7 Feb 15
The Supreme Court of Canada last week overturned existing law and permitted assisted suicide on the grounds of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a clause which declares for the protection of life. The Spectator editorially welcomed the decision because a retired colleague of the Spectator, Eric McGuinness, sought assisted suicide in Canada, was turned down, and ultimately gained the fate he sought in Switzerland. The Spectator evidently approves of this suicidal kind of progressivism.
In addition to welcoming the decision, the editorial took a shot at Prmie Minister Stephen Harper, who opposes this kind of progressivism, and also at the leaders of the other two parties who have been ducking the issue.
Below is my response to the Spectator editorial of 7 Feb 15.
The decision by the Supreme Court to allow assisted suicide under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is extremely bad. It turned the law on its head. Not only is the reasoning profoundly unsound, but will involve the Court in endless cases legislating from the bench about who and whom and by what means and under what conditions exactly. How many times have they gone around the horn on prostitution?
The purpose of the Charter is to protect rights, largely individual rights. The individual right protected under Section 7 is the right to life, the right not to be killed. Erroneous logic might get you to the point of saying that the individual right to life includes the right to choose one’s own death. On that stretched basis, suicide, the killing of oneself, would not be a criminal offense. But the Supreme Court decision enables assisted suicide, that is the external intervention of someone else in the killing of the person who wants to die. Under the criminal code, helping to kill someone makes one an accessory to murder. How will the courts and Parliament deal with that one?
If the defense against being an accessory is that the underlying act, the killing of oneself, is not a criminal offense, then there is no principled reason to limit the accessory to a physician. Why not a nurse, for example? A close friend? These are some of the obvious consequences of turning the law on its head.
The Supreme Court is making such a mess of the law, Stephen Harper is fully justified in his rows with them. As you observed, Harper has refrained from introducing socially divisive legislation that would be to the liking of a right-wing Christian and conservative constituency. Well, now his hand is being forced, and you may not like the laws that his majority can force through before the next election. Never mind the Notwithstanding Clause, how about a law that declares the Supreme Court to be vacant, enabling the Prime Minister to appoint a whole new set of judges, ones more congenial to his point of view!
I know Eric McGuinness has a special place in the hearts of Spec employees. Columnist Susan Clairmont today laments that it was too bad that Eric didn’t live long enough to see this day. Think about that sentiment for a minute!! If Eric had had his way, he would have seen a lot less than he did! That is what is wrong about assisted suicide is that life is always better than death.
If someone wants to off themselves, then they should off themselves. Assisted suicide is about smearing the guilt of self-murder on society as a whole and not accepting it oneself.
McGuinness was wrong, and the Supreme Court was wrong. The Charter Right to Life is just that: the right not to be killed.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment