Questioning Canada’s state neutrality around Bill C-6

The Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF), whose membership consists of “700 lawyers, law students, law professors and others” in 30 denominations and 11 provinces and territories, believes that Bill C-6 (the anti-conversion therapy law) undermines the state’s duty of neutrality and the “fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, and opinion by establishing a sectarian, state-sponsored view of human identity, sexuality, and gender, and condemning contrary views as harmful ‘myths and stereotypes.’” The law may set up preferential space for some and hostility for others who hold alternate beliefs or values.

Julia Beazley, Director of Public Policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada says that “The EFC is very concerned about overreach and a critical lack of clarity in Bill C-6. There is no place in our communities for coercive, involuntary or abusive practices. However, this bill as currently written could penalize and silence public speech and religious instructions on matters of sexuality and gender. We are encouraging Canadians to reach out to their local MP and to the Senators from their province to ask for clarity and for exceptions to protect freedom of religion and expression. We have resources to help inform and equip engagement on our website at TheEFC.ca/C-6.”

If that many legal minds are concerned it behooves us all to pay attention. The basic question is whether the current vague and overbroad definition of conversion therapy invites “unjustifiable limitations” on charter freedoms of “conscience and religion, expression, liberty, and security of the person guaranteed by sections 2 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” As currently stated, the law may prohibit some individuals from voluntarily getting support and help for their mental health or personal goals.

Recently, I questioned a high-ranking government minister who wears a military uniform on whether he could intervene in stating our concerns before the house. He stated that he could do little since he had put on the uniform and had to stand by those in authority. The concern for religious folk is that we are often wearing a different uniform and we’re uncertain whether the government sees us as allies or enemies.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that state neutrality means that the government neither favours nor hinders specific belief or non-belief and abstains from positioning itself toward one belief system or another. The current legislation is clear that it considers some understandings and beliefs about human identity, sexuality and gender accepted by many believers to be false and harmful. Bill C-6 intends to criminalize alternate views so as to eradicate or silence them.

The CLF, pondering the work of the Angus Reid Institute on spirituality in a changing world, considers that “in a free and democratic society, people will hold diverse and sometimes irreconcilable beliefs concerning the meaning of sexuality and identity, whether based in biology, anthropology, culture, philosophy, or religion.” The legal organization considers that the government can embrace the spirit of preventing coercive and abusive practices with a few clear amendments guaranteeing the freedoms of its citizens in areas like marriage, sexuality and gender. Most coercive treatments seem to already be considered illegal with other legislation under the Criminal Code.

The preamble betrays the governments lack of neutrality and the definition of conversion therapy is “overbroad and invites limitations” of Charter freedoms and liberties. Again, the Supreme Court states that “Criminal laws that restrict liberty more than is necessary to accomplish their goal violate principles of fundamental justice.” On October 1, 2020, the Department of Justice stated that Bill C-6 would not apply to persons supporting others who were questioning their sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity “such as teachers, school counselors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members.” There is skepticism and some anxiety about the hesitation of the government to attach these musings into print within the bill in some fashion.

Up until now, Christians have understood that the Charter guarantees their right to hold diverse beliefs and to even declare these beliefs openly and “without fear of hindrance or reprisal.” The CLF holds that “The current definition [of conversion therapy] creates further uncertainty for parents, teachers, religious communities, and professional counsellors by inviting law enforcement and prosecutors to make subjective determinations as to a person’s motives, religious or otherwise, for engaging in a conversation, and whether the prohibition applies. The breadth of the definition makes it impossible for individuals to know in advance whether they may be criminally liable for engaging with a friend, patient, family member, or parishioner seeking support in matters related to sexuality and identity.”

Of course, of concern, is the disproportional amount of our adolescents and children caught up in the surge of gender dysphoria reporting who will emerge from the experience reembracing their biological sex if allowed to make their own informed decisions without external manipulation or coercion.

Healthcare professionals should be free to offer their supports, not only to those engaging in exploration, but for the high percentage emerging from exploration.