whether or not they wanted to work Sundays." 09:31 So here they are saying well, even if they had a choice 09:34 unless you make the stores close on Sunday, 09:38 there won't be fairness with respect to labor and management 09:41 and they have rolled it out. 09:43 Its family, it's--they are not represented by union. 09:46 They are women, you know, they are not educated, 09:49 they are not skilled, and you--hear this 09:53 time and time again in the Roderick 09:55 defending or advocating Sunday Laws. 09:58 So how can it be argued against at this early point 10:02 when it doesn't really have a religious reason 10:05 and well you sort of smell a rat reading through that, 10:09 they are all reasonable assumptions. 10:14 They are accepting-- the court accepted here 10:18 what's called the secular fiction. 10:21 You know, it's a fiction 10:23 that there is such a thing as a secular Sunday Law. 10:26 I mean, whether you're asking 10:27 or forcing people to go to church or not, 10:29 you're forcing everybody to observe a day. 10:32 You're observing it by, you know, 10:35 deleting or restricting commercial activity. 10:38 You're forcing observance of this day 10:41 by all your citizens 10:43 and it has a historical religious significance 10:46 and it's a fiction but the court had accepted this. 10:53 When I was young I used to tag along 10:56 with my father in Australia when he was in temperance work. 11:00 We go to the different hotels, 11:03 not drinking-- he was on temperance. 11:05 He would talk to the drunks and observe what was going on 11:09 and that was all part of an effort 11:12 that with our church and other civics mind of groups 11:17 were pursuing to shortening-- you know, 11:22 have early closing times for places like that. 11:27 I mean, that isn't that a reasonable thing 11:29 to for society to have a hand in the times of retail activity. 11:35 In this case shorten this 11:36 because that had a social benefit. 11:38 And if society decided Monday, Sunday, 11:42 or whatever day restrict commercial activity 11:46 for whatever reason, whether it's for rest 11:48 or like daylight saving, it's sort of a device 11:53 to save electricity and so on. 11:58 How can you argue against that until 12:00 and unless you know that there has a religious intention 12:03 or cohesive intention on religious activity? 12:07 I'm the devils advocate a bit but-- 12:09 Because the government-- 12:12 I believe the government does have an obligation 12:14 to legislate for the community good 12:18 and it for the good of the community, however-- 12:20 Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. That's their only obligation. 12:21 They have an obligation to do that 12:24 and at least in truce way possible, right. 12:26 So instead of implementing legislation 12:30 that enforces observance of a day on all the citizens, 12:34 a day with historical religious significance. 12:37 There are other ways to balance 12:40 the labor management and, you know, 12:43 or imbalance, you know, between the power 12:45 and they could definitely impose you. 12:52 You have to give them a day off 12:54 and they get to choose and in the decision 12:58 they are saying, oh, well, 12:59 they are just so lacking in verbal skills 13:03 and education and so on that they couldn't 13:05 pick Sunday if they were allowed to pick Sunday. 13:07 There's a latest element of that whole statement. 13:10 But again I remember in England 13:12 and maybe it's chat well I think so 13:14 because it's not there many years 13:15 since I was last in England, but you drive in 13:17 out of London or Manchester 13:19 or the big cities and in the towns in England 13:23 you will drive through one little town 13:25 on Tuesday say and everything shut, everything. 13:29 That's the day for that town. 13:31 You drive five miles in the next town 13:32 they will open but on Wednesday they will be shut. 13:35 You come across that thing before? 13:36 No. 13:38 A very obituary thing where an entire town shuts down 13:42 not all on the same day but its common all across England 13:46 and I wonder the origin of that can't have been religious. 13:50 But there's obituary element and may be by common 13:54 agreement that-- there's just nothing in that town 13:57 other than perhaps the gas station 13:59 or petrol in England going through. 14:01 Well, you are imposing idleness. 14:05 Well, this is very interesting concept legislatively speaking 14:10 and it doesn't go along very well with capitalist, 14:12 immensely surprising. 14:13 No, we don't impose idleness. Okay. 14:15 Hello, we'll impose the break 14:17 in the program so stand by don't leave us. 14:21 We'll be back shortly to continue this discussion. |
Revised 2014-12-17