Upload
dissenting-futilitarian
View
226
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Issue 1 of an epistolary newspaper addressed to Canada's Members of Parliament
Citation preview
“It is an insult!” “A farce!”
“It is proud progress in human rights!”
“The country revi les it!”
“The country supports it.”
My throbbing head - help! If only the
country would support my head.
D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS:
How keen ly you l ove
to hear all sides, I know. I take joy
in you, Men and Women of Service,
because I know very well how you
freely assemble in a House designed for
debate and go at it with vigour, debating.
Who forces you? No one. You take this
work upon yourselves, willingly bearing
for us the heavy burden of turning over
weighty issues until their true character
is seen and a wise course of action can
at last be set for our fair country, in the
full daylight of K NO W L E D G E . In this
turning-over-of-weighty-issues you spare
no effort, begriming your suitcoats and
tearing your stockings. Thank you! How
much we need you!
And yet you have said N O .
You have said it. You have urged on
each other the duty to say it: here is one
weighty issue you will not turn over.
Your answer is N O .
You ask, “What issue are you speaking
of, dear author. Kindly tell us.”
Why, this whole D e f I n I T I on of
Hu mAn BeIng & ABorTIon business.
You said N O - or seem ready to say it.
‘No, we will not study it. Take T HAT
FO u l i s s u e away!’
Honourable Members, how well I under-
stand you!!
Y ou are not alone! You may feel
alone, for I well know that
many decry your decision. Just how
many was made blindingly clear to me
only two Thursdays past, when your
lawn was filled and the neighbouring
streets jammed tight with those crying
out for the human rights of The Invisible,
The Unborn, The Innocent! Shoulder to
shoulder they marched and chanted, sang
and prayed.
I slid past them under a cloud: my
clouded thoughts. “Just look at how many
are surely against that N O ,” I thought.
“The very government these marchers
voted for has said N O to study of the
single issue that brings them here:
the rights of The Unborn. Their elected
representatives w i l l no t ev e n st u dy
this issue. What a back-handed slap it
must seem to them!”
I believed that I could see their thoughts:
“These people must all say N O to your
N O ,” I thought - and how glad I felt,
at that moment, to know that they
could not see my thoughts, which said
... - well, not exactly Y E S to your N O
but something considerably closer than
what I sensed in each head, in the many
heads directing the many feet shuffling
past in that impressive, endless crowd.
I slunk by keeping my face expression-
less - which, to be honest, I soon feared
betrayed me, and so I began to run, not
daring to look back.
I ran: a certain cowardice moved my
legs. What did I fear, you wonder. The
fear that restrains my hand in this letter
and keeps me incognito. (Do not look for
my name: you will not find it.) The fear
of isolation, rejection by my own kind.
If I felt alone among those ‘Ma rc h i ng
for L i f e ’ then surely, you say, I could
find allies on the other side of the issue
- but no. Let me explain what happened
when I ran.
To recover my ease I withdrew to a
quiet alley away from the March. Soon a
group of gaily dressed people approached,
engaged in animated discussion. I could
not help but stare at them: their
curious apparel commanded my eyeballs
to behold their difference. And as I
beheld, the signs they carried and the
words they spoke reached me.
“jesus was pro-choice.” “Private Property” (written
beside a drawing of what resembled a
pea pod, with a single pea at the top).
“These are not chickens” (alongside a sketch
of two eggs). “I can’t believe I need to protest
this shit - It’s 2012!” A man with a big scarf
was saying, “It’s a woman’s right. It’s up to the
woman to decide the fate of her own life and the fate
of the fetus inside her body.”
It is all so clear to those who know,
but how do they know? how hav e
t h e y d on e i t ? Those who are sure
of the rights of The Invisible k now.
Those who are sure The Invisible have
no rights k now. However have they
done this? How have they acquired this
certainty?! Whence their acuity in these
obtund times?
T here is no company for me
except you who have pushed
this issue away. Like O u r L ea de r !
I honour especially Our Leader, the
Right Honourable Mr. ORpHeUS,
a h a r p e r t o my e a r s i n s a y i n g ,
“I’m not opening this debate. I don’t want it opened.
I have not wanted it opened. I haven’t opened it as
Prime Minister. I’m not going to open it. This is not the
priority of the Canadian public or this government and
it will not be.” There was a time, I confess,
when I despised him, was confused by
him, feared him. Inscrutable man! - you
were brought to power by those who
support (do they not?) the assigning of
rights to unborn humans - but you said,
“The public doesn’t want to open this debate.” And
at last I know your secret. We are alone
in our insight, you and I. And what a
strange insight it is!
Members, have I not purchased your under-
standing - crashed into the precinct of
knowledge where you reside, to acquire
your wisdom and behold what you see
already? I am no one, a mere citizen.
Nothing gives me the right to speak on
any issue - I speak through a tin can
picked from the recycling. And yet I
would speak to you because I understand
you! Let us meet here in print; I shall
explain the wisdom you possess - unfold
THe very r I DDl e of or pH e u s
- and then tell me if we are not kin in
thought, aligned in spirit, futilitarians!
And, if you would permit, let me also
narrate how I came to possess your secret:
the knowledge of a K N OW L E D G E w e
CA N N OT h av e ! You are busy men and
women with better things to do than
read some boring crank, but I will charm
you with your own story!
On ne va pas
ouvr ir ce deba t ,
le droit actuel.
On va la i sser
No. 123 MAY
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
P r e - f a b d e b a t e , c h e a p c h u n k s o f t h o u g h t , d u m p e d o n y o u r p l a t e , r e a d y o r n o t !
B
Months ago I began by going in the
opposite direction from you!
D ecemb er - fa tefu l month!
I was so innocent in December;
now how old I feel in May! Do you
recal l ? One of your members ,
Mr. vALeUR -De -bO I S , proposed a
national discussion of something “odd”
in our law: “Canada’s 400-year-old definition
of human being.” but you know the story;
§ 2 2 3 ( 1 ) o f o u r C r im i n a l C o d e
(drafted in 1879, based on language of
1642, adopted in 1892) reads:
“A child becomes a human being within the meaning
of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a
living state, from the body of its mother, whether or
not: (a ) it has breathed; ( b ) it has an independent
circulation; or ( c ) the navel string is severed.”
Having read that I thought, “How odd
indeed” (and not just because of “navel-
string”). I was oblivious. In February
vaLEur-DE-bOis’s press-release said more:
“For me –and I think for most Canadians” - and at
that time I keenly counted myself in -
“this law clearly misrepresents the facts. It’s based
on limited 17th-century medical knowledge.”
“t h e facts .” O hallowed principle!
Is adherence to facts not sacred to
every modern society? Surely “modern medical
science will inform us that children are in reality
human beings at some point before the moment of
complete birth.” I was in agreement. Who
could deny that?
Can you deny it? - Honestly, can you
disagree with that one claim, that at
some point before birth we have, as a
matter of fact , a human being within
the abdomen of its mother - a child and
nothing less? I could not.
Whether I like the Member’s smile or
not (and I admit it is not to my taste),
I was bound to agree with his words.
We therefore have, in our law books,
a “law that says some human beings are not
human beings!” How disturbing. What could
be clearer? I was all for the national
discussion.
I became a follower of the Member. He
spoke to my soul when he said, “Don’t you
want truthful laws? Don’t you wish we could get rid
of every misrepresentation in Canadian law? How can
... any law be based on a lie and be just?” Indeed.
“Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are
not human beings!” I would never: would you?
Do you believe that we should accept a
law that says some human beings are
not human? Said the Member, a law that
does that “without any principled justification or
scientific basis is not a just law.”
I was convinced. That was February.
I t began to
interest me
greatly how this
“respectful dialogue to
update a 400-year-Old defi-
nition of human being, with
the aid of 21st-century
i n format i on ,” would
unfold. (I will not
detail the Motion of
6 February asking
t h a t a s p e c i a l
c o mm i t t e e b e
appointed by the
House to review
the defining quality
of ‘human’ in Cri-
minal Code § 223(1)
in the light of fact
- you know all
about the rules of
Motions.) but I began to read, began
to think, carefully followed the ‘news’
on this ‘story’.
Such as: the dispatch that the Member has
“attempted to kickstart ‘conversation’ on the
def in i t ion of ‘human be ing ’ .” Interesting,
I thought; is it true that that motor
will not be started easily - is even reluctant
to start? When Mr. vaLEur-DE-bOis then
addressed the members of the reporter's
profession, she commented as follows:
“Oh, now he’s speaking directly to journalists,
and their ‘personal commitment to the truth’.... So
- we’re the ones who are supposed to start the
c o n v e r s a t i o n n o w ? F o r a f o u r t h t i m e , h e
or de r s journalists - and the rest of you too,
I think - not to accept this law.”
“O r de r s ”? Must one be c om ma n de d
to care about injustice? I sensed a
mocking tone. “And that as purveyors of truth
and light, we –- journalists, that is -– can’t not carry
forth his banner.” What am I seeing here,
I wondered? Who are these journalists? In
my journal (the foolish, homespun page
that is now in your hands), I inform: I tell
you what transpires. Should I also tell
you what to think about it? For heaven’s
sake, think whatever you like - but pay
attention to the substance, the matter
at issue: We are talking here about
justice, not cracking jokes.
One remark in particular puzzled me: a
criticism of the Member, who “thinks those
committed to the truth ‘will courageously follow
those facts wherever they lead’.” Is that thought
ridiculous? Is such a thing improbable?
In what land am I living, I wondered. Is
it one in which those paid to inform us
about our leaders think that our leaders
will resist the facts, will in cowardly
fashion back away from the trouble or
labour or l ea d e r s h i p that the facts
dictate? - Members, I awaited your
response to this slur from the journalist,
but heard none.
I agreed entirely with Mr. vALeUR -
De -bO I S , that “Just laws must be based on
accurate evidence, not arbitrary lines unrelated to
reality.” I was convinced: I believe it now,
to this day: don’t you? Yet the man
stepping forth for justice was being
treated as a laughing-stock. I was keen
to know why, and so I resolved to see
prof . GROAN, a political philosopher
of my acquaintance.
m y friend listened to my
questions with an oddly
indulgent expression. “Are you such a
fool?” he said at last. “He has boondoggled
you with his schemes.”
“To what schemes do you refer: is the
rectification of injustice a scheme?”
“Injustice? You moron!” he snapped. “He
is an instrument of injustice.”
Dumbfounded, I stammered back that
the Member “wants no more than that
the government would consider the
scientific evidence.”
“No,” said prof . GROAN, “you do not
understand. It has nothing to do with
evidence, either for us or for him. This is
just a smokescreen. What he wants is to
take us back to a more primitive time of
crueller law. Does a man who cares about
evidence and “modern medical science” want to
go backwards? No: such a man wants to
go forwards. but he and his kind want
us to go backwards.”
“In truth,” he continued, “he has no
interest in facts at all. He merely feigns
interest in science. Is he religious,
perchance?” “I believe so,” said I. “Well,
there you go! The reason he has proposed
that this case be settled on a scientific
basis is that by asking scientists he
can guarantee a decision in his favour -
because he has already consulted the
scientific texts to find that these books
confirm his conclusion. Whyever did he
pick scientists?”
“He said, ‘I’m merely proposing that parliament
inform itself from the relative disciplines’.”
“Well then tell me: what disciplines are
they?”
(At this point I rather lost my
composure, as I had no idea what to
reply. Goodness, ‘what disciplines’
indeed? but here I must break off my
tale - u N t i L N E xt t i M E ! )
I am, etc.
1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca
OR
INSTRUCT ON for
identifying a H man Being.
I T I S HUM WHEN
it has com te p ceeded,
in a living state,
from the body of the mother,
whether not:
A it has bre thed;
B it has an indepen t circulation; or
C the navel stri is severed
o u r D e f I n I T I on
I N 2 0 1 2 ?
I�ll be out when I am R
EA
DY
no s CreAmIng ru sH To Be Hu mAn