What will this election be about?

This coming election is about whether or not Canadians want to be freed from the social prohibitions and controls increasingly being imposed upon them by "political correctness."

Political correctness as a Philosophy

Political correctness is the moralistic and censorial arm of a belief system according to which the West has been long tainted by values and prejudices that have led to systemic discrimination against, and marginalization of, certain groups. These values and prejudices, the argument goes on, reflect a white, male, Eurocentric and Christian viewpoint that is both sectarian and intolerant. Today the role of the State is to right the wrong this has created by establishing the full and equal participation of those perceived to have been discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, beliefs or sexual "orientation."

This requires giving special status to members of those groups so as to hasten social change. It means not to judge their differences by standards "tainted" with Western Christian superiority but always in a positive or, at least, sympathetic light. Any significant negative features of a group are viewed as either an illusion or a byproduct of past oppression.

The flip side of granting special status to these groups is the lowering of the status and role of white, Christian heterosexual males and, more generally, the removal of all traces of Christian influence. Henceforth, all cultures must be considered equal in value. "Multiculturalism" is the new religion of our secular society.

Life and family issues

Political correctness is framed largely, although not exclusively, around life and family issues: sexual freedom, abortion, same-sex marriage, the right for same-sex couples to adopt children, euthanasia and easy divorce (with same-sex marriage being the flavour of the day. Its adherents also tend to deal with these issues outside a standard democratic framework (not trusting the average person to be as enlightened as they are). A common modus operandi is to get a court decision, force Parliament to act upon it quickly and then argue that the matter ought not to be "revisited". This explains why Stephen Harper, in response to a question from the press, was skewered on the first day of the campaign for saying he would, in keeping with party policy, allow a free vote on same-sex marriage. But why is a federal election campaign not the proper place to discuss such an issue?

Purpose

The purpose of the new same-sex legislation is not to achieve greater equality, as the politically correct would have us believe, but, rather, to legitimize particular lifestyles. The homosexual lobby understands very well that marriage is not strictly private: it is normative.

By allowing same-sex couples to marry, Parliament claims to have established a moral and legal equivalence between homosexual relationships and conjugal relationships. In so doing, it has robbed Canadians of the meaning of marriage.

All normal Canadians are bigots 

If restricting marriage to husbands and wives (who generally become fathers and mothers) is "unfairly discriminatory," then anyone who supports the traditional definition of marriage supports unfair discrimination. In short, he, or she is a bigot.

In the utopian world advocated by homosexual militants, the idea that children need or deserve mothers and fathers would be morally equivalent to racism--"homophobia." Their logic leads not to live-and-let-live tolerance, but to an ugly culture war waged against any public expression of views that do not accept homosexuality as intrinsically healthy, wholesome, and perfectly normal. Public school curricula will be changed to fit the new social norms. Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations that do not adopt the dogma of political correctness will be threatened. [OMEGA]

State must intervene

Political correctness does believe in public morality. It assumes that universal, socialized medicine, daycare and state-run schools are all obviously good. It further assumes that matters such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, divorce and the like are strictly private (varying with culture, religion or personal tastes) and so, when divisive, in need of State mediation.

The common factor in both public and private morality thus seen is the State's role as ultimate judge and social engineer. But if that is so, then it follows that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, potentially outside State control, in which case everything, including the dignity of each individual, is up for grabs.

If there is no universal natural moral law written into the heart of man to which all are subject, then there is no ultimate authority above that of the State. And if that is so, what limit can there be on the power of the State? And who will judge the State? If life, sexuality and family are merely matters of private opinion, the only means of arbitrating opposing views on such matters is the raw power and reigning ideology of the State. This is already starting to happen.

Whether they like it or not, Canadians are being called upon to vote on the very nature of the society they live in. The triumph of political correctness would be a triumph for moral tyranny. The demise of political correctness would be a victory for freedom. That is what the next election is about. [OMEGA]

Richard Bastien is the Director of the Catholic Civil Rights League for the National Capital area and a member of the editorial board of Egards, a French quarterly journal published out of Montreal (www.egards.qc.ca)