No need for a debate on assisted suicide
Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert says that the courts might end the “collegial conspiracy of parliamentarian silence” on the issue of euthanasia and assisted-suicide by forcing the issue back into the public square. Hebert ignores the fact that all-too-often politicians outsource law-making to the courts so they don’t have to address so-called controversial issues; rather than being forced to debate euthanasia, parliamentarians will hide behind the Court’s decision(s), claiming that the issue has been dealt with (witness the same-sex ‘marriage’ and abortion debates). Also, Hebert seems to not understand that Parliament has already recently debated this subject even though she acknowledges “In the dying days of the last Parliament, a private member’s bill sponsored by veteran Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde was defeated 228 votes to 59.” You see, Hebert and others who want social mores changed do not want a debate, they want the law changed and their left-wing social views legitimized by a show of hands of parliamentarians. It is not enough to examine the issue, have hearings, and vote on these issues, it must be done so endlessly until the desired result is accomplished. Then the debate will have been settled forever and calls for debate mocked because Parliament/the Supreme Court has already decided the issue. Forever. Well, in 2010, Parliament decisively defeated a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in a lop-sided 228-59 vote. That doesn’t mean that we must silence the pro-euthanasia lobby and shutdown democratic debate, but it does mean that the issue has been dealt with recently and there need be no hurry to debate euthanasia and assisted-suicide in Parliament any time soon.