December 14, 2024
Click the “Listen Now” button below to hear the audio version of Insights.
Read previous Insights issues on the dedicated Insights Archive blog right here.
HERE'S MY TAKE
Canadian authorities seem to have lost the plot on human rights. Ironically, some of the strongest evidence for this came at the same time that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) celebrated its 76th birthday on December 10th. This remarkable document has historical significance because it is a global response to the atrocities of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. Since then, virtually every country has formally adopted the UDHR, which has inspired over 80 international conventions and treaties.
Sadly, the shine has come off those commitments in Canada.
Frankly, I wouldn’t have noticed the anniversary, save for a few passing references to “Human Rights Day” this past Tuesday. Even those amounted to little more than perfunctory statements and quotes for the few who clicked on the links. But two stories that crossed my desk on the same day did prompt some reflection regarding the misunderstandings of human rights that happen in our day.
The first was the story of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) ruling against the Township of Emo, in northwestern Ontario bordering Minnesota, in favour of LGBTQ+ activist group, Borderland Pride. The tribunal fined the township’s taxpayers $10,000 for discriminating against a group “in the provision of services” by not officially recognizing June as Pride Month in 2020. Further, Mayor Harold McQuaker was ordered personally to pay $5,000 to Borderland Pride, and shortly after the ruling was issued, the funds were garnished from his bank account.
Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Josh DeHaas makes the compelling point in a National Post op-ed that the tribunal was factually incorrect in considering government proclamations as a “service.” DeHaas notes quite correctly that such proclamations are forms of political expression. He concludes that the tribunal decision was not only legally misguided but “irrational.” The case is certain to be appealed. It raises all sorts of issues including the liability of elected officials for exercising their public duties, the “obligation” of municipalities to issue proclamations, the entire culturally contentious issue of gender rights, and the status of activist groups like Borderland Pride to claim and receive damages. These are all issues worth discussing, but for today, let’s just ponder the fact that this decision was made by a human rights tribunal.
The second example came this week when my Cardus Health colleagues, in collaboration with the Angus Reid Institute, released a poll highlighting that Canadians are almost evenly split on whether doctors should proactively offer euthanasia or assisted suicide to their patients. The poll lands in the context of a legal challenge arguing that Canadian law, which allows doctors to suggest euthanasia to those who suffer from disabilities, “sends a devastating message that life with a disability is a fate worse than death, undermining decades of work towards equity and inclusion.”
So, we have two ongoing legal cases, presuming, of course, the OHRT decision will be appealed. The first suggests that our commitment to human rights requires a municipality to make a declaration in support of a particular group of people, defined by their sexuality or other identity labels they place on themselves. Silence in the name of neutrality towards all groups is not an option in the view of the OHRT. The second case focuses on a particular group of people, defined by disability, who face an undesired suggestion from a doctor that can easily be interpreted to mean their disability or other condition makes them a burden.
With Human Rights Day fresh in my mind, I wondered whether this is what the authors of the UDHR had in mind when they drafted their historic document. With the ugliness of World War II a recent memory, the rights described as “fundamental” in that document speak to individuals being protected from government in all sorts of areas. It begins nobly: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world….” It specifically mentions things like “barbarous” acts, tyranny, and oppression.
The two cases I described, and I could multiply examples, disclose a view of rights that privileges (group) identity over individual rights, and ability over dependence. The UDHR doesn’t ignore the challenging social contexts in which there are deep differences between people that need to be resolved – it arose in the wake of governments seeking to resolve those differences in horrific ways through the misuse of power. Authorities decreasingly recognize the need to protect the fundamental rights of all in the process of sorting through disagreement. Instead, they seem to take the view that rights are only upheld when disagreement is shunted aside and everyone takes the same position on contentious issues. Whatever you think of Mayor McQuaker’s views, his freedom to express his political opinion regarding a public declaration (the failure of which can hardly be reasonably described as anything approaching a “barbarous act”) has become a violation of the rights of others. Similarly, the right of a person with a disability to seek a doctor’s advice within the parameters of health as historically defined by the Hippocratic Oath, seems imperilled by the legalization of euthanasia. Already facing more challenges than most, they now need to navigate the suggestion from a state-authorized health authority who, in the name of ensuring “all options are on the table,” mentions the availability of premature death as a treatment option. Could that be because the doctor (or medical system) views the category of “disabled” people as less valuable or less worthy of scarce medical resources?
What strikes me about both cases is that justice – and even talk of rights – has been turned upside down. The right not to express a political idea? Sorry, but if that political idea comes from Borderland Pride in Emo, Ontario, elected officials must vote for the proclamation. (One wonders why a vote is required if to vote a particular way results in a fine.) The right to see a doctor without worrying that death will be suggested as a “treatment”? Not if you’ve got a disability of some kind – especially one considered severe.
The OHRT, Canadian judges, and medical policymakers would all do well to re-read (or read for the first time?) the UDHR. I’d especially recommend the parts dealing with free expression (which includes silence) and “the right to security” in the event of disability or other situations beyond someone’s control.
Kemi Badenoch, the new leader of the Conservative Party in the U.K., said it well:
“People should always be treated as individuals (ideologies that suggest otherwise must be passionately opposed). Due process must always be ensured (there can be no room for mob justice of any kind). The rule of law must be protected, and the law must be applied neutrally (and there can be no special treatment depending on identity).”
I hope by the time the UDHR hits its 77th anniversary, all Canadians will have started to recover a better and truer understanding of human rights.
WHAT I’M READING
Tariff-ied
Responding to the threat by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to impose a 25% tariff remains a preoccupation of Canadian leaders federal and provincial. The provinces differ regarding the prudence of retaliatory tariffs, especially on energy for which the U.S. is most dependent on Canada. The federal government’s fall economic statement (set for Monday, December 16th, which technically is still in the fall) is being delivered in a context of political turmoil. Andrew Coyne points out that for all practical purposes, we have at least three, if not four, finance ministers charting a plan forward, which in reality means we have none. Meanwhile, a former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, is making speeches about Canada being in a recession even if the technical definitions have not yet been met.
Not all Populism is Equal
My colleague Brian Dijkema opined in The Hub about the differences between American and Canadian populism, making clear they are really quite different phenomena. The American version is replacing Reaganite orthodoxy with a more protectionist approach that is community-focused and has a strong labour orientation. Many of the benefits being advocated south of the border (e.g. family allowances and parental leave) are already part of the Canadian fabric. The Canadian agenda needs to take into account the protection of various industries (oligopolies and subsidies) and address an imbalance which privileges producers over consumers.
Quantum Leaps
A colleague shared an article about Willow, a quantum computer chip which “performed a standard benchmark computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion (that is, 1025) years.” It prompted some staff email chatter about nuclear fusion, artificial intelligence, and a few other things that left my 1960s vintage brain, using reasoning software developed in the 1980s, with a “RAM capacity exceeded” warning. But you don’t have to follow the details to realize that the pace of technological change is continuing at exponential rates which means it is only prudent to expect surprising innovations of the sort that currently lie outside our conceptual framework.
On Second Thought
I’m susceptible to the “wow” factor that comes with new technology, but I find L.M. Sacasas to be one of my reliable sources providing reflections about technology that tackle bigger questions. His substack essays are consistently thought-provoking and this week’s, while a slightly longer read and a bit philosophical at times, is recommended. In addition to providing a valuable primer on the contributions of Ivan Illich from the 1970s, the nine questions Sacasas recommends that we should ask as we consider any new technology (bulleted about two-thirds of the way through the piece) are especially useful.
Post-liberal Manifesto
The New Statesman re-published an excerpt from a 2016 book on post-liberalism suggesting that what is needed in our day is a return to when “liberalism was still embedded in inherited networks of associated corporate bodies and in substantive ethical cultures, ultimately grounded in a religious inheritance”. This needs to be overlaid with a recommitment to fundamental rights (free speech, free association, freedom of religion) and a focus on virtue and not just rights bounded by policing. There’s much to ponder (and some to disagree with) but it is thought-provoking and worth a reflective read.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
UnCharitable
The Fraser Institute’s annual generosity index released this week contains discouraging news. As Figure 1 shows, the percentage of Canadian tax filers donating to charity continued its decade-long decline, with just 17.1% claiming the charitable deduction. It would appear that those who do give are giving more but that is not enough to overcome the continued decline in total giving, which amounted to 0.5% of aggregate income in 2022, an all-time low. The Fraser report parses the numbers by region with Newfoundland & Labrador along with Prince Edward Island showing the largest decreases while the Northwest Territories and Alberta were the only jurisdictions showing any growth. It’s now over a decade ago that with some Cardus colleagues, I took a deeper dive into A Canadian Culture of Generosity. We highlighted various other factors that contributed to the decline of civic engagement reflected in charitable giving, volunteering, voting, and participation in civil society institutions. The Fraser report points to the fact that the trends we identified then have only intensified over the past decade.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Holly Days
I’ve been to several Christmas gatherings over the past few weeks, each of which was delightful in its own way. These were all work-related and involved colleagues and professional acquaintances, not happy uncles or croissants. No one shared any tree-mendously memorable puns, although neither was I asked to accompany my presence with presents. Yule know me well enough by now that wrap music isn’t my genre anyway. (I can confirm, though, that spontaneous outbreaks of Boney M classics do add to the ambiance.) I do realize that keeping this short would be a gift in itself, so before I get all sappy and try to spruce up this paragraph with word ornaments that really don’t fit, I’ll leave it there.
The final Insights of 2024 should land in your inbox next Saturday morning. We’ll save the seasonal greetings for then. Hope you have a great week.