March 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Why is the Canadian Left so unfailingly consistent in labeling any moral or social issue with which it does not concur, or does not wish to discuss, as “a can of worms”?
Why are issues of equal controversy and capable of achieving similar degrees of contention – but ones with which the Left agrees – judged worthy of debate, and indeed pressed upon the national agenda and deemed imperative for the democratic life of our nation?
It is a rhetorical question for sure, and anyone knowing the morally supine ways of social liberals can easily provide an answer. Perhaps the better question is why this feeble dichotomy and unabashed hypocrisy is allowed to persist by the national media and even by our political leaders – who apparently cannot see the absurdity of the argument or are afraid to question the political hegemony of social liberalism in Canada.
For example, every time a pro-life issue is raised in this country, it is invariably characterized by pro-abortion forces with the above description or dismissed by the far worse analysis that such debates have already been “settled” in Canada. “Settled” in the way, one supposes, that elections were conceivably “settled” for a thousand years in Hitler’s Germany. Both contentions are equally mendacious and equally abhorrent to democratic life.
Yet when the issue of same-sex marriage is raised in the U.K. by a Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, just as it was raised in Canada, we are told that this volatile, divisive and explosive item is crucial to the life of the world’s oldest parliamentary democracy.
Considering that same-sex marriage will only affect a fraction of a sexual minority that has been fallaciously reported to be 10 per cent of the population (it is more like 2 per cent), it is strange indeed for a Conservative government to want to – shall we say it? – open this can of worms. Given the economic crisis that Europe is facing and the particular questions that Britain must address about itself vis-à-vis its relationship with the European Union, why this urgent requirement to wade into the morass of sexual politics, why the masochistic desire to alienate the churches, why this perverse tendency to alienate ethnic minority groups – such as Muslims – for whom same-sex marriage is anathema?
When Canada decided to proceed down the road of same-sex marriage, there was little or no political gain for doing so. The question divided the caucus of the then-governing Liberal Party. It did nothing for the prime minister of the day, Paul Martin, who lost his minority government in the House of Commons. It would always be a mystery to many why Martin, a man belonging to a generation for whom homosexual marriage was hardly a burning social concern, would become the poster PM for the issue and will probably be best remembered in history for his work on this file.
Yet Martin insisted upon opening this proverbial can of worms and would hear nothing about focusing on issues of more pertinence and relevance to a greater number of Canadians. Just as surely, he would also have told you that any public debate on abortion would be so fractious for the country that he could not even consider it. Not that can of worms please.
So we have another Commonwealth prime minister insisting upon redefining marriage for the sake of a very vocal minority. He is already facing the same well-reasoned debate and the same visceral objections as the issue aroused in Canada. Moreover, the Daily Telegraph is reporting this week that a whopping 78 per cent of Britons don’t think the issue should be a government priority.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron is not too unlike our own prime minister, Stephen Harper. Harper may have kept his promise to revisit the same-sex marriage issue when his Conservatives took power in 2006, but it was a meeting of short duration and tepid enthusiasm. You might say he took the can down from the shelf but did not take the lid off. Since then, Harper has shown equal hesitation to discussing the plight of the unborn, saying that he has “no plans to reopen the abortion debate” and effectively arguing that divisive questions like this have no place in Canada’s public forum.
Ultimately, whether an issue is controversial or calming, divisive or unifying, politically advantageous or suicidal, it deserves consideration and fair debate. Unfortunately, social liberals have hijacked that debate in Canada, vetting the questions and choosing the answers.
We are forced not only to view but also to eat their can of worms.
David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.