Life and legacy
February 8, 2006
Shelby Caravetta
January 23 was a historic day for Canada, and yet for me it was also unforgettably bittersweet. In British Columbia, all the Liberal incumbent MPs were reelected and two other seats were picked up; not since 1968 when Trudeau-mania swept the nation has BC had this many Liberals seats. However, Election Day will also be remembered as the day that Prime Minister Paul Martin stepped down. On election night he declared he would not lead the Liberal Party into another election. Paul Martin was Prime Minister for less than two years, but he and many supporters had spent over a decade working and waiting for him to become the Prime Minister of Canada. As a Young Liberal during Paul Martin’s rise to power, I was able to see Martin as not just the best finance minister this country has ever had, but as a man with an ability to lead and be one with the people. Martin always made time for youth in the Liberal Party, and not just time to smile and shake hands, but time to attend conventions and have open discussions about issues that mattered to youth. The PM would engage in dialogue with you; perhaps that is evidence of his undergraduate study of philosophy. No Young Liberal event was really an event if a hotel ballroom wasn’t filled with hundreds of youth waiting anxiously for the arrival of the Prime Minister, and without the youth breaking out into a revamped version of the Beatles song, “All You Need is Love,” or into the new version, “All We Need is Paul.” As an alum of the Laurentian Leadership Center I was fortunate enough to watch the highly animated, guns-blazing Question Period that occurred everyday. Paul Martin was
relaxed in the government lobby prior to QP, and it gave me an opportunity to see the PM as a regular person just doing a job. On the last day of my internship, a photo-op for me with the PM was arranged. I had him all to myself for a few minutes and he asked me about my studies at TWU, then we smiled for the cameras and I floated back to work on cloud nine. During this past election campaign I spent most of my time working on the Prime Minister’s Tour in BC. When the PM arrived in BC I gleefully stood at the bottom of the steps from his plane, shook his hand, followed him onto his bus with the rest of his staff and off we went in the RCMP motorcade. For the rest of the time that the PM spent in BC I worked on the planning and coordinating of his events. I learned that the PM is definitely a morning person and he
really enjoys a cup of coffee with a bit of cream. The day before Election Day the PM was in BC for three events and a quick stop at Whitespot for milkshakes. I don’t think it would be possible to forget the time on the tour bus when the PM entered and the bus started to drive away from the last campaign event of the 2006 election, as we all cheered loudly. I viewed Election Day like Christmas and on the bus that night it was Christmas Eve. I knew something was going to happen the next day and I’d get at least some gifts, but how many, and would it be more or less than what I got last time? Paul Martin may never be Prime Minister of Canada again, but this is not something that I can dwell on. It is sad to see him step down after all his years of hard work and dedication, but Canada is left with the legacy of his accomplishments. Some of the accomplishments for which he will be remembered are the five consecutive budget surpluses he acquired, and the largest tax cuts in Canadian history that he put in place as Minister of Finance, the many international summits that he was asked to chair because of his leadership, the $42 billion deficit that he erased, the $36 billion in debt reduction, or passing the greenest Budget in Canadian history in 2005, legalizing same sex marriage, reducing wait times for health care services . . . the list goes on, as will his legacy.
Now you go...
9 Responses to “Life and legacy”
Got something to say?
Shelby,
I will assume you are a student at TWU and as such I will also assume that you subscribe to the principles of TWU, in particular its attitude towards homosexuality and as an extension of that, Same Sex Marriage (SSM).
How is it then that you can square those principles with that of Paul Martin who championed SSM. Isn’t that somewhat hypocritical of you?
Mr. Toad,
It seems to me that Ms. Caravetta’s article is less of a political manifesto, and more of a personal reflection. It’s a tribute piece, not a policy statement. She spent the campaign working directly for Martin, and this article offers a glimpse at the excitement Shelby felt working with the Prime Minister. I’d imagine it would be quite an honour to be in that position, regardless of what angle he took on “SSM” (did you make that abbreviation up?). How would you rather have this piece sound? “I spent four months with the Prime Minister, and I’m proud to say that every time I saw him, I told him he was an evil evil man for championing SSM. At the end of my term, I felt very guilty for even being in such close proximity to the dirty SSM-er.”
Martin’s first and only term as PM has just come to an end, and sure, maybe he made some questionable moves, but we can at least afford him the slight nod-of-the-head to acknowledge his efforts. And who better to say it but a girl who worked in his office? I’d say if anything, Shelby’s article exhibits sincerity, not hypocrisy.
-kg.
Hey Horny,
Church and state are seperate. I do not think that my role as a Christian is to legislate my personal beliefs onto the populace. Legalizing same sex marriage was the right thing to do and I applaud Paul Martin and the Liberal government for passing C-38. I believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is not a buffet, you can’t pick and choose from it. It was an issue of rights and same sex couples deserve the right to marry.
I don’t like to make assumptions, but I would have assumed that you were aware that when something becomes legalized or decriminalized it doesn’t make it mandatory for you to participate in it.
TWU expresses its views on how to live, not how to govern.
While I can appreciate your policy-related comment, I don’t think Shelby was looking to address all of the hundreds of legislative acts he took during his decade-plus in office, but rather his immense dedication to our country and the motivating and inspiring role he played in her life.
I don’t think it’s at all hypocritical to highlight the fact he was a hard-working many who took the time to make her feel special. He did so for many Canadians, and many years from now, there will always be particular issues people agreed or disagreed with, but it will be his committment to Canada that will be remembered.
Shelby,
I was very proud of your article. Paul Martin was a Prime Minister of Canada and therefore we as Canadians (and Christians) should respect the way he led our country. Yes, this also means we should respect him for leading our country in the way of same-sex marriage, and no that does not make us hypocritical Christians.
I myself am a Christian who believes in giving people choices and not judging them for the choices they make. Yes, this means I supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and no this does not make me a hypocritical Christian. I believe I am allowed to support giving people choices without supporting the choices they make.
Those who were opposed to Shelby’s article, please do not be so naive. Paul Martin was a great man in a tough position. Leading the country is not an easy thing, and when the people of Canada wanted same sex marriage, he (as the altimate representative of people) is responsible to act on behalf of the people.
Shelby, thank you for writing a refective article on the Honorable Paul Martin’s accomplishments. I think we owe it to him as Canadians to pay him tribute.
Shelby,
Nice try with your human rights buffet spin, but the truth of the matter is that the CPC’s position on the SSM issue is MORE equitable than what we’ve got going on right now. The CPC stance is for the gov’t to get out of the “marriage” business altogether, and instead when two people, gay or straight, want to get hitched at city hall or in any other civil setting, the name of the institution should reflect it, thus calling it a “civil union.” If these same two individuals are religious and decide to have the ceremony in a church, then the church can perform a “marriage” ceremony. Granted there are churches out there, namely the United church and the Anglican church to a lesser extent, that will perform same-sex marriages, but that is for the church to decide on, NOT the gov’t!
Shelby wrote:
“Church and state are seperate. I do not think that my role as a Christian is to legislate my personal beliefs onto the populace.”
Shelby, you and I have never met, but I do know that you interned at the Centre for Cultural Renewal two summers ago (I have connections with the thinktank). It’s disappointing to see that, despite your experience at the Centre, you’ve badly misunderstood what’s at stake here. Many of us opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage have, time and time again, appealed to the community at large, explaining why such a legal change threatens state-sanctioned marriage as an institution, properly conceived. Not only does traditional marriage uniquely bridge the gender gap (a role that becomes weakened with the legalization of same-sex marriage), but it also provides a more secure foundation for raising children than other domestic arrangements do. Does one have to be a Christian to draw this conclusion? Obviously not. Privileging heterosexual matrimony in the law, to the exclusion of other kinds of unions, is no more an enforcement of “personal beliefs onto the populace” than is the passing of a green Budget. Any non-religious person should be able to acknowledge this point, even if he or she thinks same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
“The Charter is not a buffet, you can’t pick and choose from it. It was an issue of rights and same sex couples deserve the right to marry.”
The Charter needs to be interpreted, like any other statute. I do not see any clause in the Charter that grants same-sex couples the right to marry. I do not even see a clause that grants heterosexual couples the right to marry. I do, of course, see an equality rights provision (s.15) and a limiting condition (s.1). Whether or not the Charter requires the legalization of non-traditional forms of marriage is precisely the question we are asking. Is the right to state-sanctioned marriage the kind of entitlement that should be open to all partnerships, regardless of their nature? And even if it is such a right, is it nonetheless one that may be reasonably restricted to protect some other good? Sorry, but interpretation does involve picking and choosing rights.
“I don’t like to make assumptions, but I would have assumed that you were aware that when something becomes legalized or decriminalized it doesn’t make it mandatory for you to participate in it. ”
Quite so, but I doubt that Horny Toad honestly believes the law compels him to marry a same-sex partner. Your reply is a non-sequitur. It’s not, for example, my fear that the state will force me to marry more than one woman that leads me to oppose the legalization of polygamy. This “but you’re not forced to do it” response of yours is not relevant to the debate at hand.
Dear Shelby,
Hello. I’ve emailed you privately but you never responded; maybe you’d prefer a response here. This time around I’d like to respond to the comments you directed to Horny Toad.
“Church and state are seperate. I do not think that my role as a Christian is to legislate my personal beliefs onto the populace.”
This is not logically defensible. The very existence of law means that *somebody’s* moral viewpoint is being legislated. In a democratic context usually that comes down to a question of *how many* somebodies. The point remains: all laws enact a moral viewpoint.
“Legalizing same sex marriage was the right thing to do . . . . It was an issue of rights and same sex couples deserve the right to marry.”
Wait a minute: I thought you said you didn’t want to legislate your personal viewpoint. It seems rather convenient, then, that Bill C-38 just happens to legalize your apparent viewpoint. You seem to be arguing that this legalization was “the right thing to do” - but that presupposes that C-38 advances a moral viewpoint on what is “the right thing to do.”
Fact: The legalization of same-sex marriage is NOT a morally neutral stance on the part of the government.
Another fact is that if Christianity is true, then we can expect cultures to damage themselves when they stray from God’s moral character. And we find historically that the traditional understanding of marriage has been universally good for all cultures in all eras. I encourage you to look into a well-argued resource such as /Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting/, by Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier.
“I don’t like to make assumptions, . . .”
So you say - yet from my perspective you appear to have assumed that gay marriage is just fine and dandy, and that it’s somehow inherent in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I honestly don’t think you’ve done your homework on the effects of certain morality-related laws on the longterm wellbeing of a society.
In Christ,
Andy Derksen
You cannot expect the laws of secular society to reflect X-ian morality. If you want the laws of a secular democracy to do so, you need to convert people first. And that is not something you can do by political means (a point likely lost on the CHP). I don’t approve of same-sex marriage either. But neither do I approve of heterosexual pornography, yet I still don’t expect the state to ban it.
It’s important to remember that the Charter does guarantee freedom of religion (which is a good reason why you should stop saying that X-ianity isn’t a religion), and the same sex marriage legislation doesn’t force religious organizations to perform same sex unions.
It is simply not true that the laws in a democracy reflect morality. Sometimes they do, but more often not the law has a pragmatic basis. When laws lose their utility, laws are changed, if not repealed. Morality may be fixed and absolute - the law most certainly is not.