Benjamin Franklin wrote 250 years ago that “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” For decades, the trend in Canada has been towards an ever-increasing body of laws and regulations, so many that even the most diligent and conscientious businessman, school principal, manufacturer, or manager of a non-profit can barely keep up. That trend is accelerating.
Virtue exists among mature and humble people who habitually practice the Golden Rule or its variations: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Human nature being the mix of good and evil that it is, no society will attain perfection. But virtue comes in degrees, so the number of meddlesome rules increases as virtue declines.
Virtue is not hereditary, and it cannot be legislated. It needs to be learned, earned, and cultivated anew in each generation, in the home, the school, and places of worship. Absent a commitment to living virtuously, people tend to degenerate into believing that virtue (and even reality itself) depends on their feelings. “Morality is whatever I feel is right” becomes the norm.
Bill C-16, now before Parliament, actually seeks to criminalize conversations between spouses, with up to 10 years in prison for violators. Under Bill C-16, the new Criminal Code section 264.01 would prohibit “a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct” that might cause one’s spouse to believe that her or his “psychological” safety is somehow “threatened.” If the bill passes, this new crime will be very hard to prove in court, but will likely result in more calls to the police, and more police visits to Canadian homes.
Bear in mind that physical coercion, including violence and uttering threats, is already a crime, as it should be. But a “pattern of coercive and controlling conduct” extends, under Bill C-16, to legitimate warnings about non-violent but real-life interactions, like “I cannot continue with my part-time job if you don’t show up on time to look after the kids.”
Bill C-16, a.k.a. the Protecting Victims Act, provides us with actual examples of behaviours that will become crimes.
“Controlling, attempting to control or monitoring the intimate partner’s location, movements, actions or social interactions, including by a means of telecommunication” becomes a crime. For instance, phone calls in which one spouse asks the other, “Where are you? You said you’d be home two hours ago,” “Did you stop at the bar on your way home?” and “Did you have lunch with that attractive young receptionist again?” could result in criminal charges.
“I thought we agreed that you would stop feeding Sara sugary breakfast cereals!” and “Did you even read the reviews about the movie that you allowed our son to watch?” and other normal, run-of-the-mill parenting conversations become the new crime of “controlling or attempting to control the manner in which the intimate partner cares for any person under the age of 18.”
How is anyone to know when their words have crossed the hidden line between healthy disagreements about parenting (legal) and the forbidden criminal territory of “controlling or attempting to control”?
“You can’t go back to school full-time. Our finances and child care needs mean you can’t quit your job” becomes the new crime of “controlling or attempting to control any matter related to the intimate partner’s employment or education.”
“What is this $154.73 Amazon expense for? More impulse spending that clutters the home with things we don’t need?” and “You love that hobby so much, why don’t you pay that much attention to me?” become the new crime of “controlling or attempting to control the intimate partner’s finances or other property or monitoring their finances.” When do routine disagreements about household spending, in which each spouse might accuse the other of wasting money, turn criminal? The moment that one spouse believes that her or his “psychological safety” is threatened? How could a policeman, prosecutor or judge even assess this?
“Controlling or attempting to control the intimate partner’s expression of gender, physical appearance, or manner of dress” also becomes a crime. An incorrect response to a question like, “Do these pants make me look fat?” becomes the new crime of “controlling or attempting to control” your spouse’s diet.
A heated and repeated argument about politics or religion could result in criminal charges for “controlling or attempting to control” your spouse’s expression of thoughts, opinions, or spiritual beliefs.
Most judges are quite capable of objectively examining evidence and arriving at a reasonable conclusion as to whether a wife threw a dinner plate at her husband (criminal conduct), or whether he pushed her into the wall (criminal conduct), and a conviction or acquittal can be reached fairly. But judges are not trained psychologists who can properly assess whether a spouse is “in a position of vulnerability in relation to the accused,” and whether the accused “manipulated” her or his spouse by “targeting” the spouse’s “vulnerabilities.”
Further, even if all judges were trained psychologists, should criminal law enter into our living rooms, kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms, and summer vacations, in the absence of actual physical coercion, violence, or threats of violence?
Supporters of Bill C-16 would tell us not to worry: “This new Criminal Code provision will never be used for normal, healthy, conflicts that spouses have about finances, parenting, in-laws, politics, religion or sex.” Only the naïve would accept such reassurance. Further, even if this new Bill C-16 Criminal Code provision were never abused, it would hang over our homes like a cold, wet blanket, chilling healthy conversations, disagreements, and conflicts.
Only in a country where virtue is lacking would politicians introduce criminal laws to micro-manage marriages and other relationships.
