Conscience rights? If you don't like the law, you can quit

What will Albertans soon possess that Saskatchewanians and British Columbians won’t? No, not just abundant tar sands but “conscience rights.” That’s if the Wildrose Party forms the next government, for “conscience rights” are the brainchild of its leader, Danielle Smith.

As an Ontarian, I take no position on Alberta elections. I do take one on this issue, however. Not all brainchildren deserve to live, and this one of Ms. Smith does not. You’d think that, if anyone would go for this line of patter, I would. Didn’t I recently offer, on this very page, a ringing defence of religious freedom? Isn’t religious freedom also known as “freedom of conscience”? Why, then, quibble with the seemingly synonymous “conscience rights”?

Because, by “conscience rights,” Ms. Smith doesn’t mean freedom of conscience. She means the right of a provider of public services to provide those services only selectively. A marriage commissioner, for instance, would be free to decide whether or not to perform a same-sex marriage, a health professional whether or not to perform an abortion, and a pharmacist whether or not to provide contraceptives.

There are some problems with this. The first is that doctors and pharmacists in Alberta already operate under “conscience codes” supervised by their professional associations. These permit them to opt out of the procedures mentioned. For them, “conscience rights” would be mere political grandstanding.

Progressives wrong to bend charter

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms turns 30 next week and former prime minister Jean Chretien is upset. Da little guy from Shawinigan is concerned the Harper government isn’t celebrating the charter’s anniversary loudly enough.

In reality, Chretien should be worried that the charter is under attack these days from progressive politicians on his side of the aisle.

In the Alberta election right now, Progressive Conservative Leader Alison Redford, more of a progressive liberal than a conservative, is running around her province telling everyone she’s worried that her opponent supports “conscience rights.” Redford says this could mean some doctors could refuse to perform abortions if it goes against their personal moral code, or a pharmacist could refuse to dispense the morning-after pill, which many feel causes abortion.

“I was very frightened to hear the discussion today, and I’ve been quite frightened to hear the development of that in the last month,” Redford said in early April.

What Redford isn’t saying, and too many journalists covering her fail to mention, is that conscience rights are a central part of Canada’s charter. In fact, it is the first fundamental freedom that the government is supposed to protect.

Wildrose Party’s idea of “conscience rights” is discriminatory

Alberta’s Wildrose Party says it would implement a law to protect the “conscience rights” of health professionals, apparently to include marriage commissioners, who would not have to solemnize marriages involving gay or lesbian couples.

It is unclear in what ways health professionals are being denied freedom of conscience at the moment. Are doctors being required to perform abortions against their will? If so, no public complaint has been made that we are aware of. Would doctors have the right to swear off treating patients of the opposite sex? Would family physicians be entitled to refuse to prescribe birth control pills, or could they insist, when faced with a teenage girl, on counselling abstinence only?

Party Leader Danielle Smith has explicitly mentioned “conscience rights” for marriage commissioners, who perform civil ceremonies. Each commissioner would in effect be handed a licence to discriminate. Gay and lesbian marriage is the law of the land – but gays would have to go to the back of the bus and wait for someone willing to serve as driver, if Wildrose has its way. And nothing would prevent a marriage commissioner with a sincere religious belief from refusing to marry an interracial or interfaith couple.