Glen Pearson, MP (London North Centre) is a Liberal and a nice guy. Former volunteer director of the London Food Bank, human rights and development activist for the Darfur region of Sudan, along with his wife an adoptive parent of three children from the Sudan, and recipient of several major “nice guy” awards, Glen Pearson is … a nice guy.
You might remember Pearson as the MP who garnered headlines when he refused to be unnecessarily critical of fellow MPs, regardless of their party, and set an example of civility in the House of Commons when it appeared there might be more a need for referees and linesmen than the services of the Speaker. It’s nice to see a nice guy have a remarkably nice day (there’s no sarcasm in repeatedly using the word nice, it just fits the occassion and the man). The Hill Times reports that when his wife and children were visiting Parliament Hill last week, MPs from all parties engaged both in kindness to his family and generally pleasant and cooperative discussion on a number of issues.
It’s heartwarming to see a consistently nice guy at the centre of a day of encouragingly non-partisan civil behaviour.
In the same issue of The Hill Times, the Parliamentary Calendar notes that the Liberals are planning a “Thinkers” conference in January 2010. Given the recent report on Canadian Evangelical Voting Trends by Region, 1996-2008 notes that the Conservatives, from their Reform roots, have maintained space for religiously informed thinkers to contribute to policy and the NDP have historically provided similar opportunity for input while the Liberals have spent a decade closing that door, it will be interesting to see if the “thinkers” invited will reflect an openness to evangelical Canadians returning to (or visiting for the first time) the Liberal Party.
This brings me to some of my favourite legal writing, the decision of Mr. Justice Gonthier in Chamberlain v Surrey School District:
… 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. The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of modern pluralism.
To supplement Justice Gonthier’s thoughts – just as, if you will pardon the expression, the “faithfully” secularist should not be permitted to exclude the views of religion from the public square; neither should religion exclude the views of others. It is the very multiplicity of views that are brought into the public square for discourse that identifies and makes Canada an appealing example of democracy to so many in the rest of the world. This multiplicity of positions does not threaten our ability to make decisions, elect governments and determine public policy. It strengthens us as a nation.
And, when this multiplicity of views meets together in Parliament, it can make for a remarkably nice day.