This Canada

I do so love this silly old place.

Today the BC Supreme Court ordered a family in Vancouver to tear down their kids' tree house. They had refused to comply with a City of Vancouver order to get rid of it. They now have ninety days to remove it, and both Mom and Dad were fined, $250 each.

The couple had applied for a "developmental variance" (do you need these for bird houses too?) but were turned down flat because it had a "tree fort front" (and back, I presume). Their next-door neighbour had complained to the city. The family had tried to accommodate the neighbour (no pun intended) but no luck.

The two defendants argued that a building permit should not be required because the word "structure" in the applicable city by-law was vague. The learned judge disagreed.

I had a tree house once. My old man put it together out of scrap wood. But Vancouver being Vancouver, this one cost $2000. The couple are planning to auction it off for a children's charity.

In other news, a movement is building in Shediac, New Brunswick, to free a century-old lobster from a local fish market. The lobster, too, is to be auctioned off. The high bid so far is $3500.

Did I happen to mention that I love Canada?

Our dinner with Rex Murphy

After a while, a curmudgeon ceases to be amusing, and is just an old grump, best avoided. (Seize your chance, O conservative readers! I don't normally play straight man for you lot.)

I'm referring to Rex Murphy. He's traded on his professional surliness for years, and has managed to persuade the unlettered that his florid, overwrought, denunciatory prose is stylish wordsmithery. His voice grates: I haven't been able to listen to Cross-Canada Check-Up for years without wincing. He's the loud, complaining relative at a Christmas dinner. We used to love him, or so we tell ourselves; now we don't know why we keep inviting him.

Today Rex has a column that promised to be about the recent New Yorker cartoon controversy. To tell the truth, I was mildly interested in reading it, having been seized of that issue myself. But instead, the foofarah due south of us proved to be an excuse to ride one of his favourite hobby-horses these days--our evil human rights commissions. Those of us with tiresome relatives know this ploy all too well. "Nice day today, eh, gramps?" "Sure, not that the damn human rights commissions care. They're too busy taking away our freedoms." That sort of thing.

And, like that nightmare old gaffer at the family feast, he gets everything wrong, too. I don't mean referring to his fellow windbag, Ezra Levant, as "genial and courageous," either, facing a "still unfinished quarry [sic]," or even taking as gospel Ezra's dubious claim that he's spent a six-figure sum defending himself against the Muslim hordes. It's that he so clearly cannot grasp what actually goes on in these forums, or how the system operates. He hauls in Kafka, of course, and titters about the respondents in several cases--"heckled comedians, school boards, fast-food joints, school-prom nights" and so on--but shows no indication that he is familiar with the details of any of these cases, or is even aware of the nature of the complaints.

For example, the "heckled comedian" misnomer refers to an alcohol-fueled confrontation in a comedy bar in which an inebriated comic, departing from his script, hurled homophobic abuse at some apparently obnoxious and equally intoxicated customers who happened to be lesbian. Everyone's sympathy, it seems, is on the side of the outraged entertainer: there's even a fundraiser for him in Toronto this evening. In our society, some forms of hatred are worse than others: had the tough customers been Jewish, for example, and his remarks crudely anti-Semitic, well....As it is, though, this one isn't remotely likely to be upheld, and it's yet another argument for an early screening process, but so far nothing has happened.

Yet Rex says, "[t]he really funny joke in all of this...is the dreary fact that comedians are the latest targets of Canada's human rights commissions....[t]he mirthless sitting in adjudication over the mirth-makers, telling Canadians what they're allowed to laugh at."

Has he been smoking too much flipper? (Surely you don't eat those things.) Human rights commissions haven't even entered the fray. Two people have complained. That's it, that's all. Nor did the substance of the complaint have anything whatsoever to do with stand-up comedy. We aren't talking off-colour jokes here, but that meme has swallowed its Red Bull and taken off at speed. This is similar to the bogus claim of martyr-wannabe Kathy Shaidle that she's "being taken to court for criticizing Canada's 'Human Rights' Commissions." Like hell she is, but she's got a lot of people believing it.

Never fear. The rug is about to be pulled out from under these folks, and with luck, although we never seem to have any, there's a yawning chasm beneath. The Maclean's case (Mark Steyn is not a respondent, but I've made the same error myself) is going to be tossed. Ditto the comedy tag team drinking match. But, like falling crime statistics, this will bring no joy to the hearts of the frightful grumblers in our midst. All we can do is pass them plates and napkins, and try to change the subject.

Big fat liars

No, not these unfortunate women. The people coming up with this kind of scurrilous nonsense.

It's pointless directing the liars to the science behind the correlation of obesity and poverty. That science has been around, in fact, for a while now. And they darned well know it. Nutritious food costs money--more money than the poor happen to have. The result? The consumption of empty calories. Poor health. Morbid obesity.

If you have the time, plough through this paper. Even missing breakfast--something a lot of poor kids do--is positively correlated with obesity. The result is a vicious spiral. Obesity discourages physical activity, which maintains obesity. Well before the time poor young people become poor adults, the pattern is set. Their health is affected. Their opportunities in life are restricted.

But the usual suspects think those women in the picture are a joke. "This family should hope the cost of food goes up some more." And this gem, referenced above, entitled "Times have changed and now the poor get fat":

Be honest. You don't pity these "poor people" and their ilk, any more than I do. You pretend to, because other idiots told you that you were supposed to. But you don't. You feel what I do: contempt and disgust.

Besides sloth and gluttony, I wonder how many other capital sins such "poor people" commit over the course of a 24 hour period. If they're illegal aliens, and their last names at least raise that possibility, then they're theives [sic], too.

And no one will ever convince me that these are the "poor" Jesus was talking to, and about. They look and sound more like the rich of His time: fat, lazy and irresponsible.

Nope, times haven't changed, actually. The poor get fat. Better-off people tend to be sleek and well cared for; they can afford the healthy food that keeps the pounds off.

I trust this bit did not escape the reader: "If they're illegal aliens, and their last names at least raise that possibility...". Their last names are Hispanic. We all know that there are no American citizens with Hispanic names. Right? Nothing like a little racism for spice.

These wingnuts are for all the world like stupid little kids in a schoolyard, aren't they? "Nyah, nyah, you're a fat spic!" They just never appear to miss an opportunity to ridicule others; they only seem to be happy, in fact, when there are unfortunates to be mocked.

And please, folks, mock if you must, but don't tell me what I feel when I see a picture of a mother and daughter like the one above. Don't project your almost sociopathic lack of empathy onto others. We on the Left aren't like you. We could never be like you. We're better than you are. Your politics aren't politics at all; they're just one fat character flaw.

News of the day

Friday brings welcome relief from a hot and muggy week, both literally and figuratively.

• Here's good news and bad news: good for ordinary folks, bad for conservative lawn-order zealots: for the third consecutive year, the crime rate has dropped in Canada. Blame it on the Liberals?
  

• The CBC, for all its faults under the dubious captaincy of Richard Stursberg, still retains some investigative capacity. It managed to obtain emails that show both RCMP Commissioner William Elliott and BC Liberal premier Gordon Campbell as genuinely shoddy, hypocritical, unprofessional individuals.
  
  Elliott wept crocodile tears in public over the death of Robert Dziekanski, but sent private messages of support and encouragement to his killers. Campbell, despite his public apology to the bereaved mother, was actually "disappointed" that the RCMP was being criticized over the killing, and expressed support for Tasers. I wonder how she feels today.
  
  The feckless Commissioner indicated pearl-clutching concern about "tough or dirty" questions from the media such as "Why did the RCMP lie?" (in today's Globe and Mail coverage, print edition). I wouldn't call that one particularly tough or dirty: it's arguably a stupid question, because the answer is so immediately obvious, but it's instructive to watch the squirming and evasion that follow. (The Horsemen, by the way, don't like some of the media very much, including the Globe and Mail and the CBC.)
  
  Cover-up and information management, as many have suspected all along, have been the order of the day from the very beginning. As soon as the video of the killing became public, a containment strategy was orchestrated out of Ottawa. The fix is in, and it has been from day one. Watch Dziekanski's killers get off scot-free. Maintiens le Droit.
  
  What do the screech-warriors say about human rights commissions? It applies more aptly to the top brass of the RCMP: Fire. Them. All.
  
  
• Happy birthday, Nelson! Rob Anders' card probably just got lost in the mail.
  

Enough for now. I'm off to consider a contribution to the debate shaping up in the comments on my previous post, which are pretty good, the occasional troll-sniping aside.

UPDATE: I spoke too soon. Muggy as hell today.

Open letter to "progressives"

Friends, brothers and sisters, comrades:

Today I resigned as a moderator of Progressive Bloggers. I would like to explain why I did so, and to encourage a debate about the meaning--if there any longer is one--of the word "progressive."

I would draw your attention, first of all, to this post. A Liberal member of the blogroll expressed--and continues to express--strong support for a racist thug in Arizona named Joe Arpaio.

Under Sheriff Joe's watch, unspeakable brutality and violence are the order of the day, from breaking the neck of a paraplegic to strangling a mental patient to deliberately burning a family's puppy alive. The press are routinely harassed by his goons. The prisoners in his infamous "Tent City" jail, most of whom have not been convicted of anything but are simply awaiting trial, are purposely demeaned and ill-treated. Arpaio conducts regular sweeps aimed at Hispanics. I would encourage anyone with a strong stomach to follow the links I have provided. (H/t here to Canadian Cynic and to commenter Mike.)

But Liberal "Diva Rachel" loves Joe. Check out her post for yourselves. To get the flavour: "Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs (i.e. learn some work ethic!)"

"Arbeit Macht Frei" with a cornpone accent.

The original title of this post, in fact, was "Joe Arpaio: please clone him." (You can Google "Arpaio" and "clone" to see for yourselves the sort of people who share that sentiment.) And here is an earlier post of hers, supporting former Australian PM John Howard's racist occupation of Australia's Northern Territory. Stageleft smacked that one down a while back. Rachel is also a fervent supporter of the death penalty.

Since I posted a comment at her place, and she was subsequently contacted by ProgBlogs' chief moderator, Scott Tribe, she has seen fit to publish a "clarification," which contains a certain amount of rapid backpedaling--and a lie about me. She claims that I have sent her "hate mail." And she also makes reference, referring to me, to a "lynching party."

DR is Haitian by birth: hence those comments of hers clearly imply that I am hateful and racist. Facing quite justified critique for her adulatory post of a thuggish Southern US sheriff, she goes and plays the Clarence Thomas card.

The moderators of Progressive Bloggers, at my instigation, held a debate on DR's status as a member. It was (and is) my view that this blogger should be expelled. Whatever the word "progressive" means, it cannot include, or so I would have thought, gushing support for a far-right hoodlum who runs a reign of terror in some jerkwater part of the southern US. That's the sort of thing that only a bottom-feeding conservative extremist could defend. Right?

Wrong, as it turns out. Without going into the details of our private debate (although perhaps in future such debates should be open to all of the members of ProgBlog), let me note that the good sheriff drew some surprising support, and there was also a lot of anxious hand-wringing about my being too hard on the blogger in question. Detailed parsing of her post ensued. Arpaio did stop smoking in his jails and he instituted a two-week (!) English language program, or so we are told. DR only meant that some of his measures made sense. Etc.

Ultimately, the decision was made--to do nothing.

So I'm out as a moderator, although, since anything goes on ProgBlog, I'm going to stick around the 'roll and lash out blindly from time to time as I see fit. There is, however, a wider question, still unanswered, one that arose during the old My Blahg affair (I'll just let sleeping dawgs lie on that one), and in the subsequent eye-opening attempt to draw up a ProgBlog Code of Conduct.

What is "progressive?" What isn't?

The word itself is an anachronism. I don't think too many folks these days, even those of us of the Marxish persuasion, believe in some essentialist notion of "progress," with its quasi-religious teleology and its unilinear social-evolutionary implications. "Progressive" has become a bit of a floating signifier. This latest incident bears me out.

So, should we abandon the label altogether? If so, what would we replace it with? Should it, in fact, be replaced? Is it a useful category of practice, or an outmoded term rendered meaningless by being inclusive of just about everyone who lays claim to the label, no matter how odious and reactionary their political beliefs?

The floor is open.

Liberal fascism

Liblogs' Diva Rachel has found a hero: Sheriff Joe Arapaio. (Her original post was entitled "Joe Arapaio: please clone him." She seems to have reconsidered that hed--maybe too gushy?)

Smokin' Joe doesn't appeal to everyone, though.

Not, I would think, to paraplegics.

Nor advocates for the mentally handicapped.

Nor pet-lovers.

Nor visible minorities.

But at least one Liberal thinks he's doing a fine job. After the Green Shift--Tent City?

UPDATE: Before I get corrected on this, DR no longer appears on the Liblogs blogroll, although she was a member of it during the last Liberal leadership convention, where she supported candidate Gerard Kennedy and was one of the top five Liberal leadership bloggers.

UPPERDATE: (July 17) Here's a link for Jason Cherniak and others who possibly don't get out enough. Yes, you know who you are.

UPPESTDATE: (July 17) DR plays the Clarence Thomas card.

Mr. Harper's sado-politics

The abhorrent spectacle of Stephen Harper's continued temporizing on the matter of Omar Khadr, child soldier, is beginning to gross out even the hardened pols at the National Post. Jonathan Kay made the case for action yesterday, while somehow managing to leave Harper's name out of it:

"Millions of Web surfers are now wondering why Canada's government has acquiesced — and as the video shows, even participated — in the unconscionable treatment of a blubbering boy-soldier."

Indeed, Harper's stubbornness on the matter, it seems to me, borders on pathology. He seems to delight in it. "Mr. Khadr faces serious charges. There is a judicial process underway to determine Mr. Khadr's fate. This should continue," his new mouthpiece Kory Teneycke said, only a few minutes after images of Khadr's interrogation by CSIS were flashed around the world.

"Judicial process?" Khadr has been held in a detention camp for six years without trial. He was tortured right from the get-go. When the "judge" of the case agreed to too many preliminary defence motions on issues of disclosure, he was summarily replaced. Evidence has been tampered with by the prosecution. If ever there was a classic kangaroo court, the Gitmo "military tribunals" are certainly that.

Is this the rule of law that Harper supports?

But of course it's not about law. It's about cruelty, and the almost erotic delight that too many conservatives take in it (Kay being one honourable exception, and there are no doubt several others). To be blunt, there seems to be many a manly swelling of the trousers in those ranks when child-torture is brought up.

Here is the gallery that Harper is playing to, and some of their "ejaculated debate-broadening thoughts" as the Post's Shane Dingman puts it about some likeminded commenters over at CBC.

Now, may we view any of the thousands of similar videos of vicious and manipulative murderers, rapists, and thugs sobbing their way through other police interrogations?

I couldn't care less for the little turd and his creepy family.

Maybe Stephane Dion can take him in, and give him the Father figure, the poor little piece of camel dung is missing in his life!!!

How's that jihad crap working for you now, Khadr? Why should we help you?

evil little shithead

Where is my violin?

Frankly I don't give a damn if he's been tortured beaten or water boarded

"Frankly I don't give a damn if he's been tortured beaten or water boarded
Are you kidding? I'd be disappointed if he wasn't

The best thing for this little s--t is to rott in that jail till he dies and when he goes he can take the cbc and all thier coharts with him

I cringe listening to this baby 15 yr old. A perfect example of a spoiled rotten kid with over-bearing parents

I wonder if he's gonna look like his father, Ahmed when he grows older. If so, we should behead him, so we won't have our appetites ruined again by pictures of that bushy beard bulbous headed toad-face welfare recipient.

Send Khadr back to the ME or leave him in Gitmo FOREVER.

No further words, I believe, are necessary. These folks tell their own sick story far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing. Makes you proud to be a Canadian--eh?

Margo's sour grapes

Stealth Catholic Margaret Somerville is a little late to the party, but today she writes, for some reason, about the Order of Canada--no doubt whistling innocently over her keyboard.

In the "interests of transparency," she lets us know upfront that she received "such an award" herself (actually the Order of Australia) and was turned down 17 years later for an Order of Canada. Then she launches into a sociobiological explanation for human hierarchies, which might lull us momentarily into thinking that she is tackling the subject in a disinterested manner.

But no such luck. Halfway through the article, she begins to probe, none too delicately, the award of an Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. She does so in the form of an interrogation: How are such awards given? Who decides? What values do they hold?

"How does the motto 'They desire a better Canada' apply in the case of contested values, as is the case for abortion?" she asks. But just how contested are those values? And in any case, surely the "contest" here is whether the award itself was justified. We've had some polling at this point, and two-thirds of Canadians approve of the award to Dr. Morgentaler. So much for the "powerful disagreement" that Somerville invokes.

"[I]f unity of Canadians is a goal of the honour, as it's reported the prime minister believes, Dr. Morgentaler's award has been spectacularly unsuccessful," she goes on. The smell of a dead red herring is here overwhelming. "Unity of Canadians" is not a criterion for the award. Who cares what Stephen Harper thinks? And if this criterion did apply, what of Brian Mulroney? Jean Chrétien? Conrad Black? None of these last are uncontroversial. In fact, I venture to suggest that one or two of them might be more controversial than the good doctor.

Does the award mean that "as a society we celebrate and approve of both the person honoured and their conduct" that merited it? she asks. "It's one thing, sadly and regretfully, to allow abortion, quite another to celebrate it." One can just see her wagging her finger at the selection committee. But (how often must we keep repeating this), abortion isn't being celebrated here: one man's heroic effort on behalf of women's right to choose is.

Somerville appears to struggle for balance:

Does this mean awards should be given only to candidates of whom everyone approves or, at least, no one publicly disapproves? Would that diminish the award and make it meaningless? Is that fair or unfair? Would it make people reticent to speak "their truth" as they see it?

But as we shall see, there's method in it. After all, Somerville herself has her critics, and she speaks "her truth" with no reticence at all.

"Is it unacceptable to use the award to further certain political goals or specific ideologies, as is true of Dr. Morgentaler's supporters?" Careful, Margo: that loaded question might go off. But perhaps you might re-load and aim at, say, Sister Suzanne Stubbs, for example.

And then the outright griping starts: "Do principles of fairness and equity apply in deciding who is honoured or don't they apply because awards involve the distribution of privileges, not the fulfilling of rights?"

Wow. It's all in there, isn't it? The snarl-word "privilege." The implication that "fairness and equity" played no part in the Morgentaler award--or in her own rejection.

There is no easy answer about what to do. It could range from abolishing such honours or, its opposite, giving them to vastly more people (the next generation, who all get prizes at school so no one is left out, might take that approach), both of which I believe are bad ideas. Other options include making the award more transparent and democratic and ensuring the widest possible diversity of Canadians are recognized, or retaining the current system and trying to modify it where it seems unfair or inadequate.

Let's parse this a bit, shall we?

"[N]o easy answer about what to do." Who says anything has to be done? What's wrong with the current process?What an unsubtle gambit from a nimble moral philosopher like Somerville. She uses it to introduce possible solutions to a non-existent problem.

Getting rid of the Order or giving it to "vastly more people" are quickly rejected. Then there's "making the award more transparent and democratic...ensuring the widest possible diversity..." three sweet purr-words used to imply something shady about the Morgentaler decision. Transparency! Democracy! Diversity! Who could oppose those?

But wait. Diversity? For every Morgentaler, there's an Emmett Carter. For every Brian Mulroney, there's a Jean Chrétien. For every Brent Hawkes, there's an Otto Tucker. For every Ernie Regehr there's a Charles Foulkes. What more diversity could Somerville want--other, of course, than her own inclusion?

Transparency? We know how the decision was made, who supported it on the committee and who did not, who the members of the committee are, and how they are appointed. Democracy? Most Canadians thought Morgentaler's award was justified. What does Somerville propose for future candidates--a referendum?

But here, in a barely comprehensible, cryptic closing paragraph, Somerville hints at what's really on her mind:

To conclude, there is a tension between standing out enough to merit an OC and not standing out so much, at least for the "wrong" reasons, as not to merit it. This brings to mind a popular Japanese proverb. The proverb states, "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down." It's intended to promote the value, a primary one in Japanese society, of conformity. But as one commentator shows, we need to be aware that different lenses on a situation can provide different insights. He rephrases the proverb: "The nail that sticks out sometimes ... stays sitting down."

To avoid the inevitable jarring images of sitting on protruding nails, let me help the reader out with the last bit. The source is here. It appears that some Japanese schoolteachers were punished not long ago for refusing to stand when the Japanese national anthem was played. They were apparently demonstrating their opposition to the militarism and nationalism that continues to afflict that country more than sixty years after WWII.

I think it's pretty clear that Somerville thinks she has been passed over for an Order of Canada for the "wrong" reasons. She has bravely refused to go along with the pro-choice majority, the same-sex marriage majority, the majority that almost inevitably stands on the opposite moral shore from her own. At some point in the future, her refusal to stand with all the others might just be recognized, and an obvious error of omission rectified.

Of course, Henry Morgentaler and his supporters were once in a minority as well. Dr. Morgentaler stood, not for abortion, as Somerville claims, but for the right of women to choose their reproductive destinies. He was imprisoned, ill-treated while there, denied parole, hounded by a spectacular abuse of legal process--but he, and countless Canadian women, eventually triumphed.

He made a real difference. He desired a better Canada, and he put his body on the line for it. He paid the price for his convictions, and that price was oftentimes a heavy one. Comparisons are odious, I know--but what has Somerville done that comes remotely close to that? How would her vigorous advocacy of turning back the clock qualify her for the highest honour in the land?

I think the Order of Canada selection committee has already answered that question.

Tasteless and inoffensive

Given the chatter about the now-infamous New Yorker cover that seems to be building--a political meta-discourse about "acceptable" political discourse--I see I must amplify the remarks I made in my earlier post on the subject. I'm particularly enthralled by the post and ensuing commentary at Chet Scoville's place. Shorter Chet and most of his commenters: "Not funny, and could well be harmful."

I think the cover was hilarious, but whether it is or it isn't is no longer the issue, at least for me: I'm more interested in the "harmful" part.

It's true that satire is a risky business these days: I've been badly bitten myself. There's too much information-flow, too many extremes. Satire, after all, is based upon exaggeration for effect, but everything these days is exaggerated, and its only intended effect is usually literal acceptance. Faith healing evangelists out-Gantry Gantry; a Republican celebrates Hitler's birthday; Obama is the anti-Christ (a trope that the New Yorker missed--I would have liked an upside-down cross on the wall); 9/11 was an inside job. The President of the United States, told of the World Trade Center calamity, couldn't tear his attention away from a children's book.* We have wide-stance anti-gay crusaders, frolicking priests, literally loony miracle cures, political yahoos stalking children, foam food, animal weddings and Christ on a cracker pancake.

How do you satirize this stuff? There's simply no room left for exaggeration, and even if there were, folks would take it seriously anyhow. That's the argument about the New Yorker cover. And it's wrong.

We are talking about a political campaign, allegedly an exercise in democracy, in the land of the First Amendment where almost everything goes. There's a hubbub of voices, brought to us by mass media that, as the name implies, mediate: we get nothing raw, everything slanted, translated, reformulated and carefully selected. We are challenged, even the most politically savvy of us, to keep our feet and figure things out.

In this maelstrom where all extremes meet, the race for the centre is well under way: Obama is betraying every principle he never had and McCain is simpering platitudes to a people already ODing on them.

It's the eye of the storm. Head for calm, where nothing moves. Say nothing, do nothing, that could offend anyone. Pretend to be just like the other guy, and let the people decide, if they're still awake.

And the worst part is that so many people agree that this is just as it should be. The inherent elitism here should be soundly rejected by any progressive. Instead, it's embraced. Americans are just too dumb to figure out the satire, the story goes--hence it's failed satire. Doesn't this sound suspiciously akin to the "soft bigotry of low expectations" of which we as progressives are occasionally accused by conservatives (who apparently prefer the hard bigotry of no expectations)? It's something to be steadfastly avoided, I would have thought, by anyone who supports that fundamentally democratic principle: power to the people.

Let's untangle all this. First, there is no homogeneous American audience, dumb or otherwise. It's precisely for that reason that Obama and McCain, like most other presidential candidates within living memory, are seeking that safe centre where all the vectors cancel out. It's a lousy strategy, and it makes for political elevator music. Eventually all that matters is whether this candidate has bad hair, or that one wears a flag pin. This sort of stuff leaves most people unsatisfied, or in a continued state of somnambulism. But that doesn't mean that they are all the same, or that they like things as they are, or that there is no alternative. It's just that no one's giving them a chance to have anything else.

Secondly, there are smart Americans and benighted ones, but few of them ground their beliefs in and make their political choices on the basis of a cartoon. If they do happen to see it, they might misinterpret it, take it seriously, or get the point, but not too many will confuse it with a photograph or a text or Holy Writ. For American voters already predisposed to see Obama as a monster, the cartoon will simply play back a message they've already received. (Gordon Liddy tells us the New Yorker finally got it right. This has my friend Chet worried. But seriously, does anyone except a jittery liberal or two give an airborne fornication about that woo-woo nutbar and anything he says?)

For those who like Obama, or dislike the shrill wingnuts and the lies they tell, they'll either see the cover for the send-up of the screechy Right that it is, and chuckle, or they'll get offended, or they'll do both, the latter for rhetorical effect, or because they believe their fellow-citizens won't get it, or because they don't get it. And then there will be people who are just puzzled, and even more people who will never get to see either the cover or the controversy.

The media are not exactly fanning the flames here, either. They're giving play, not to the cartoon, but to the controversy around it--a controversy manufactured by timorous liberals. All the reports I've seen get the satire angle right. Ordinary Americans reading about the controversy will grab the main elements: the cover wasn't intended to be taken literally, but some nervous folks in the Obama camp think it will be. And those average American voters have every right to be offended, not by the cartoon, but by the profound condescension and disrespect for them that the Obama camp is nervously displaying.

But the real threat here is more general: we're watching our progressive allies hammer yet another nail into the coffin of political debate. Anything that rises above a dull literalism, or ventures into wit, or indeed requires anything on the part of the masses except absorption, is to be avoided at all costs. It'll be slapped down from all sides as "tasteless and offensive" (McCain's folks know an opening for a high road dash when they see one). Should such fare be carefully labeled for the unwashed so they know what they're actually seeing, as Spike Lee felt constrained to do for his film Bamboozled? "The following cartoon, although intended to be humorous, contains images that some voters may find offensive or disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised."

This isn't politics; it's palliative care.

But the stakes always seem to be too high for us progressives to take unnecessary chances. We need to court the "mainstream," the wisdom goes, even if that stream runs in narrower and narrower channels every day. This is a political campaign, and so we need to be political, and not offend all those stupid voters. Ditch the satirical cartoons, OK? And ditch any serious policy options, while we're at it.

Progressives are, I had hoped, about more than good ideas and possible alternatives. We're supposed to be about process as well: a democratic process that involves and challenges people, and gives them control of decisions that affect them. How does this square with deliberately sheltering them out of fear that they might be misled by this, or offended by that? Who the hell do we think we are? Where do we think we're going with this?

Real cut-and-thrust political commentary in the country of the legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates has been turned into bland pudding, and we're in that goo up to our necks, even those of us who aren't American but support this strategy, if strategy it can be called. And partly because of this, real choices disappear. Suddenly our guy is no longer clear on getting the troops out of Iraq. In the Senate he votes for a dangerous new government spy-on-citizens bill. On the campaign trail he expresses support for the death penalty for non-capital crimes. He speaks up for traditional marriage, and against inner-city handgun control. He thinks more young people should join the army.

Just as well, say his strategists and allies. Otherwise we might get George Bush again. Well, fellow progressives, that we will--no matter how the ballots are cast. And we're doing our bit to ensure it.

______________
*(Well, there was indeed a little room for satire there...)

FFS, lighten up!

Damian Penny first drew my attention to the current issue of the New Yorker, and its cover. (As a subscriber, I'll probably be getting my copy in the mail this week.) His fix on it is generally sound, although his hypothetical--the same cartoon appearing first in Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard--is a bit unconvincing.

In any case, the cover is good satire, and I like it. It's the perfect send-up of the benighted Fox News anchor who raised the whole idiotic "terrorist fist-jab" nonsense in the first place--and the knuckle-dragging anti-Obama hordes currently in full spate.

But it's also proven to be yet another opportunity for a torrent of outrage, faux and real. It's been angrily denounced by the Obama campaign, and McCain has added his piping voice to the chorus. And my brothers and sisters, alas, are not immune to the temptation either. Now the editor of the New Yorker has been forced to do his 'splaining in the most serious terms imaginable, although the cartoonist, Barry Blitt, has maintained his aplomb. And the pundits have weighed in: reconstructed "leftist" Oliver Kamm's contribution here is the (unintentionally) funniest, because he thinks the cartoon is unfair to the anti-Obama side. In this, perhaps unsurprisingly, he joins arch-conservative Little Green Footballs.

Andrew Sullivan publishes an email today that takes the "it's not funny" meme to new lows, its author suggesting that "Spike Lee even in his piece of genius "Bamboozled", felt compelled to preface the film with Webster's definition for the word 'satire'". I see this as further evidence of the long-term harm done to American culture by decades of laugh-tracks. Maybe we indeed need comedy labels in the absence of such prompts, as Lee's sad truckling indicates. "Warning: the following is a joke. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

The level of political discourse in America has been lamentably free of content ever since I can remember. But at this point I'm beginning to think that Jonathan Swift would be on the ropes about now, trying to explain that he didn't really mean that we should actually eat Irish babies. It's just one more reason to stop following a campaign that's rapidly turned boring and disgraceful together, as Obama inevitably tries to show that he's no different from the other guy. Humour was all we had left, even inadvertent humour, but now even that has dissipated into puffs of indignant vapouring.

Bland is in. Tapioca, rice pudding and vanilla are on today's political menu. And my side of the aisle, God help us, is holding the ladle.

The sin of pride

A nun makes a choice--about somebody's else's Order of Canada medal.

In the same spirit, I hereby freely renounce former Canadian citizen Conrad Black's Order of Canada, and would swiftly return his medal to Rideau Hall were it to come into my possession. And the old robber-baron isn't even dead yet. I'm not certain, however, that I would do more than post a short entry here about it. I enjoy the odd bout of self-righteousness, as some of my more ardent critics (and, privately, even some of my friends) might be quick to agree. But there are limits. No press conference, no op-ed piece. The gesture itself tells, I would think, the entire story.

Those who have read Murder in the Cathedral might already know where I'm going with this. Archbishop Thomas Becket is facing imminent martyrdom. The most difficult question with which he must wrestle is whether pride, rather than devotion to God, is motivating his decision to remain in Canterbury to be killed. Does the Archbishop covet his martyrdom, and the ensuing devotion that will be paid him?

Sister Suzanne Stubbs, it seems to me, has not grappled sufficiently with this question. She might, after all, simply have returned the medal, even if it wasn't hers. But she chose, instead, to accompany this dubious act of sacrifice with an article in the National Post and a press conference at Michaëlle Jean's place.

The article fairly reeks of prissy self-satisfaction. And, of course, not only are we called upon to admire the Sister's spotless conscience, we must also hold in high regard the sheer courage it took:

We knew we were taking a risk. We could expect some nasty feedback from friends and strangers. We certainly would be labelled in some way: right, left, pro, anti. We might be made to look foolish. I might even feel foolish at some point. Still, I made a choice to go to Ottawa.

To a gathering of media, the Sister claims, "We had no agenda except to perform a symbolic gesture. That is, we made a statement about what we believe to be true." In the full glare, of course, of as much publicity as she and her fellows could drum up in order to put their virtue on public display.

And how she drones on:

In my work at a Catholic organization, I try to help people know that they matter, too. It is a blessed work, and it gives me peace. In the work of our group, we spend time listening to people. We try to pay attention to them and be concerned for their concerns. We try not to give handouts in our charity work without befriending the person in need.

Yes, she feels their pain:

In my personal work, I've listened to the anguish of women who have suffered abortions. I have listened to the questions of the young who want to inform their consciences about abortion. In some cases, our friends are helped to consider and choose other options than destroying life. I guess my heart has taken in a lot of the pain of the others.

Now the point is not that she isn't sincere about all this. I have no reason to suppose that Sister Stubbs is a hypocrite. But there is something mildly disturbing about the apparent hunger for publicity that accompanied her grand gesture of renunciation. Was her trip to Ottawa simply an opportunity to bear witness against the award of the Order of Canada to a person anathematized by her Church? Or was it, as Catholics might put it, an "occasion for sin"--in this case the cardinal sin of hubris?

The truth about global warming

H/t commenter Kobra, at Pharyngula

The black hole

First the video (h/t, and a further h/t for stimulating this post):



My initial reaction was the same as that of my friend Red Tory. At the very margins of political correctness. Beyond silly. A black hole is so named because its gravity is so intense that no light can escape from it. You can't go around calling it a "white hole" or a "pink hole."

But the man in the video actually raises an interesting point. With the exception of "in the black," popular usages of the word tend to connote something negative. "Black arts," "black hearts," "black look," "black book," "blackout," "black sheep," "blackguard," etc., etc.

No wonder the Irish refer in their language to "blue people" rather than "black people." ("An fear dubh" means "the Devil," literally, "the black man." Hence, out of respect, "an fear gorm" is used for Blacks.)

It's no coincidence that colonialists called Kipling's "lesser breeds without the Law" "black." It accorded with the connotations the word already had. Ditto "white." When did we start calling ourselves "white," anyway? Quite late during the Age of Discovery, as it happens (scroll down to n.35 in the link). Why is someone half-white and half-black "black? instead of "white?" Because the notion of blackness has been made equivalent to sin: maculate vs. immaculate, the staining of purity. "Whiteness," of course, is an ever-shifting category.

The connotations of both "white" and "black" are far too deeply embedded, in any case, to be overcome simply by watching one's words. But there is a solution.

I've never seen a black person, just people in various delightful hues ranging from ebony (actually a very dark brown) to light tan. Instead of internalizing centuries of white racism, perhaps Blacks (who adopted that nomenclature in the 'sixties as a form of political defiance, much as the word "queer" was reclaimed by gays) might want to consider referring to themselves as brown, or umber, or bronze. And we non-Blacks should follow suit, of course. Speaking as a pinkish kind of person, it seems to me that this would be a far less arduous cultural hill to climb.

Any takers?

Oggi in Italia: il risorgimento Fascista

Is anyone paying attention to the rapid lurch of Italy into full-blown Fascism these days?

The extreme-right government of Silvio Berlusconi is now in its second incarnation. It's been in the news recently for rounding up Roma ("Gypsies") for fingerprinting, and threatening to take away their children. Berlusconi himself has hijacked the political process by just passing a law to exempt himself from on-going prosecution on charges of corruption.

Fascism has once again gained a stronghold in Italy. The new mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, a former member of a neo-Fascist youth group, Fronte della Gioventù, (associated with the Fascist political party Movimento Sociale Italiano) was elected a few short weeks ago, to rousing chants of "Duce! Duce!" from his squadristi. Berlusconi welcomed his election, proclaiming, "We are the new Falange."

Meanwhile Berlusconi's Northern League henchman, Umberto Bossi, has already proclaimed, "Non so cosa vuole la sinistra, noi siamo pronti, se vogliono fare gli scontri io ho trecentomila uomini sempre a disposizione." ("I don't know what the Left wants, but we're ready: if they want to take us on, I've got 300,000 men at my disposal.") And then, getting straight to the point, "I fucili sono sempre caldi." ("Our rifles are always hot.")

A beady gaze had already been cast upon homosexuals under this Mussolini nuovo. Did you know that gays can't drive? Somehow that was never part of the stereotype for me, but a gay man in Italy was forced to re-take his driver's test and then was issued with only a one-year permit, because of his "sexual identity disturbance" ("disturbo del comportamento sessuale"). Both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport were involved. A court in Sicily (the courts have not as yet been purged) has just awarded him €100,000 (about $157,000) in damages.

The European Union passed a strongly-worded resolution with respect to the rounding-up of Roma, but I for one have had my bellyful of strongly-worded resolutions. What about regime change right here at home? While the eyes of the world are focussed upon Robert Mugabe, a European nation is returning to its Fascist glory days.

And needless to say, our "conservatives" love him. More ideological slippage? Or is Fascism, as I've said before, just conservatism with the gloves off?

A nation of sheep

Not long ago I posted a few examples of Canadians' sleepwalking deference to authority. Today's news brings more glaring instances.

In Edmonton, two thuggish cops, both high-ranking, were given wrist-slaps by yet another complaisant judge. These uniformed hoods unlawfully entered a man's house without a warrant, refused to leave, and then broke one of his ribs and doused him with pepper-spray. They walked out of court with six-month conditional discharges (which become absolute discharges at the end of that period), and sixty hours of community service.

The article just linked to reveals a social pathology that should worry anyone genuinely concerned about civil liberties. Defence lawyers wittered on about "impressive community and professional contributions." One of the thugs, we are told, lost 30 pounds and suffered several sleepless nights due to the stress of the trial and attendant publicity.

When the journalist finally moves on, having established to her satisfaction that these suffering boyz in blue were fine upstanding citizens, she get to the nub of the thing:

Ewatski entered the home to speak to him and Dubois shoved him. Ewatski responded by delivering a head-stun. He pushed Dubois to the floor and pepper-sprayed him. Fiorilli pulled back on Dubois's thumb to cause pain.

Almost needless to say, Dubois was charged with assaulting a police officer. The Crown wisely stayed that bogus charge.

And, after all this, as was the case with the cops who killed Robert Dziekanski, it's back to business as usual:

"Chief Mike Boyd has confirmed that there will be no immediate change to the work assignment or status of the officers pending conclusion of the internal investigation," police spokeswoman Dajana Fabjanovich said in a news release.

Does anyone remember the case of Said Jama Jama, a Somalian immigrant badly beaten by a thug named Roy Preston, charged with assault on a police officer, and threatened with deportation? After the whole thing turned out to have been caught on videotape, the judicial system simply threw the book at the officer. He was sentenced to thirty days, to be served on weekends.

It doesn't end there. This was in 2005. The cop actually appealed this little slap on the hand, but in November 2007, his appeal was dismissed. He appealed again, and only this month was a further appeal dismissed. For most of this time he had remained on full pay by special order of Toronto police chief Bill Blair, who had the discretion, under Ontario's Police Services Act, to suspend Preston without pay after his initial conviction. The Ontario Court of Appeal noted, with breathtaking understatement, that his sentence was "if anything, on the lenient side," and rejected a bizarre argument from Preston's lawyer that he shouldn't be imprisoned because it could affect his career as a police officer.

After two appeals, a sentence of thirty days, to be served on weekends. For assault and battery, attempt to frame his victim, and fabrication of evidence, by a person whose sworn duty it was to uphold the law.

And there are people who think that the greatest threat to our freedoms comes from Human Rights Commissions?

*************

Meanwhile, on the international front, our troops in Afghanistan are set to be issued with so-called "laser dazzlers." These, despite the harmless-sounding name, can be used to blind enemy troops, contrary to a Geneva Convention ban on the use of laser weapons. A spokesman for a company that makes these things admits that they aren't "eye-safe," but offers the following reassurances: "As long as they're employed as they ought to be employed, within the safe operating distance, they will not cause any eye damage."

Well, that's OK, then. After all, our military calls them "warning devices." And the kindly Blackwater folks are using them in Iraq.

Back to sleep, my fellow Canadians. Never mind that "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" stuff. That's for dead Romans and weak-kneed leftist bleeding hearts. Those folks in uniform are our friends, upholding law and liberty here and over there.

Move along. There's nothing to see here. I told you to move along. Do I really have to use this thing?

UPDATE: It occurs to me that this excellent piece by Boris over at Galloping Beaver might have inspired this post. H/t, to be on the safe side. : )

More on leadership

Some time ago I wrote a rather lengthy and perhaps tedious piece on leadership. Joseph Nye, in today's Globe and Mail, makes my main point rather more succinctly here.

I'm still wrestling with the Stéphane Dion conundrum. I've defended him (sort of) here. But I'm at war with myself. I may have to re-think my position about leadership, prompted in part by the gut-feeling I have every time I see a picture of that man, or listen to him speak.

It's not the craven Liberal capitulation in Parliament over the past several months. That's not just Dion, it's his caucus and the Liberal Party in general. We tend to over-personalize the misbehaviour of an entire group in one individual. (In the case of Harper, that's not entirely wrong-headed. He micromanages to the point of autocracy. But he's an exception to the general rule.) But is that over-personalization avoidable, even with a radically different notion of leadership?

I think not. Because, while the "big man" warrior-leader decried by Nye is long overdue for a replacement, a leader must, just for the sake of efficiency, be the human face of his or her group. It's a question of communication. We need to see in that person, not super-human qualities, but sincerity. When the leader speaks, we need to be able to connect, to grab what he or she is saying at a visceral level as well as an intellectual one.

Now, check out that picture, above. This is Dion, in Alberta, addressing a gathering of an endangered species known as the Alberta Young Liberals. Never has Stetson sat upon a more unwilling head. And the shirt.... Look how uncomfortable and self-conscious he looks.

I know, some readers will immediately be remembering this:

















and this:

















Is there a difference, then? I would say yes. The too-tight leather vest has become almost an icon. But I do like Harper's expression in the photograph. This is beyond self-consciousness. He looks irritated, as though he'll have a word with his stylist after the shoot. The second photo, of Harper wearing an ao dai, the national dress of his Vietnamese hosts at the time, captures one of the exceedingly rare occasions in which Harper is utterly disarming. He's so obviously in costume, and just as obviously, he's so aware of how un-Harperish he looks, that he's actually smiling.

Harper was born in a pinstripe and he'll be buried in one. We know that, and so does he. He can survive these moments precisely because he's so unsuccessful at trying to be what he's not. Like him or dislike him, for better or for worse, Harper is always himself. (There are other non-political reasons why he's a very bad leader indeed, but later for that.)

On the other hand, Dion always looks uncomfortable, as though he's playing a role that he hasn't mastered. He's reminds me of the overly self-conscious Sartrean waiter in a cafe:

Let us consider this waiter in the cafe. His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with a recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the arm and hand.

He applies himself to chaining his movements as if they were mechanisms, the one regulating the other; his gestures and even his voice seem to be mechanisms; he gives himself the quickness and pitiless rapidity of things. He is playing, he is amusing himself. But what is he playing? We need not watch long before we can explain it: he is playing at being a waiter in a cafe.

It's not that the Stetson and the shirt don't become him. It's that we have no clear idea of what would.

And the same goes for his words. I'm not referring here to his incomplete grasp of English. (I wish my French were as good as his second language; when I once upon a time did have to deliver speeches in French, I invariably needed a script.) I'm talking, once again, about his tone, his delivery, his sincerity.

We don't expect Harper to be spontaneous. That would be most un-Harperesque. Indeed, lack of sponaneity is part of Harper's tightly-wound personality. He's comfortable with that, or appears to be, which is what matters. But Dion's lack of spontaneity is matched by what invariably appears to be discomfort. Certainly some of that is his difficulty with English. But even in French--well, judge for yourself. Every time the party faithful dutifully applaud, he looks like the professor he is, waiting for the classroom disturbance to end. He even gulps noticeably at one point.

Neither leader connects with his audience in the visceral sense. But Harper at least appears to mean what he says. We listen for precisely that reason. Many of us don't like him, or even actively despise him, but he delivers the message, with confidence and sincerity. And that makes us take the message itself seriously. He doesn't get in the way, one might say. But Dion, on the other hand, nervously delivers Liberal talking-points. We are distracted, to some degree. There's something too-obviously rote about his performances, and he has what appears to be a permanent case of mild stage fright. He reminds me of a kid shakily reciting poetry from the stage on assembly day at a primary school. (Hey, that was me!)

We don't need warrior leaders, "big men," autocrats at a non-existent helm. There is no "ship of state." We need to ditch metaphors like that, recognizing that leadership, paradoxically, is a collective phenomenon, and we need to design new paradigms of leadership more in keeping with the demands of a complex state apparatus, not to mention a society. The old images of leadership are obstacles to be overcome.

But all that being said, the public face of a leader is an essential aspect of the role. He or she needs not only to utter, but to be heard. A leader's apparent belief in his or her own words, a leader's evident confidence, a leader's ability to convey the living ideological to head and heart, is an essential part of the transmittal process. Harper doesn't shine in the latter respect. His public leadership is badly flawed. But regrettably Stéphane Dion, at least in this respect, is not a leader at all.

UPDATE: (July 12) There's a post up at CC's place that reinforces my point, albeit tangentially. What kind of leader feels constrained to boast about his academic credentials?

Bizarre Globe editorial of the month

Shorter Globe and Mail:

Bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada for trial is "unrealistic."

Better he should cop a plea at Gitmo and be "rehabilitated" in a Canadian jail.

Because if he were tried here, he'd get off.

Andrew Coyne's abortion mischief

Today's Maclean's cover story is a longish argument by Andrew Coyne that we should toss abortion back into the legislative arena. Why? Apparently because it's time.

There is, in fact, something quintessentially, even touchingly, Canadian about Coyne's piece. There's presently a "legal void" with respect to abortion. Despite his impeccable conservative credentials, Coyne, it seems, is hungry for regulation. "When it comes to abortion, we are literally a lawless society," he says, invoking connotations of a Western town before the sheriff rides in.

For him, it's all about process. "This is not about abortion," he begins. "It's about democracy." How did we end up with no abortion law? An accident of history! It wasn't meant to be this way. No other country has no abortion law. We've got to do something! Now!

I'm not trying to caricature Coyne's arguments with all those exclamation marks, but there does seem to be a kind of quiet panic in his words. Abortion is unfinished business. The current Order of Canada controversy proves just that. Time to put our shoulders to the wheel and put abortion back in the Criminal Code. Or, at least, settle that matter democratically.

Abortion is not currently lawful, he says, merely not illegal. In my layman's mind, I assumed that anything not forbidden was permitted. In Singapore, chewing gum is against the law. In Canada, we have no law respecting gum-chewing. Is it lawful to chew gum in Canada, or just not illegal? Enough. I have no idea what point Coyne is trying to make here, other than making an appeal for a legal regime that would hold reproductive freedom in its toils, sorting out lawful abortion from unlawful abortion. You can have an abortion You can't. It's the law.

How does he attempt to make this case? He uses two general approaches. First, as noted, he claims that there was a failure of process two decades ago. Secondly, he argues in effect that there is a split amongst Canadians that can only be healed by dragging the issue back into the legal realm.

On the alleged failure of democratic process, he takes us back to the January 1988 Supreme Court decision that struck down Canada's abortion law. Did the SCC establish a constitutional right to abortion? No. But, as Coyne concedes, "it's difficult...to say what the Court wanted with any precision." It was a 5-2 decision, with four separate judgements. Clearly, though (he insists), they expected some new Charter-compliant law would replace the restrictive Section 251 of the Criminal Code that they struck down.

The SCC might have held that door open, but, as it turned out, no one wanted to walk through it. The Mulroney government of the day first tried a "pick one" approach, putting on the floor of the House of Commons a three-part motion that offered a selection of pro-choice, "pro-life" and compromise positions. Surprise, surprise there was no majority support for any of the positions. In a classic example of strange bedfellows, in fact, pro-choice and "pro-life" MPs voted against the compromise. But neither faction had enough support to get its own way.

A few months later, the government put its compromise position before the House. It would allow early-stage abortion if a doctor agreed, but restrict access later on in the pregnancy. The proposal didn't fly. Then, the following year, a watered-down version of the previous law, C-43, was put before the House. It passed by the slimmest of margins--140-131--and went to the Senate, where it ultimately failed, on a tied vote.

Coyne finds all of this undemocratic, which I find passing strange. The issue had been hassled about in the House of Commons three times since the old law had been struck down. On the third attempt, a new measure barely passed. The Senate blocked it, a Senate that had just previously been stuffed with Conservative appointments to ensure passage of Mulroney's Free Trade Agreement. But the Senate, unelected, undemocratic, a vestige of another day and age, does not have authority over the House of Commons.

Nothing prevented the Commons from reintroducing the measure. Nothing prevented the Prime Minister from making the same observation that Coyne makes in his article; namely that the acting Speaker of the Senate, who had abstained, was entitled to vote but (Coyne says) didn't realize it. Nothing prevented lobbying behind the scenes to get support from some of the 23 Senators who didn't vote. But the Mulroney government simply saw the writing on the wall, and decided to pursue the matter no further.

That strikes me as Parliamentary democracy in action, warts and all. The government spent an enormous amount of time and energy getting the matter debated, and rising again after each failure to have another go at it. Public lobbying was at a peak. The Canadian Medical Association, various powerful women's groups and much of the general public weighed in on the pro-choice side. What Henry Morgentaler recently called the "usual suspects" put their own considerable resources behind the anti-choice lobby. The result, after all that, was that insufficient consensus existed to have any law at all.

The case for passing a law, it seems to me, should be that a broad public consensus exists that such a law is required. One doesn't pass a law simply for the sake of having a law. But in this case, no one formulation of an abortion law had anything but minority support. If it's democracy that Coyne wants to invoke, the conclusion here is obvious.

But not, it seems, to Coyne. He moves on to discuss why we apparently need to revisit the notion of criminalizing abortion. He acknowledges that public and political opinion has shifted since 1988 in the direction of choice, but dismisses this as based upon "convenient myth." He expresses outrage that the pro-choice forces are sufficiently in the ascendancy to cow even the Harper Conservatives, and that "pro-life" campus groups are being "banned," by which he appears to mean, if Carleton University is any indication, that some of them are being refused subsidies from students' associations. (The Carleton University Students' Association eventually provided that subsidy, after the "pro-life" club in question amended its charter to conform to the CUSA human rights policy.)

Again, this is all democracy in action, rough-and-tumble, not always very nice, but democratic nonetheless. Dissent isn't being squelched, as Coyne insists--it's simply being out-argued and out-lobbied.

Bringing up polls from a few years ago merely underlines this undeniable fact. Public opinion has shifted towards choice--and it continues to shift. Coyne notes, with barely concealed annoyance, that last month's Angus Reid poll showed that nearly half of Canadians--49%--believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and another 47% under certain circumstances. That may fall short, as he insists, of a "national consensus in favour of unrestricted abortion," but it falls even shorter of a national consensus for a restrictive abortion law.

If only Canadians knew, Coyne says, that other countries had abortion laws, even liberal European nations. That would surely affect our public opinion polls. That would make us want legal restrictions on abortion. The legislative regimes of France, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy would have a pronounced effect upon us, if only someone would tell us ignorant Canadians what they were. Quick! Toss that man another straw!

At this point, one can see Coyne's argument collapsing. We're alone, he says. Are all those other countries extreme? Are two-thirds of our own public extreme? (That "two-thirds" remark is journalistic legerdemain, and not a very skillful example of it, given that he has just finished conceding that nearly half of Canadians want no legal restrictions on abortion at all.)

All of these other countries have their own histories, and their abortion laws have their own etiologies. As cosmopolitan as Canadians are, I don't think too many people would be bothered to learn that our European cousins have different laws than we do.

But Coyne isn't finished. If we were to pass a law, he says, things wouldn't change that much anyway. If we had a 20-week gestational limit, for example, only one percent of current abortions would be affected. And the national abortion rate is falling. Perhaps, he says--after all this spilled ink--"there are other factors, other ways, than the criminal law" to deal with abortion. If only he had stopped there.

But, confronting the inexorable logic of his own argument, Coyne retreats. He concludes that a law is indeed wanted, and that pro-choicers should support one, because it would "restore the issue to the realm of democratic debate, without which no genuine consensus is possible." I don't think that Coyne is necessarily arguing here for putting the legal cart before the consensual horse, although his words could be read that way. I believe that he is suggesting that he wants a law to be introduced, debated, fashioned by compromise, and passed.

Otherwise, he says, there is no room for compromise or negotiation. In the US, Roe v. Wade made compromise impossible, he says, and abortion a "winner-take-all game of lawyers." It's much the same here in Canada, he states. But with respect to the latter, where are those lawyers? The legal issues (other than access in places like PEI) are settled. In the US, states keep enacting new, restrictive legislation. Some of it gets struck down and some of it has been allowed to stand by the US Supreme Court. It's more a winner-take-all game of politicians. And women suffer as a result.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking thing about Coyne's article is the near-absence of any reference to the rights of women, and the consequences they have historically endured when those rights are denied or restricted. And his next point--that a law would "open the way to assinging a fetus some rights in Canadian law"--leads him into dangerous waters indeed. He gives the example of a glue-sniffing pregnant woman, whom the authorities could not apprehend and prevent from continuing her practice.

The problem with limit-cases like this is the appeal to raw emotion. Certainly, one feels, something should be done to prevent damage to what eventually will become a citizen. His or her future quality of life will doubtless be adversely affected by the woman's addiction. But from a public policy standpoint, where would state intervention end? In various US jurisdictions, as documented in Susan Faludy's Backlash, women have been apprehended for being seen in a bar, for not eating sufficiently nutritious food, and for attempting to leave their place of residence (allegedly to obtain an abortion). I think it's up to the recriminalizers to tell us if and where a line can be drawn before we rush pell-mell into a legal fetal-rights regime.

"Would an abortion debate be so scary?" Coyne concludes with this rhetorical question. One wonders where he's been since 1998: the abortion debate continues, occasionally flaring up, rarely with new arguments presented, but grinding on, and on, and on. Indeed, the debate is what prompted Coyne to write his article in the first place. What he means, however, is a debate focussed upon the notion of a new abortion law. Maybe, he concedes, we'll collectively talk ourselves out of it. But we'll have decided the matter ourselves, rather than having it all happen by accident and a Senate vote.

As already noted, though, it wasn't blind circumstance that brought us to our current situation. The Supreme Court struck down a damaging, humiliating, restrictive criminal law. Parliament, after three stout goes, decided to let the matter rest, although they could have pursued it further. Nearly half of all Canadians today don't want any legal restrictions on abortion. This doesn't sound, to me, like a favourable climate for making abortion a criminal matter once again.

Coyne, not to put too fine a point upon it, is making social mischief with his suggestion. Women's rights, in 2008, cannot be subjected once again to Criminal Code restrictions. If Coyne thinks the country is divided on the abortion issue now--and it assuredly is--he hasn't seen anything like the division that would be created by introducing new abortion legislation. He wants us to have the discussion all over again, but he doesn't seem to realize that a national debate may be only tenuously connected to the political processes that would ultimately decide the question.

Most Canadians thought abortion should be a matter to be decided by a woman and her doctor years before Section 251 was struck down, but the politicians didn't make a move until the Supreme Court forced them to. And then they were unable to come to a conclusion. There is no guarantee that they would now, or, that if they did, their decision would accord with the wishes of the majority of Canadians. If ever there was a case of rolling the dice, it would be on this issue.

Besides which, since when should rights be put to a vote? In 2008, women deserve better than that. In fact we all deserve better than that. Coyne wants to open a Pandora's box and let its contents loose on the population. The social and public policy consequences could be catastrophic, but for him, at least ostensibly, the debate is everything.

Introduce new criminal abortion legislation for the sake of a national discussion? Let's not, Andrew--and say, we did. Three times, over the period 1988-1991, to be exact. Gamble yet again on a woman's right to choose?

No dice.