So what would you say if government officials required you to teach your children that the Easter Bunny was real, and that Santa Claus was too? If you did not confirm these “truths,” the government would remove your children from your home? Sounds crazy, doesn’t it?

As of 2018, Canada now has on its historical, legal record a case where a judge had to rebuke Hamilton’s Children’s Aid Society for removing two young girls from their foster home because the parents refused, based upon their religious beliefs, to say that the Easter Bunny and Santa were real.

Justice A. J. Goodman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice must have thought it surreal as he read the facts before him. The young couple, Derek and Frances Baars, are Protestants of the Free Reformed community. They do not practice Christmas and Easter as most Canadians do. However, they said that they were willing to have an Easter egg hunt with their two foster girls; they just would not tell them that the Easter Bunny hid the chocolate. They also said they would give Christmas presents, but would not say that Santa came down the chimney with his reindeer on the roof. Their point: they do not, and would not, lie. It is a religious thing. Honesty and integrity form who they are, just as they attend church every Sunday and say prayers at every meal.

​​The social workers, however, argued​ ​that ​the Baars were ​neither supporting the position of the agency nor meeting the needs of the girls. ​In effect, ​they argued that believing in the Easter Bunny ​was a necessity for children.

Justice Goodman recognized that freedom of religion, as understood in Canada, allows individuals to embrace, openly declare, and manifest their beliefs. Citizens are free to live their lives in conformity with their beliefs. The state, on the other hand, is to be neutral on matters of religion. This fundamental right was violated when the social workers insisted that the Baars tell the girls a fictitious creature was real. Incredibly, one of the workers insisted that by making that requirement she was not asking the Baars “to lie or to betray their faith,” but rather was “concerned that the idea of the Easter Bunny would be destroyed for these young children” if the parents insisted that “the Easter Bunny was not real”.

Justice Goodman didn’t buy that characterization. He said he was “more than satisfied that the Society’s actions interfered substantially with the Baars’ religious beliefs.”  He was also mindful that it was not up to the social worker to try to convince the Baars that endorsing the Easter Bunny was not a violation of religious beliefs. To the Baars, it was. The judge noted that the Baars “were constantly promoting the children’s wellbeing, and ensured that they were safe, secure, and happy.” Tragically, when balancing the Easter Bunny against a stable, safe environment for these two children who already had suffered more turmoil than they deserved, “the Society,” said Goodman, “very clearly chose the Easter Bunny.”

Reading through the decision, I could not help but struggle with my emotions. I was tempted to laugh at the sheer stupidity of the case. But my mirth was overshadowed by the sombre realization that two precious young girls were forcibly taken from a couple who loved and cared for them. Taken because the state – in its great wisdom – could not understand the values of a Christian couple who placed truth and integrity above materialism.

The moral of this story is simple. Our government does not understand religion. It cannot comprehend it. It does not respect it. But what it does understand is power: power to do what it wants for whatever reason it desires. For that very reason we can be thankful that we have a system of justice with a Charter and independent judges who take seriously their role in protecting citizens from a wayward state.

While we can applaud this just and well-reasoned judgement, the fact remains that two little girls needlessly suffered the loss of a loving and secure foster home. We can only hope they are now with a family as tender and truthful as they once had. The Baars have also since moved on – to Alberta, apparently – but they still suffer the painful “what ifs”. All because the state demanded they lie about the Easter Bunny. This, in 2018. In the democratic and diverse nation of Canada!

The post Lie, or Lose Your Children appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,” said Justice Robert Jackson, of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943, “it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”

No official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. That was just plain common sense in 1943. However, it seems to be anything but in the view of the newly contrived dictate of the Law Society of Ontario to all Ontario lawyers that we must follow the “star” of “Culture Shift”.

The Law Society is now requiring lawyers to create their own “Statement of Principles” they must follow to ensure their offices are diverse. “The intention of the statement of principles,” says the Society, “is to demonstrate a personal valuing of equality, diversity, and inclusion with respect to the employment of others, or in professional dealings with other licensees or any other person”. This is part of the Society’s plan to conscript lawyers and paralegals to accelerate a “Culture Shift” in its progressive agenda.  

At first glance one might see this requirement as harmless. What could be better than lawyers committing to hire and deal with others based on mutual respect for equality and diversity? Who could be against these goals?  We all want a more inclusive, diverse society – one that ensures everyone is equal.  It all sounds great until you consider that behind that velvet glove is an iron fist.

The requirement to “demonstrate a personal valuing” of equality, diversity and inclusion is to compel lawyers to express that they adhere to and believe in the “values” dictated by the law society. There is no option to simply obey the dictate; one must “demonstrate a personal valuing” of those ideals. In other words, “everyone is a believer” whether you like it or not. The Society has said those who do not abide by its new regulation will face a letter of reprimand. What comes after that letter if there is still intransigence is unclear.

The genius of our Western Civilization is that every citizen is free. Free to believe or not to believe. It is one thing for the state to force compliance to a law that is deemed to be in the public interest. But, it is a very different matter for the state to demand that I, the citizen, believe in that law. The state is not God. My human rights are not determined by what I believe. That may have been the case for those living in Soviet Russia; or Hitler’s Germany; or now, in Kim’s North Korea; but not here. Our rights are guaranteed in the Charter – full stop – no belief is necessary.

It is with a great measure of relief that I can support law professor Ryan Alford’s application against the Law Society that was filed in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice on November 6. Professor Alford teaches at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law at Lakehead University. He requests that the court grant an immediate order preventing the Law Society from implementing its new policy until the court hears his case that the Statement of Principles requirement “is contrary to the rule of law.”

Professor Alford knows of what he speaks. His doctoral research was recently published by McGill-Queens University Press, in a work entitled, “Permanent State of Emergency: The Demise of the Rule of Law in the United States.” A legal scholar on the rule of law is desperately needed for this case.

It is a marvel that it would have to come to this. The Law Society’s intention was, without a doubt, altruistic. But it was misguided and not in keeping with our concept of freedom. Justice Jackson’s stunning rebuke of the West Virginia Board of Education’s requirement that students salute the flag in 1943 is prescient for what Ontario lawyers face today.

“Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment,” noted Justice Jackson, “in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. . . . As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. . . . Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

Of course, there is no graveyard in sight for Ontario lawyers; that is ridiculous. However, that is where the elimination of dissent ultimately leads in the extreme. Human nature has not changed throughout the millennia. When we think we have the “truth,” we want to enforce it. Error has no rights; at least that is the view of the Law Society on the issue of enforcing the “Culture Shift”.

The post Culture Shift: Challenging the Star in Ontario Law Society’s Constellation appeared first on CCCC Blogs.