A rchive Date
[ 29-05-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[Self-destructing with gay abandon
By LINDA WILLIAMSON
Toronto Sun
May 28, 2000
Many of us grew up believing that the great, irreconcilable Canadian political dichotomy was French vs. English. More recently, the Canadian Alliance leadership contest has highlighted another one - East (or more precisely, Ontario) vs. West.
But just last week, the battlefield split along a more deeply drawn division that is decidedly un-Canadian in its ugliness.
It is between the so-called "social conservatives," whose number is unknown (but likely smaller than they would have us believe) and "fiscal conservatives," who, these days, are legion (and by some defintions even include Paul Martin.)
In the Alliance, we're told, these two groups coexist peacefully. But a nasty whisper campaign against Tom Long's leadership team threatens to blow the fissure wide open.
The story, as it exploded in the national press last week: social conservatives like the Campaign Life Coalition are attacking Long for having homosexuals on his team, saying this indicates his "family values" are questionable. (As if homosexuals don't have families! Or values!)
While this may not be news - Sun columnist Michael Coren questioned Long's "family values" for similar reasons on May 4, raising barely a ripple of protest - it is odious, and has sent the leadership race off on a particularly miserable tangent.
By week's end, Long's rivals Stockwell Day and Preston Manning were rushing to deny having anything to do with such attacks, while even Campaign Life spokesman Peter Stock was insisting he didn't object to gays in the party per se, just "gay activists." Whatever. The damage is done.
I won't digress into what I see as the non-existent logic behind the attacks - I've yet to see a shred of evidence to support the paranoid fear that homosexuals somehow threaten traditional families. It seems to be rooted in the social-conservative belief that homosexuality is not an orientation at all, but a choice - something we can debate another day.
But I can't help noticing that the people suggesting that gays and lesbians have no place in the Alliance appear to be the same folks who complain that Day and Manning are being discriminated against because of their Christianity.
It's true, Day and Manning have had an unfairly rough ride. It's hard to imagine anyone suggesting (these days, anyway) that a politician who happens to be Sikh or Jewish or Roman Catholic is suspect because he might impose his religious views on the public. Surely fundamentalist Christians deserve the same tolerance. After all, we are electing the man, not his religion. And we don't live in a theocracy.
Want it both ways
Which brings me back to Campaign Life and other social conservatives, who seem to want it both ways.
They, unlike most Canadians, WANT the party to impose their moral views on the public. They WANT a prime minister who will say no to homosexuality and abortion and yes to capital punishment.
The Alliance, it must be said, officially takes no position on these issues (well, it does oppose gay marriage, but supports benefits for dependent domestic partners, regardless of their sexual relationship or lack thereof). It attempts to skirt the moral minefield by promising to hold referendums on topics citizens request. This allows them to say to zealots, "We hear you - we'll work it all out in a referendum."
Let's think about that for a minute.
A referendum on abortion? No politician in his right mind would willingly jump into that quagmire. What would the question be? Imagine the campaign propaganda! It's enough to make you pine for the good old days when all we had to dread was sovereignty-association. I don't believe for a minute that any such referendums will ever materialize. But in my view, that's a good thing.
Long, who visited the Sun's editorial board last week, touting economic reform as his absolute priority, has no intention of being drawn into such a mess. He would definitely not initiate a referendum on abortion. He wants the great debate in this country to be about taxes and economic growth - about bold, dramatic cuts to make Canada's taxation levels LOWER than those in the U.S.
Now, I am not, just to be clear, endorsing Long. But surely this is the debate that truly affects Canadian families - not some theological screaming match over whether Jane down the street should have access to an abortion or Bill and Bob next door should be able to get married. Who cares?
Besides, Long is absolutely right when he says a party like the Alliance, which believes in less government intrusion in people's lives, cannot also be a party that dictates morality.
And one thing is certain. It will never, ever be more than a (slightly scary) novelty fringe party - much less the party of a majority of Canadians - if this ugly fissure doesn't heal.
Linda Williamson is the Toronto Sun senior associate editor. She can be reached by e-mail at lwilliam@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA]
|