Anything Goes
“If God is dead, anything goes” – Ivan Karamazov
I read the Globe & Mail editorial pages today. It is a part of my training to become immune to the malaise that Ulrich, Musil’s Man Without Qualities, warned against - that “one can’t be angry with your own time without causing damage to yourself”. You might say reading the Globe is like spending an hour wearing my personalized hair shirt, one with Jeffery Simpson’s initials monogrammed on the cuffs, and John Ibbitson’s on the pocket. Where I was once angered by the arrogant, self-satisfied, dismissive tone of the G & M’s commentaries, I am now merely amused. I think Stephen Harper has learned the same lesson and he has lost some of the indignation he wore like a bad rash in the previous campaign.
Today’s lead editorial is of course on the topic of gay marriage, Canadian society’s most recent oxymoron. It leads with the wagging finger question: Did Stephen Harper learn nothing from the debate on same-sex marriage? As champion of the rush to inclusivity, the G&M editor bolts into the china shop unaware of the irony-laden nature of his argument that Mr. Harper seeks to “wrench back (from gays) what the courts and parliament have given them”.
Forget about the fact that more than half the population of Canada still favours the traditional definition of marriage. Forget about the fact the wrenching was initiated by three justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal, whose reasoning, contrary to the editorialist’s bald assertion, was anything but impeccable unless you like your law bred in the petrie dish of Michel Foucault’s antinomian social experimentation. Through the legal principle of stare decisis, trios of judges in other provinces put their hands on the collar of the miscreant known as tradition, and finally dragged him bloodied but still unbowed onto the floor of parliament where, in a shameful repudiation of democracy, whipped members of parliament turned thumbs down on the definition and purpose of marriage as it has been known since the beginning of recorded history.
The Globe and its army of followers would like us to think the rascal “traditional marriage” was disposed of once and for all on that dark day in Ottawa. If pressed it will parade a line-up of like-minded law professors who will say it was so. Henry VIII too had his lawyers and experts behind him when he condemned to death Thomas More, but we know how history ultimately treated them both.
Mr. Harper is merely stating the obvious truth that a final decision has not been made because of the nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the reference made to it by the Federal government. Harper is saying that first he would move a motion in the House of Commons to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and allow a free vote on the matter. If such a motion were to pass he would take the next step, which the Globe assumes would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause. In fact, he would take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to have the matter finally determined. The Globe would have us believe the result in such case is a foregone conclusion. The Globe is not content to be the self-appointed arbiter of Canadian cultural values, but thinks itself to be the country’s paramount legal authority as well. Harper also made it clear that if the motion is defeated in parliament, the debate is over.
By bringing this matter forward at the beginning of the campaign, Harper has given every Canadian the opportunity to consider his or her position on this matter, and to question candidates on theirs – how revolutionary! The Globe’s blustering editorial suggests it and its more zealous acolytes are fearful of what might happen in such circumstances. They had no qualms about trampling over the concerns of Canadians who accepted the existence of the rights of gays to be treated equally under the law in Canada, but contended that could be accomplished without changing the meaning and purpose of marriage. Now through disingenuous editorials, they seek to conceal from the Canadian public the fact that it remains within their power and not that of the courts or browbeaten MP’s, to ultimately determine if indeed anyone’s rights are being trampled.
Decisions on matters that require one to throw some moral weights on the balance scales of judgment become more difficult if one keeps misplacing or losing those weights, each of which tends to be small and easily swept aside. Most are lost through innocent neglect, some through willful abandonment. I happen to believe the Bible has it right when it professes that “we all like sheep have gone astray, each of us turns to his own way”.
Which brings me at last to my epigram. Anti-humanist secularism, absent God, now dominates the intellectual climate in Canada and in other parts of the world. At least, in other parts of the world, leaders are honest enough to admit they have abandoned any notion of the existence of a moral arbiter beyond themselves. In Canada, we have the pathetic sight of a Prime Minister leading a disgraced and corruption-tainted government, proudly professing that Canada holds an esteemed place as a conscience to the world. Not content to bask in the false glow of that dying sun, he allows his propagandists to attack his political opponents who profess to have a faith, claiming they are “fundamentalists” whose vision for Canada is different from his and from the mainstream, and hence dangerous. Political opponents can attend the same church, as do Liberal MP Don Bell and Conservative candidate Cindy Silver in North Vancouver; but Silver is labeled a right wing Christian fundamentalist, while no mention is ever made of Bell’s faith.
Welcome to the world of anything goes.
I read the Globe & Mail editorial pages today. It is a part of my training to become immune to the malaise that Ulrich, Musil’s Man Without Qualities, warned against - that “one can’t be angry with your own time without causing damage to yourself”. You might say reading the Globe is like spending an hour wearing my personalized hair shirt, one with Jeffery Simpson’s initials monogrammed on the cuffs, and John Ibbitson’s on the pocket. Where I was once angered by the arrogant, self-satisfied, dismissive tone of the G & M’s commentaries, I am now merely amused. I think Stephen Harper has learned the same lesson and he has lost some of the indignation he wore like a bad rash in the previous campaign.
Today’s lead editorial is of course on the topic of gay marriage, Canadian society’s most recent oxymoron. It leads with the wagging finger question: Did Stephen Harper learn nothing from the debate on same-sex marriage? As champion of the rush to inclusivity, the G&M editor bolts into the china shop unaware of the irony-laden nature of his argument that Mr. Harper seeks to “wrench back (from gays) what the courts and parliament have given them”.
Forget about the fact that more than half the population of Canada still favours the traditional definition of marriage. Forget about the fact the wrenching was initiated by three justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal, whose reasoning, contrary to the editorialist’s bald assertion, was anything but impeccable unless you like your law bred in the petrie dish of Michel Foucault’s antinomian social experimentation. Through the legal principle of stare decisis, trios of judges in other provinces put their hands on the collar of the miscreant known as tradition, and finally dragged him bloodied but still unbowed onto the floor of parliament where, in a shameful repudiation of democracy, whipped members of parliament turned thumbs down on the definition and purpose of marriage as it has been known since the beginning of recorded history.
The Globe and its army of followers would like us to think the rascal “traditional marriage” was disposed of once and for all on that dark day in Ottawa. If pressed it will parade a line-up of like-minded law professors who will say it was so. Henry VIII too had his lawyers and experts behind him when he condemned to death Thomas More, but we know how history ultimately treated them both.
Mr. Harper is merely stating the obvious truth that a final decision has not been made because of the nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the reference made to it by the Federal government. Harper is saying that first he would move a motion in the House of Commons to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and allow a free vote on the matter. If such a motion were to pass he would take the next step, which the Globe assumes would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause. In fact, he would take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to have the matter finally determined. The Globe would have us believe the result in such case is a foregone conclusion. The Globe is not content to be the self-appointed arbiter of Canadian cultural values, but thinks itself to be the country’s paramount legal authority as well. Harper also made it clear that if the motion is defeated in parliament, the debate is over.
By bringing this matter forward at the beginning of the campaign, Harper has given every Canadian the opportunity to consider his or her position on this matter, and to question candidates on theirs – how revolutionary! The Globe’s blustering editorial suggests it and its more zealous acolytes are fearful of what might happen in such circumstances. They had no qualms about trampling over the concerns of Canadians who accepted the existence of the rights of gays to be treated equally under the law in Canada, but contended that could be accomplished without changing the meaning and purpose of marriage. Now through disingenuous editorials, they seek to conceal from the Canadian public the fact that it remains within their power and not that of the courts or browbeaten MP’s, to ultimately determine if indeed anyone’s rights are being trampled.
Decisions on matters that require one to throw some moral weights on the balance scales of judgment become more difficult if one keeps misplacing or losing those weights, each of which tends to be small and easily swept aside. Most are lost through innocent neglect, some through willful abandonment. I happen to believe the Bible has it right when it professes that “we all like sheep have gone astray, each of us turns to his own way”.
Which brings me at last to my epigram. Anti-humanist secularism, absent God, now dominates the intellectual climate in Canada and in other parts of the world. At least, in other parts of the world, leaders are honest enough to admit they have abandoned any notion of the existence of a moral arbiter beyond themselves. In Canada, we have the pathetic sight of a Prime Minister leading a disgraced and corruption-tainted government, proudly professing that Canada holds an esteemed place as a conscience to the world. Not content to bask in the false glow of that dying sun, he allows his propagandists to attack his political opponents who profess to have a faith, claiming they are “fundamentalists” whose vision for Canada is different from his and from the mainstream, and hence dangerous. Political opponents can attend the same church, as do Liberal MP Don Bell and Conservative candidate Cindy Silver in North Vancouver; but Silver is labeled a right wing Christian fundamentalist, while no mention is ever made of Bell’s faith.
Welcome to the world of anything goes.
posted by Ben Buan | 12:39 a.m.
<< Home