I’ve always been mystified as to why our Canadian “conservative” movements increasingly embrace the inane policies put forward American Republicans.
It’s bad enough that our “conservative” federals have an interim leader who regularly sounds like Republican Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and the most likely next leader of the party, Pierre Poilievre, parrots views considered “normal” by Republican Matt Gaetz. However, are the “WE” allegations of corruption heaved at the PM, Bitcoin and advocating monetary policies that will only serve to widen the gap between the extreme wealthiest and the rest of us the best that this movement can come up with?
The Conservatives are grasping at straws when they rale at the inherent dangers to democracy caused by the “Liberal / NDP” coalition. Even in Saskatchewan we know that CERB relief programs kept our national economy from collapse. As for current economic approaches, their backroom strategists are begging both MP’s and leadership candidates to focus their attention upon inflationary pressures that are seeing food and gas prices soar, but are also worried as to whether such attacks are “enough”. More workers are returning to the office, employers are “restocking” personnel at record rates, supply chain issues are being repaired, and inflationary numbers are already starting to recede – save, of course, the price of food and the pump price for regular gasoline.
What worries Conservative strategists is that these issues might also come back to bite them in painful fashion. For instance, unless Putin can convince one of his generals to push the nuclear button, his Napoleonic vision for “conquering” Ukraine is travelling on the same street block as was George Custer just before his blonde locks ended up decorating a Sioux lance. Once Russia finally withdraws its troops from Ukraine, crude oil prices will not only tumble, but some provincial treasuries, particularly Saskatchewan’s will go into cardiac arrest. As for food prices, without any plan to address climate change, Conservatives have nothing to offer save “Blame it on Justin.”
Obviously, then, the conservative strategy must seek a backup position once Canadians finally realize that their current talking points lack any merit. For the Scott Moe cabal, this means listening to even more “carbon tax” disinformation, while the rest of the conservative movement will with one voice scoop up the latest barrage of nonsense coming from Republican circles, that being to attack women for daring to expect that they actually have the right to control what happens to their own bodies.
Following the 1988 “R v Morgentaler” decision declaring existing abortion laws unconstitutional, the federal government finally settled on defining this procedure as purely a medical concern, leaving its choice for remediation to be between the expectant woman and a duly licensed medical practitioner. However, in the United States, the issue is shrouded in religious dogma. The belief is that a fetus, once conceived, is now an “unborn” human being, and therefore its abortion is in fact “murder of the unborn”.
In ruling on “Roe v Wade” in January, 1973, the Supreme Court rendered such reasoning as unfounded. After almost a half century of debate as to what “right to life” means, a recent “leaking” of a draft ruling is now suggesting that the Trump-created Supreme Court is sufficiently emboldened to consider striking down this decision, thus reopening the challenge faced by women to have “the right to choose” as how their bodies are used.
Religious scholars of Christianity, Judaism and Islam can find no biblical reference to either the topic of abortion or supporting evangelical teachings in either the Bible or the Koran. We do, however, know with a certainty that a fetus cannot survive birth without full development within the female body or by procedures developed to mimic a woman’s biological functionality. More to the point, the 10th century notion that a woman’s “role” in society is either that of “being barefoot and pregnant” or “in the kitchen” is repudiated by the sharing nature both the male and female play in bringing a fetus to life.
Unless you’re a drone bee, once the egg has been fertilized by the male, HIS role becomes one of provider, or “doing the cooking” and preparing food while she attends to the nest, or “babysits” when she needs a break or wants to “cook” her own food. That scientific observation can’t even be considered “feminist” in interpretation; this “duality” of man’s role in the creation of life itself is too obvious to be missed.
As well, trying to again establish the “superiority of man” by quoting Scripture (which is your right in a democratic society) and maintaining that just because God “borrowed” a rib from Adam to create Eve means that women now “owe” men for this “right” is not your best argument to put forward, either. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments does God invoke the capitalistic principle of Eve having to pay this “interest” on this gift to men; if you need “proof” of that fact, just try counting your partner’s ribs as one of your foreplay activities…
They’re the same, aren’t they?
Unfortunately, religious extremists simply refuse to address the topic of abortion in terms that constrain women from becoming targets of abuse, lust or rage, thereby even having to consider the possibility of using this procedure to end their own pregnancies. However, with more than 70% of voters believing that abortion law should remain “as is” or strengthened, there is no shortage of writers willing to criticize Alito’s musings on overturning “Roe v Wade.”
Should leaders of the Canadian conservative movement decide to follow American Republican extremists down this controversial pathway, thereby ignoring the voices of the majority, I can predict only one result with certainty, that being ten more years of Justin Trudeau as our PM or an NDP coalition being in power.
Watching Scott Moe again explode when the election results come in would be well worth the result.