Pubdate: Mon, 30 Apr 2012
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2012 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326
Author: Dan Gardner

THE GOVERNMENT'S SELECTIVE DEFENCE OF FREEDOM

When Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth introduced a private member's 
bill on the status of the fetus last week, the government was 
expected to distance itself. But when Conservative whip Gordon 
O'Connor stood to deliver the government line, he did far more than that.

"I can confirm that as a member of the Conservative caucus for nearly 
eight years, the prime minister has been consistent with his position 
on abortion," O'Connor said. "As early as 2005 at the Montreal 
convention, and in every federal election platform since, he has 
stated that the Conservative government will not support any 
legislation to regulate abortion. While the issue may be debated by 
some, as in the private member's motion here tonight, I state again 
that the government's position is clear: It will not reopen this debate."

It was a surprisingly sweeping and categorical pledge. And we can be 
sure it was crafted in the prime minister's office, or at a minimum, 
personally approved by the boss.

But that was just the beginning of the surprises.

"The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is 
essentially a moral decision," O'Connor declared, "and in a free and 
democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be 
paramount and take precedence over that of the state."

It was a genuinely shocking moment. In effect, the government engaged 
the debate it said it didn't want to discuss, but rather than siding 
with Woodworth and the social conservatives who want abortion 
restricted, it came out swinging for the other side.

"I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion 
want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code," 
O'Connor said. "There is no law that says that a woman must have an 
abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one."

O'Connor also appealed to practical realities. "Whether one accepts 
it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will 
always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the 
option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want 
government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be 
eliminated. It is part of the human condition."

In closing, O'Connor went further still, channelling the spirit of 
J.S. Mill. "I am sure we all recognize that the issue of abortion 
raises strongly held and divergent views within and outside 
Parliament. However, I firmly believe that each of us should be able 
to pursue our lifestyle as long as it is within the boundaries of law 
and does not interfere with the actions of others."

With that, the government repudiated Woodworth and social 
conservatives who want abortion restricted.

It also repudiated a big chunk of its own agenda.

By coincidence, the same day O'Connor spoke those stirring words in 
the House of Commons, the government announced it would appeal an 
Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that had struck down key 
anti-prostitution laws. This was expected. The Conservatives have 
vociferously opposed any suggestion that the prostitution laws - 
which do not forbid prostitution per se but effectively make it 
impossible to do it without committing a crime - should be curtailed 
in any way.

So how does that square with the government's declarations on 
abortion? Try replacing the word "abortion" in any part of Gordon 
O'Connor's statement with "prostitution."

"Whether one accepts it or not, prostitution is and always will be 
part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some 
women may have to choose the option of prostitution. No matter how 
many laws some people may want government to institute against 
prostitution, prostitution cannot be eliminated. It is part of the 
human condition."

Fits rather nicely, doesn't it?

Notice also that in O'Connor's statement he declined to answer the 
question of what constitutes personhood, which is the question raised 
by Woodworth's private member's bill. That's important. If you 
believe the fetus is a person (I don't, for the record) the issues of 
autonomy and liberty become more complicated. Not so in the matter of 
prostitution, which makes O'Connor's words even more apt.

Then there's marijuana and the other illicit drugs the government is 
making war on. Try plugging them into O'Connor's statement.

"I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to drug use 
want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. 
There is no law that says a person must use drugs. No one is forcing 
those who oppose drugs to use them." Again, the fit is close to perfect.

Of course, whenever someone raises J.S. Mill's "harm principle" - 
that people should be free to do what they wish provided they don't 
harm others - those who want to restrict liberty insist they don't 
disagree. Theirs isn't a moral objection, they say. They want the 
activity banned because it harms others.

These claims are often disingenuous and easily disproven. But the 
simplest way to respond is to take them at face value and ask "but 
does criminalization actually protect others from harm?" The answer 
is clearly no. It even inflicts harms on others that would not 
otherwise exist (the only reason why street prostitutes blight 
residential streets, for example, is that they can't conduct their 
business legally elsewhere). So if harm to third parties is really 
the concern, the answer is not criminalization but regulation - to 
ensure that only informed and consenting adults are involved.

So what's left? Why does the government think its ringing words apply 
to abortion but not to other moral choices? Simple. In O'Connor's 
statement, he objects to "new laws" that curtail personal freedom but 
says that the exercise of that freedom must respect "current law."

Today, there is no law banning abortion. But there are laws banning 
prostitution and drugs.

Thus, what looks like a highly principled statement about the 
relationship between morality and liberty in a pluralistic society is 
actually something less grand: It is a lazy and weak defence of the status quo.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom