The lie about "social peace".

Te "pro-choice" rally in Washington D.C. on April 25 attracted a reported 500,000-800,000 participants and extensive media attention. Even numerous Canadian papers ran large colour photos and broadcasters featured it prominently. Yet few Canadians would know that several hundred "pro-choice" demonstrators held their own rally honouring abortionist Henry Morgentaler with the unintentionally ironically named "Lifetime Achievement" award in Ottawa. The fact that Canadian papers would give extensive coverage to an American news story when a similar, albeit smaller, event occurred in our capital is telling.

Just before and again during the 2000 federal election, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said that there should be no debate on abortion because in Canada we have "social peace" on the issue. He mistook silence for social peace, the lack of debate for disinterest.

The silence that surrounds the issue has resulted in stifled political debate and a deep ignorance about abortion. Many Canadians are misinformed about Canada's laws governing abortion; indeed, few know that Canada does not have an abortion law. Consequently, a pregnant woman can have an abortion at any time, for any reason and at taxpayer expense.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's permissive law of 1969 as too restrictive, Canada has had no abortion law. The Mulroney Tories produced legislation (C-43) in 1990 but this was defeated in the Senate on a tie vote.

Only once since 1991 has the abortion issue come before the House of Commons. In 2003, a private member's motion was introduced to urge Parliament to study--merely study--whether abortion is, in fact, a medically necessary procedure. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated, 139-66.

South of the border, on the other hand, legislation is regularly considered at the state and federal levels. In the past seven months Congress has passed and President George W. Bush has signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Even though the issue is thought to be contentious, it is being discussed. In a democracy, few if any topics should be considered closed for debate.

But the political and media elite in Canada do not share such open-mindedness. However, that does not mean there is social peace.

There certainly is no consensus on the status quo. Extensive polling data demonstrates that there are deep divisions. A Leger Marketing poll from 2002 found 37 per cent supported making abortion illegal from the moment of conception compared to 30 per cent who supported keeping abortion legal until the moment of birth.

According to the same poll, another 19 per cent supported a gestational approach to restricting abortion (13 per cent at three months, 6 per cent at six months). In summary, 56 per cent of Canadians oppose the status quo, i.e. limitless abortion-on-demand. Leger replicated these results in a 2003 poll.

A 2001 Gallup poll found that 32 per cent of respondents wanted no restrictions on abortion, compared to 13 per cent who thought it ought to be prohibited, and 52 per cent who thought abortion should be legal "only under certain circumstances." Polls illustrate that, far from accepting abortion on demand, Canadians do not support the status quo.

Despite the diversity of opinion within the country, no mainstream political party holds a pro-life position and no major daily newspaper takes a pro-life editorial position. Why the silence? I thought the media liked controversy.

It is not good for issues, especially issues as serious as abortion, life and death issues, to be considered "verboten" topics of discussion. A recent example illustrates how keeping abortion out of sight and out of mind may affect the public policy debate regarding Canada's demographics.

In April 2004, Statistics Canada released two reports within weeks of one another. The first reported the number of abortions in 2002. Those media that covered it (which were few) reduced the story to a news brief or a mere mention on the broadcast.

The second report documented Canada's stagnant population growth. This story got more attention and the general consensus was that more immigration was needed. Several stories mentioned lifestyle changes, including increased access to contraception, but none reported the obvious reason for Canada's below-replacement-level fertility rates: abortion.

The reason for the problem documented in the second report was made vividly clear in the first report. With birth rates failing precipitously, is it difficult to conclude that one in four pregnancies ending in abortion would be a major culprit? But the silence that surrounds abortion prevented this analysis to occur.

Ideally, debate in a democracy ought to persuade citizens of the superiority of one position over another. In Canada, after the proponents of abortions won the debate (with the help of the Supreme Court), the debate was declared permanently over. This does not occur on any other issue.

Paul Tuns is editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's monthly life and family newspaper.