Jean Chrétien should know better than to say, “I will not impose my convictions on people who do not have my faith.” (The Windsor Star, Monday, April 11, 1983).

Mr. Chrétien is imposing his convictions on people who do not have his faith every time an unborn child is slaughtered through abortion, and Mr. Chrétien knows it.

Everyone knows that Mr. Chrétien is a politician. Therefore, Mr. Earl Amyotte and the others who effectively protested Mr. Chrétien’s receiving the Christian Culture Award for 1983 from Assumption University are quite aware of how trustworthy Mr. Chrétien’s convictions are. They are also quite aware of Mr. Chrétien’s rejecting the scientific fact that a human being begins his or her life at the moment of conception. In consequence, they object to Mr. Chrétien’s subordinating truth to political opportunism, and, further to a university’s determination to honour that opportunism.

Mr. Chrétien deals in wonders, one of which is, “there is a separation of church and state in Canada.” Where does the British North America Act or our new Constitution say this? Is this one of our new “rights” which Mr. Chrétien has not told us of yet? Do Father Bob Ogle and the other clergymen who sit in the Commons know this?

Intolerance is something abhorrent to Mr. Chrétien, as it should be. It’s just that his intolerance towards the unborn child’s right to life seems never to have occurred to him.

Mr. Chrétien does not want “others imposing their faiths and ideals on me.” Perhaps Mr. Chrétien, while reading the Canadian abortion statistics, will realize how odd his words sound. Those statistics will force him to consider what the unborn child has had imposed on him or her because of Mr. Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill in 1969 or Mr. Chrétien’s Constitution. Surely Mr. Chrétien realizes that his moral isolationism encourages a murderer to legitimately insist that Mr. Chrétien stop imposing his faith and ideals on murderers. Public morality must reflect private morality.

It is probably fair to conclude that Mr. Chrétien, in departing from his prepared  text in order to bawl out those Pro-Life people, spoke foolishly simply to justify Samuel Johnson’s remark, “My dear Sir, you may speak foolishly, but you must not think that way.”

According to Mr. Chrétien, to protect in law the right to life of the innocent and defenceless unborn child would be “undemocratic,” and it would have jeopardized “the entire exercise” (passing the Constitution and the Charter of Rights). From antiquity, men of good will have believed that the state exists to protect its citizens. Ah, but in Canada, let us not forget, you are not a citizen till you are born. Until birth, you are a worthless thing. Mr. Chrétien has seen to that. In his defence, Mr. Chrétien will probably tell us that democracy has limits.

We must remember that we are speaking of the Honourable Jean Chrétien and the honourable people at Assumption University who gave him the Christian Culture Award for 1983. It is therefore only proper that they receive the accolade of Marc Antony (slightly amended): “For Jean is an honourable man/So are they all, all honourable men.”