The courts keep inventing new rights, turning our Charter on its head | National Post

This article makes clear the hypocrisy that passes as legal logic by Canadian courts.



On one hand, a doctor who refers a woman to a doctor to undergo female genital mutilation procedures is criminally responsible for the procedure if it occurs. Why? Because in the eyes of the courts, the relationship of referral agent and end service provider renders both morally guilty of the end act. Yet the court applies the exact opposite assessment regarding the relationship between two doctors when it comes to decisions on any of the 'life' questions. (Abortion, Euthanasia, etc.) There they claim that no moral relationship exists between the referrer and end provider thus there exists no need to protect the former's conscience issues from the actions of the actual service provider.



Oh well. I guess those folks that say 'consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds' must have been thinking about those who act as judges in Canada's court system because a consistency of logic sure is absent from their decision making when it comes to these issues of conscience and morality.



The courts keep inventing new rights, turning our Charter on its head | National Post