Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Extremism elsewhere, moderation in Canada

Extremism wins votes in the United States and Europe but not in Canada — at least not enough to make a difference. Alberta is only the latest example.

Denying climate change did not hurt George W. Bush or the latest Republican presidential candidates. But it helped sink Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Party. Her assertion that “the science isn’t settled” was widely mocked. That it was even in Alberta says something.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others routinely bashed gays. But Smith paid the price for one of her candidates condemning gays to a “lake of fire, hell.” And Rob Ford is derided for boycotting Pride Parade.

Mitt Romney echoed some of the rabid anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric of Santorum, Gingrich, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen won votes by railing against immigrants and Muslims. In Canada, parties lose votes by demonizing immigrants but win by wooing them.

Stephen Harper eked out his majority last year by relentlessly pursuing selected immigrant/ethnic/religious minorities in Toronto and Vancouver.

Smith never recovered from an assertion by one of her candidates that he had an advantage because he is white. She visited a Sikh gurdwara, her head covered by a shawl — a Sikh version of the hijab in the holy precincts. Her husband, too, covered his head with a handkerchief. Both sat cross-legged on the floor with a turbaned Sikh Wildrose candidate. But that was not enough to repair the damage.

By not firing the two candidates or even condemning them, she paid the price not just with the gay and immigrant communities but with the larger public.

Contrast her pandering to prejudices in her ranks with the famous 1984 intervention by Brian Mulroney against the leader of the Manitoba Conservatives who opposed francophone linguistic rights. He lost no time in flying to Winnipeg and dragging Bud Sherman before the cameras to recant.

Smith defended her stance by citing free speech. Would she have tolerated anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and other forms of bigotry in the name of free speech?

She ignored the intervention of the Jewish mayor of Edmonton, Stephen Mandel, and the Muslim mayor of Calgary, Naheed Nenshi. But the voters heeded their counsel.

By contrast, French voters ignored the joint plea of Jewish and Muslim leaders that their communities not be made pawns in the politics of the presidential election that has featured a divisive debate over ritual slaughter.

In last fall’s Ontario election, Tory leader Tim Hudak’s campaign got derailed after he tried to fan nativist sentiments. He tried to make a wedge issue of a provincial tax credit to companies giving on-the-job training to new immigrant professionals. He called it a subsidy for “foreign workers,” who are not foreigners at all.

He also got nowhere with his rant against another “foreign” enemy — the South Korean multinational Samsung, which is investing $7 billion in manufacturing green energy equipment in Ontario.

Moderation is the key to political success in Canada, especially on social values, as well as issues of immigration and multiculturalism.

This is not to deny the right of those who feel strongly about such issues as abortion or same-sex marriage. But as a Christian majority but not a Christian country, Canada thrives by protecting everyone’s rights within the framework of secular laws applied equally to all.

Take the latest hot-button issue, gender-based abortion (feticide — the murder of female fetuses, echoing the language pro-lifers use against all abortions).

During China’s one-child policy, many women aborted female fetuses to ensure that their only child was a male. China now has 32 million more boys than girls.

In India, Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam, parents with one or two girls abort the female fetus in the third pregnancy until they are sure of a boy.

Some immigrants to Canada from those countries have imported the practice. Six Toronto area hospitals now refuse to divulge the gender of the fetus following ultrasound.

This raises several questions about the equal application of the law.

Women have a right to abortion. Pro-lifers do not like it. But that’s the law. So, on what basis do we say women cannot abort female fetuses? Or, are we saying that Canadian women from certain ethnic communities have only a partial right to abortion?

All patients have a right to know their own medical information. Why are six hospitals are denying patients this right? Since these hospitals are located in “ethnic areas,” why is the provincial government allowing this discrimination directed mainly at non-white women?

You and I may think of gender-based abortions as repugnant. But we must answer these questions as part of the core Canadian value of not treating anyone as a second-class citizen.

Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Haroon Siddiqui

No comments:

Post a Comment