NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
December 15, 2004
Conscience
Excuse me I'm stupid. I'm trying to figure out what the word "conscience" might mean in the mind of Paul Martin -- or to make it a little less personal in the mind of any prominent post-modern political leader. John Kerry for instance. In the recent U.S. election Mr. Kerry was at pains to affirm that he believed as a good Catholic that human life begins at conception. Now that was an admirably plain statement. For if life begins at conception the procurement of an abortion must be tantamount to murder. And good Catholic that he is Mr. Kerry would almost certainly believe that he could not counsel nor even tolerate an act of murder. It would go against his conscience surely to allow such a thing even if the latest Gallup poll showed 51 per cent in favour. And indeed Mr. Kerry -- so far as one could disentangle his rather awkward syntactical constructions when addressing the nuances of a moral issue -- did oppose abortion on conscientious grounds. However he felt it would be wrong to impose his own deeply conscientious views on persons who -- well here I'm going stupid again. On whom could he not impose? I suppose either persons without a conscience or persons who were otherwise-conscienced. It was so far as I could follow a little like his SUV. (Or was it some foreign car?) He might own one himself but he didn't drive it. Or was it that he did drive it but only his wife owned it? I could never get the story quite straight. Anyway what I was getting at: that in his own mind a conscience might be like John Kerry's SUV. Let's say he owns one. In that case everyone who owns an SUV should vote for him to show solidarity among SUV owners. And everyone who opposes driving SUVs because they are bad for the environment or whatever should also vote for him because he never drives it. I've probably made a mess of the analogy I am pretty thick. I was thinking perhaps they think a conscience is a good thing to have but a bad thing to use. Since it doesn't look right not to have a conscience. But if everyone who had one took it to work with him every morning there would soon be another hole in the ozone layer. I'm sure our Prime Minister Mr. Martin is also a good Catholic. I'm told he has assured at least one good Catholic audience that this is the case. He has also mentioned that in his own good Catholic mind marriage can only mean one man and one woman (and probably not too closely related). Now it wouldn't do for me to suggest that the man lacks a conscience. I haven't actually seen it but there are several doors on his garage and it could be parked behind any one of them. Indeed one of the evidences of Mr. Martin's conscience is that he will allow a free vote in the House of Commons when his government's (arguably unconscionable) legislation to redefine marriage comes up for a vote in the New Year. The members will thus be allowed to vote each according to his conscience. But once again I begin to lose the thread. As my learned colleague Charlie Gordon put it Published estimates indicate as many as 30 Liberals could vote against the bill, more if cabinet ministers are also given a free vote, which they probably won't be. Does this mean the members of the Liberal Cabinet are not expected to have a conscience? Or that they are allowed to have one so long as they don't take it to work? But backbenchers may not only have one but drive it anywhere? Even if it imperils the ozone layer? Or perhaps a conscience is a very cheap thing (I mean for Liberals). Perhaps a conscience is like a chocolate bar the sort of thing you might catch some low-class M.P. munching upon but never never at the Cabinet table. For if you were to be found munching such a thing in such an august environment you would be tossed right out. You would have to go sit with the trash on the backbenches. Now as my readers know I'm rather backward and old-fashioned. To me a conscience would be a better thing to have even than a minister's portfolio. After all what's a little moment of power if you have to spend the rest of eternity burning in hell? I would rather take the chocolate bar. Or an SUV if they're offering one. It's an odd thing that. Your modern Liberal politician hopes to win support among the conscientious by assuring them that at least on matters of grave significance if not on others he can be guaranteed to vote against his conscience. Stupid Warren! I really have trouble following these things. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top