The Social Issue

June 10 2004
Counterbias.com
Cory M. Marshall
F O C U S   O N   C A N A D A


What does it say about a leader when he or she shrugs off divisive social issues during an election? While Mr. Harper has been quite vocal about fiscal issues and Canada’s military, he has shied away from what he calls social issues. His pronouncements on abortion and gay marriage seem to have been born of an unease with these topics and how they relate both to Canadians and the conservative ideology. It is not surprising to hear him as he deftly tries to move away from these issues because in his heart he must know that most Canadians are beyond pooh-poohing these concerns. 


Pro-capital punishment yet anti-choice? Killing is alright in one context but not when it hardly amounts to killing. I’m sure this paradox has been pointed out before but the spirit of paradox is not contained merely by the conservative platform. It will permeate throughout an election where divisive social issues are discouraged. Can we really afford to shelve our progressive worldview for the sake of Mr. Harper promoting his tax schemes and doing little other than calling Liberals liars because his party is lost in some medieval infancy with respect to issues that aren’t about taxation or Americanization?


Could there be a more propitious time to explore divisive social issues and how our leaders respond to them? It will be too late when we wake to find that an unwanted fetus must be delivered, our criminals must be murdered by the state, or we have an American way of doing things. And why isn’t the Americanization of Canada a divisive social issue?


There was a time when early Canadians took up arms to protect the unique character that we have evolved on this continent, a character that has since opted to be circumspect rather than giving into a militaristic hair-trigger. Now, there is clamouring in some quarters for a four year, fixed election cycle with some murmur that a set interval is somehow less likely to be exploited and manipulated. Sure, there will be that “security” of when these contests occur but manipulation is perhaps better facilitated with a schedule. At least in our own way, our system does provide for a greater sense of contest in that an election is not predictable. Predictability knows when to put off a vote, or when to mobilize the machinery of elections. It knows when to hold off on introducing legislation. The most salient feature of this way of doing things is that it caudles mere politics at a time when the world needs statecraft. Whether the date is fixed or fluid, an election can be played like a fiddle. 


It is somewhat sad and somewhat shameful that Canadian leaders would so simply cast aside the traditions of this country that have served it well over the course of many more years than we seem to be considering in this election. Mr. Martin is right to ask what sort of Canada we choose. Are we a nation that ignores the tremendous achievements that we have inaugurated, or fostered, that make the world a better place? Are we willing to dispense with the traditions that allowed Canada to contribute to the world and provide us with our identity? Are we ready to do this because the previous government was careless about money? Is that the price some are willing to place on our unique expression of democracy?


It is obvious why so much of what Mr. Harper says gravitates around the fiscal; there is precious little else he can offer. In the run up to the war, while Mr. Bush was soliciting opinions about the use of torture, Mr. Harper’s blind faith in the Bush Doctrine blared from television screens, and lately he has re-iterated that he supported and supports our allies. I think this is instructive of how Mr. Harper and his band of wandering Tories think. In all of his cant, never once did he consider that we have other allies, like France, Germany and the myriad other countries that comprise the United Nations. In a very real sense, Mr. Harper seems to have been moved by the economic considerations emanating from our stance. Canadian firms would not be able to participate in the reconstruction after the unsanctioned, illegal war. So this is the man who should be placed in governance of the diversity of social issues? A man who was amoral enough to join an immoral war (which a war instigated by falsehoods can only be) should not be entrusted with the well-being of the least amongst us. 


The sanctity of human life is a curious thing in conservative thought. From conception until birth there is the utmost regard for a mass of cells as it develops towards becoming a person. Then, for the next several years this life is almost completely neglected unless some circumstances arise that garner it attention. Perhaps it is a crime that makes a conservative society take notice of a person long enough to  put him or her to death, or perhaps it is a war. In these latter instances the sanctity of human life is somehow neglected, even discouraged, by those who co-opt convenient passages from an arcane text.


I don’t think that a majority of Canadians share Mr. Harper’s world view. 88% of us don’t like Mr. Bush, and 63% are  inclined to believe that his great galvanizing event, 9/11, stinks of US government involvement. I think Canadians may be angry about M. Chrétien’s sensibilities regarding purse strings, but anger doesn’t make for good decision making. If Mr. Harper can continue to make Canadians angry about money and management style, he may get his wish and we will ignore his dark side.