TedTalks: Issue 8
As a political studies major, I am bound by both interest and duty to the daily political news bites from both national and international levels of government. At times, however, the tedium of this sort of news can be truly underwhelming. It is a small wonder that citizens of Western democratic nations are becoming increasingly apathetic towards their elected representatives, who presume to dictate the values of the electorate, and base political decisions solely on the latest economic data.
Photo Credit: Tim Andries
Amazingly though, the Canadian political stage became uncharacteristically lively this week, driven by separate events in both the House of Commons and the Senate. On Tuesday, Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu whipped the Opposition and the media into a frenzy with his suggestion that Canada’s worst criminals should have the right “to a rope in his cell [to] make a decision about his or her life.” Boisvenu went on to suggest that the death penalty be administered to the greatest offenders in Canadian society, and that those without hope of rehabilitation should be executed in light of both moral and economic considerations. Needless to say, supporters of criminal rehabilitation were livid, and lost no time decrying the government’s duplicitous political agenda.
The electrical effect of Boisvenu’s contentious statements was intensified by a house motion by Member of Parliament Steven Woodworth, which calls for a reexamination of Canada’s abortion policy based on some foundational definitions within British Common law. In response to Woodworth’s action, an indignant Nycole Turmel demanded to know why the Conservatives are insisting on reopening a debate in which Canadians are simply not interested. Indeed, the current policies on abortion and capital punishment are, according to the opposition, already reflective of public opinion. And, in keeping with this assertion, top government officials, including the Prime Minister, have insisted that the government has no intention of reopening either of these issues for public discussion.
The circumstances surrounding both events have highlighted the increasingly trite topics that are coming to dominate parliamentary debate, if only by contrast to the depth of social issues of this nature.
Governments throughout Western nations, in the interest of maintaining position through election, are increasingly shying away from contentious issues in favour of the technical, detail-oriented concepts which inundate the airwaves−the economy, tax policy, pension reform. Yet, paradoxically, the foundational societal principles upon which specific policies are contingent are excluded from discussion.
The logic underlying governmental attitudes in this regard is dubious at best; at worst, it demonstrates a willful ignorance to basic human consideration. First, contrary to both governmental and oppositional assertions, it is not clear that Canadians are rallying around the principles as they currently stand. In the case of capital punishment, for instance, a recent poll has indicated that sixty-two percent of Canadians support the use of capital punishment against convicted murderers. Meanwhile, the issue of sex-based abortion has exposed a large rift within the apparently unified pro-choice movement. Cases of this nature would indicate to even the most amateur observer that opinion on basic social norms is farm from united.
Perhaps more importantly, however, the general unwillingness to discuss the future directions of our society−to simply avoid final decision in these areas−is indicative of an increasingly apathetic attitude towards the right of freedom of speech, a fundamental tenet of Western democratic society. Indeed, if parliamentary institutions, the leaders of their nations, cannot speak to the great topics of the day, is it reasonable to expect debate or discussion within the broader classes of society? If we do not exercise freedom of speech at all levels within our states, it does not seem unreasonable that such rights may eventually cease to be exercised in daily practice. This increasing threat of a disappearing freedom begs an important question: “Is this the sort of society that we wish to inhabit and cultivate?”
Think about it, and speak about it, or forever hold your peace.
Ted Lewis
Recent Comments