Now that the 2004 federal election shouting match is behind
us and everyone has had a chance to calm down, maybe we can have a sensible
discussion about its results and some of its most contentious issues.
The
Conservatives and the West
Looking first at Elections Canada’s coloured map of
the federal election results by seats won, the dark blue Conservative landmass
covering nearly all four Western provinces, compared to the rest of the
country’s colours, suggests a near complete polarization of the country.
However, if the map on their Web site was coloured
instead according to ballots obtained, the picture would be quite different.
The West would be painted 55% a reddish, orange-green and only 45% blue. And
23% of the rest of the country (can we say that?) would be covered in dark
blue, instead of only a few small patches in southern Ontario and the Atlantic
provinces.
Canadians therefore shouldn’t equate the Conservative
Party with Western Canada. Nor should they equate that a rejection of the
Conservatives last June was a rejection of the West. Besides, Easterners have
voted for Conservative governments in the past, even some led by Westerners.
Tory pitfalls
The June results however are a rejection by the
overwhelming majority of Canadians across Canada, including the West, of a perceived
type of conservatism. Not only social conservatism, but most of the neo-con
agenda we’ve seen south of the border over the last four years, and which has
tainted the Tories as much as B.C. and Ontario Liberal performances have soiled
their federal counterpart.
This agenda includes, but is not limited to, tax
breaks for the wealthy, a return to deficit financing, reducing government services,
environmental deregulation, huge increases in military spending, and support
for American unilateralism and adventurism.
If that is an unfair assessment of the true PC
electoral platform, then the Tories failed miserably in communicating and
defending their position. Yet Stephen Harper and colleagues are not the only
ones to blame.
There was little leadership shown before and during
this election, as defined as skilled in the art of persuasion, showing genuine
empathy for the other side, and mobilizing citizens to face adaptive
challenges. Rather we heard a lot of accusations, name calling, and
fear-mongering. Never more so than around the most controversial issue – the
Tories so-called hidden social agenda.
Social
conservatism and liberty
Why not debate these issues openly and frankly?
Gagging or expelling undisciplined MPs will not make the problem go away, only
foster suspicion and resentment, leading some religious fundamentalists to
either walk out of the first CP policy convention next year if they don’t get
their way, and possibly create a new Reform-type party of true believers, or
bite their time until they have convinced enough fellow members and Canadians
to support their views.
The problem is not with the personal beliefs of a few
undisciplined MPs. They have just as much right to hold their own beliefs as
anyone else. Rather it is with their apparent desire to impose those beliefs on
the rest of us, either directly through government or private-member’s bills,
or indirectly by stuffing the courts with like-minded jurists.
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? After all,
social conservative MPs stated honestly and clearly to their constituents,
prior to their election, what they believe in, and won their local ridings on
that basis. So what’s wrong with them
speaking their minds, and even presenting and supporting legislation based on
those beliefs?
In one word: liberty. Since there is no consensus
within Christianity itself, let alone between different faiths and secular
humanists on the questions of early abortion, contraceptives, homosexuality,
the definition of marriage, and other such issues, it is best to leave
individuals free to make up their own minds and act according to their own
moral and religious beliefs.
In fact, the ‘live and let live’ case is even stronger
than that. Adults in this country have the right to live and engage with each
other as they please if their behaviour does not unduly infringe on the rights
of others, even if the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens don’t
approve of such behaviour. Individuals, churches and faith-based groups can try
to convince others of their position and use moral suasion, but it is best if
left at that.
The courts
Some fundamentalists feel that it is not they who are
imposing their social beliefs on others these days, but rather the state
through the courts that is imposing its will on the majority, without the
consent of parliament, the government, or the governed.
Good thing! The courts are there to safeguard what the
overwhelming majority of Canadians have stated they cherish above all else, and
that is their individual freedom and their own fundamental rights.
Often this will bring judges in conflict with the
majority of Canadians. But that is precisely what they are there for, not to
defend the majority opinion on any issue but to protect individuals and
minorities from abuse by the majority. In essence, to protect each one of us
from the rest of us. They are independent of other branches of government and unelected
so as not to be pressured unduly by the majority, as it should be.
What we do want is an open-minded, balanced, and
separate judiciary that will rigorously examine the information provided in a
case based on our constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our laws
and previous judgements, and defend individuals and minorities whenever they
are being discriminated against or their rights denied.
Whenever the courts have strayed from this ideal in
the past, some Canadians have been hurt. So let’s use this opportunity to renew
our support in an independent judiciary and welcome everyone, including
like-minded social conservatives, in its defence team.
