Warning: the following is a socio-political soapbox post. If you`re not interested in what I have to say on political, social, economic, and religious points as they pertain to Canada and the world at large, I`d advise you to skip this post and wait until my next post. There`s nothing to report about my life right now, which gives me some freedom to write down my thoughts and opinions. And I think they`re needed right now. This is likely to be a really long post. And may not keep to my self-imposted PG-13 rating, simply due to the nature of some of the issues discussed.
Disclaimer: I`m not a politician. I`m not an economist. I`m not an ecologist, climatologist, or anything of the like. I`m not a lesbian. I`m what I refer to as a "religious cherry-picker," not subscribing to one particular organized religion over another, but rather defining my own spiritual/moral path by adopting aspects of various world religions that make me a better person. I`m white. I`m single. I`m lower-middle class. I`m a woman. I`m an English teacher. I`m Canadian.
As most of you are aware, Canada had its federal election on Monday, resulting in a landslide victory for Justin Trudeau and his Liberal party. Since then, my Facebook has been inundated with posts on both sides of the spectrum. I don`t necessarily agree with Trudeaumania 2.0, because there are some ways in which I`m not sure Trudeau has a strong enough vision to lead Canada, but we won`t know until he tries. But there are also railing against Trudeau and the Liberal party because the Liberal agenda goes against their religious beliefs, and therefore Canada is being run by evil incarnate. I`d like to examine some of the points in the articles being posted online that I`ve seen, and work through the issues in a level-headed, rational manner. The religion-based issues will be at the forefront because that`s who`s making the loudest noise, but we`ll cover as many big issues as we can. Let`s begin.
1. He Supports Gay "Marriage"
Okay, first of all, let`s lose the quotes. And really, we should be losing the gay part, too. The Liberals support loving, legally binding commitments between two people, end of sentence. This almost needs to be its own post, because there are so many points to consider here. However, I`ll try to keep this as succinct as I can, because everything I have to say has been said before. You`re just not listening.
The main argument seems to be that The Bible says it`s wrong, so we can`t do it. This reminds me of when I used to get North American Free Trade Agreement certificates for goods of Chinese origin in my old job. Just as I must have missed the day that China floated across the ocean to become part of North America, I must have missed the day Canada was air-lifted and plopped down in Italy to become part of Vatican City. I can think of no other reason why one religion should be the basis for the government of a diverse group of people, some of whom (like me) have no particular religious affiliation at all.
Going hand-in-hand with that is the argument that it hurts the definition and integrity of traditional marriage. I love the phrase "traditional marriage." Why is it that the "one man and one woman" part should be held to so tightly, when we`ve abandoned the tradition of dowry? That used to be an integral part of "traditional marriage," until someone finally discovered that a woman is a person and not a costly lump of flesh useful only as a human broodmare and worth whatever her father is willing to pay a man to take her off his hands. We also seem to have given up the law laid down in Deuteronomy that states if a woman becomes a widow and has no sons, she should be married to her husband`s unmarried brother. Also, how does it possibly hurt the integrity of a "traditional" marriage? If you and your spouse love each other less because the two guys down the street also love each other, I think that`s something you need to be working out with a counsellor, not the government.
Consider if you will the time period in which all of these laws were laid, as well. Wars broke out everywhere, disease ran rampant, and people were dropping like flies. It was in the interests of the parties in power to grow their populations as much and as quickly as they could. Of course marriage was about procreation! Adoption wasn`t much of a thing, due to large, close-knit family units who could raise orphaned children, and they didn`t have the scientific resources we have today to produce offspring through alternative methods.
If you don`t agree with marriage between people of the same sex, don`t enter into one. Simple as that. "But I don`t want my children to be gay!" you exclaim. I`m sorry, but you don`t really have a choice, and neither to they. If your child turns out to be of the LGBTQ persuasion, it`s just who they are. "I don`t want to see them all over each other out in the streets!" you cry. Alright, neither do I. But I don`t want to see heterosexual couples all over each other out in the streets either. Beyond a certain point, PDA is gross no matter who it is. But why should you dictate how people can act in their homes, as long as it`s in a consenting way like any other relationship?
Let`s put it another way: You and your friend are sitting at a table, working on two different jigsaw puzzles. You`re fairly certain that the picture on your friend`s jigsaw puzzle is the ugliest thing you`ve ever seen in your life. You would never, ever have bought that puzzle for yourself. Your friend thinks it`s awesome, though. As you`re working, you notice that a piece of your friend`s puzzle has accidentally made its way into one of your piles. The normal, human thing to do would be to say to your friend. "Oh hey, I found a piece that belongs to you," hand it back to them, and continue on with your own puzzle. Instead, what you`re doing is allowing your dislike of your friend`s puzzle pattern to bother you so much that you take that puzzle piece, put it through the garbage disposal, and burn the chewed-up remains so that your friend has no hope of ever completing their puzzle. Absolutely ridiculous? Good. You see my point.
2. He`s Pro-Abortion and Won`t Allow Pro-Life Persons to Join the Party
Let`s address the second part of that point first. Why would you want to join a political party whose stances you don`t support in the first place? A political party is a group of like-minded individuals vying for power to put their ideas into practice. Key word: like-minded. Is his exclusion of people who won`t support his view on this specific issue wrong? Frankly, yes, because it goes against everything I`m talking about here regarding accepting other points of view. It`s concerning that he would expressly turn away individuals who have a certain point of view on one issue, even if they agree with the party platform on every other issue and would otherwise be a strong ally. Trudeau seems to be avoiding shooting himself in the foot by cutting off his hands.
As for the abortion part itself... Well, a lot of it is the same as my message in Point 1: If you don`t like it, don`t do it. Abortion being legal doesn`t make it mandatory.
I consider myself pro-choice because there are far too many factors to consider to possibly have any other position. I`d like to think that I, personally, would never have an abortion, but I would never inflict my own choices on anyone else.
I`ve been reading on the Campaign Life Coalition website while researching my opinions, and I came across a very interesting sentence. "We pro-lifers are really the ones who are increasing the freedom of women when we give them the many alternatives to abortion: the support ministries offered in the church, through pregnancy centres, etc." I can agree with this. Making an informed decision is important. A woman should thoroughly consider all of her options before deciding on an abortion, because it has been proven to have many negative effects, and we should know about these beforehand. However, it has to be understood that her choice may still ultimately be abortion.
I also disagree with words found elsewhere on their website, when they talk about publicly funded abortions: "Everyone knows that abortion is not a medically necessary procedure. Pregnant women do not have a disease, nor are they sick or dying." That is a gross generalization. Do many women treat abortion as an alternative method of contraception? Yes. But is that true of all of them? No. Sometimes pregnancy physically endangers the life of a woman due to other complications. If women choose to use abortion as a means of contraception, then I believe it should be treated as any other form of contraception - not publicly funded. (That being said, I think we also need to look at the costs and availability of contraception to women in lower-income situations, but that`s not the current point of discussion.) However, if carrying a child to term is deemed unsafe for the mother by a doctor (medical or psychological), abortion should be publicly insured by the same funds we use to keep any other Canadian citizen alive and well.
Legally speaking, this is a case of a woman`s right to "life, liberty, and security of person," versus a fetus`s own right to the same. This is the biggest factor in the abortion debate - the nature of the fetus. If the fetus is legally a person, abortion is murder. If the fetus is not a person, there is nothing wrong with abortion. My argument, "One religion should not influence our laws," is answered on the Campaign Life Coalition`s website with, "Laws against murder and stealing are based on the 10 Commandments." Two things: A) The 10 Commandments belong to the Jews as much as the Christians, if not more so; B) Other religions came up with the same law. The First Precept of Buddhism requires abstinence from injuring or killing any living creature. The Muslim holy book, the Qur`an, implies that killing another soul is equal to killing all of humanity. So killing is a bad idea all around. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that a person is a person from the moment of conception, but medically, philosophically, or even theologically, there isn`t one correct answer to this question to be agreed upon. Until we have one, I don`t think we can legally take one opinion over another, and therefore the decision must be left to choice and personal morals.
3. Legalizing Marijuana
I think I`ll start typing "If you don`t like it, don`t do it" in other languages just to keep myself interested, because otherwise I`m going to get bored of my own message very, very quickly.
I have never in my life used marijuana, and I have no desire to. I was taught not to smoke, not to do drugs, not to abuse alcohol, and all of those lessons have stuck with me through to my adult life. Besides, I don`t like not being in control of myself, and the potential health risks aren`t worth it.
The first line of the relevant section in the officially Liberal party platform states, "Canada`s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work." This is irrefutable fact. "Oh no!" shout parents everywhere, "If he legalizes marijuana, my child can buy it at the corner store when they stop for bubblegum or ice cream!" You mean exactly the same way they can with cigarettes and cigars? No. That`s not how this works. My understanding from the literature is that marijuana will be legalized and regulated in the same way, if not stricter, that cigarettes and alcohol are (ignoring for the moment that alcohol regulations falls within provincial jurisdiction, not federal). It`s also very likely that the "regulations" mentioned by the party will include where and when marijuana can be consumed; the likelihood that it will be legal to consume marijuana outside McDonald`s or at your child`s softball game are pretty much non-existent.
Don`t get me wrong, marijuana is not "harmless." To me, it`s basically like drinking and smoking at the same time. There are adverse effects on the body, some of which last beyond the actual period of usage. But, as the party points out, legalizing and regulating a lesser drug of such common occurrence allows the government to crack down harder on a) organized crime, b) hard drug users and dealers, and c) those who supply substances to minors. Also, Trudeau has stated that he doesn`t think corner stores are secure enough in their ID-checking practices to be a venue for marijuana sales. In a CTV interview, a Conservative party member was quoted as saying, "If you think about ...big tobacco, it has taken us 50 years and billions and billions of dollars to get kids to stop smoking." ...I`m pretty sure you haven`t actually done that. I`m pretty sure there are still kids who smoke.
Make sure you educate your children. Alcohol and smoking are not illegal, but we are taught in school (and hopefully at home as well) about what these substances can do to our bodies. Marijuana will be treated the exact same way. If you and your kids know your facts, you have nothing more to worry about than you do now.
4. He`s Pro-Islam
This one is a very fresh issue, with the conversations between Trudeau and Obama already taking place. The party`s official platform is that they would "refocus Canada`s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria." So... You don`t want him to allow women to kill unborn babies, but you want him to order our military to kill hundreds or thousands of people halfway around the world? You`re a confusing lot, I`ll give you that much.
Trudeau`s military stance seems to embody the Chinese proverb, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." He has also stated that Canada will remain a strong member of the coalition against ISIS. Essentially, Trudeau (as well as the NDP) wish Canada to have the same stance in Iraq and Syria as they do in the Ukraine. That makes sense.
Back in 2012, Trudeau attended an Islamic conference that was reported to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In response, Trudeau is quoted as saying, "Most of the organizers are young Muslims who are looking at trying to bridge the gap between the reality for Muslim Canadians and mainstream Canada and I`m very proud to be able to contribute." What does this mean? It means that his mind and heart are in the right place, but he and his government will have to be much more discerning in the specific organizations they choose to promote or endorse. This was some poor judgement on his part. Working to take down ISIS doesn`t work as well when you accidentally sit down for coffee and a chat with its supporters.
5. He Admires China`s Dictatorship
This stems from an interview in 2013. When asked what nation he admired the most, Trudeau responded with, "There`s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime." After coming under fire for the remark, Trudeau clarified in a press conference that it was a reflection on a growing economy. Should he have thought a bit more about the wording of his statement? Yes. Is the comment upsetting to all of the Chinese people who are persecuted, tortured, and imprisoned at the hands of the Chinese government? You bet. Should he have someone else write his PM speeches for him based on what he means to say? Probably. Is the man making plans to turn Canada into a dictatorship? I very strongly doubt it.
6. Cancelling Income-Splitting
If you`re benefitting from this, I can certainly understand why it would be upsetting to have it cancelled. It can make a big difference for you, financially. But what about all the people who don`t benefit? What about single-parent families? What about families with comparative or low incomes? If you benefit from income splitting, congratulations! You`re one of only a quarter of Canadians who do. Studies have shown that the tax break doesn`t actually benefit the upper tax brackets that much (because those families are likely to have spouses earning equally high pay), but it`s not benefitting as much of the middle class as it should, nor is it beneficial to low-income families. Cancelling the tax relief and instead putting that money into Canada Child Benefits, based on number of children and income, seems like it would be of greater benefit to a larger number of families. Even former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty was unsure if the income-splitting plan benefitted enough of our society to be implemented. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
7. Environmental Issues
The Liberal government doesn`t have a solid plan for Canada`s environment. They support the Keystone XL pipeline, but think the review process on pipelines needs to be stricter. How can you approve of something that you think needs to be reviewed again? Their promises to protect Canada`s water resources sound good, but they need to actually be acted upon, and quickly.
I`m afraid that`s all I`m going to address for now. There`s way too much research to be done, and I would never get around to actually posting this if I got into that spiral. It`s also mentally and emotionally draining to think critically about my views on some of these subjects, and put these views into words without being rude or convoluted. I`ll be honest, I`m not sure I succeeded on those points, and I`ve probably offended a number of people. But maybe that`s a good thing? If I`ve offended you, I`d like you think about why. Not just emotionally, but critically. Look at exactly what I`ve said that offends you, take a step back, and really, really think about why that is. And then research it. Research until you can`t possibly research anymore! You might change your mind, or you might not. No matter what your opinions are at the other end of that research tunnel, you`ll have more than just a leg to stand on.
No comments:
Post a Comment