Alberta forced to amend human rights legislation
Some see decision as a dangerous precedent
By Joe Couto Special to ChristianWeek
OTTAWA–The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to amend Alberta’s human rights act to include sexual orientation has outraged family values groups and conservative Christians who say the court overstepped its bounds and is legislating immorality.
"It seems the court is bent on imposing the lowest moral common denominator on Alberta," says Ted McKellar, pastor of Capilano Christian Assembly in Edmonton. "Big Brother is not only watching, it’s telling you what to do."
In a unanimous decision on April 2, the court ruled that Alberta’s Individuals Rights Protection Act (IRPA) is unconstitutional because it does not specifically ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The decision marks the end of a seven-year legal battle for Delwin Vriend, a former laboratory instructor at The King’s University College, a Christian liberal arts institution. Vriend complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission after he was dismissed in 1991 from his job because of his gay lifestyle. He lost a constitutional challenge before the Alberta Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard his case last November.
The court not only found Alberta’s law unconstitutional, but went one step further by explicitly ordering that sexual orientation be "read into" the IRPA. It marks the first time the court has amended a law, essentially going over the head of the Alberta government.
Undemocratic
That drew sharp criticism from some groups in Alberta who charged that the court is undemocratic and pro-gay.
"They are usurping the role of the legislature," says Peter Stock, national affairs director for the Canada Family Action Coalition. "Gay activists believe the Supreme Court is the highest court. We believe the people, through their elected representatives, are the ultimate court."
Stock accused the court of having an "ideological bias in favor of homosexuals" and of setting a dangerous precedent by enshrining sexual orientation without clearly defining what that term means. "Without a clear definition, is the court going to protect pedophiles next?"
Premier Ralph Klein accepted the ruling but said his government would take a week to study its impact on pensions, benefits and other provincial legislation. On March 30, Klein formed a four-member ministerial committee to explore options on gay rights issues.
Campaign organized
While Klein declined to use the only weapon left to override the court’s decision, the Constitution’s "notwithstanding clause," it isn’t stopping a number of groups in Alberta from organizing a campaign to persuade the government to invoke the clause.
Stock said his group has joined the Alberta Civil Society Association, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, Alberta Pro-life, The Catholic Civil Rights League and the Parents’ Rights Association in mailing 35,000 brochures to Albertans and launching a fax and e-mail campaign on the impact the ruling could have on adoption, school curriculum and other contentious issues.
Meanwhile, the United Church of Canada (UCC), which intervened in support of Vriend, welcomed the court’s decision. "This ‘us versus them’ mentality in Alberta does a disservice and discredits the learned persons on the bench," says George Rodgers, executive secretary of the UCC’s Alberta and Northwest Conference. "We supported Vriend in order to promote equal rights for all people, not to promote a lifestyle. It’s a justice issue."
