Consent #11 December 1989-January 1990 |
 To Table of Contents |
Once again, the subject of Sunday shopping has been placed in the limelight. With the recent applications (to allow supermarkets to open on Sundays) by the Committee for Fair Shopping to various municipalities, it is clear that our municipal representatives are as unwilling to deal with the issue as are their provincial counterparts.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, the municipalities have not been given significantly greater control over Sunday openings than they had before. For many years municipal governments have had the authority to designate "tourist areas" in which stores could open. The size and number of "tourist areas" in any municipality has always been up to municipal councils.
Politicians at both provincial and municipal levels share the same intolerant attitude towards Sunday shopping: namely, that government should decide who is open on Sundays and who is closed, not retailers and customers. Yet they are alarmingly reluctant to accept responsibility for the consequences of their attitude as they pass the buck back and forth.
As the debate has ebbed and flowed, the fundamental question involved has usually been overlooked. The root of the issue is whether Sunday closing laws are just, and if so, upon which principle of justice they are based. Examined from this perspective, Sunday closing laws reveal themselves to be fundamentally unjust, and consequently there is only one "policy" open to anyone concerned with justice: freedom of choice.
The principle at stake in any political debate is essentially this: do we want to live in a society based on the principles of consent, or do we want to live in a society based on the principles of force? Is it morally acceptable for some of us to be able to force our choices upon others, or should all individuals be free to make their own choices for themselves?
These alternatives are not open to compromise. Force and consent are opposites, and therefore they cannot be mixed. Making judgements or creating laws based upon the use of force in our social and political relationships will inevitably lead to political conflicts. After all, how is it that something as innocent as shopping could ever have become a political issue?
To use force simply to attain some desired personal or social benefit is not only unjust, it is morally unprincipled. And because it's wrong, it never works.
Free governments supposedly exist to protect the natural rights of every citizen, not to grant special privileges to favoured groups. Justice demands that every citizen be treated equally before the law. This clearly is not the case with a law that forces most retailers to close while exempting some of their competitors. No one can deny that those businesses favoured by these exemptions have been granted an unearned advantage over others.
Sunday closing laws undermine respect for the law by creating an absurd and dangerous legal environment. Once each week the law treats people like criminals for earning an honest living that is not a crime at any other time of the week. It is no surprise that the law continues to be flouted by many retailers across the province. It is unreasonable to expect people to respect a law that does not respect them.
Sunday closing laws violate fundamental principles of private property rights. Every Sunday, selected retailers are being told that they will not be permitted to exercise their right to the peaceful use of their own property. Like homes, retail stores belong to their owners, not to anyone else.
The Charter of Rights states that freedom of religion is a "fundamental" freedom. Sunday closing laws discriminate against everyone who does not worship on Sundays. This is a terrible injustice, yet in December 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this acknowledged violation of rights was "reasonable and justifiable". Even today we see the disturbing spectacle of church groups lobbying for laws that violate their own freedom of religion!
It is important to reject the argument that anyone would be "forced" to open if present Sunday shopping restrictions were simply repealed. The fact that someone's competition is open does not "force" him to open as well. Should he not choose to open, there will be no police officers knocking at his door the next day, nor will anyone fine him for not opening his store. Such are the consequences of force. This ludicrous argument is being used to hide the truth behind who is really using force: let's face it, the retailers who don't want the law changed are simply unwilling to give their customers what they want. They recognize that this decision has a cost, but they want to force their neighbours and competitors share that cost.
I have similarly heard it argued that retailers who sign leases with malls stipulating hours of operation are being "forced" to open when they otherwise would be closed. But this argument makes no sense at all: Since mall leases represent a contractual agreement between two parties, mall retailers are simply complying with terms to which they have voluntarily agreed. Indeed, what advantage would retailers gain from locating in a mall if each store in that mall operated on its own, non-uniform hours? If retailers don't like the terms of mall operations, no one is forcing them to sign the contracts.
This principle of private voluntary contract would be self evident in most instances, but special interests in the Sunday shopping issue have done everything in their power to cloud the issue. For example, other terms in lease agreements require retailers to pay their rent on a specified day each month. Would it therefore be equally logical to conclude that the rental payment has been "forced" from the retailer simply because the contract requires it? Should we pass laws forbidding the payment of such rents?
Municipalities around the province, which have the authority to pass bylaws allowing retail businesses to open Sundays and holidays, now have a unique opportunity to remove all of the negative effects of the province's Sunday closing legislation. By simply passing bylaws exempting their respective jurisdictions from Sunday shopping laws, they could allow every citizen to make his or her own decision about whether or not to shop on Sundays. In this way, constituents would be able to exercise the freedom of choice that is theirs by right, free from the arbitrary whims of municipal and provincial politicians alike.
To do otherwise would suggest motives unbecoming of representatives elected in a free and democratic society. It's time to end all the municipal-provincial buck passing; the only buck being passed should be the one between retailers and their customers.
Top of Page
[email protected]
Freedom Party of Ontario
