By John McKay Member of Parliament Scarborough East

In his excellent little book, The Rights Revolution in Canada, Michael Ignatieff says, “...rights are not abstractions. They are the very heart of our community and the very core of our values. We have them because those who went before us fought for them, and in some cases died for them. Our commitment to rights is a commitment to our ancestors. We owe it to them to maintain the vitality of the right to dissent, the right to belong, and the right to be different.”

Freedom of conscience and belief is fundamental to our thinking: Canadian governments are loath to intrude into beliefs of Canadians even if they appear to be strange or peculiar. France’s government is much less so.

The stated purpose of the About-Picard Bill is “strengthening the prevention and repression of sectarian movements that threaten human rights and fundamental liberties.” Its reality, however, seems to be rather different. “Sect” is not defined in the bill, leaving French prosecutors to define it in whatever terms they see fit.

When Canada’s Minister of Justice proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code, the minister is expected to show parliamentarians that there is a harm to be remedied. To be charitable, Senator About’s evidence of harm to be remedied was unconvincing. He admitted that France’s Criminal Code sufficiently dealt with [criminal activities where they exist] but nevertheless he felt that the law was deficient in “getting at” the organizations.

The French National Assembly in 1995 listed 172 groups in their study. Mormons, Pentecostals and Jehovah Witnesses are included in the same list as the Crusaders of New Babylon, Revelation of the 7th Hour and Friends of the Glorious Cross of Dozule. ... A superficial review of some of the organizations suggests two conclusions: 1) some people have some peculiar beliefs, and 2) so what.

The goal of the French law is to target those organizations that “exploit the vulnerable”. That seems noble and a worthy activity of government; however, the causal nexus between an accused and his or her organization is very weak. If an accused is convicted of a criminal code offense [such as] an infraction related to false advertising, and he or she is a senior member of a group, then the public prosecutor or a public interest association may initiate a prosecution which, if successful, will dissolve the organization and subject the director to “suspension of civic, civil and family rights, suspension of the right to hold public office, the prohibition of residence” et cetera.

These are very significant sanctions for false advertising. The original conviction may or may not have anything to do with the beliefs or practices of the organization.

Should we all be worried? Yes. Bland reassurances that France is a civilized nation, subject to the Rule of Law and has a long history of democracy, offer little comfort. “Rights are not abstractions.”

Whether or not you hold majoritarian beliefs or minority beliefs, the potential reach of this law is quite extensive.

A minor offense completely unrelated to the organization could easily spin out of control and result in draconian sanctions. A traffic offense which results in a Criminal Code conviction (i.e. drunk driving) becomes not just a drunk driving charge with attendant suspension of driving privileges, fines and potential jail sentence; it also becomes a threat to any minority [religious] organization to which you belong or in which you are active.

The mere threat of a potential penalty, a zealous prosecution or police investigation and the assignment of plaintiff rights to vigilante organizations should send a chill throughout the population of France and Europe.

Sometimes it’s good to leave Canada in order to appreciate it.