In North America, freedom of expression has become a right that has been used and abused at liberty and without very many restrictions. Beyond the most vulgar of racist or bigoted comments and information that infringes on privacy or legality, just about anything goes. And who鈥檚 there to protect this provocative freedom? That鈥檚 right, the government and its right hand of the law. But what happens when freedom of expression clashes with individual beliefs? That seems to have been the core of the debate involving some postal workers and some anti-abortion material in Saskatoon last week.
To bring everyone up to speed, some Canada Post workers refused to deliver some graphic anti-abortion flyers. The pamphlets were intended to target the pro-choice position of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau during this oh-so-important election campaign. To resolve the issue, a deal was brokered between Canada Post and the union representing the six letter carriers in question. They will pick up jobs from three volunteers who offered to deliver the flyers for them in exchange.
The content of the flyers is neither here nor there. The real issue is what allowed the conflict to occur in the first place. Sure, everything was worked out in the end, but that鈥檚 only because there were volunteers willing to step up and offer a compromise. But what happens if this happens again and there is no one willing to step up?
Mail delivery is a federal service and thus represents the government. As such, it鈥檚 a mail carrier鈥檚 job to deliver mail regardless of personal feelings.
Freedom of expression means that they can鈥檛 censor mail. At the same time, how can you force people to deliver perceived propaganda that they might feel is a betrayal of their beliefs or worse, their faith? At what point do we draw the line between doing one鈥檚 job and respecting someone鈥檚 beliefs?
The truth is, there is no easy answer here. In a world of absolutes, someone has to lose, especially if no compromise can be found. Be that as it may, there really is only one answer: the mail carriers have to do their job if there is no acceptable compromise. Why? Simply because allowing such reasons to get in the way of an essential government service is a slippery slope. Once you allow one person to refuse to carry mail because of a personal belief, you have to start giving everyone the same leeway for refusal.
In the vast majority of Canada, there are as many different beliefs and values as there are people. Saying yes to one means saying yes to all. What makes this conflict even more surprising (and its resolution even more shocking) is the fact that the objections weren鈥檛 even made based on religious reasons. These were purely and simply personal beliefs. Unlike religious reasons, personal beliefs aren鈥檛 covered in the Canada Post policy.
Even if Canada Post were to be strict about following the rules, that鈥檚 not to say there isn鈥檛 a way to mitigate the circumstances. They already have a policy against delivering illegal, fraudulent or obscene items, but they don鈥檛 clearly define what鈥檚 considered 鈥渙bscene.鈥� This situation has clearly shown that tighter policies are required for what鈥檚 acceptable in mailed content. In this day and age where communication and the transmission of digital mail is so easy, there鈥檚 really no reason why this wouldn鈥檛 be possible.
Much of people鈥檚 anger was also directed at the use of the graphic images on the flyers. If mail contains images that are unfit for children to see, it should be in a sealed envelope. Doing so would not only protect children, but would also negate the issue of a mail carrier鈥檚 conflict with delivering said mail.
All in all, there should always be a balance between the job at a person鈥檚 sensitivities. Sometimes personal beliefs can鈥檛 always be classified as a religious belief, but that doesn鈥檛 make it any less important to him or her. As such, if a reasonable compromise can be reached (such as with this situation), great. If not, it鈥檚 always better to toe the line and do one鈥檚 job, regardless of personal beliefs.
