by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
January 25, 2005
During last year’s federal election campaign, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper accused Prime Minister Paul Martin of being in favour of child pornography. Martin had said or done absolutely nothing to indicate that he somehow likes the idea of people being able to look at infants, toddlers and children in various sexual poses or while being sexually assaulted. Even Martin’s harshest critics don’t think that the prime minister is somehow in favour of kiddie porn. The significance of Harper’s comments was not that he made them. It is easy to misspeak in the heat of a political campaign. What was outrageous was the fact that the Conservative leader refused to apologize, retract or clarify his remarks, indicating that he actually meant it. His refusal to withdraw the comments prevented him from making what should have been the real argument--that Paul Martin and his Liberal Party are soft on crime in general and soft on enforcing child pornography laws in particular. accusing Paul Martin of actually being in favour of child pornography is one reason why Stephen Harper will never be Prime Minister of Canada.
Now he’s gone and done it again. To bolster his argument against same sex marriage, an issue that he is now just finally beginning to talk about, Harper said, "the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy and who knows what else." again, there is absolutely nothing that the Liberal Party has said or done to indicate that they have some secret agenda to legalize polygamy or "who knows what else". In fact, if Martin and Harper had even a little of the secret agendas that they accuse each other of having, Canada would be a much more interesting country in which to live. By erroneously accusing Liberals of planning to do what there is no evidence of, Harper is again, missing the real issue.
That issue is that although the government may not be planning to legalize polygamy, doing away with the traditional definition of marriage will bolster the argument for the legalization of polygamy by those who would like to see the practice made lawful. Mohamed Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress, who gained notoriety when he said that every Israeli over the age of 18 years is a legitimate target of Palestinians, has said that polygamy in Islam is much better than men who have mistresses as each "wife" and their children are treated equally. already, arguments in support of polygamy are being made and it is only a matter of time before the issue is brought before the courts. arguments in favour of polygamy are difficult to make as long as the traditional definition of marriage remains on the books. But changing those who can marry from a man and a woman to two persons, the argument is left open as to why there should be some magic in the number "two". It may be a long shot but it is still a real possibility that polygamy will be legalized at some point in the future.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler disagrees with the fact that polygamy will ultimately become legal. according to Cotler, polygamy is illegal and will remain a crime. That argument is really a non starter--if the courts hold that entering into a polygamous marriage is a "right", then the crime of polygamy would simply be struck down as being unconstitutional. It hasn’t been that long since homosexuality was a criminal offence. Were that still the case, it would have been struck down by any court that decided gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. Harper should have been making these arguments instead of accusing the Liberals of wanting to bring in polygamy.
NDP leader Jack Layton made an argument that should have been made by Harper and the Conservatives. Layton argued that if Paul Martin really thought that same sex marriage was an issue of "human rights" as the PM keeps insisting it is, why is he letting his MPs vote their conscience on something that is a fundamental right? Good point, Jack.
There are cogent arguments against bringing in same sex marriage. But Stephen Harper and his gang of quasi-conservatives would rather accuse Paul Martin of hidden agendas, than make those arguments.
and if Paul Martin wants to call a snap election over the issue of same sex marriage --he might as well go for it. He has very little to lose.