The Supreme Court: The Chamberlain vs Surrey case.

On December 20, 2002, (just in time for Christmas) by a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court gave a slap in the face to a group of Surrey, B.C. parents who thought that they had a right to have a say in what their children were being taught, and smiled benevolently on a group of "gay" activists, headed by homosexual teacher James Chamberlain, as it passed on to them the authority it had taken away from the parents. The parents had banned three books for kindergarten and grade I levels dealing with same-sex parents, believing that such contentious material was not suitable for children just beginning school. But the Court held that "tolerance is always age-appropriate."

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said in fact that "Children cannot learn tolerance unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home." In other words, the creed of Canada is multiculturalism, whose watchword is tolerance. The religious views of Surrey parents and the moral principles they wish to inculcate are of secondary importance--and can be trumped by the prevailing national ethos. The principle of tolerance apparently guarantees a place for homosexuality in the school curriculum; little children in the earliest grades are to be brainwashed into thinking that a family which has no mum but two dads is as normal as one which has both a mummy and a daddy.

In fact, the curriculum requires that 5-and-6-year-olds make comparative studies of many kinds of family--as though they were sociology students working on their masters' degrees. When the Court said that tolerance is always age-appropriate, it was being incautious; a number of parents who made statements were much more prudent, insisting that they knew their children better than anybody else and they knew very well that they were not ready to be confronted with questions about homosexuality.

Children from single-sex parents

The Chief Justice also said that the kindergarten students would be rubbing shoulders with children of single-sex parents, but if she really meant this statement she should have explained how it was possible. It is safe to say that very few kindergartens in Canada have pupils in them who are the children of same-sex parents. In the nature of things, homosexuals cannot have children. Moreover, abortion has made the number of children available for adoption very small.

Where are these hordes of children of single-sex parents coming from? Either the Chief Justice has sources of information which the rest of us do not have, or else she is making statements which cannot stand careful scrutiny. Mr. Justice Gonthier, in dissent, shows himself very much more aware of the reasons for the position taken by the parents who have children in Surrey schools.

Finally, in all the discussion of teaching little children to be tolerant of other children from homes different from their own, there is little understanding of the sharp questions which may be asked. Told that Johnny's family has two dads, young Billy will be very disturbed: "Where is Johnny's mummy? Why did she go away? Didn't she want him? Didn't she like him?"

Five-year-old children can sometimes be more realistic than curriculum consultants or learned justices.

Significantly, the Justices seem unaware of the irony which attaches to their ruling. Tolerance is always age appropriate--for matters, apparently, which fall within their understanding of the core value of the Canadian nation. Who gave them the authority to specify these core values and make ruling supporting them, they do not make clear. Tolerance of homosexuality is politically and legally correct, it seems, but tolerance of Christianity is not. The Supreme Court, defender of tolerance, is intolerant itself. (See also editorial on page 3).

David Dooley is professor emeritus of St. Michael's College, University of Toronto, and associate editor of Catholic insight.