Law and Order

Now that the vote to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage in Parliament has passed and rejected, there is talk about allowing civic administrator who perform the ceremony to not do it because of personal objection to same-sex marriage. This is a very interesting idea, particularly when it comes from the usually ‘law-and-order’ crowd. There is the Charter of Rights, there is the law of the land as passed by parliament, and then there is whatever you want to do. This logic is truly liberating, freeing individuals, particularly those working for the government as the executor of the law, to complete disregard it the law. A policeman can just let speeding cars pass because he likes to drive fast himself. A doctor may let someone die because she believes the patient brought it upon himself. And a magistrate can refuse to perform a mix race marriage because he is a racist. And if they can not do things that they are supposed to, they should be able to do things that they are not supposed to. Then, police can shoot whoever committed any violation. A surgeon may perform an operation simply because he needs the practice. And a magistrate can nullify all marriages she performed because she had fight with her fiancé. Most important of all, judges can let murders go free because he is feeling charitable. This is certainly a different kind of ‘law-and-order’—my laws, my orders and screws them all. But then, this is really what ‘law-and-order’ has always really mean, isn’t it? The law never stops the ‘law-and-order’ crowd from doing whatever they want. Their law and order are but fragments of their own imagination.