America’s next door neighbor, Canada, seems like it ought to be a free democratic country, pretty much like America. It might surprise you that it is not.
When Canada was first colonized, there was a very strong Christian presence. Over the years, that Christian presence strengthened profoundly. As late as 1971, nearly 90% of Canadians claimed to be Christians. However, in the 2021 census, that had dropped to around 53%. Currently, not only has the number of Christians radically declined, Christian values are also taking a hit.
For instance, the town of Emo, Ontario, population 1,300, refused to proclaim June as Pride Month. They also refused to fly the rainbow flag outside their municipal building. The refusal to do it was an official action taken by the town council.
When that was reported to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Tribunal accused them of violating the Ontario Human Rights Code and fined them $10,000. Town officials were also ordered to complete mandatory “human rights” training. Additionally, the Tribunal fined the township’s mayor $5,000. When he refused to pay the fine, they went a step further and had his bank account garnished. This has since been taken to court and is, as of this writing, under judicial review.
So how did a supposedly free country like Canada come to a place where people are compelled, by force of law, to promote a point of view that they believe is immoral? It is actually worse than the government simply disagreeing with the action of the township, they are forcibly compelling them to advocate for beliefs they don’t agree with under penalty of law. This is what happens when freedom of conscience is not respected.
The question then arises, “What is the difference between disobeying the law concerning Pride Month and other kinds of laws?” To get at the answer to that question, we need to look at the purpose of civil laws and the different kinds of laws that are created.
Before we look specifically at that, however, we need to recognize one important fact. Every law or policy that the government enacts is a reflection of some moral belief. It is impossible to come up with a law that is not based on some moral underpinning, so what we are dealing with certainly has something to do with morality. At the same time, there are other factors involved, as well.
One factor has to do with the nature of morality itself. There are those who believe morality has an objective foundation. In that case, the law should correspond to a fixed set of moral beliefs that are considered to be objectively true. There are others who believe that morality is relative to the situation – that there is no objective moral foundation for law. Those with that belief contend that laws should correspond to the beliefs of the people who are making the laws at any given point in time.
The legal requirement for Emo, Ontario to celebrate Pride Month is based on relativistic morality. Those wielding government power believe it is the right thing to do, and insist that those who disagree conform to their demands. It doesn’t matter that the citizens of Emo believe homosexuality is wrong. Since those with power believe differently, the people of the township must ignore their own moral beliefs and conform. In this case there is no room for freedom of conscience.
A second factor that needs to be addressed has to do with the matter of keeping public order. This, obviously, also has a moral component, but the focus is on how the public is affected, as opposed to individual beliefs about what is moral vs. immoral – a collectivist vs. individualist approach.
With the Emo case, the purpose of the Tribunal’s imposition of the Gay Pride mandate was not to maintain public order. Rather, it was to impose the personal moral beliefs of the members of the Tribunal on the people of the township.
In Emo, this all began when a homosexual advocacy group, Borderland Pride, requested that the township declare June to be Pride Month and fly the gay pride flag. When the town council voted against it, Borderland Pride reported them to the Human Rights Tribunal.
The problem with moral relativism is that moral mandates only go one way. It does not serve the overall public interest, does not represent the beliefs and values of the township, and imposes a personal moral preference on people who have a different set of moral values.
Many in America think, “That just couldn’t happen here.” But it already has. There are numerous states and other civic jurisdictions that have passed laws and implemented policies that are based on relativistic values, don’t serve the overall public good, and violate the consciences of large swaths of the public. These laws and policies relate not only to the homosexual issue, but to law enforcement, illegal immigration, abortion, and others.
Some of the issues under dispute are very difficult to navigate, but it is critical that they be tackled rightly. The condition of the public square is of vital interest to all Christians. It is only in an environment where life, liberty, and conscience are respected that the people of God can freely live and work to accomplish the work of God in their lives.