Believe it or not, I enjoy wading into controversy about as much as I enjoy snapping a wasps’ nest down my gym shorts. That being said, the straight-faced zeal of our current government as it enforces the ‘rights’ of some Canadians over the rights of others is beyond the point of ignoring.
Let’s look at our dear leader’s response to a question regarding the inconsistency of the ‘free speech’ rhetoric as it applies to the removal of summer job funding to those organizations uncomfortable with pro-choice dogma.
“An organization that has the explicit purpose of restricting women’s rights by removing rights to abortion, the right for women to control their own bodies, is not in line with where we are as a government and, quite frankly, where we are as a society.”
First of all, let’s be clear on things. I know of no organization that exists in time and space who make it their explicit core mandate to restrict a women’s rights (“Hey kids, come volunteer at the Lil’ Oppressors Day Camp – We Make Misogyny Fun!”.) That being said, we could probably all agree it’s more convenient to charge a brigade of straw men then to grapple with the actual views of those who disagree with you.
So what is actually going on here? I’m afraid it’s the same old song and dance – a three-part formula that could almost be prosaic if it wasn’t so draconian. The first step is to slather yourself in euphemisms – we’re not encouraging the murder of the unborn, we’re just ensuring a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body.
This kind of windbaggery is as destructive as it is dishonest. As former pro-choicer Frederica Mathewes-Green poignantly reminds us:
Abortion indisputably ends a human life. But this loss is usually set against the woman’s need to have an abortion in order to freely direct her own life. It is a particular cruelty to present abortion as something women want, something they demand, they find liberating. Because nobody wants this. The procedure itself is painful, humiliating, expensive — no woman “wants” to go through it. But once it’s available, it appears to be the logical, reasonable choice. All the complexities can be shoved down that funnel. Yes, abortion solves all the problems; but it solves them inside the woman’s body. And she is expected to keep that pain inside for a lifetime, and be grateful for the gift of abortion.
Not only that, but last time I checked, the purpose of the charter of rights was to protect the lives of its citizens. As far as I’m concerned, when the government decided that the rights of someone’s choice superseded the unborn someone’s right to life, its membership in the charter club no longer remains in good standing.
The second step is to introduce the royal ‘we’ into the conversation. We, the government, have decided that we do not want to support those who disagree with our conclusions regarding reproductive rights. Trudeau isn’t wrong about where the government stands – but since it was he who decided to cordially dismiss all pro-life MP’s, we’d be hard-pressed to call it an organically achieved unity.
The final step is to designate all those uncomfortable with such logic as un-progressive and irrelevant. This banishment; being forced to wander the dark annals of pre-millennial ignorance until you die from shame or are carried away by a pterodactyl – is perhaps the most devastating exile the modern-mind can conceive of.
Well, that’s the formula – what answer did you end up with? If you’re anything like most people, you might have a personal preference on such matters, but the risk of what being on the ‘wrong-side of history’ will mean to your personal peace and affluence means you will likely give whatever answer will endear you to the vocal majority.
Perhaps I’ll conclude with a voice we all need to hear:
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer