|
On January 12 The Guelph Mercury published a column by Geoffrey Stevens on the subject of abortion and the ongoing debate among members of the federal Conservative Party and its parliamentary caucus over what position the party should take on this issue. It’s hard to imagine a more inane analysis of the topic making its way into print in a mainstream newspaper, even a relatively small-town paper like the Mercury.
Stevens teaches political science at both Wilfred Laurier University and University of Guelph. Despite these credentials, his intellectual laziness is painfully obvious from the beginning.
He opens his discussion by repeating a dubious quote by an anonymous Conservative “advisor” who allegedly characterized certain members of his party as “orangutans” – a species of ape – when explaining why Stephen Harper needs to rule the party with an iron fist.
From the point of view of scholarship, this information has no value whatsoever. Rhetorically, however, the quote is priceless in that it enables the reader, not to reject the case for abortion legislation per se, but rather to assume that there never was a valid argument to be considered in the first place. That Stevens approves the orangutan comparison is evident from his statement that “it didn't take long after the election for the adviser's observation to be validated.”
Having neatly disposed of the need to put any meaningful effort into understanding the pro-life position (why be concerned with the noise apes make, after all?) Stevens writes that “last month, a group called the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, surfaced under the chairmanship of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge” (emphasis added). His language leaves readers with the impression that this is a new group made up of Conservative MPs. In fact, the Pro-Life Caucus is one of the Canadian Parliament’s oldest and is made up of MPs from different political parties. Indeed, some of its most active members recently have been well-known Liberal MPs such as Pat O’Brien, Dan McTeague, John McKay and Tom Wappel, among many others. Anyone minimally informed would know this. Why not Stevens?
Stevens then goes on to question why the Prime Minister didn’t speak out against Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, during the last Parliament, perniciously describing the private member’s bill as having been an “anti-abortion measure” despite the fact that it explicitly exempted “conduct relating to the lawful termination of… pregnancy” – in other words, abortion. (You can read C-484 in its entirety by clicking here.) He speculates that this alleged silence might “reinforce suspicions among the general public that Harper has a secret agenda on certain issues.”
But the Prime Minister did speak out against C-484, as did his Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson. Both made repeated and widely reported declarations last summer and fall that the government would not support the legislation, suggesting that, if it came to it, Cabinet members would be ordered to vote against it. It’s surprising that Stevens would have missed this.
Innocent oversight or purposeful omission? You be the judge.
As for reinforcing the perception that Harper and the Conservatives have a “hidden agenda”, the most rudimentary investigation reveals that C-484 enjoyed broad cross-party support, with several Liberal MPs voting in its favour. This one fact ought to resolve the issue for both Stevens and his readers, but he never reports it. Instead, after deftly inserting the “hidden agenda” canard into the discussion, Stevens leaves the subject unexplored. The effect is subtle, but malignant.
Abortion, in addition to being one of the most emotional issues in public policy, is also one of the most far-reaching and complex. Formidable arguments exist on all sides of the controversy – arguments about which Stevens is strangely incurious. As a political scientist, one would expect him to show some interest in promoting a deeper understanding of the subject. Instead, he has treated his readers to a dandy display of rhetorical dexterity for which he might be awarded top marks if this were merely a debating competition – which of course, it’s not.
That brings me to what’s really bothering me about Stevens’ column.
I’ve often said that the single most serious challenge governments of all stripes and at all levels face today is the general, and in my view cataclysmic, deterioration in the quality of thinking that goes into making public policy. The problem originates in our institutions of higher learning, where students are being trained to be effective advocates for their beliefs – or, increasingly, the beliefs of their professors – rather than scholars dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, even if that means modifying those beliefs or jettisoning them altogether.
The responsibility for this rests squarely on the shoulders of faculty members who don’t just tolerate this subversion of academia – in many cases they actively promote it. Is Geoffrey Stevens one of these, or is he just a hapless faddist caught up in forces that he can scarcely comprehend, let alone control? I truly don’t know. Whatever the answer, he would do well to heed the advice proffered by Benjamin Disraeli to a novice MP anxious to make a name for himself by making a speech to the House of Commons:
“Better to remain silent and let people think you’re a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
 |
