D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS. I struggled on, putting one thing in place only to have other things I had already put in place fall on my head. A foul issue indeed! And yet, that I still had much - very much - to learn, dear Members, you have no doubt whatever. A mazingly, what I had to learn was to go back to the start and begin again. Begin again how? By throwing out everything I had learned? Well, no: why should I have to eject everything? ( If I had thus far learned something from you, would you wish me to eject it?) No, I realized not that everything I had thought was wrong but that the puzzle I was working on was much larger and of a different shape ENTIRELY than I had suspected! One day, having mixed myself a nice screech and orange juice and settled down to read the paper, I came upon a story on M r. VALEUR- DE-BOIS’s Motion 312 - perfect! - but what I read caused me to flinch. A member of the ‘Radical Hand - maids ’ ( a group formed to oppose this very Motion) said it was their aim to drive the Motion all the way “back to the hell hole it came from .” Eughh! The thrust of that remark found my solar plexus, and I spewed a little cocktail. I liked the Motion; did I, because I liked it, also crawl from a ‘Hell hole’? I was puzzled: how could any trace of ‘Hell’ be wrung from this Motion? Its plan seemed so reserved and reasonable: A to hear from those who know most about the nature of the physical being residing in the womb, b to hear what they understand that creature to be, and c to allow MPs to reach whatever conclusion that hearing should warrant. I had something to learn indeed. In fact, today I fume when I hear words about this Motion like, “It ’s pretty anodyne , as far as it goes . It ’s not a motion about a law , but only a study .” Not about a lawÉ? Anodyne is it, as far as it goes? Well, perhaps we should ask not how far it has gone but about how far it might go yet? I learned this - unforgettably - from my friend Prema . Because I wished ( immediately) to know what prompted such fierce condemnation of the Motion I asked myself, who do I know who could enlighten me? I have a great advantage in that I have friends of every political stance, every religion, every philosophy. I live, in a sense, in the very heart of our country itself - I do not mean in the Capital, but, amidst the people. And because it is my desire to learn about these oddballs and travel with them where they are going - to the Truth that they can see rather than to some Truth before me that is so far invisible to them - because of this I never have any trouble becoming informed. The name that came to me was prema da GAMA , feminist, lawyer, and friend. I was certain she knew about Motion 312 and, to be sure, when I raised it on the phone she said, “You better just come over.” W hen the tea was poured I began. “Why do people speak of Motion 312 as ‘this absurd wingnut pantomime ’?” Prema waved her notes. “You don’t know why, when this Motion was proposed, it was ‘immediately smacked down from every direction ’?” My silence was eloquent. “OK, let me open your eyes. Three questions. One : is there any practical point to asking for this report from the scientists?” “To correct a law,” I replied, “that, because it is based on archaic science, defines some human beings as not yet human.É” “OK, why do you care?” I could see this was going to be another ride, braced myself, and answered as honestly as I could. “Because of injustice : laws protect human beings but under archaic laws some human beings ( not yet born) will not have the law’s protection.” “OK, so you care because they should be protected. question tWO : protected against what? We have laws because of real needs, right? Real things that actually happen? Should businesses provide rails for tying up horses? Why? Nobody rides horses anymore: dump that law! Somebody on the internet was listing absurd laws: ‘It is forbidden to push a moose out of a plane which is in motion’ - and some guy wrote back, ‘Well I’m going to jail!’ What’s the joke there, why’s that funny? Who the heck is ever going to push a moose out of an airplane?! You don’t need laws against what’s not going to happen.” “So,” she went on, “second question again: what’s going to happen that you need this ‘cor- rected law’ to prevent? What’s the injustice?” “Well, anything that could happen that we don’t think is right ( and so set up laws to prevent, as a deterrent) . Anything.” “Come on: sure, fine - but I’m asking, such as what? Real things that actually happen: what’s this going to help us with? Name one. You’re too smart to dodge this question.” Dodge a question - goodness no! That is the road to ruin in my books, so I thought a moment. “Well,” I said, “say your baby is about to be born but someone shoots it or injures it and it dies in utero ( sadly, such things happen) . Isn’t that wrong, unjust? But the present law doesn’t say so.” “OK, now we are getting somewhere. What else?” We stared at each other. Seconds ticked past. I knew what she was asking but, for some reason, I simply did not begin to say it. Odd. Why did I not speak? But then we spoke at the same time. Prema: “If some doctor sticks a tube in the uterus and breaks up the baby and vacuums it out in bits, is that an injury to the baby?” Me ( simultaneously) : “Abortions!” “Good, great, now we’re talking,” Prema said. “Sure, I get it when you say, ‘Why do we need to spell out all the possible injustices?’ Yes, we want laws against everything that might happen that we don’t think is right. But here’s one of those things: right? If that is a human being in there ( just about to be born, say) , then cutting it up is cutting up a human being. And cutting up a human being is unjust. Right?” “Well, I think so,” I replied. “Do you?” We stared at each other, again. Tick, tick, tick, tick. And then we spoke all at once. Me: “If you cut up a living human being, like me, who is just minding his own business, so it dies, that is unjust , right?” Prema ( simultaneously) : “It depends!” We sat there in silence for a moment, a silence for which I was very grateful. We were making progress together. Hand in hand we were walking toward the Truth. We were vulnerable together, dancing together at Truth’s ball, to her music not to our own. Together, in harmony, not shouting. Then I asked, “It depends on ... ?” S he replied, “It depends on other considerations of justice - which brings me to my LAST question : can you honestly say that this is just a matter of science , of bringing facts up to date? I mean, look: here’s a person who says that your M r. VALEUR- DE-BOIS ‘is not proposing a scientific question , not by a long shot . He ’s proposing an ethical , legal , and at best , philosophical question .’ Don’t you agree?” “Philosophical , why? What is philosophical about it? But ethical and legal , yes,” I said. “It is a question of justice in the law, I agree, but from the start VALEUR- DE-BOIS has said so: the issue is justice . He asked, how can ‘any law be based on a lie and be just ?’ A law that says some human beings are not human ‘is not a just law ’.” “Well then,” said Prema, “we are agreed on that! And now, practically speaking, what just result will this hearing bring about?” “I have no idea. First we would have to know what conclusion, about the nature of the fetus, this hearing will generate. Do you know?” N o. 3 1 JUNE 2012 } } The D I S S E N T I N G F U T I L I T A R I A N { { LE T T E R S T O M E M B E R S O F P A R L I A M E N T F R O M A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E C T O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N I N T O O U R H U M A N I T Y W h a t c a n w e k n o w ? W h a t b r a i n s h a v e w e g o t? W h a t c a n w e s k i p ? W h a t m u s t w e n o t ? ! B The Honourable .................... , M.P. House of Commons Ottawa
Issue 3 of an epistolary newspaper addressed to Canada's Members of Parliament
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS.
I struggled on, putting one
thing in place only to have other things I
had already put in place fall on my head. A
foul issue indeed! And yet, that I still had
much - very much - to learn, dear Members,
you have no doubt whatever.
Amazingly, what I had to learn was
to go back to the start and begin
again. Begin again how? By throwing out
everything I had learned? Well, no: why
should I have to eject everything? (If I had
thus far learned something from you, would
you wish me to eject it?) No, I realized not
that everything I had thought was wrong
but that the puzzle I was working on was
much larger and of a different shape
ENTIRELY than I had suspected!
One day, having mixed myself a nice screech
and orange juice and settled down to read the
paper, I came upon a story on Mr. VALEUR-
DE-BOIS’s Motion 312 - perfect! - but what
I read caused me to flinch. A member of the
‘Radical Hand-
maids ’ (a group
formed to oppose
this very Motion)
said it was their
aim to drive the
Motion all the
way “back to the
hell hole it came
from.” Eughh! The
thrust of that
remark found my
solar plexus, and
I spewed a little cocktail. I liked the Motion;
did I, because I liked it, also crawl from a
‘Hell hole’? I was puzzled: how could any
trace of ‘Hell’ be wrung from this Motion?
Its plan seemed so reserved and reasonable:
A to hear from those who know most about
the nature of the physical being residing in
the womb, b to hear what they understand
that creature to be, and c to allow MPs
to reach whatever conclusion that hearing
should warrant.
I had something to learn indeed. In fact,
today I fume when I hear words about this
Motion like, “It’s pretty anodyne, as far as it goes.
It’s not a motion about a law, but only a study.” Not
about a lawÉÉ? Anodyne is it, as far as it goes?
Well, perhaps we should ask not how far
it has gone but about how far it might go
yet? I learned this - unforgettably - from
my friend Prema .
Because I wished (immediately) to know
what prompted such fierce condemnation
of the Motion I asked myself, who do I
know who could enlighten me? I have a
great advantage in that I have friends of
every political stance, every religion, every
philosophy. I live, in a sense, in the very
heart of our country itself - I do not mean
in the Capital, but, amidst the people. And
because it is my desire to learn about these
oddballs and travel with them where they
are going - to the Truth that they can see
rather than to some Truth before me that is
so far invisible to them - because of this I
never have any trouble becoming informed.
The name that came to me was prema da
GAMA , feminist, lawyer, and friend. I was
certain she knew about Motion 312 and, to
be sure, when I raised it on the phone she
said, “You better just come over.”
When the tea was poured I
began. “Why do people speak
of Motion 312 as ‘this absurd wingnut pantomime’?”
Prema waved her notes. “You don’t know
why, when this Motion was proposed, it
was ‘immediately smacked down from every direction’?”
My silence was eloquent. “OK, let me open
your eyes. Three questions. O n e : is there any
practical point to asking for this report
from the scientists?”
“To correct a law,” I replied, “that, because
it is based on archaic science, defines some
human beings as not yet human.É”
“OK, why do you care?”
I could see this was going to be another ride,
braced myself, and answered as honestly as
I could. “Because of injustice : laws protect
human beings but under archaic laws some
human beings (not yet born) will not have
the law’s protection.”
“OK, so you care because they should be
protected. q u e st i o n t WO : protected against
what? We have laws because of real needs,
right? Real things that actually happen?
Should businesses provide rails for tying up
horses? Why? Nobody rides horses anymore:
dump that law! Somebody on the internet was
listing absurd laws: ‘It is forbidden to push
a moose out of a plane which is in motion’ -
and some guy wrote back, ‘Well I’m going
to jail!’ What’s the joke there, why’s that
funny? Who the heck is ever going to push
a moose out of an airplane?! You don’t need
laws against what’s not going to happen.”
“So,” she went on, “second question again:
what’s going to happen that you need this ‘cor-
rected law’ to prevent? What’s the injustice?”
“Well, anything that could happen that we
don’t think is right (and so set up laws to
prevent, as a deterrent). Anything.”
“Come on: sure, fine - but I’m asking, such
as what? Real things that actually happen:
what’s this going to help us with? Name one.
You’re too smart to dodge this question.”
Dodge a question - goodness no! That is the
road to ruin in my books, so I thought a
moment. “Well,” I said, “say your baby is
about to be born but someone shoots it or
injures it and it dies in utero (sadly, such
things happen). Isn’t that wrong, unjust? But
the present law doesn’t say so.”
“OK, now we are getting somewhere. What
else?” We stared at each other. Seconds
ticked past. I knew what she was asking
but, for some reason, I simply did not begin
to say it. Odd. Why did I not speak? But
then we spoke at the same time.
Prema: “If some doctor sticks a tube in the
uterus and breaks up the baby and vacuums
it out in bits, is that an injury to the baby?”
Me (simultaneously): “Abortions!”
“Good, great, now we’re talking,” Prema said.
“Sure, I get it when you say, ‘Why do we
need to spell out all the possible injustices?’
Yes, we want laws against everything that
might happen that we don’t think is right.
But here’s one of those things: right? If that
is a human being in there (just about to be
born, say), then cutting it up is cutting up
a human being . And cutting up a human
being is unjust. Right?”
“Well, I think so,” I replied. “Do you?”
We stared at each other, again. Tick, tick,
tick, tick. And then we spoke all at once.
Me: “If you cut up a living human being, like
me, who is just minding his own business,
so it dies, that is unjust , right?”
Prema (simultaneously): “It depends!”
We sat there in silence for a moment, a
silence for which I was very grateful. We
were making progress together. Hand in
hand we were walking toward the Truth. We
were vulnerable together, dancing together
at Truth’s ball, to her music not to our own.
Together, in harmony, not shouting.
Then I asked, “It depends on ... ?”
She replied, “It depends on other
considerations of justice - which
brings me to my LAST q u e st i o n : can
you honestly say that this is just a
matter of science , of bringing facts
up to date? I mean, look: here’s a
person who says that your Mr. VALEUR-
DE-BOIS ‘is not proposing a scientific question, not by
a long shot. He’s proposing an ethical, legal, and at best,
philosophical question.’ Don’t you agree?”
“Philosophical , why? What is philosophical
about it? But ethical and legal , yes,”
I said. “It is a question of justice in the
law, I agree, but from the start VALEUR-
DE-BOIS has said so: the issue is j u st i c e .
He asked, how can ‘any law be based on a lie and be
j u st ?’ A law that says some human beings
are not human ‘is not a j u st law’.”
“Well then,” said Prema, “we are agreed on
that! And now, practically speaking, what
just result will this hearing bring about?”
“I have no idea. First we would have to know
what conclusion, about the nature of the
fetus, this hearing will generate. Do you know?”
No.
3 1 JUNE
2012}}
The DISSEN TING FU TILITARIAN {{
L ET T E R S TO M EMB E R S O F PA R L I A M E N T F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y
W h a t c a n w e k n o w ? W h a t b r a i n s h a v e w e g o t ? W h a t c a n w e s k i p ? W h a t m u s t w e n o t ? !