Preston Manning, who once was leader of the Reform Party and leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, had an op-ed in last week's Winnipeg Free Press. There are a number of things in it that I might take issue with, but there's one in particular that deserves comment in light of recent events.
Manning's thesis is that George Bush's recent election victory represents "realities" that Canadians can't afford to ignore, and so he offers a four part prescription for Canada's response. This is item number three:
3. Respecting cultural conservatism.
One of the amazing things about the recent U.S. elections was the numbers of American electors who told the exit-pollsters that "moral values" -- not the state of the U.S. economy or the war in Iraq -- were the determining factor in how they cast their vote. In every country, "values" are deeply rooted in culture and, for the majority of people in both Canada and the United States (there are polls which clearly establish this), in religious convictions. We in Canada have tried to ignore this reality in our domestic political discourse and in our relations with other countries less secular than our own. We can no longer afford to do so, particularly in dealing with our closest neighbour.
Methinks Mr. Manning had best be a lot more specific about exactly what it is he wishes we had more respect for, and exactly what it is he suggests we do to take into account the fact that other countries are "less secular" than we are. If he wants me to have anything but contempt for the group responsible for this, he has a lot of explaining to do.
The Washington Post yesterday published a magazine ad supplement, bought by religious right groups, that is one of the most bigoted homophobic things I have ever read. I am astonished the Post would print this filth.In it you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn't genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don't have kids! Putting aside a number of holes in that theory, there's the more general scientific point about recessive genes. My point is that this filth isn't even scientifically correct, and the Post is publishing it. I didn't realize the Post had no problems publishing junk science targeting minority groups. Huh.
What's more, the entire publication is based on race-baiting. It is CLEARLY written for the black community in an effort to piss them off against the gays. Funny, but you'd think the Post would have a problem with a scientifically invalid publication whose sole intent was to enrage one minority community against another. But no.
Oh, and it gets better. The publication informs you that gays die at the age of 41. Yep, all of us. What they don't tell you is that this little "study" was conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron, an anti-gay nutjob who has even been disowned by the religious right (let alone he was thrown out of various medical associations). But does the Post have a problem publishing junk science that suggests that certain minority groups are inferior to others? Not at all!
That's from John at AMERICAblog and his post includes links to the actual magazine supplement in pdf format. I read enough to confirm that this steaming pile of crap is exactly as John describes. It distorts science, and invokes the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr., in a blatant attempt to drive a wedge between blacks and gays, to turn one minority against another.
There is a hard core of American "cultural conservatives" who are so certain of there own moral superiority, and so full of contempt and hatred for those of whom they disapprove, that they have no qualms about using the most underhanded and contemptible tactics in the service of their agenda. These are people that the Bush administration panders to. And there are enough of them, and with enough financial resources, to be able to purchase a sixteen page supplement in the Washington Post and get the Post to publish this crap.
You want me to respect this, Preston? It's not gonna happen. And if you're standing up for this kind of nonsense and suggesting that Bush's bare majority in the recent election means that such as these are deserving of respect and should have any kind of influence at all on Canadian society, government policy or public discourse, then you risk losing any respect you may think you're entitled to.
I should add that I know plenty of people of faith who would be as disgusted with this as I am and I have yet to hear any of them suggest that Canada needs to be "less secular."
Hat tip to Captain Flynn for the link to Manning's column.
In other news, my capacity for righteous indignation seems to be returning.
Glad to see the bile returning Pogge - I always enjoy reading a good rant.
"Moral values" is such a loose term that pollsters could make it mean anything. I personally think that it is not just to discriminate against someone based on sexual preference - that's a moral value... but it's not how the term is used these days. Preston is talking about religious (specifically old-skool Christian) values.
Fortunately that's just not going to fly north of the border, regardless of how well Bush may have done. Preston's barking up the wrong tree.
(this next bit isn't targetting you Pogge, just a sweeping statement aimed at Canadians in general)
What we need to promote is tolerance of ideas AND values - that's sorely lacking in Canadian politics right now. If you cannot respect someone that thinks differently than you, then there's no way that you are a tolerant individual regardless of how much freedom you think different races/sexes/etc should receive.
But if your values entail putting gay Canadians back in the closet and taking away a woman's right to chose, then we're going to call you on it in the rudest way possible.
What we need to promote is tolerance of ideas AND values - that's sorely lacking in Canadian politics right now.
If Preston Manning feels strongly that people of the same sex shouldn't marry, I unequivocally support his right not to marry another man. The problem begins when Manning insists that others should be constrained according to his choices.
As evidenced by the folks responsible for that WaPo supplement, appeals to reason aren't working. Tolerating their intolerance only seems to make it stronger. So you're seeing some pushback. That, I suspect, is where the good Captain is coming from.
Ian Welsh has a post at BOP in which he writes about what the Republican party currently seems to stand for. One of the section titles is Tolerance is weakness:
"Tolerance of that which is evil in God?s eyes is not a virtue ? it is a sin, and a most grievous sin, and those who are the people of God do not turn aside from evil, but rather fight God?s fight against it."
That captures a certain attitude. How do you combat that with the very thing they think is evil?
The POST has always been more than willing to pander to one group at the expense of another. Yeah, homophobia is a bore and using it to drive a wedge between two minority groups is lower than low. That having been said, Canadian indignation about this kind of thing is bizarre since professionals in the race/equity sectors will readily acknowledge that, beyond the righteous exteriors, Canadians are definitely among the most anti-francophone people on the planet. The Canadian record of anti-Semitism is a little breath-taking as well.
Too bad HYPOCRISY isn't an Olympic category; Canada would take the gold every Games if it was!
And some Canadians' abilities to stereotype their fellow Canadians is also a little breath-taking. :-)
"Moral Values" in the US is code for "no gay marriage and no abortions". It doesn't mean, say, "turn the other cheek, love your neighbour and give to the poor".