Marriage Debates - When Ideas Lose Their Fragrance

A professional politician has too much to do to have leisure for serious reading, even on politics. He has far too little time for exchange of ideas and information with men of distinction in other walks of life.

It is unlikely, in all the mass of letterpress, that the proufoundest and most original works will reach the eye or command the attention of a large public, or even a good number of readers who are qualified to appreciate them. The ideas which flatter a current tendency or emotional attitude will go farthest and some others will be distorted to fit in with what is already accepted; the residuum in the public mind is hardly likely to be the distillation of the best and the wisest.

In this way are formed the idees recu which because of their emotional influence upon that part of the public which is influenced by printed matters, have to be taken into account by the professional politician and treated with respect in public utterances. It is unnecessary that these ideas should be consistent among themselves and, however they contradict each other the practical politician must handle them with as much deference as if they were the constructive informed sagacity, the intuitions of genius or the accumulate wisdom of ages. He has not as a rule, inhaled any fragrance they may have had when they were fresh he only noses them when they have already begun to stink. T.S. Eliot – Notes Toward the Definition of Culture

Forgive me for the length of the epigram. After reading today’s major Canadian newspaper accounts of Wednesday's opening debates on the Civil Marriage Act, and reviewing the actual texts in Hansard of the speeches of Mr. Martin, Mr. Harper, Mr. Doucette and Mr. Siskay on behalf of the four political parties; I could not help but be drawn back to wise Mr. Eliot.

The Globe & Mail, Canada’s self proclaimed national newspaper emphasized Mr. Martin’s staunch defence of fundamental human rights as the “Canadian way” and quoted out of context Mr. Harper’s reference to historical evidence of the Liberal party’s past failures at protecting what all would agree are human rights (less than subtly inferring Mr. Harper’s comments were out of time and out of tune with the more highly evolved society we now live in).

Mr. Siskay’s sexuality as a gay man seemed more important to the writer than what he had to say, though given the intensely emotional and personal tenor of his speech, this was hardly a surprise. Mr. Doucette was simply over the top, though perhaps predictably so. He practically leaped to the ramparts waving the fleur de lis and singing the Marseillaise. Need I do more than reference his opening paragraph: “Despite its tragedies, the French Revolution represents an important milestone in the long history of democracy and law. The expression Liberty, fraternity, equality is an integral part of this debate. All human beings are born free and equal under the law.”

None of the newspaper reports addressed the substance of what was said; in particular Mr. Harper’s speech was described as legalistic and pedantic, when erudite would have been a more accurate adjective. Rather these publications offer up ideas “which flatter a current tendency or emotional attitude”.

When I read the actual speeches I was struck by Mr. Martin’s dependence on broad brush generalities many of which were illogical, self-contradictory or in some cases simply incomprehensible.

Let me cite a few examples:

I believe in and I will fight for a Canada that respects the foresight and the vision of those who created and entrenched the charter.

The creators of the Charter purposefully made no mention of sexual orientation when they drafted the Charter, and the notwithstanding clause that Mr. Martin currently claims to abhor was a critical safeguard built into the Charter to protect parliament and its citizens from overzealous judicial activism.

There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men, women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to choose Canada as their home. Many have come here seeking freedom of thought, religion and belief, seeking the freedom simply to be.

I am reluctant to try and interpret just what Mr. Martin means by his first sentence. Is he praising Canada’s exaltation of the individual? What does it mean to say a citizen of another nation looks at Canada and sees himself? Is Canada a mere reflecting pool, a shallow one at that? Is there nothing distinctive and attractive, indeed lovely about Canada in and of itself to attract more than the narcissist for an immigrant? And is there a more vacuous way to describe the motivation for immigration to Canada than to seek the freedom “to simply be”?

It was here that T.S. Eliot’s words began to ring in my brain. How does Mr. Martin form his ideas? To what sources does he go to when he seeks to shape his thoughts into words that will clarify, inspire, convince or persuade those who listen to him? The product hardly seems to be “the distillation of the best and the wisest”.

Mr. Martin’s political theory seems to fit the description of Eliot’s when he said that out of the process described in the epigram “comes a political theory which is less concerned with human nature, which it is inclined to treat as something which can always be re-fashioned to fit whatever political form is regarded as most desirable.”

Mr. Harper by contrast chose to eschew rhetoric and methodically reveal the inconsistencies and contradictions in the government’s position. Mr. Harper quoted from debates in the House when Parliament last debated the definition of marriage in 1999 where the existing and historical definition was vigorously defended by the Liberals. He concluded by showing the hypocrisy of the Liberals when he said:

“Today, for making statements that are identical and for identical reasons, members of the government side resort to terms like bigot, reactionary and human rights violators. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the government and some of its members at this point is frankly staggering.”

Mr. Harper quoted from Supreme Court decisions and referenced extensively the opinions of Canadian academics to refute the contention that the definition of marriage has to be changed in order to provide the rights and protections being sought by homosexuals. He met head on the contention that the right to same sex marriage is a human right by noting it has expressly been considered not to be such by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, most explicitly in its rejection of an appeal from a New Zealand court of appeal decision interpreting the New Zealand Bill of Rights not to provide the foundation for opening marriage to members of the same sex.

Harper’s reference to the historical abuses of human rights by previous Liberal administrations was made in the context of emphatically pricking the sanctimony balloon which the Liberals float up with their rhetorical accusations that the Conservatives seek to take away the rights of citizens.

Harper concluded by asking three important questions:

Will this society be one which respects the longstanding basic social institution of marriage or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness?

Will this society be one which respects and honours the religious and cultural minorities or one which gradually whittles away their freedoms and their ability to practise their beliefs?

Will this be a country in which Parliament will rule on behalf of the people or one where a self-selected group of lawyers or experts will define the parameters of right and wrong?

The Liberal position emanates from the faulty belief that human nature can be refashioned to fit whatever political form is regarded as most desirable. It emanates from an emotional rather than a thoughtful and reasoned response to the cry for recognition from a minority group in society which can point to a history of prejudice. The result is intellectual dishonesty and a clear disregard for the opinions of a majority of Canadian men and women of good will.

I encourage all of you not to rely on newspaper accounts of what is being said in parliamentary debates when it is so easy to go to the source. Here is the link to Hansard's site. http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=canadaonline&zu=http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Chamber_House_Debates.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1

I fear the truth has already begun to decay by the time it passes through the hands of most mainstream editors, and the fragrance of the ideas they have distilled will not be pleasant.