Tag Archives: Pierre Elliott Trudeau

If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for people you disagree with, you don’t believe in freedom of speech at all. — Noam Chomsky

Justin Trudeau, speaking ex cathedra as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, pronounced on abortion: “I have made it clear that future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.” This pronouncement was decidedly illiberal, and something one usually expects to hear from only the most noxious, left-leaning ideologue. Given Justin Trudeau’s heritage, I would have expected a more nuanced stance on the issue. His father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Minister of Justice and Prime Minister in Liberal governments in the latter half of the 20th century, is remembered for his stand on personal liberty and faith (he was a practicing Roman Catholic).

On personal liberty, particularly on matters of sexuality, Minister of Justice Trudeau famously observed in 1967, “Obviously, the state’s responsibility should be to legislate rules for a well-ordered society. It has no right or duty to creep into the bedrooms of the nation.” Prime Minister Trudeau enacted the Constitution Act, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. The opening sentence reads, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Section 2 of the Charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. Justin Trudeau, it seems, has decided to strip members of the Liberal Party of Canada of their right to freedom of conscience and religion, at least as it applies to the controversy over abortion.

I found Justin Trudeau’s stance on the issue untenable. He implied that the issue of abortion is settled and that there should be no further discussion. He could not be more mistaken. Abortion is an issue that needs to be addressed, and all points of view merit consideration. As a classical liberal who leans toward the libertarian camp, I am prepared to tolerate the pro-choice position, though I disapprove. I am in favour of what could be described as the pro-compromise position. While abortion should remain legal, society has a stake in the status of the unborn, and this needs to be addressed in Canadian law.

“Crimes Against the Foetus,” published by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in 1989, includes several recommendations for amendments to Canadian law in this regard. In effect, if enacted, these recommendations would make wrongful harm to the foetus criminal rather than abortion. Abortion would remain a legal surgical procedure with no restrictions in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and with limitations brought to bear, maintaining society’s stake in the status of the unborn in the latter stages of pregnancy. The Law Reform Commission of Canada concluded such legislation is consistent with the Common Law and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But rather than follow the direction given by the Law Reform Commission of Canada on abortion, the Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau, and now Mark Carney, continued its trend of imposing left-wing authoritarianism on Canadians. With the passage of Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, police forces across Canada, such as the Durham Police Force, have initiated the Community-Based Hate Reporting Program. In short, citizens are encouraged to spy on their neighbours, allowing “individuals to securely and confidentially report incidents of hate—even those that do not meet the threshold of criminality.” (Durham Region) And no doubt, the Liberal government will feign surprise when people take advantage of the opportunity to file vexatious complaints against those whose views they dislike. And why not? Your identity will be concealed, and you will face no repercussions for making a wrongful accusation. In some cases, you could be charged with mischief, but I doubt that is a priority for the police or the Crown prosecutors. For a party that has Liberal in its name, they have formed the most illiberal government in Canadian history.

Posted by Geoffrey

I am the Love that Dare not Speak its Name. ― Alfred B. Douglas

This self-portrait, taken in Havelock, New Brunswick, shows the simplicity of the intimacy shared by Leonard Olive Keith (1891-1950) and Joseph Austin “Cub” Coates (1899-1965), who lived and loved in the first half of the 20th century. They were two men in love in Canada when male homosexuality was a crime in Canadian law, and public prejudice against male homosexuality was openly expressed. It was as simple as it is in the present. Some men are romantically and sexually attracted to men. It is a natural expression of human sexual attraction and behaviour. To those who knew and loved them, they were Len and Cub, a homosexual couple. To those who reviled male homosexuals, they were beneath contempt. They were what we call normal gays in the 21st century. Len was a harness racing driver who opened a garage after serving as an engineer in the Canadian Army in World War I. Cub was a mechanic who served as an engineer in the Canadian Army in World War I and volunteered for service in the Canadian Army in World War II. They were ordinary men who had a sense of duty, served their King and country as volunteers in the Great War, and found love and companionship in each other’s company. Despite their discretion, suspicion over their relationship in Havelock drove them apart in the 1920s. Len moved to the United States, where he lived out his days. Cub married in 1940. That fate was not unusual for gay men in Canada in the 20th century.

Continue reading

The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. — John Stuart Mill

1967_wolfenden-reportmill

The publication of the Wolfenden Report in 1957 was a landmark in the movement that led to the destigmatization of homosexuality across the Western world in that it brought about the decriminalization of male homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967. The repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c.69) accomplished this. Section 11 of the Act, in particular the clause known as the Labouchere Amendment, applied to male homosexuality. In short, the clause provided for a term of imprisonment “not exceeding two years”, with or without hard labour, for any man found guilty of “gross indecency” with another male, whether “in public or in private”. In 1953 the Home Secretary, David Maxwell Fyffe, referred to male homosexuality as a “plague over England,” and vowed to wipe it out. In 1954, the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution was convened with John Wolfenden appointed chairman. Continue reading

The Firearms Act is about licensing and registration, not confiscation. — Former Justice Minister Anne McLellan, July 31, 1998.

gun-typescdn_flag_bg

I bought my first gun in a private sale, back in 1977 when I was sixteen. As it happens, 1977 was a turning point in the regulatory framework for gun owners in Canada; it was the last of the good old days for gun owners in Canada. The familiar classification system for firearms was in effect (non restricted, restricted and prohibited). This was enacted in 1969 with the passage of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (S.C. 1968-69, c. 38), which, coincidentally, also decriminalized homosexuality. In 1977 it was unlawful to sell guns to individuals of unsound mind or those under prohibition orders, otherwise Canadians were free to own and use guns for hunting, sport shooting and collecting without having the state on their back. As the Minister Justice, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, observed in shepherding the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 through parliament, “obviously, the state’s responsibility should be to legislate rules for a well-ordered society. It has no right or duty to creep into the bedrooms of the nation.” (as cited in Wikipedia) In 1977, just as the state had no business in bedrooms of the nation, neither did the state have any business in the basements and gun cabinets of the nation.

Continue reading

A person’s sexuality is so much more than one word “gay.” No one refers to anyone as just “hetero” because that doesn’t say anything. Sexual identity is broader than a label. — Gus Van Sant

sex-question-personal-gay-pride-month-ecards-someecardssantorum-gay-sex

Recently the question came to mind as to why so many religious folk and social conservatives hold such a prurient fixation on what they imagine goes on in other people’s bedrooms. Sex is a part of every conjugal relationship: gay and straight. Sex is natural, a part of living and to enjoy. Sodomy laws, as they were called, were repealed in Canada in 1969. Then Minister of Justice Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously declaring in 1967, “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” (CBC Digital Archives) Sodomy laws were repealed across the United States as of 2003 when U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the state could not single out gay people for harassment and discriminatory treatment simply “because of ‘moral disapproval’ of homosexuality. He wrote of ‘respect’ for same-sex couples and warned that ‘the state cannot demean their existence,’ describing same-sex relationships as a ‘personal bond’ involving much more than just sex. Kennedy also wrote that reducing same-sex couples to ‘sex partners,’ as anti-gay organizations often do, is offensive in the same way that describing a husband and wife as nothing more than sex partners would be offensive.” (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) Continue reading