Richards

For some the arguments concerning both abortion and homosexual rights are simply about the rights of the persons involved. So in the abortion debate we many times limit the arguments to the rights of the woman or that of the baby - depending on which side you are on.

Many do not understand that these two debates are like pebbles thrown in a calm sea creating ripples in an ever-widening circle on matters tangential to the debates. Unlike the disappearing ripples of the pebbles it is these tangential issues which are growing in importance. One tangential issue which is growing in importance is the whole matter of religious liberty.

When in 1620 the Mayflower landed on the shores of America at least half of its passengers were Puritans who were seeking the right to worship as they saw fit. For centuries after that America was indeed the continent where religion flourished. Now, however, with the homosexual movement and the pro-abortion lobby growing in power and influence, some Christians have become increasingly uneasy about their rights to religious liberty. Not surprisingly then, certain leaders decided to issue a declaration referred to as the Manhattan Declaration, which was released November 20. It is a call for the defence of truths concerning the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

The declaration states in part as follows: "Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defence, and to commit ourselves to honouring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them."

The document ends with what many regard as being a call to civil disobedience:

"Because we honour justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Some of the signatories were Bishop Most Rev Peter J. Akinola (primate, Anglican Church, Nigeria), Chuck Colson (former special counsel to President Nixon), Professor Robert P. George (professor of jurisprudence, Princeton University) and James Dobson (Focus on the Family).

Interestingly, just three days later on November 23, Cardinal Pell spoke in Australia on 'Religious Freedom and Public Policy' along similar lines. He referred to a conference paper which had been given by the Human Rights Commission's Race Discrimination Commissioner, which opened with these words: "The compatibility of religious freedom with human rights is the subject of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area."

According to Cardinal Pell, the clear meaning of the commissioner's words is that religious freedom is not a human right. The same commissioner also compared 'religion' and 'human rights' to oil and water!

In England on November 30, the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled that Gary McFarlane, a Christian counsellor, was not unfairly dismissed when his services were terminated for his orthodox views on sexual relationships, which meant that he could not give an unequivocal commitment to help same-sex couples improve their sex lives.

principles

Bush

McFarlane, a solicitor commenting on the decision said "this decision is a stark warning to people of conscience that ... the British establishment no longer values the democratic rights of its citizens to hold conscience as a matter of principle."

In Canada, Professor Janet Buckingham authored a booklet called Withering Rights, in which she documents cases which have infringed on the religious freedom of citizens with the majority of these cases having to do with same-sex issues.

The same type of thinking is present in the abortion debate with the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights stating in 2006 stating that "there is a risk that the recognition of a right to exercise objection of conscience in the field of reproductive health care will make it in practice impossible or very difficult for women to receive advice or treatment".

In the United States, President George W. Bush, at the closure of his presidency, installed a rule requiring that doctors could not be forced to perform procedures which they find morally objectionable - especially abortion. But President Obama is considering a campaign to rescind the conscience protection.

Earlier this year, Nurse Catherine DeCarlo sued the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, for, inter alia, an order restraining the hospital from forcing employees to assist in abortions over their conscientious objection. There have been reports of Canadian nurses who were forced to perform abortions http://www.euthanasia.com/cannurse.html along with reports of a medical student who was given a failing grade in obstetrics and gynaecology because he refused to perform abortions or to refer patients out for any abortive procedure.

As we commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one cannot help but think that the 'rights' agenda has gone off on a tangent being now dominated by the pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality agenda. Since the claim to freedom of conscience and religious freedom many times conflict with these new 'rights' the approach seems to be to marginalise religious freedom and freedom of conscience in order to get on with the programme. Was Professor John Warwick Montgomery right when he said, "If religion perishes in the land truth and justice will also perish?"

democratic society

Akinola

Thankfully, locally, both political parties have accepted the inclusion in the proposed Charter of Rights of robust religious freedom clauses. They have also accepted the submission to preserve existing laws relating to sexual offences, obscene publications and the life of the unborn. There is still a major concern, however, as the charter is undergirded by what prevails "in a free and democratic society". Even the savings clause itself has been made conjunctive with and thus subject to this criterion!

While no malice is suspected, but because of what prevails in so-called 'free and democratic societies', where desires have become 'rights' it behoves us to be extremely careful in the wording of this document. If we are serious about retaining these existing laws, as we say we are, then it will be imperative for this clause to be rephrased. Further, is there a place for making it clear that the right to life begins at conception?

In exercise of my rights to religious freedom and freedom of expression, I wish all readers a 'Happy and Peaceful Christmas', knowing full well that if we are not careful, the time may come, when it may be both a legal and political issue for this newspaper to carry Christmas greetings!

Shirley Richards is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.