London mayor’s free expression compromised

Because of her inaction on the pride proclamation, Haskett was hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission last summer. In early October the tribunal ruled that the mayor had unlawfully discriminated against the city’s gay, lesbian and bisexual community and levied a $10,000 fine (the maximum) against Haskett and the London city council. The city is also supposed to proclaim a pride day and make a statement recognizing "that the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities are integral and important communities within the City of London." Later in the month the city decided not to appeal the decision.

Haskett is "very disappointed" that the council will not be appealing a ruling she says was "unfairly decided and is wrong in fact and in law," arguing that it takes away her constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. "I never advocated discrimination and I did not discriminate," she insists. "I had a policy that allowed me to remain silent on issues of deep personal conviction, so that I would neither force those values on the community nor be forced to compromise them."

All proclamations denied

Haskett maintains that her policy "was fair and non-discriminatory and evenly applied," and that she did not interfere with the activities of the gay and lesbian communities ("as evidenced by the pride celebrations that go on openly each year"). And she is adamant that she is "not prepared to be, now or in the future, the advocate for this organization or its agenda." She still refuses to offer the proclamation the commission requires, and will in fact "cease from making proclamations of any kind hereafter."

With that said, the mayor is also declining her own right to appeal. Her impulse when the ruling first came down was to declare that "if [it] is left unchallenged, any Canadian can be forced to say what they don’t believe." But although she obviously finds the decision distasteful, she says she is "going to turn the page on this most unpleasant chapter and do everything in my power, for the good of the community, to move on."

While sympathy for Haskett’s dilemma is strong, she has disappointed some who lament the lost opportunity to establish the legal limits of human rights tribunals. Veteran journalist Rory Leishman, for one, insists that "on no account should the Ontario Human Rights Commission be allowed to get away with the blow it has struck in this case at the very essence of democracy."

Leishman notes that there are at least two Roman Catholics and a Muslim on city council who have also opposed the pride proclamation on religious grounds, and observes that the OHRC ruling "flouted the religious convictions of these councilors, not to mention the wishes of London voters."

"Orwellian nightmare"

He criticizes the particulars of the ruling as an "Orwellian nightmare." In effect, he says, the commission "has stipulated that if a gay, lesbian and bisexual organization requests a pride proclamation, the mayor is free to speak or not, but if she fails to say precisely what the [commission] deems appropriate, she will be liable for a $10,000 fine."

The decision has Leishman warning that "Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews and anyone else who holds public office in Ontario and cannot conscientiously condone the practice of homosexuality should beware: they are all liable to prosecution by the Ontario Human Rights Commission."

His dim view of the OHRC brings to mind the observation by 17th century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, who once commented that it was necessary for judges to be attired in robes and wigs as otherwise the threadbare nature of the justice they mete out would be too apparent for them to have authority over their courts. In this case, however, the city of London will not be challenging the tribunal’s fashion statement.

Unusual campaign

Meanwhile, Haskett is preparing for another stint as mayor in a most unusual fashion. At the October 21 press conference where she announced her decision not to appeal the ruling, Haskett also said that, effective immediately, she would be withdrawing from public life for three weeks–the time remaining before civic elections. This provides an opportunity for the deputy mayor (her opponent in the election) and the city council to comply with the OHRC requirement that they proclaim a pride day. She will not be taking a pay cheque during this time, saying the city can use the money towards her share of the fine.

And although she is a candidate, she will not be campaigning. She says she intends to spend the time with her family and has appealed to the media "to respect our space and time together." Haskett says her "team members" and campaign web site can provide all necessary information to voters, and that she trusts the people of London to make their choice based on her record in office.

Refusing to appeal the decision may be the price Haskett must pay to continue as a player in civic politics. Her struggle to appropriately uphold a private religious conviction in "the naked public square" is a challenge other people of faith who hold public office are increasingly likely to encounter. While genuine pluralism finds ways for community leaders to govern without compromising justifiable convictions, the OHRC’s coercive approach to "freedom" clearly needs a new set of clothes.

Doug Koop
Editor