Justifying Bill 18: A Critique of Kymlicka’s Comprehensive Neutrality

Nick Tanchuk

doi:10.7202/1071469ar

Abstract

Manitoba’s Bill 18 provides students the legal right to form gay-straight alliance student groups within denominational and dissentient schools. Religious opponents of Bill 18 claim that the law unjustifiably imposes a homogenous moral worldview on religious families. I argue that if we appeal to Will Kymlicka’s comprehensive neutralist theory of political morality to justify Bill 18, the religious complaint is problematically vindicated. I argue that Kymlicka appeals to two bases of neutrality that ultimately fail to distinguish his view from the perfectionist theories of political morality that he officially rejects. Due to this internal inconsistency, the priority of Kymlicka’s preferred moral practices remains unjustified. For those of us who believe that Bill 18 is morally justified, an alternative approach to explaining this intuition is required.

Highlights

Manitoba’s Bill 18, “The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools)” provides students the legal right, inter alia, to set up gay-straight alliances in their schools
By contrast, see Bill 18 as infringing on their religious freedom as it is expressed in the legal rights of denominational and dissentient schools
I consider an influential comprehensive neutralist theory of political morality advanced by Will Kymlicka as a possible means by which to assess the justification of conflicting rights claims within the public debate

Summary

Article abstract

Manitoba’s Bill 18 provides students the legal right to form gay-straight alliance student groups within denominational and dissentient schools. I argue that if we appeal to Will Kymlicka’s comprehensive neutralist theory of political morality to justify Bill 18, the religious complaint is problematically vindicated. I argue that Kymlicka appeals to two bases of neutrality that fail to distinguish his view from the perfectionist theories of political morality that he officially rejects. Due to this internal inconsistency, the priority of Kymlicka’s preferred moral practices remains unjustified. For those of us who believe that Bill 18 is morally justified, an alternative approach to explaining this intuition is required

Cite this article

Introduction

Findings

Conclusion