Last fall, the Liberals began planning what was to be a “thinkers” conference, which ultimately morphed into last weekend’s Canada at 150 event. With the Leader’s then recently announced “return to the Liberal big tent,” that early planning included having MP John McKay (Scarborough – Guildwood) charged with reopening the door to Evangelicals and others in the faith community. There was tangible excitement as speakers from the faith perspective were on the drawing board to be included as a portion of the “thinkers” weekend. That excitement was quickly scuttled as the Leader, who has stated his opinion that reason trumps faith, decided he would not make space for faith-based reason in the consideration of public policy alternatives after all.
And so, without the faith-based reasoners present, the Newthinkers (I’m coining the term from the concept of George Orwell’s reference to Newspeak in his epic novel 1984, you know “the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year”) gathered to look at the “break here, between the political class and the citizens of the country,” the Leader stated. The speakers’ list resembled a who’s who of grey-haired elite liberal business, political and academic leaders (predominantly from Montreal and Toronto), with a few from the charitable sector thrown in for good measure.
The Newthinkers introduced concepts such as: reducing the number of services covered by medicare (based on recent statements of the leader, likely ensuring access to abortion but eliminating from coverage a few lifesaving measures) and leaving those uncovered services to private medical coverage or personal expense; eliminating proposed government tax cuts for business that were designed to keep business from leaving Canada or going out of business during a time of economic recovery; adding back the 2% that was cut from the GST by the Conservative government; mandatory daycare for the state to raise our children, without parents being able to exercise the option; a carbon tax similar to that proposed by the previous leader in the last election; and, government by “the power of the network,” whatever that means. The power of the network and national strategies (as yet undefined) were what the Leader ultimately settled upon as the fruit of the weekend’s work, although without concrete definition of these national strategies or clarity as to how they will be funded.
Leaning on the thinkers conference concept twice before employed successfully by the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff seems instead to have assembled old speakers and borrowed ideas in an effort to Newthink the way to unrooted and undefined national policy strategies. If there’s one thing about faith-based reasoning that is worth considering, it is that it is rooted. There’s a place for reasoning to begin, in concepts of value for one’s fellow human beings and exploration of what is for the good of all … it’s a sound foundation for thoughtful consideration of good public policy. I wonder what concepts might have been enunciated by those who base their reason in a belief both ancient and contemporary?
If the Liberal Party is truly to return to its “big tent” days, I encourage the Leader and his supporters to undertake some new thinking (rather than Newthink) and heed the advice of another former Liberal leader as well as that provided in 2002 as the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.
… obliging some people to keep their opinions to themselves is in itself (when one thinks of it) an intolerant, fundamentally undemocratic way of buying harmony among citizens of a free society. However we find it may look on the surface, this so-called “liberal” approach, which is not truly liberal in my opinion, is a thinly veiled way of curtailing the freedom of expression of religious believers. While it may present practical advantages, it is unacceptable in principle.
– Claude Ryan, Liberal Party of Quebec, Member of the National Assembly of Quebec from 1979 to 1994, at the “Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy” conference, McGill University, 9 October 2002.
… nothing in the Charter, political or democratic theory, or a proper understanding of pluralism demands that atheistically based moral positions trump religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy. I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that ‘… Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.’ According to Saunders J. [of the British Columbia Supreme Court where the case was heard at trial], if one’s moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is that everyone has ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ in something, be it atheistic, agnostic or religious. To construe ‘secular’ as the realm of the ‘unbelief’ is therefore erroneous. Given this, why, then, should the religiously informed conscience be placed at public disadvantage or disqualification? To do so would be to distort liberal principles in an illiberal fashion and would provide only a feeble notion of pluralism.
– Justice Charles Gonthier’s dissenting opinion, endorsed by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on this point, in Chamberlain vs. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86.