BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHAT'S WRONG WITH A REFERENDUM?

Editors note:

The column below by Toronto Star columnist Richard Gwyn points out with clarity, why the government under PM Paul Martin, and the opposition leader Stephen Harper, don't want to put the same-sex issue to a referendum. It's because they can't control the outcome of such a referendum. They prefer, according to Mr. Gwyn, to call the shots themselves and cut ordinary Canadians from the debate. Of course they don't admit this publicly.

Instead, the Liberals argue that the same-sex marriage issue should not be the subject of a referendum because the issue is an "equality one and that the majority shouldn't be deciding minority rights." Since when doesn't the majority decide minority rights? How did the disabled obtain rights except by majority wishes? Or how did women get the vote? And, for that matter, how did the federal Human Rights Act get amended to provide protection on the grounds of sexual orientation? Why, suddenly, can't the majority decide issues? The argument, in short, is utter balderdash. Same-sex relationships are not equivalent to the union of a man and woman. Same-sex marriage is an issue dealing with social policy only - not an equality issue, the pronouncements of the trendy courts to the contrary.

Moreover, once the walls protecting marriage as an institution between a man and a woman are removed, then the definition of marriage is left wide open to all other arrangements, such as polygamy, unions between a brother and sister, uncle and a niece, etc. That is, the argument for same-sex marriage made before the courts in Canada has been that because gay couples love one another and are committed to one another, their relationships should be recognized in law. Logically, if the same-sex bill is passed, this argument can and will be extended to other arrangements in the coming years.

Stephen Harper's argument against a referendum is obscure. He states it's a matter for Parliament to decide. Parliament? There is no such thing as a "free vote" on the Liberal side since its Parliamentary machine exerts such intense pressure on its MPs that it denies them any option if they want to have a career in that party. Under these circumstances, a parliamentary vote deprives those living in a Liberal riding of any say on the issue.

What is Mr. Harper thinking? Parliament today is scarcely a forum for democracy. Does Mr. Harper just want to go through the motions, rather than resolve the issue by having it truly reflect the views of ordinary Canadians?

A national referendum must be called on the same-sex marriage issue. It's time ordinary Canadians had a voice in this country. Please write to the following demanding that a referendum be called on the same-sex marriage issue.

The Right Hon. Paul Martin, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Tel: (613) 992-4211
Fax: (613) 941-6900
E-mail: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Stephen Harper
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Tel: (613 ) 996-6740
Fax: (613) 947-0310
Email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

What's Wrong with a Referendum?

Excerpted from a column by columnist Richard Gwyn, Toronto Star, December 15, 2004.

Canada isn't really a democracy. We have the trappings - elections, parties, elected MPs, a Commons, a free press and the rest. And public opinion can make itself felt, as in the decision not to join in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as in the hurling of more or less unlimited amounts of money at medicare.

But we are really a guided democracy - guided from the top downward, no differently from the 19th century when the Family Compact told us what to do.

The key democratic instrument that we lack is public debate. The cut and thrust of argument. The contestation of strongly held, contrary opinions. The clash of ideas, and of biases and prejudices.

All of this, we recoil from. It's divisive. It may leave bruises, even wounds. Almost worse, it can be unseemly. The more ordinary people take part in public debate, the more likely the unsayable will be said.

I've long thought that the best illustration of the real nature of Canadian politics was that panel of Dalton Camp, Eric Kierans and Stephen Lewis on CBC Radio's This Country in the Morning. It was the most popular, the longest-running political panel in our broadcasting history.

It appealed because of the personal attractiveness and the intelligence of the panelists. But it also contained a key "X" factor. All the three panelists were exactly alike: all were left liberals and soft nationalists. As was the host, Peter Gzowski. It was debate without edge or bite - the perfect Canadian debate.

A current example is illuminating. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has proposed that a national referendum, and therefore a national debate, should be held on the issue of same-sex marriages.

In response, nearly everyone is aghast. Shocked and horrified, in other words, that Canadians should have a chance to discuss a public policy issue that more people feel more strongly about than any other in a long time, perhaps - if the number of times the topic comes up spontaneously in private conversations is a fair measure - all the way back to Canada-U.S. free trade.

It is understandable that politicians, Conservative Harper no less than Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, are aghast. They'd lose control.

What's truly revealing is that the press, normally passionate about everything being debated, is equally aghast.

The Star, a couple centimeters to the left of center, and The Globe and Mail, which is a demicentimetre to the right of center - in Canadian politics the equivalent of a chasm apart - are each aghast, and each equally so.

A referendum might "sound democratic" declared the Star, but referendums "do not allow for nuanced consideration of complex issues. They are subject to manipulation by special interests." As if special interests are ever silent and as if any issue does not ultimately involve a Yes or a No.

The Globe proclaimed that Klein was indulging his "mischievous streak" and that a subject so delicate should never be "placed in the hothouse of a referendum campaign."

The Star added the ultimate unanswerable putdown: Referendums are American.

A national debate on same-sex marriages would certainly test our mettle.

But do the Star and the Globe, and Harper and Martin and, by all appearances, the entire chattering class, really believe that ordinary Canadians are incapable of discussing difficult and delicate issues without tearing the nation apart?

It is virtually certain the same-sex side would win. But wouldn't we learn a lot in the process about the issue itself and about ourselves?

The inevitable conclusion: Our press and our politicians don't want a democracy but a democracy guided democracy - guided, that's to say, by themselves.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS