Tories pull the plug on authentic pluralism with rumours of a duplicitat religious freedoms act

Their electoral platform called for it. Their supporters clamoured for it. The opposition (Just Jack Layton and what's his-Liberal) warned about it. And now, the Harper government has done it. They've found a way to oppose the nation's democratic majority and call into question the law allowing same-sex marriages.

And how? How would a government go against the will of the majority and against the law of the land? Like any good conservative government, the Harper regime opted to swing the argument from human rights for homosexuals (and LGBTQ) to human rights for religious folk.

Enter the proposed defence of religions act. While the Tories have floated this idea in offline discussions for about a month, it became apparent that it was a go when Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed, in a news report, that the religions act would be proposed to help protect opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

The act comes on the heels of much debate regarding whether or not civil servants, with religious convictions, should be forced to perform same-sex marital unions. According to Brenda Cossman, a constitutional expert at the University of Toronto, the federal government cannot extend extra protection to public officials who refuse to perform gay marriages because the solemnization is a provincial responsibility.''They just don't have the legislative power,'' said Cossman in a canada.com interview. ''It's some way to try to placate the more social conservative elements of the party with a strategy that just is not going to fly.''

Cossman added the Supreme Court of Canada already confirmed, in a 2004 legal opinion, that marriage ceremonies are the responsibility of the provinces.

Critics of the proposed religious freedoms act, including some Conservative MP's, denounce the act saying that it would trample on provincial jurisdiction and mimic existing constitutional protection for religious freedom by allowing officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, protect the free speech of anti-gay religious leaders and organizations that refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.

While, Mike Storeshaw, a spokesman for Toews, cautioned yesterday that no final decision was made on the proposal he declined to confirm any details. Meanwhile Toews and Harper dismissed questions during the legislative question period regarding the proposed act.

Still, Harper and his cabinet are more than aware that they face failure in an upcoming vote in Parliament on whether to re-open the debate over same-sex marriage. The religious protection proposal is believed to be a consolation prize to the opponents of the recently passed law that allows for same-sex marriages.

''We've got example after example across the country of religious people being prosecuted by courts and human rights commissions because there is no protection,'' said Brian Rushfeldt, of the Campaign Life Coalition in a CanWest interview. ''I think there definitely has to be strong legislation at the federal level but it has to be followed up at the provincial level as well because of the jurisdictional issue.''

Yet, provinces -- aware of the conflict between rights -- already took steps to ensure that religious freedoms are not squashed as the law of the land attempts to equalize all its citizens.

In Ontario, steps were already taken to address the issue by passing a law that exempts religious officials from performing marriage ceremonies if it violates their religious beliefs.

Laurie Arron, spokesman for the group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, said opponents of gay marriage are trying to make it seem that the country is rife with public officials who are facing human rights complaints for refusing to marry gays and lesbians, when that is simply not the case.

While in Canada human rights is a shared jurisdictional issue between Ottawa and the provinces -- it is a universal right for all citizens. As such, the proposed new religious freedom act by the current Tory government is one more step towards entrenching religious freedoms (and control) over the rights, freedoms and equality (under the law) of Canada's 'other'.


NOTE:
Philosophers debate over the difference between authentic pluralism and convergence pluralism. According to Harper and his religious right supporters, Canada is a nation of convergence despite the failure of Germany, France and the United States to achieve a peaceful pluralistic convergence -- where all disparate entities act more and more alike until you are left with the melding pot of the same. While the Tory government refuses to acknowledge and accept this, there is another (common sense) option: authentic pluralism.

Authentic pluralism is premised on the fact that pluralism is evolutionary and continual. Hence, there is never an end state, never a state of rest. That's because authentic pluralism attempts to change and grow based on the population. As culture and society and the mix of all changes, so does the shape, form and behaviour of pluralism. While this is a far more ambiguous state (rather than the tried and true static state of controlled knowledge and action that is proposed by much of the religious right), authentic pluralism offers Canadians an option to include and protect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens -- as EQUAL under the law. But it takes work. And vision. Both of which we sorely lack from our leaders.