The day after writing the final exam of my first year of law school was April 17, 1982. That morning, I got on my bicycle and rode a fair distance to my friend Mitch’s house. He was one of the few people I knew who owned a colour television—a twenty-six-inch screen at that! It was a beautiful, sunny day in Vancouver—and pouring rain in Ottawa. Mitch had invited a bunch of fellow law students to his place for an unusual kind of party, one that has not been repeated in my lifetime. We watched the live broadcast as Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II, on the front steps of Parliament Hill, signed the official documentation to transition Canada’s constitution from an act of the British Parliament (the British North America Act, now referred to as the Constitution Act, 1867) to the Canadian-held and Canadian-amendable Constitution Act, 1982. While often referred to as the repatriation of our constitution, it was actually the patriation of our constitution, as this was the occasion when it became the property of Canada and Canadians for the first time.

If you or I were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence for a conviction?

Canada, established July 1, 1867, did not actually become a sovereign nation until April 17, 1982. Also on that day, Canadian law was forever changed by the inclusion of thirty-four sections in Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. These sections are known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Introduction, pages xxi – xxii)

…

If you or I were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence for a conviction?

It has not reached that point in Canada, and I pray it never does. Still, we need to be prepared in our relationship with Christ, and the nation in which we live, to stand publicly in our faith as witnesses to Him whom we live for. One key to that preparation is engaging fully our commitment to Christ, His Church, and His Word (the Bible). Another is being accurately aware of how Canadian courts are defining what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to as the “fundamental freedom” of freedom of religion.

The preamble to the Charter itself establishes that “…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

The next part of this book will summarize vital and relevant implications for the Canadian Church, and freedom of religion generally, resulting from a selection of significant decisions of Canadian courts following the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The third part of the book will consider how we should then engage our neighbours and our nation as Christ-followers in 21st century Canada.

(Chapter Six, The Law is a Jealous Mistress, page 45)

…

Some object to any influence being given to this concept (a secular society being inclusive of both non-religious and religious aspects), which was expounded upon in the dissent written by Justice Charles Gonthier. However, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, in her decision on behalf of the majority, noted agreement with him on this and other points:

My colleague, Gonthier J., and I, while differing in the result, agree on many points in this appeal:

…that the requirement of secularism laid out in s.76 does not prevent religious concerns from being among those matters of local and parental concern that influence educational policy…

Let me then give the final words of this chapter to Justice Gonthier. These words from his decision in Chamberlain are among my favourite:

…Nothing in the Charter, political or democratic theory, or a proper understanding of pluralism demands that atheistically based moral positions trump religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy. I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that “…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” According to Saunders J. [of the British Columbia Supreme Court where the case was heard at trial], if one’s moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is that everyone has “belief” or “faith” in something, be it atheistic, agnostic, or religious. To construe “secular” as the realm of the “unbelief” is therefore erroneous. Given this, why, then, should the religiously informed conscience be placed at public disadvantage or disqualification? To do so would be to distort liberal principles in an illiberal fashion and would provide only a feeble notion of pluralism. The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of modern pluralism.

(Chapter Seven, A Few Words About the Charter, pages 57-58)

Fear is a poor motivator.

…

It’s a scary world out there. Knowing that, who wouldn’t think, “It’s easier to just close the door and worship God in private, in my stained-glass closet, where nobody will bother me.”

However, fear is a poor motivator. Decisions made based on fear tend to lack the wisdom and effectiveness of decisions founded in faith. When I think of the Russian hockey team from 1972, mentioned in chapter one, their shared fear of losing just one more game of the remaining three fed into a siege mentality that resulted in losing all three.

Christian faith is personal, intimately personal. And Christianity was always intended to be public, engaging, and sincere in its expression—not just private. Being a Christ-follower is a both/and experience, not an either/or one. We need to have the private devotion to follow and the public expression to convict us if we are ever on trial for being Christian.

(Conclusion, Fear is a Strong (But Poor) Motivator, pages 248-249)

For more information about Under Siege visit Don Hutchinson’s website.