by Rick SalutinJuly 22, 2022
You do not “make” a people or nation free. They free themselves. The notion that Poilievre must himself free(er) us reeks of arrogance.
You do not “make” a people or nation free. They free themselves. The notion that Poilievre must himself free(er) us reeks of arrogance.
So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless. Credit: Pierre Poilievre / Instagram
Tory leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre’s pledge to make Canada “the freest nation on earth” may be the silliest campaign promise on earth. Why? Well, to start, we’re already almost there. There are indeed insipid freedom rankings by right-wing think-tanks like Cato and Fraser, beloved of right-wingers like Poilievre, that batten on “personal” and “economic” freedoms — e.g., can you do anything you want and get rich as hell (or alternately, live in a cardboard box under a bridge, if that’s your thing)? From this dubious data they tote up a comparative Freedom Index.
And Canada ranks #8 of 165, a mere .36 of a point behind Switzerland, which is surely a statistical tie. In fact, because those ahead of us are all smaller, less diverse, therefore easier to govern, etc., I’m giving us the lead.
The whole exercise has all the indignity of august Canadian universities grovelling and sweating over where they stand in the innumerable global uni rankings that now jostle for space. So by Poilievre’s own right-wing standards, Canada’s already ahead of almost everyone — including the U.K. and U.S., ranked 14 and 15. So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless.
But let me pause to calm down and say why it’s basically idiotic.
Tory leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre’s pledge to make Canada “the freest nation on earth” may be the silliest campaign promise on earth. Why? Well, to start, we’re already almost there. There are indeed insipid freedom rankings by right-wing think-tanks like Cato and Fraser, beloved of right-wingers like Poilievre, that batten on “personal” and “economic” freedoms — e.g., can you do anything you want and get rich as hell (or alternately, live in a cardboard box under a bridge, if that’s your thing)? From this dubious data they tote up a comparative Freedom Index.
And Canada ranks #8 of 165, a mere .36 of a point behind Switzerland, which is surely a statistical tie. In fact, because those ahead of us are all smaller, less diverse, therefore easier to govern, etc., I’m giving us the lead.
The whole exercise has all the indignity of august Canadian universities grovelling and sweating over where they stand in the innumerable global uni rankings that now jostle for space. So by Poilievre’s own right-wing standards, Canada’s already ahead of almost everyone — including the U.K. and U.S., ranked 14 and 15. So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless.
But let me pause to calm down and say why it’s basically idiotic.
You do not “make” a people or nation free. They free themselves. Either by literally rebelling, or replacing their leaders. We don’t require Poilievre to fire the gatekeepers, as he likes saying, who are either elected or appointed by those who were. We vote them out and it’s done. The notion that Poilievre must himself free(er) us reeks of arrogance and smells of top-down leaderism.
“Freest” as a comparative adjective is bizarre. Freedom’s not about checked boxes. You could do the same with love: most loved on earth, in town, on your street — but why would you? Everything varies with what you value about freedom: getting to shoot your mouth off, or be crazy rich, or endanger others by refusing to be vaxxed and exposing them to you.
Or alternately, being able to achieve freedom only alongside others, as Percy Shelley wrote: “What art thou Freedom? O! could slaves / Answer from their living graves … Thou art clothes, and fire, and food / For the trampled multitude— / No — in countries that are free / Such starvation cannot be…”
It essentially comes down to freedom for me (“personal freedom” à la the indexes) or freedom through commonality, as in Shelley — or FDR’s New Deal. Note in passing that the foundational revolutionary French demand for Liberté immediately appended equality and fraternity.
But let’s skip directly to the germinal event in the current blahblah about freedom in Canada: the truckers’ convoy which Poilievre embraced. In fact, it was less truckers than truck owners who could bring and stay in their rigs. Actual truck drivers were largely absent, since they were on the road working.
The freedom demanded there was almost all “personal”: snarling traffic, blaring horns till residents felt deranged. And an ultimatum to end COVID mandates — which BTW never forced anyone to get vaxxed, but did prohibit participation in public situations to protect others’ freedom not to get sick.
So some people’s “freest” might easily be other people’s utter hell. Such complexities do not simple campaign slogans make.
During the civil rights years in the U.S., there was an anthem called “Oh Freedom!” When the singer sang, Over me, others echoed, Over me — because we were fighting for freedom over us all. I had a dear friend who occasionally slipped into schizoid phases and if we were out walking and singing that, he’d sometimes chime back, Over you. He took it literally. It was delightful.
I feel as if Pierre Poilievre responds, Over you, to calls for freedom, especially from those he favours. He’s a personal freedom kind of guy who doesn’t view freedom as a necessarily shared activity. Nor does he have the excuse of being endearingly nuts. It’s just the way he thinks.
This column originally appeared in the Toronto Star.
The inconvenient anti-choice record of ‘pro-choice’ Pierre Poilievre
by Joyce Arthur
JOYCE ARTHUR
Joyce Arthur is the founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national pro-choice group in Canada. More by Joyce Arthur
by Joyce Arthur
July 19, 2022
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice Members of Parliament and has always rated Poilievre as anti-choice.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice Members of Parliament and has always rated Poilievre as anti-choice.
It's reasonable then to wonder if Poilievre’s pro-choice assertions are made for political reasons and to question if they are genuine or trustworthy.
Pierre Poilievre is the current front runner for the Conservative Party leadership, and he might owe his leading position in part due to recent claims that he is pro-choice on the abortion issue. But how credible are these declarations, given that Poilievre has been a long-time anti-choice advocate?
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice Members of Parliament and has always rated Poilievre as anti-choice and continues to do so. Fourteen years ago, Poilievre opposed giving Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Since then, he has consistently voted in favour of anti-choice private member bills and motions, with just one exception – he voted against Bill C-233 in 2021 (to ban sex selection abortion).
Based on this history, it’s not enough for Poilievre to suddenly start making pro-choice comments in public, because this could be a political gambit to secure the leadership spot. It was the same story with previous Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole, who claimed to be pro-choice but had courted the anti-abortion movement during his leadership bid, was willing to welcome private member bills on the issue and allow a free vote, and had himself voted in favour of such bills in the past.
Pierre Poilievre notably insisted that he is “pro-choice” and “pro-choix” at the French language debate in May 2022, but it was January 2020 when he first changed his tune. The anti-choice group Campaign Life Coalition explains that Poilievre “abandoned his past pro-life beliefs during the previous leadership race when he was considering running, deciding that the ‘pro-life’ label was no longer useful.” In January 2020, Poilievre told a journalist: “On this issue, I stand with [Stephen] Harper. I do not want to reopen the abortion debate.” If Poilievre’s position is the same as Stephen Harper’s, it must be noted that ARCC has always designated Harper as anti-choice.
It’s reasonable then to wonder if Poilievre’s pro-choice assertions are made for political reasons and to question if they are genuine or trustworthy. After all, Poilievre knows that a public anti-choice stance will not give him the credibility he needs for a victory.
There’s just too many other reasons to doubt Poilievre’s pro-choice claims
Like Erin O’Toole, Poilievre would allow private member bills against abortion to be introduced and would allow a free vote. In a majority Conservative government, such a bill could pass despite his promise to not let that happen. If Poilievre was truly pro-choice, he should instead promise that he would forbid any member of his party from introducing private member bills that challenge human rights.
Poilievre was silent after the draft Roe v. Wade decision was leaked in the U.S. and has not spoken up since to defend abortion rights. He has never discussed the steps he would take to improve abortion access across Canada, such as through more rigorous enforcement of the Canada Health Act to ensure abortion care is available in every region of Canada. A current Lead Now petition with over 20,000 signatures is calling on the Conservative Party leadership to affirm its support for access to abortion and reproductive services. Where is Poilievre’s voice on this issue?
Poilievre has pledged his support for compelling “freedom of expression” on university campuses. This is a dog-whistle to the anti-choice movement and other right-wing groups so they can freely spread propaganda and hatred. Anti-choice groups have a long history of battling to establish their presence at campuses across Canada, such as by applying for club status and funding, displaying graphic imagery, and holding events that spread misinformation.
Outspoken anti-choice MP Garnett Genuis has recommended that social conservatives vote for Poilievre as their second choice after Leslyn Lewis. While Campaign Life Coalition disagrees, anti-choice group RightNow gave Poilievre a respectable passing grade of 68% in their survey. In other words, he’s got a lot going for him in social conservative circles.
Indeed, Poilievre has a generally right-wing voting record on other issues, as indicated by Campaign Life Coalition. He was an opponent of same-sex marriage until publicly changing his stance at exactly the same time he switched from anti-choice to pro-choice. He has recently supported the Freedom Convoy and opposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates, and appears to still oppose the right to medical assistance in dying.
In June 2022, ARCC actually removed five Members of Parliament from its list of anti-choice MPs because they reached out to the group, provided evidence that they were solidly pro-choice, and indicated they had been misled by Bill C-225 in 2016, which would have established some fetal rights (each had voted in favour of only that bill, or an earlier similar one, Bill C-484). These MPs plan to exercise greater caution for future similar bills and are now aware of ARCC’s arguments against Bill C-225.
Poilievre has never reached out to ARCC either now or in the past. But if he were to ask the group to designate him as pro-choice, ARCC would refuse. Given the evidence listed above, he has a considerably higher bar to scale than the MPs that were recently removed. And as a potential party leader, ARCC would apply a higher standard.
In sum, voters should not trust Poilievre’s convenient flip-flop on his abortion views. If he ever became Prime Minister, not only would he allow free votes on private member bills that challenge reproductive rights, it’s likely he would take other regressive steps. For example, he could end the Liberal government’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, withdraw Canada’s foreign aid for reproductive health including safe abortion, and let anti-choice groups continue to spread misinformation and undermine rights, while preserving their charitable tax status.
The best-case scenario is that a Prime Minister Poilievre might do nothing at all on the abortion issue – including not lifting a finger to improve access to abortion care despite the dire need. That’s simply not good enough.
Canadians expect pro-choice politicians to take pro-active steps to defend abortion rights and make sure that every citizen who needs abortion care can access it without barriers, no matter where they live or who they are.
Pierre Poilievre is the current front runner for the Conservative Party leadership, and he might owe his leading position in part due to recent claims that he is pro-choice on the abortion issue. But how credible are these declarations, given that Poilievre has been a long-time anti-choice advocate?
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice Members of Parliament and has always rated Poilievre as anti-choice and continues to do so. Fourteen years ago, Poilievre opposed giving Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Since then, he has consistently voted in favour of anti-choice private member bills and motions, with just one exception – he voted against Bill C-233 in 2021 (to ban sex selection abortion).
Based on this history, it’s not enough for Poilievre to suddenly start making pro-choice comments in public, because this could be a political gambit to secure the leadership spot. It was the same story with previous Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole, who claimed to be pro-choice but had courted the anti-abortion movement during his leadership bid, was willing to welcome private member bills on the issue and allow a free vote, and had himself voted in favour of such bills in the past.
Pierre Poilievre notably insisted that he is “pro-choice” and “pro-choix” at the French language debate in May 2022, but it was January 2020 when he first changed his tune. The anti-choice group Campaign Life Coalition explains that Poilievre “abandoned his past pro-life beliefs during the previous leadership race when he was considering running, deciding that the ‘pro-life’ label was no longer useful.” In January 2020, Poilievre told a journalist: “On this issue, I stand with [Stephen] Harper. I do not want to reopen the abortion debate.” If Poilievre’s position is the same as Stephen Harper’s, it must be noted that ARCC has always designated Harper as anti-choice.
It’s reasonable then to wonder if Poilievre’s pro-choice assertions are made for political reasons and to question if they are genuine or trustworthy. After all, Poilievre knows that a public anti-choice stance will not give him the credibility he needs for a victory.
There’s just too many other reasons to doubt Poilievre’s pro-choice claims
Like Erin O’Toole, Poilievre would allow private member bills against abortion to be introduced and would allow a free vote. In a majority Conservative government, such a bill could pass despite his promise to not let that happen. If Poilievre was truly pro-choice, he should instead promise that he would forbid any member of his party from introducing private member bills that challenge human rights.
Poilievre was silent after the draft Roe v. Wade decision was leaked in the U.S. and has not spoken up since to defend abortion rights. He has never discussed the steps he would take to improve abortion access across Canada, such as through more rigorous enforcement of the Canada Health Act to ensure abortion care is available in every region of Canada. A current Lead Now petition with over 20,000 signatures is calling on the Conservative Party leadership to affirm its support for access to abortion and reproductive services. Where is Poilievre’s voice on this issue?
Poilievre has pledged his support for compelling “freedom of expression” on university campuses. This is a dog-whistle to the anti-choice movement and other right-wing groups so they can freely spread propaganda and hatred. Anti-choice groups have a long history of battling to establish their presence at campuses across Canada, such as by applying for club status and funding, displaying graphic imagery, and holding events that spread misinformation.
Outspoken anti-choice MP Garnett Genuis has recommended that social conservatives vote for Poilievre as their second choice after Leslyn Lewis. While Campaign Life Coalition disagrees, anti-choice group RightNow gave Poilievre a respectable passing grade of 68% in their survey. In other words, he’s got a lot going for him in social conservative circles.
Indeed, Poilievre has a generally right-wing voting record on other issues, as indicated by Campaign Life Coalition. He was an opponent of same-sex marriage until publicly changing his stance at exactly the same time he switched from anti-choice to pro-choice. He has recently supported the Freedom Convoy and opposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates, and appears to still oppose the right to medical assistance in dying.
In June 2022, ARCC actually removed five Members of Parliament from its list of anti-choice MPs because they reached out to the group, provided evidence that they were solidly pro-choice, and indicated they had been misled by Bill C-225 in 2016, which would have established some fetal rights (each had voted in favour of only that bill, or an earlier similar one, Bill C-484). These MPs plan to exercise greater caution for future similar bills and are now aware of ARCC’s arguments against Bill C-225.
Poilievre has never reached out to ARCC either now or in the past. But if he were to ask the group to designate him as pro-choice, ARCC would refuse. Given the evidence listed above, he has a considerably higher bar to scale than the MPs that were recently removed. And as a potential party leader, ARCC would apply a higher standard.
In sum, voters should not trust Poilievre’s convenient flip-flop on his abortion views. If he ever became Prime Minister, not only would he allow free votes on private member bills that challenge reproductive rights, it’s likely he would take other regressive steps. For example, he could end the Liberal government’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, withdraw Canada’s foreign aid for reproductive health including safe abortion, and let anti-choice groups continue to spread misinformation and undermine rights, while preserving their charitable tax status.
The best-case scenario is that a Prime Minister Poilievre might do nothing at all on the abortion issue – including not lifting a finger to improve access to abortion care despite the dire need. That’s simply not good enough.
Canadians expect pro-choice politicians to take pro-active steps to defend abortion rights and make sure that every citizen who needs abortion care can access it without barriers, no matter where they live or who they are.
JOYCE ARTHUR
Joyce Arthur is the founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national pro-choice group in Canada. More by Joyce Arthur
No comments:
Post a Comment