Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Further to May 7th post

I too doubt that the state should be involved in the enforcement of things like the incest taboo. And I agree that the fear of disorder, the excesses of the media, and the desire of authorities to exert control, conspire to extend the power of the state into spheres of personal life that would be better served by other intermediary institutions. But I’m concerned about what happens when the state tries to withdraw. The sodomy taboo is an interesting case in point.


In the 1970’s the criminal code was amended and sodomy, among other things, was decriminalized. People who were concerned about this were assured that it was merely a matter of getting the state out of the bedrooms of the nation and that the intermediary institutions like churches, schools, voluntary associations, families and individuals would still be free to support the taboo if they felt it necessary. But, over the years, through the institution of the courts, the practice of sodomy has become a right. The definition of legal marriage has been extended to include same sex couples, and human rights tribunals work to curtail the freedom of intermediary institutions to support the sodomy taboo.


Now, without rehashing the homosexuality debate, it seems to me that this is the likely trajectory of the incest taboo. If it were simply to be decriminalized that would be one thing, but surely we can expect incest between consenting adults to become a protected freedom, then a right, then marriage to be extended to such relationships, as has already happened in some countries, and so it goes. Those who express concern will be characterized as “sibliphobes” and the word “incest” will become as quaintly offensive as the word “sodomy” is in the paragraph above.


My underlying concern is not so much with the policing of incest, or sodomy, or polygamy, or masturbation, or adultery, or marriage, or anything else for that matter. It’s just that I wonder if we will eventually discover that, in the interest of personal freedom, we have dismissed or compromised some taboos that are essential to the institution of the family. And that we can’t come up with another really effective institution for the care and nurture of the next generation.


When all is said and done, it seems to me this process has a life of its own. I don’t have any solutions. In fact, I don’t even know how big a problem it is. I’m just sitting here on the sidelines, observing and scratching my head, and wondering what’s next.




Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The “NONE OF THE ABOVE” campaign

The other day I received an email from one of my kids. My kids are all adults now – thank you Jesus!!! – and they often share their adult reflections. Anyway, he sent me a link to a Progressive Conservative website http://www.ignatieff.me/ and I want to pass it on to you as an example of what we really don’t need in Canadian politics. I don’t disagree with all of the content, but I’m so sick and tired of this snide, nasty, pretentious nonsense. If we have a concern lets make it known in a respectful way. Wouldn’t it be nice if this sort of thing were beneath us.


My father was a politician during the E. C. Manning era (1940s to 60s), so I grew up in a political family. This sort of crap was our life.

- People used to call Ernest Manning a benign dictator, but the truth is he was just benign.

- They attacked him for religious bigotry, when he was actually a loving, caring, tolerant, narrow fundamentalist.

- They called him an ignorant hayseed, when he was actually a good-ol', intelligent, Saskatchewan-born, Alberta farmer.

- They insisted he was an uncaring capitalist, when he was actually a compassionate entrepreneur.


It was this kind of personal attack that propelled Aberhart into power in 1935, and kept Manning there till 1971. And what happened in '71? Peter Lougheed came along and, respectfully, without any of this crap, proposed things that the people wanted and weren't getting from the Socreds. The Conservatives have now been in power longer than the Socreds were and they will be toppled by whoever comes along with better ideas and none of this bullshit.


There have been lots of people to criticize, mock, belittle, disparage and vilify, Ralph Klein, Don Getty before him and now Ed Stelmach, but this stuff is toxic and only reduces voter turnout. And when it works in a democracy, it works like cross-checking, tripping, slashing, and charging work in hockey. These things are an attack on the game itself, and if the people call this stuff the parties that indulge in it will play short-handed, i.e., from the opposition side of the house.


These days about 40% of Canadians vote for none of the above. And, of the 59.1% of eligible voters who did cast ballots in the last federal election, I suspect most voted against the others, rather than for anyone.


I am not apathetic. In fact I'm a recovering political junkie. But I value the right of citizens to vote, and to not vote, and I have exercised both options in the past 40 years. When I exercise the latter I generally do not do it by staying home, but by going to the poll and spoiling my ballot with "NONE OF THE ABOVE". I wish more people would do this, and I wish the system was required to report the % of ballots spoiled in this obviously intentional way.


We need a NONE OF THE ABOVE campaign in this county. Perhaps we could kick some of these folks out for a game or two, and suspend some for a season or even for life. Let’s get the goons off the ice so the real players can play.


Thursday, May 7, 2009

Relativity and the Law

In response to my last posing about decriminalizing incest I received the following interesting comment which reads in part: I wonder if we might think of this ... in terms of what we should expect from the law and from the state. What role ought the state play in enforcing sexual morality? ...perhaps it would be better for the state to focus on protecting the vulnerable, such as children, rather than weighing in on what consenting adults can and can't do. The comment then goes on to suggest that The prohibition of incest ... has mostly been enforced through social stigma and ostracizing transgressors. Decriminalizing incest wouldn't stop this from occurring. So the question is, are the state's institutions the proper one's to use to prevent incest?


This suggests that once incest is decriminalized – and remember, the original discussion included the possibility of extending the legal status of marriage to incestuous relationships – other forms of social sanction would continue uninhibited. This seems unlikely, however, since it implies that the freedom to discriminate against people in these relationships would be protected. Such discrimination would surely be construed as an attack on the freedom of individuals to exercise their legal rights. Thus social prohibition, if not eliminated, would be seriously curtailed.


Surely this is the heart of the matter. In a modern liberal democracy it is now almost universally assumed that the purpose of the law is to foster maximum individual freedom while protecting individuals from harm, so it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to apply legal sanction to any act to show that some individual’s freedom or security would be thus protected. Acts among consenting adults are seen as acts of freedom, so, if they are not directly harming any individual, the law will not only allow, but protect such acts.


Now, consider the challenge of raising a family in a situation where everyone is potentially a legitimate sexual partner for everyone else: fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, mothers and their brothers and fathers, fathers and their sisters and mothers, etc. It’s hard to imagine the family unit surviving in such a situation. This suggests that there is something beyond the freedom and security of the individual at stake here, i.e., the family unit. This social institution is the main agent of reproduction and the care, nurture and socialization of children. In fact, this institution is the main engine of society, yet it is this intermediary level of social organization, between individual and state, that liberal democracies seem reluctant, perhaps even unable to foster and protect.


This is why I say it feels to me like we are headed for a monstrous train-wreck. Every time one of these natural and social taboos is knocked down we are reminded that the sky hasn’t fallen, but I’m not completely reassured. I think of the story of the man who fell from the ninety-third floor of an office tower. As he passed the forty-second floor he was heard to mutter, “So far, so good.”


PS: I’m very grateful for the comment I received, but there must be a few others out there with thoughts about a topic like this. Perhaps you find the discussion so unrelentingly sophisticated and erudite that you don’t quite know how to get in. If so, don’t be so humble. Then again, perhaps you’re reluctant to get involved in something so utterly whacked. In that case, don’t be so proud.