The Unfolding Federal Election Campaign

If I wasn't disgusted enough with the misfiring commentary of the various parties, I heard Stephen Harper this morning say that he would allow "a free vote" on a "Private Member's" bill on abortion. Perhaps I'm the village idiot here, but that sounds like "we are going to legislate on this subject" - but instead of doing it up front as policy, he's trying to weasel around it and make it a "back bench" thing so he can avoid responsibility for it.

Digging around the news sites, I found this gem on CBC. Harper's trying on one hand to sound like he's a more socially moderate version of his past self, and then he turns around and makes statements that clearly show that he's _NOT_ more moderate, he's merely put on a veneer of respectability. Underneath it is the slavering horror of religiously driven social conservatism. Don't get me wrong - I have all the respect in the world for people's religious beliefs - but in a country as diverse as Canada has become, it is foolish to presume that there is any commonality of belief. We are a country filled with numerous sects of Christianity; Islam; Hindu; Bhuddism, and goodness knows what else. There are few things where any two sects see eye to eye, much less any two religions. Creating legislation that attempts to drive morality is guaranteed to fail, sooner or later.

In my lifetime alone, consider the following - the "Great Pornography Debate" of the 1970's. Eventually, legislators gave up trying to define "indecent" or "obscene" in a way that the courts could work with. It eventually came down to a discussion about consenting adults - the line in the sand being the age of majority.

Then, in the late 1980's (1988 to be exact), the Supreme Court in this country struck down the laws governing abortion. Once again, these laws were seated in a particular Judeo-Christian morality. The law failed the test against the then relatively new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution .

Like it or not, the Constitution forever changed the landscape of Canadian law and politics. Freedom of thought, belief and expression is as fundamental as freedom of religion. (In fact, they both appear in the same paragraph of the Charter). This means that the beliefs and opinions of all Canadians are protected - equally. A subsequent section of the Charter speaks explicitly to issues of discrimination. A law that would hold women to counselling or outright prohibits abortion would clearly be discriminatory to any woman. (Hmmm...let's see - the woman is the one who must carry the child - often at considerable risk to her own health...)

What scares me about Harper is the prevarication he is engaging in. Not only is he trying to present what I believe to be more and more of a facade, other factions in his party keep popping up and making statements that suggest that the Conservatives haven't moved beyond their past roots. While I don't necessarily believe Martin's platform overly much either, I'm far less worried about the Liberals writing a bunch of legislation that has to be challenged before the Supreme Court - legislation that would not only be fatally flawed, but would only stand upright if supported by the "notwithstanding clause". For those that would argue that using the notwithstanding clause is justified for issue x, I would remind you that the clause has been used exactly once - in Quebec. One could argue that the use of that clause in Quebec abrogates the legitimate and legal rights of non-francophone Quebecers. Chew that over for a minute or two, and then try to self-justify what you want to use the notwithstanding clause for.