D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS. You are ignoring me - yes, I know it. You are much too busy for your friends. You cannot find seven minutes in your week to enjoy me. But summer is upon us and you will be free of this now. Let the foul issue sit on its shelf. Perhaps during the summer the shelves will be cleaned, and the issue will be moved, and accidentally carried out, and then misplaced, and then lost, and then ... a clean slate in September! Yes, let us enjoy the summer. Let us feel the blessed heat of the sun ( rather than that roasting political heat) . Let us feel the summer breeze that breaks through the clammy air with hallelujahs on the skin. Let us trod the beach and with each step press warm sand between our toes, the shifting ground beneath us a joy rather than a worry. Let us hear the delicious swish of wind- brushed pines, the lichen crunching underfoot, the keening chorus of the cicadas. Let us see the brown water by the boat dock wink at us with white and amber gleams, and then slip a waxy foot into its realm. Let us be small beneath the prairie billows and feel large with gratitude. Let the dusk make us invisible, like the maritime rocks we sit on, until all that is left is the faithful lapping of the waves in the night. You do not, I hope, think I am indulging in ‘poetry’. No, friends, I am writing of you. These are the joys of all human beings. You have made the welfare and fulfilment of human beings, in our land, your own concern. And we who are served are grateful indeed. But it does seem odd, to care about human beings and to be vague and indifferent as to who is one. If we are asked, ‘Is it ever a human being who is forced out of its natural home, into oblivion, by human interventions?’ it seems odd for us to say, ‘We do not know .’ If we are asked, ‘Is it ever a human being who, on a sad day indeed for another human being, is stopped from coming to birth, and so will never feel the sand, or dangle her foot in the water, or see that symphony of clouds - is it a human being who was so deprived, or is it a mere process that we have halted ... nothing more?’ it seems odd for us to say, ‘Who knows ÉÉ? And stop asking .’ It is a fair and reasonable question. A good question, even, for those concerned about the lives of human beings. And how amazing, then, is our answer: ‘We do not know . We do not want to know .’ W ould it stop us from securing justice, if we knew? What would ever stop us, you and I, from caring about Justice? What would ever stop & prevent us from seeking Justice, working for it? Knowledge?! Say we knew. The day came when we discovered we could know. Well, on that day we found one of two things : We found that what is in the womb is a clump of cells , a gestational sac , merely a potential life . Is the hope of justice now ruined? But how? On that day we would proceed to consider what is owed, as a matter of Justice, to a clump of cells, a gestational sac, a potential life. Perhaps it is not very much. Perhaps it is nothing at all. That being the outcome, we shall say, let us by all means h av e justice . or , on that day we found that it is a human being inside the womb. Is justice now confounded and obstructed by this new knowledge? Is justice obstructed by any knowledge? By knowing ? It is a strange thought, to think so. Do you not agree that on that day we would proceed to consider - and with no reluctance or foot-dragging whatsoever ( for we in this country are willing defenders of justice ) - what is owed, as a matter of Justice, to this human being? That being the outcome, we shall again say, let us by all means h av e justice . We shall say - wont we? - Let us establish what is just when the interests of two human beings clash. Even when one of these creatures is inside the other ! S ome now cry out, “Ah, but if we are led to that outcome, in which we find it is a human being residing within, now you have made it so much harder for us to show that it is just to deprive that human being in the womb of life.” Goodness, I say, just listen to yourselves! How easy do you want it to be, to deprive a human being of life? Surely it should be hard - very hard indeed - to deprive a human being of life, given that that already seems a principle we greatly cherish, in this Land with No Death Penalty. So let it be just as hard as it ought to be, and no easier. B ut I must not drone on, because I know how tedious it is for you to read my words. Yes, I have been told. ( If I say hello to you, it is already, “Stop, man, must you always drone on so?”) Have I truly failed in my plan to be your shadow accomplice, to keep your spirits up as the foul issue passes among youÉ? I was gravely hurt by the taunt of my friend M r. james m c faddingtono ’ fladdington , that you would not even bother to read me . Very well then, read him , for surely you are reading somebody on this issue. If you do not like what I have said, I wonder if you will like what he said much better, for he painted quite a pretty picture of you in his remarks upon our political process. Here it is (and to tax you less I have even diagrammed it). T he attack that James had stopped by my house to launch was not derailed by the ‘noble speech’ I had delivered - but I did not intend it to be. On the contrary, I had said that all the reasons should be heard. James unloaded all of his reasons upon me. A good Member of Parliament, he said, who is fully in harmony with our political process ( not selling-out their Consitutency by hijacking the vehicle of State for their own tyrannical ends) must , when faced with a divisive issue of morality : A | observe strict neutrality . An MP must not come down either in favour of or against this Divisive Issue of Morality ; your options are to choose option B or option C, which is plenty! That is just what he said: “So up comes Motion 312: Why?” he asked. “Most Canadians sense that the MPs who are complaining about abortion ... are coming from a religious viewpoint and a lot of them are fundamentalist Christians ... and Catholics and they are really bringing their religion into the public sphere and that ’s not right .… They should stay neutral on issues like that . We live in a secular democracy And they should be responsible to all their constituents .” “So,” I remarked, wanting to understand this, “if MPs differ from their constituents, you are saying, they should set their own beliefs aside and vote on this Motion like the Citizens in their Riding. For a Christian MP to be responsible to, say, non-religious Pro- choice Citizens he should...?” “Not vote his Bible-based conscience,” said James, completing my sentence. “But clarification on one point, please: How can you vote and be responsible to all your Constituents? Is it majority rules? And how does an MP discover what the majority view in the Riding is?” ( I am sorry, but you will have to find the answer in what James replied, as I, frankly, could not: “This is an issue over which the politician has to stay neutral . In a free country you handle divisive moral issues by letting each person vote his conscience, so the task of the MP is just to transmit the voice of his or her Constituents.”) This, plainly, delivered his next principle, which could be phrased as follows: B | cast the vote of your consti- tuency . Do not lead your constitu- ency, you arrogant fool. Are the people who voted for you mere dupes, that you should tell them what to think & how to voteÉ regarding a Divisive Issue of Morality ? No, be led by them. Obviously, you must be the dupe told how to vote . You are to serve them by doing what the majority wants ( so far as you know. And what are you: a mind reader?) You cannot serve them by doing what is, say, Good for them. Who are you to decide that? Some kind of ... leader? James continued to argue for the personal neutrality of the MP, who should represent the Riding. When I commented that there were surely many minds within the bounds of that Riding, he argued for Democratic Majority. When I again asked how the MP knew what the majority view was, his answer was simply, “They know.” I knew N o. 6 21 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 Ye s , w e c o ul d r e a d; b ut , r e al l y, w h a t f or ? W e k n o w a ll w e n e e d ; w h y r e a d a w o r d m o r e ? ! B The Honourable .................... , M.P. House of Commons Ottawa
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.
You are ignoring me - yes, I
know it. You are much too busy for your
friends. You cannot find seven minutes in
your week to enjoy me. But summer is upon
us and you will be free of this now.
Let the f o u l i s s u e sit on its shelf. Perhaps
during the summer the shelves will be
cleaned, and the i s s u e will be moved, and
accidentally carried out, and then misplaced,
and then lost, and then ... a clean slate in
September!
Yes, let us enjoy the
summer. Let us feel the
blessed heat of the sun
(rather than that roasting
political heat). Let us feel
the summer breeze that
breaks through the clammy
air with hallelujahs on the
skin. Let us trod the beach
and with each step press
warm sand between our
toes, the shifting ground
beneath us a joy rather than
a worry. Let us hear the
delicious swish of wind-
brushed pines, the lichen
crunching underfoot, the keening chorus of
the cicadas. Let us see the brown water by
the boat dock wink at us with white and
amber gleams, and then slip a waxy foot into
its realm. Let us be small beneath the prairie
billows and feel large with gratitude. Let
the dusk make us invisible, like the maritime
rocks we sit on, until all that is left is the
faithful lapping of the waves in the night.
You do not, I hope, think I am indulging in
‘poetry’. No, friends, I am writing of you.
These are the joys of all human beings. You
have made the welfare and fulfilment of
human beings, in our land, your own concern.
And we who are served are grateful indeed.
But it does seem odd, to care about human
beings and to be vague and indifferent as to
who is one.
If we are asked, ‘Is it ever a human being
who is forced out of its natural home, into
oblivion, by human interventions?’ it seems
odd for us to say, ‘We do not know .’
If we are asked, ‘Is it ever a human being
who, on a sad day indeed for another human
being, is stopped from coming to birth, and
so will never feel the sand, or dangle her foot
in the water, or see that symphony of clouds
- is it a human being who was so deprived,
or is it a mere process that we have halted
... nothing more?’ it seems odd for us to say,
‘Who knows ÉÉ? And stop asking .’
It is a fair and reasonable question. A good
question, even, for those concerned about the
lives of human beings. And how amazing,
then, is our answer: ‘We do not know . We
do not want to know .’
Would it stop us from securing
justice, if we knew? What
would ever stop us, you and I, from caring
about Justice? What would ever stop &
prevent us from seeking Justice, working
for it? Knowledge?!
Say we knew. The day came when we
discovered we could know. Well, on that day
we found one of two thing s :
We found that what is in the womb is a
clump of cells , a gestational sac , merely
a potential life . Is the hope of j u st i c e
now ruined? But how? On that day we would
proceed to consider what is owed, as a matter
of Justice, to a clump of cells, a gestational sac,
a potential life. Perhaps it is not very much.
Perhaps it is nothing at all. That being the
outcome, we shall say, let us by all means
h av e j u st i c e .
o r , on that day we found that it is a human
being inside the womb. Is j u st i c e now
confounded and obstructed by this new
knowledge? Is justice obstructed by any
knowledge? By knowing? It is a strange
thought, to think so. Do you not agree that
on that day we would proceed to consider
- and with no reluctance or foot-dragging
whatsoever (for we in this country are
willing defenders of justice) - what is
owed, as a matter of Justice, to this human
being? That being the outcome, we shall again
say, let us by all means h av e j u st i c e .
We shall say - wont we? - Let us establish
what is j u st when the interests of two
human beings clash. Even when one of these
creatures is inside the other !
Some now cry out, “Ah, but if we are
led to that outcome, in which we
find it is a human being residing within,
now you have made it so much harder for
us to show that i t i s j u st to deprive that
human being in the womb of life.”
Goodness, I say, just listen to yourselves!
How easy do you want it to be, to deprive a
human being of life? Surely it should be hard
- very hard indeed - to deprive a human
being of life, given that that already seems
a principle we greatly cherish, in this Land
with No Death Penalty. So let it be just as
hard as it ought to be, and no easier.
But I must not drone on,
because I know how tedious it
is for you to read my words. Yes, I have
been told. (If I say hello to you, it is
already, “Stop, man, must you always drone
on so?”) Have I truly failed in my plan to
be your shadow accomplice, to keep
your spirits up as the f o u l i s s u e
passes among youÉ? I was gravely hurt
by the taunt of my friend Mr. james
m cfaddingtono ’f laddington , that
you would not even bother to read me .
Very well then, read him , for surely you
are reading somebody on this issue. If you
do not like what I have said, I wonder if you
will like what he said much better, for he
painted quite a pretty picture o f yo u in his
remarks upon our political process. Here it is
(and to tax you less I have even diagrammed it).
The attack that James had stopped
by my house to launch was not
derailed by the ‘noble speech’ I had delivered
- but I did not intend it to be. On the contrary,
I had said that all the reasons should be heard.
James unloaded all of his reasons upon me.
A good Member of Parliament, he said,
who is fully in harmony with our political
process (not selling-out their Consitutency
by hijacking the vehicle of State for their
own tyrannical ends) must , when faced with
a d iv i s iv e i s s u e o f m o r a l ity :
A|o b s e rv e st r i ct n e ut r a l ity .
An MP must not come down either
in favour of or against this Divisive Issue
of Morality ; your options are to choose
option B or option C, which is plenty!
That is just what he said:
“So up comes Motion 312: Why?” he asked.
“Most Canadians sense that the MPs who are complaining
about abortion ... are coming from a religious viewpoint and
a lot of them are fundamentalist Christians ... and Catholics
and they are really bringing their religion into the public
sphere and that’s not right.…They should stay neutral on
issues like that. We live in a secular democracy And they
should be responsible to all their constituents.”
“So,” I remarked, wanting to understand
this, “if MPs differ from their constituents,
you are saying, they should set their own
beliefs aside and vote on this Motion like the
Citizens in their Riding. For a Christian MP
to be responsible to, say, non-religious Pro-
choice Citizens he should...?”
“Not vote his Bible-based conscience,” said
James, completing my sentence.
“But clarification on one point, please: How
can you vote and be responsible to all your
Constituents? Is it majority rules? And how
does an MP discover what the majority view
in the Riding is?”
(I am sorry, but you will have to find the
answer in what James replied, as I, frankly,
could not: “This is an issue over which the
politician has to stay neutral . In a free
country you handle divisive moral issues by
letting each person vote his conscience, so the
task of the MP is just to transmit the voice
of his or her Constituents.”) This, plainly,
delivered his next principle, which could be
phrased as follows:
B|cast t h e v ot e o f yo u r c o n st i -
t u e n cy . Do not lead your constitu-
ency, you arrogant fool. Are the people who
voted for you mere dupes, that you should
tell them what to think & how to vote É
regarding a Divisive Issue of Morality?
No, be led by them. Obviously, you must be
the dupe told how to vote . You are to serve
them by doing what the majority wants (so
far as you know. And what are you: a mind
reader?) You cannot serve them by doing
what is, say, Good for them. Who are you to
decide that? Some kind of ... leader?
James continued to argue for the personal
neutrality of the MP, who should represent
the Riding. When I commented that there
were surely many minds within the bounds
of that Riding, he argued for Democratic
Majority. When I again asked how the
MP knew what the majority view was, his
answer was simply, “They know.” I knew
No.
6 21 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
Y e s , w e c o u l d r e a d ; b u t , r e a l l y , w h a t f o r ? W e k n o w a l l w e n e e d ; w h y r e a d a w o r d m o r e ? !