Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights in Saskatchewan: Consequence of Same Sex Marriage
January 31, 2007 · By Tom Cerber
CBC reports on a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal proceeding directed against Orville Nichols, a marriage commissioner, who refused to perform a marriage for two men.
Nichols advised them to find another marriage commissioner, which they did, and they got married.
However, they were purportedly so upset - as activists tend to be when stoked by human rights lawyers - that they waged a human rights complaint against him. This is after the Human Rights Commission refused to hear Nichols’ own case - that he ought not be forced to perform same-sex marriages on account of his religious beliefs. The advisory decision, which advised his case not proceed to full hearings by the commission, is a disgrace. It follows the typical secularist logic by which a religious person’s beliefs are not impeded when he is forced to act against his beliefs.
In short, you can believe what you want to believe, but don’t act on those beliefs. Don’t ask, don’t tell for religious people.
Sadly, the Canadian tradition of accommodating religious diversity is out the window here. Even the military in WW2 accommodated the beliefs of pacifists. By the SK HRC’s reasoning, the state should have shot them for insubordination when they refused to fight. Most proponents of SSM claim rights of gays are too important to make accommodations. But are said rights more important than national security, as in the case of WW2 accommodations? If the Canadian military can do it, so can the SK Human Rights Commission.
By offering a plurality of marriage commissioners, Saskatchewan is quite capable of lawfully accommodating same sex partners as is their right under the law. Perhaps their website should also list the types of services their commissioners offer. One can imagine this “menu option” as something governments could offer in a variety of services. For instance, if you’re pro-life you might want a pediatrician who does not perform abortions. By the same logic, if you’re gay you should be able to find a marriage commissioner who will marry you without destroying the rights and freedoms of those with opposing views such as your own. The state is quite capable of making accommodations, and this is no exception.
I don’t mind saying, but I TOLD YOU SO.
It isn’t the place of a civil marriage commissioner to decide who they want to marry. If the people meet the criteria, you marry them. There is nothing else at play.
So how many of those pacifists that the military accomodated during WWII were members of the military at the time?
Just saying Nichols wasn’t conscripted into the job of marriage commissioner.
So can a public paid doctor refuse to a gay person? Can a publicly paid lawyer refuse to represent someone because they are gay? Can a passport clerk refuse to server a gay person?
You know, since political affiliance is a “Life Choice” I think it should persmissible for all publicly paid persons to refuse to do business with Blogging Tories. Seems fair, no?
Funny but the MSM (liberal Party), calls leftists humanists complainers ‘activists’ but it call’s the same people on the other side names I can’t print here.
Check out the Sask Human Rights Commission article at the Western Standard called Compassionate Stalinism.
http://www.westernstandar…gory=News
quote “Regina’s William Whatcott found out the hard way that truth is no defence under the Saskatchewan human rights code. A former juvenile delinquent, the now Christian nurse has been a pro-life gadfly in Saskatchewan for over a decade, beating a rap for displaying abortion pictures in rush-hour traffic, but having his nursing licence suspended for picketing Planned Parenthood. Recently, he annoyed Regina’s gay community, protesting a taxpayer-funded film festival at the Regina Public Library that included movies of lesbians raping underage girls.
Whatcott’s exploits caught up with him when he handed out flyers, revealing that Saskatchewan’s leading gay magazine, Perceptions, had published an advertisement for a man seeking a relationship with a boy. Whatcott distributed his flyers with the photocopied ad in Regina and Saskatoon, warning that the magazine was freely available to children in public libraries.
“I put very little of my own commentary. The ads spoke for themselves. For that I was fined”–in total, $17,500, Whatcott says. And, ironically, more was read into his flyers than was actually there, he says. “I’ve never said all homosexuals are pedophiles. That’s simply not true. But certainly I wanted to show what Saskatchewan’s largest homosexual magazine was up to.” Four recipients of Whatcott’s flyer saw things differently, however, and complained to the Sas-katchewan Human Rights Commission, with three of them subsequently netting $5,000 each and the fourth $2,500, to assuage their hurt feelings. ” unquote
gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay, we get it… sheesh
Further to the comparative examples Zorpheous cited, I personally believe that this is one intersection where one’s religious beliefs are more relevant.
This commissioner, in a way, is a casualty of the “war” religious groups started and waged against the gay community. That’s not to undermine his situation, but it’s ironic.
Perhaps compromise can be found, I would say it will have to be found, as long overdue and important evolution takes place in our society.
I’m not sure what that looks like in this situation, but perhaps an exemption clause for commissioners existing before the law change, who knows, but I agree with the Tom’s premise that there is - and should - be room for accommodation.
I actually think stories like this are fantastic. It helps root out the people who are not worthy to administer the laws of the land. Boo hoo for the guy who refused to do his job. Maybe he needs to find another job.
Scott: I would say the ground for accommodations depends on the state being able to provide alternatives, which it does in numerous other domains. I think SK in this case provides for a reasonable array of choices.
Think of this analogy. Most provinces have public and separate (or Catholic) school systems. For provinces with a more diversely religious population, like Alberta for example, local school boards (e.g., Edmonton) offers a wide range of options for parents to send their students to. The ESB has numerous religious schools (and “specialty” schools that focus on specific types of curricula) under its wing, which actually enables it to keep students in the public system instead of losing them to private schools (as is the case in Calgary, whose public system is less flexible).
To those of you who reject the conscience rights of individuals working for the public service, you might want to read a wonderful book of the consummate obedient bureaucrat. It’s called Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt.
Ah yes, comparisons to Nazis…the mark of an exceptional debater.
Should a public servant wish to place his or her morality before his or her duties, that servant remains free to resign and protest the law that resulted in the conflict.
STS: Ok, the Eichmann jab was over the top, I admit. But the central point is the role of whether public servants can exercise their conscience and whether the state has the capability of offering a variety of services to a pluralistic society, which many commentators here seem to reject without thinking through the consequences of that position. Under the guise of liberalism, their comments betray an ideological monism that can only express itself as tyranny.
In response to your first point, pacifists were allowed to serve in noncombat positions. Whether or not the military is volunteer or conscripted is, historically, irrelevant. Volunteer armies shoot deserters (and some forms of insubordination as well) because by volunteering, men make a promise to stick it out. Desertion and insubordination are ways of breaking that promise.
There is no excuse for someone to not do their assigned job as mandated by the law. As a public servant, I can tell you very clearly that if you do not like your job, for whatever reason, that it is VERY easy to find something else within the public service that doesn’t contradict your views. It happens all the time, and is considered quite acceptable to change jobs. Finding a person a new position within the public service is the ONLY acceptable accomodation that should be made, otherwise, what is the point of enforcing legislation?
Why don’t you read book Small Town! Obviously there are many lessons to be learnt from Nazi Germany, least of which because the German people elected them, and, shockingly to children of the Enlightenment, because it was a regime wherein otherwise ordinary individuals were complicit in horrific acts of evil.
Your expectation for public servants to be absolutely obedient is NOT in the public interest. Did you not follow Canada’s biggest scandal in recent memory, Ad Scam and the Gomery Commission?
If anything, the Civil Service should be encouraging civil servants to be moral, not just obedient!
There is a large difference between a front line worker who is expected to administer legislative policies of the government and those who make the decisions (i.e. Assistant Deputy Minister and Deputy Minister) about how they are to be implemented. Therefore, your allusion to the sponsorship scandal is not an appropriate example of the above mentioned discussion. It only shows your ignorance about how the hierarchy of the public service works, and the assigned responsibilities and authorities at each level of that hierarchy.
Governments need to be accountable to citizens for the decisions they make. This is in the public interest. Senior public servants are accountable to Ministers for the implementation of the policies the government adopts. This is in the public interest. Front line administrators are paid to administer those policies. This is in the public interest. If those same front line public servants were allowed to choose how they wanted to administer each policy / program based on their personal “morality” then there would be no consistancy, and therefore, no accountability. THIS IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
Little worker bees don’t get to make decisions about public policy - Ministers do - and that is why they are worker bees. But because they are worker bees, they are also not held accountable for poor decisions - Ministers are. Senior public servants make recommendations to the Minister - and as a result - are also responsible for the administration of their Minister’s and the governments wishes. If they cannot find worker bees to do the bidding of the government, then they need to find worker bees who will, and help those other worker bees find a job that won’t cause them moral problems.
I therefore stand by my point that because public servants have the flexibility to VERY EASILY find employment elsewhere within the public service, and that if they have an objection to the policy they are being PAID to implement and administer, then their “moral duty” is to ask for a new assignment which they will not doubt get, and not to controvene the official policy as adopted by elected officials to make their point. This is how government works, this is how accountability is maintained, and this is how the public interest is protected.
Anon: Your argument assumes there is such a thing as the public interest, and that if it exists, it is unitary. I may be persuaded of the former, but doubtful about the latter. There are many publics in the legal entity conventionally known as Canada, and the pursuit of liberty is to ensure individuals and communities have sufficient breathing space to do that. That’s why accommodation tends to work in liberal democracies, not forcing bureaucrats into acting like Sargent Schultz - Ja wohl!
One, George…I’ve read the book…but I suppose had you known that you would not have been able to use that exclamation mark…and people do enjoy shouting so. My interest is more in the Nuremberg tribunals themselves and the development of the ICC, but I have branched out to cover some of other decisions in the area…Eichmann, some of the fugitive slave cases and Dworkin’s analysis of the cases, and the like.
Two, Tom, you are right…my first point was glib and missed some subtle nuances. What I was trying to convey was that Nichols chose his profession, and the limits on behaviour that are associated with it. I thought a more appropriate (or apt) comparison would have been a present day American soldier who had volunteered for duty and then refused to take part in the war in Iraq. The distinction between Nichols and the pacifist from WWI, as I see it, is that the pacifist would not have voluntarily put himself in the position of having to choose between his job and his belief.
My concern with allowing a broad discretion on the part of such civil servants is that it always relies on assumption that there is someone else to do the job that is demanded. Here, there was someone else that performed the function. But what of the time when there is not that alternative?
As well, how much morality can be brought to the job..could a marriage commissioner refuse to marry a couple based on the fact that one of the partners was previously divorced? Another way, at what point does discrimination become intolerable?
The point of the matter still remains. Public servants are paid by the state to administer the policies and programs of the government. If they cannot or will not, then they should not.
Small Town, morality is not a commodity to trade in, an itemized set of values to instantiate at some given age as “my values”, henceforth carrying forward until the end of one’s days; contrary to the dogma of the sexual orientation folks. Rather, morality is more the character of one’s reaction to contingent circumstance, having the courage to DO what is right in the present, living not for some sentimental past nor for some glorious future. Despite current values talk, morality requires abnegation of the self, seeing oneself as a participant a greater order of reality that is not of their making and doing the right thing, even when one would rather not. Morality requires the humility to question what one knows one does not know, familiarizing oneself with one’s limits as a human being. But there is good in the world, and known more or less so by how we order that which we love, in our actions more than just our words.
My point: morality is not simply values. Liberal democracies are the best kind of countries to live in because they vanguard the dignity of individual moral conviction, preferring NOT a new egalitarian man absent discrimination.
That said, I don’t see how marriage commissioners, of all things, should forced to marry people they don’t want to marry, when there is choice. And realistically, gay couples can always go somewhere else.
Contrary to these crack pot human rights commissions, in a country as free as possible, there should be no fast and ready enforcement of state morality; that is, as long as the rule of law is maintained. In the case at hand, the rule of law would have been maintained regardless of the proclivities of one marriage commissioner toward gay marriage.
As for your point to Tom, check out:
http://www.miami.com/…l=miamiherald_nation
Some people become pacifists for good reasons after they sign up for the army.
You argument doesn’t make any sense, George.
The state is not bound by morality, but by ethics. It must uphold the rule of law, and in this case, it was not, and therefore the complaint was legitimate.
If the marriage commissioner didn’t want to do the job he was being paid to do by the state, then it was his ethical obligation to ask for a reassignment.
A representative of the state does not have a right to deny a citizen a service that they are legally entitled to.
Do you disagree with the rule of law?
You demonstrate neither understanding of the difference between morality and ethics, nor the rule of law.
Morality is the substantive state of the human condition; to be human is to be moral. To be moral means to live life as an intelligent being, making choices to do one thing rather than another and live with the consequences. An “ethic” is not a substantive state of the living, but rather a set of moral principles, values if you will, that artificially help human beings make BEING moral intelligible. Ethics dictate ideal behaviour, and so act as benchmarks or governing standards from which one takes a measure of the rightness or wrongness of particular acts, in contingent circumstances.
BUT one should never forget that “ethics” is always in the realm of artifice—humans make them up—and that ethical standards may differ, being MORE or LESS morally apt, given any one contingent circumstance one might face. Even very bad men have ethics! To have an ethic does make one moral, rather to be human and to be moral makes necessary having an ethic; but NOT necessarily abiding by it all of the time, especially when abiding by it would be wrong based on some higher ethical conclusion.
How is one to judge higher or lower ethical conclusions? Human beings always act on the pretence of “faith” in something (i.e. science, technology, belief in God, etc.), and so being MORE or LESS moral requires MORE or LESS intelligent apprehension of reality; apprehending the LIMITS of the human condition and one’s conscious participation in it.
As an example, the fear of God is a justifiable apprehension of one’s limits since human beings can’t know the ultimate beginnings or ends of the cosmos; whether or not there is, ultimately, any divine intent behind it. But one should fear God none the less! Pascal made a very reasonable wager on this point. And if one prefers an alternative to the seeming doom and gloom of fearing God, the “miracle” of creation is another perfectly reasonable apprehension of one’s limits. Consider the unique and very precise standpoint of the earth, relative to the Sun, endowing it with the capacity to sustain life.
As for your latter points, and as Cerber is arguing, the Human Rights Commission of Sask. was enforcing an ethic standard on marriage commissioners that will not serve Canada well as a “liberal” democracy, where the dignity of individual conscience is held high. It will not serve Canada well, in this case, because it is completely unnecessary given the plurality of marriage commissioners—among other offices certified to marry people—that come to the SSM issue from different moral convictions.
The law allows persons of the same sex to marry. The law, as legislated, does not require marriage commissioners to marry persons whom they would rather not marry. In the case at hand, the gay couple was able to get married after finding a marriage commissioner who would marry them. The rule of law was upheld! The Sask Human Rights Commission had no business interfering, enforcing an ethical standard on marriage commissioners that is simply not necessary. And the country is worse for it because the dignity of individual conscience now stands a little less tall—for no good reason.
Canada should be encouraging its civil servants to be moral, to strive for virtuous conduct! That is, rather than encouraging the bland malaise the usually accompanies grave injustices.
So, you actually read Eichmann in Jerusalem?
Dogmatic
To lazy to think?
Sorry, that should read: Too lazy to think?
What have you?
Sorry, that should read: Too lazy to think?
What say you?
Actually, I was being consice.
Do you know what dogmatic means?
Dogmatic - adjective
Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
In case you are interested, this is what the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service states.
Here is the link: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_.....oc46202801
Public Service Values
Public servants shall be guided in their work and their professional conduct by a balanced framework of public service values: democratic, professional, ethical and people values.
These families of values are not distinct but overlap. They are perspectives from which to observe the universe of Public Service values.
Democratic Values: Helping Ministers, under law, to serve the public interest.
Public servants shall give honest and impartial advice and make all information relevant to a decision available to Ministers.
Public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.
Public servants shall support both individual and collective ministerial accountability and provide Parliament and Canadians with information on the results of their work.
Professional Values: Serving with competence, excellence, efficiency, objectivity and impartiality.
Public servants must work within the laws of Canada and maintain the tradition of the political neutrality of the Public Service.
Public servants shall endeavour to ensure the proper, effective and efficient use of public money.
In the Public Service, how ends are achieved should be as important as the achievements themselves.
Public servants should constantly renew their commitment to serve Canadians by continually improving the quality of service, by adapting to changing needs through innovation, and by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and services offered in both official languages.
Public servants should also strive to ensure that the value of transparency in government is upheld while respecting their duties of confidentiality under the law.
Ethical Values: Acting at all times in such a way as to uphold the public trust.
Public servants shall perform their duties and arrange their private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.
Public servants shall act at all times in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
Public servants, in fulfilling their official duties and responsibilities, shall make decisions in the public interest.
If a conflict should arise between the private interests and the official duties of a public servant, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest.
People Values: Demonstrating respect, fairness and courtesy in their dealings with both citizens and fellow public servants.
Respect for human dignity and the value of every person should always inspire the exercise of authority and responsibility.
People values should reinforce the wider range of Public Service values. Those who are treated with fairness and civility will be motivated to display these values in their own conduct.
Public Service organizations should be led through participation, openness and communication and with respect for diversity and for the official languages of Canada.
Appointment decisions in the Public Service shall be based on merit.
Public Service values should play a key role in recruitment, evaluation and promotion.
Please note under Ethical Values that: “Public servants shall perform their duties and arrange their private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced;” and “If a conflict should arise between the private interests and the official duties of a public servant, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest.”
This is what public servants must live up to; and not your warped idea of morality. These Values and Ethics have been adopted by both federal and provincial public servants, and have been mandated by elected officials.
I conclude with the same point I made countless times. The marriage commissioner did not have the right to refuse this couple as an agent of the public interest. It was unethical for him to do so, even if there were others who could have done the same job. He acted unethically by not letting his management team know of his objections so he could be reassigned.
Did you read what I wrote?
Second, as far as being dogmatic, I’m not the one citing the Values and Ethics Code for Public Servants, nor have I ever stated any unproven principle—not once. If I have, please take me to task.
Third, civil servants would have no compunction of living up to any ethical code if they were not first moral. And this particular ethical code is not in place because civil servants are necessarily evil, rather they are in need of guidance, so to speak.
Citing again the quote to emphasize:
“If a conflict should arise between the private interests and the official duties of a public servant, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest.â€
How does this justify forcing marriage commissioners to marry people they don’t want to marry, especially when there exists a plurality of marriage commissioners, many of whom are willing to marry same sex couples? Resolving in favour of the public interest does not dictate forcing marriage commissioners to marry anyone who comes per such request, but rather ensuring that marriage commissioners are available who are willing to marry, as the case may be, same sex couples.
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission made a big deal over something that was not a big deal, that was resolved easily enough in favour of the gay couple; they were able to marry and the law as upheld.
Nothing else in the citations you provide substantiate your conclusion. If so, you should explain.
Again, if we hope to have a civil service in this country that upholds ethical standards, we should first defend the integrity of each civil servants conscience, to the greatest degree possible; we should encourage civil servants to realize themselves as being moral.
The Values and Ethics Code for Public Servants has everything to do with this discussion; and while your personal views are well articulated - I don’t believe that they apply to a practical public service, nor this situation. Public servants sign a contract saying they will uphold these values and ethics when they join the public service; a contract is a contract. He knew what he was doing.
Now, you asked me if I read what you wrote. Yes, and I disagree with your position precisely because I understand what public service entails. I also must insist that if you want people to read what you write, then you should also afford them the same courtesy, and not misrepresent what they wrote.
I never said that the marriage commissioner should be forced to do anything. NOT ONCE! In fact, what I did say is that (1) it was his duty to let his direct superior know of his objections so he could be reassigned, since he could/would not do the job he was being paid for in certain circumstances (2) if he would have done so then the public service needed to find this person a new job, one where he can/will do his duty to the public as mandated by his Minister and the government (3) it is very easy to accomodate this person’s request to find a new job and that there are mechanisms in place to deal with such situations. That is why he as a union.
Furthremore, and because of the Values and Ethics that I signed when joining the public service, I strongly object to the suggestion that this public servant should be allowed to continue in his job because there may be someone else who is kicking around the office who can do it for him. The Values and Ethics code doesn’t work that way (and neither does his contract).
It would have been easier if he would have been honest in the first place. We all make choices, and this public servant chose not to be honest about his convictions and the conflict of interest that it presented for him and those he may be asked to serve. He therefore has to live with the consequences of his actions.
I am sorry if you don’t like it, but from my point of view, this is the public service Canadians deserve. Anything short of that would not be accountable.
Did you read the CBC article?
The marriage commissioner in question is 70 years old and was contacted directly, off a website, by the complainant to the human rights commission. Upon discovery that the marriage would be to another man, the commissioner said that he did not do same sex marriages and referred him to another commissioner willing to provide the service.
Face the music: The complainant is a whiner. The human rights commission has no grounds for proceeding against Mr. Nichols given the plurality of marriage commissioners.
Furthermore, what are you talking about, that the commissioner should have been “honest in the first place”?
Mr. Nichols HAS voiced his unwillingness to do same sex marriages in the past. He previously wanted the Sask Human Rights Commission to investigate his unwillingness, and the need for accommodation of his beliefs. His objections were KNOWN! And when asked to perform the service, he said no and REFERRED the gay couple to an amenable marriage commissioner.
To say that you are not arguing to “force” the marriage commissioner in question is disingenuous. I’m saying the marriage commissioner has done nothing wrong and should be allowed to continue as he has been doing. You say he has committed a grave error and should be penalized for it. Punishment comes with ENFORCEMENT, does it not?
Contrary to your estimation, Canadians deserve better than a civil service only doing what it’s told, lacking accommodation for conscience when accommodation is already present (i.e. the plurality of marriage commissioners).
Here is my final analysis of the irrelevant and relevant pieces of information provided thus far:
Irrelevant:
o Age of the marriage commissioner – if he was 21 or 91, his actions were still unacceptable for a publicly paid official.
o His failed human rights complaint – the human rights commission did not accept his complaint as relevant – they acted according to the law.
o Charter rights based on religious freedom, - he was acting as an agent of a non-religious state. Had he been a religious official, this would not be an issue.
o His previous public objections – he had many options, such as becoming a privately paid marriage commissioner – this would have afforded him his Charter rights to refuse to perform a same sex marriage. He chose not to do that. He also willingly chose to remain in a situation where conflicts of interest could arrise.
o Others could have done his job for him – then why is he being paid by the state? His duty as a public servant is to administer the legal policies and programs of the government; not to pick and choose what he thinks should be done. The rule of law is more important to a government’s accountability.
Relevant:
o The marriage commissioner broke the law by refusing to perform a duty he was being paid by the state to perform.
o While he made his objections known – one can assume that he did not address those matters correctly with his direct supervisor as his name was still listed on a publicly funded website.
o The human rights commission did rule in favour of those who had been refused – because it is unacceptable from a publicly paid official to do what he did.
o The reason why he was fined by the human rights tribunal was because of the email he sent. If he had used tact and forwarded the email to someone else to respond to, or passed it along to someone within his organization, the whole thing could have been avoided. He chose not to follow that path – and broke the law and his contractual obligation as a public servant.
Further observations:
o Do not assume that I didn’t read the article or your posting. It is really poor form.
o Much of what was printed is not relevant to the argument at hand – which is whether or not the human rights commission was right to make the decision it did.
In reference to the Nichol’s case, we are, in fact talking about the legal rights of both Mr. Nichols and the homosexual couple (I do not know their names). Is Mr. Nichols less entitled to his charter rights because he is in the public service?! Of course not. Is the Charter and the workforce two separate realities? As a Canadian under the Charter, Mr. Nichols does have the right to say to this couple, “I can’t walk with you all the way with this request”, but then as a public servant he continues with “but here is the name of someone who can meet your request”. Mr. Nichols performed his public duty of service, as well as his duty to himself. This case should be a prime example of what the Charter is supposed to defend. The Charter is a large umbrella which the couple involved is refusing to share. One would hope to see the homosexual community as a whole admonish this couple , as they are attacking the Charter that protects them. We are all “enrobed” so to speak, with our Charter rights before we begin our day as butchers, bakers and, yes, marriage commisioners.
L. Reid
Beaumont. AB
[...] That should have been the end of it.But of course, activism just doesn’t know when to quit.h/t to thePolitic (who also says “I told you so”… like so many of us…)Labels: activism, I told you so, rights, [...]