THE EDITOR, Sir:
LAST SUNDAY, June 25, your contributor, Kerriann Lee, wrote a commentary on the presentation of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship to the Joint Select Committee on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was said that we were "intense and singular" in our efforts regarding the issue of homosexuality. So singular was our focus, Ms. Lee said, that we "appeared willing to compromise on the issue of common law relationships."
She also made reference to the programme 'Counterpoint' which was broadcast on radio on June 16, stating that the writer thereof "countered with a question about whether incest between consenting adults, an even more taboo sexual practice, should also be made legal." According to Ms. Lee, the common suggestion was that "if one is willing to compromise on homosexuality then one must also be prepared to tolerate incest."
UNNATURAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
Where the discussion on 'Counterpoint' was concerned, I used the example of incest between consenting adults to illustrate that as a society, we do not always accept 'the closed doors' concept as the overriding factor in determining criminal behaviour in matters of sexual conduct. I am fairly certain that in that conversation I did introduce the vasectomy element as I normally do when using this illustration. But the illustration was simply to say that 'closed doors' or not, consenting adults or not, and even without the possibility of children, most of us still regard this conduct as being unnatural sexual conduct which ought to be criminalised.
NO APOLOGY
Where our submission on marriage was concerned, I made it clear that the proposal then was clear - constitutionalise the definition of marriage. We gave the accepted common law definition of marriage being "the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others" (Hyde vs Hyde), but obviously, as the chairman and others rightly pointed out, that definition would pose a problem. What is important is the acceptance of the principle - the technical team could then be left to work on the details.
The criticism of our 'intense and singular' efforts regarding the issue of homosexuality is somewhat unfair as it was Pastor David Henry's wide-ranging presentation on matters regarding religious freedom which took up most of the time. We, however, make no apology regarding the stance on the matter of homosexuality, as this is an issue which many of us as Christians are concerned about in view of what now appears to be an international trend to accept abnormality as normality.
DRAWING A LINE
Ms. Lee ended her article by saying that "not everything that offends our moral sensibilities ought to be illegal." I agree entirely. We, however, subscribe to the view that the criminal law ought to reflect the commonly-held values of a people and that, in fact, the law does in some instances enshrine existing moral values. If we do not base our laws on a concept of general morality, then on what should we base our laws? Convenience? The opinion of
the international community?
Obviously, a society should have in place basic civil liberties, but apart from those basic rights, isn't it the right of every society to draw a line? Further, the law sometimes plays the role of a guide as to societal norms, what is acceptable and what isn't - it makes a statement on a matter. When the law is changed, be prepared for the mental orientation of the society to change in accepting abnormality as normal. In all our deliberations it would do us well to keep in view an agreed concept of the 'common good' for the society.
I am, etc.,
SHIRLEY RICHARDS
President
Lawyers' Christian Fellowship
