ColbyCosh.com

Colby, I think your column asking why more Order of Canada winners have not returned their awards in protest is based on the questionable assumption that past winners feel (or should feel) that they have some moral connection to all future recipients. I'm not so sure that's the case.

They may be referred to as "members", but it's not like the Order is some think tank issuing consensus pronouncements, or a political group where ideological conformity is expected. I wold assume most of them look at the award as just that - a recognition of past public service. Surely there is no requirement or presumption that recipients agree with the viewpoints or inclusion of every other member? If Ahenakew had been allowed to keep his medal, would you have suggested that every other member must turn in theirs in order to have the moral authority to denounce his views?

I don't see any hypocrisy here, just a recognition of the award for what it is and what it is not.

There, you see: if you don't expect recipients to turn in their medals on the basis of another member's anti-semetic comments, or differences of opinion for that matter, how could you expect them to turn it in for legitimizing the murder of hundreds of thousands of children each year ( assuming you subscribe to the premise )?

No, I don't think the equivalency argument washes with the so far silent majority. I suspect there is a greater good movement afoot and we shall soon see the social status and legitimacy of the OC leveraged to it's full extent. Soon. I'm sure.

Considering the publicity a non-member of the Order of Canada is currently receiving for returning somebody else's award as protest against Morgentaler entering the Order of Canada, if you were a member of the Order who sincerely believed that Dr. Henry Morgentaler was responsible for about two million dead Canadians, what possible excuse would there be for not returning your snowflake and instead sitting down and reading the sports section a bit more vigorously than usual?

Unlike walking around outside Parliament Hill showing huge pictures of foetuses for the nth time, this whole Order of Canada thing is getting anti-abortion crusaders in the Order some real face time (well, the anti-abortion crusader formerly in the Order, anyway). So if you think Morgentaler is probably the worst butcher in the history of Anglo-French society and you're presented with a gift-wrapped opportunity to make a serious splash and show average Canadians that eminent members of this country's highest order don't approve, why wouldn't you do it?

Unless, of course, you don't exist except for a few members of the conservative fringe.

Sean E --

If one genuinely believes that abortion is murder, Morgentaler is a mass murderer with his own hands, and the originator of a two million baby Holocaust.

If Adolf Hitler were to be posthumously awarded the Order of Canada, specifically for his work in murdering Jews, who would argue it was appropriate to retain the award because "it's not like the Order is some think tank issuing consensus pronouncements, or a political group where ideological conformity is expected"?

There are but two reasons to not return the Order of Canada. One is the belief that Morgentaler is not a mass murderer of children who paved the way for two million more child murders. The other is that the Order of Canada is so utterly trivial a distinction it's not worth dignifying with the bother of returning it when it is specifically awarded for mass murder of children.

Sheesh. After ramming my head against the wall in the Morgentaler 2 comment thread I'd given up on anyone understanding the argument. The Morgentaler-is-Hitler crowd is rapidly coming to the conclusion that I'm even worse for daring to wonder why that nice Father X isn't raising a stink.

"There are but two reasons to not return the Order of Canada. One is the belief that Morgentaler is not a mass murderer of children who paved the way for two million more child murders. The other is that the Order of Canada is so utterly trivial a distinction it's not worth dignifying with the bother of returning it when it is specifically awarded for mass murder of children."

Maybe my lack of sympathy with the argument comes from my general tendency to put the OC closer to the "utterly trivial" category than some would (including the recipients, I would imagine). Or possibly my lack of regular contact with the more rabid pro-lifer wing means that making the Morgentaler=Hitler connection on their behalf doesn't come naturally to me.

Admittedly, I may be downplaying the level of commitment people have, or are supposed to have, on this issue but I still don't quite get the leap that turns this potential avenue of protest into a mandatory one.

I don't claim it's "mandatory" unless they expect to be taken seriously.

"Sheesh. After ramming my head against the wall in the Morgentaler 2 comment thread I'd given up on anyone understanding the argument."

If you're wondering why the level of public discourse about your argument hasn't met your high-standards, Colby, you probably shouldn't have concluded your article with adolescent Christian-baiting. Surely there's a good editor at the National Post who can remind you that if you're interested in making a serious point, you shouldn't crowd your writing with a less serious one.

Regardless, it's not clear to me why the renunciation of an existing Order of Canada would have any bearing on the conferring of a new one. Even given the odious Morgentaler, intelligent pro-life activism (and we'll assume, if only for the sake of argument, that members of the Order of Canada are intelligent) might plausibly take a different approach then grand-standing on a hot-button issue, no? Is it possible there's a tactical consideration at play, here, a more nuanced understanding of both the pro-life cause and the manner in which it's goals will be achieved?

Indeed, if the litmus test of the viability of an argument - or the sincerity with which it's held - is it's volume, I look forward (though not without sadness) to your self-immolation on the loading bay at the government press the next time part 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes off the printing press.

A word to all those Catholic Order recipients out there: if you really want to convince us of the sincerity of your belief you don't need to die for it, but you will be expected to grab the snowflake (and the signed photo of you shaking Jeanne Sauvé's elegant paw), and chuck it all into the street, preferably with National Post writers auditing the sequence.

It occurred to me that I've read something possibly relevant to this discussion recently:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1105

Is it possible there's a tactical consideration at play, here, a more nuanced understanding of both the pro-life cause and the manner in which it's goals will be achieved?

Well, to be sure, the track record of the Canadian pro-life movement, whose nuanced strategic imagination has made us the only developed country with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, may have outfoxed us all. I just think that if I were a street-level pro-lifer I'd be wondering why "tactical considerations" seem to involve celebrity Christians keeping their heads down and saying nothing (though our list of resignations is now at two and possibly growing).

I'm a little late to the party, but the list of resignations is now at four. Impressive!

On the tactics of the pro-life movement, I can only speak for myself when I say that no amount of laws will change the fact that abortions occur. A total ban on all abortions would be about as effective at stopping them as impaired driving laws have stopped drunk drivers.
For me, I have never 'lost any sleep' over the issue, even though I am pro-life. But I have never lost any sleep over the insanity in Zimbabwe, the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, or any other horrific action around the world taken by people against other people.

Can you be against something without spending your life in the fight against it?

Colby, if you were an ardent Pro-lifer, how would you recommend going about spreading the word? Violence? Political Coercion? We don't have privately funded abortion clinics to bomb, so would you blow up a hospital? Seems to me that all those things are counter-productive.

Pardon me, but the list of resignations is not (yet) at four. Less impressive! The people of Madonna House are getting rid of a physical artifact; they cannot resign from the Order, never having been admitted, and the honour once presented to Catherine Doherty belongs to them no more than Conrad Black's belongs to me. The Order of Canada is neither a hereditary title of nobility nor a negotiable instrument, but I guess some people have trouble understanding this.

So far I know of Messrs. Finn, Chauvin, and Larré.

You may be pro-life, but you don't sound very pro-life. If abortion is morally equivalent to murder, how could it be "counter-productive" to use violence to prevent it? Is it "counter-productive" to shoot a concentration-camp guard?

The magic answer is, abortion really really is less serious than murder, and the life of a fetus really is of lesser value than that of a human baby, and everybody actually agrees on this. You don't approve of blowing up hospitals (I literally have no idea why you think abortion clinics are hands off here) for the same reasons no one holds a funeral after a miscarriage.

"This whole Catholic thing, I guess it's been an excuse for funny hats all along? "

You're such a fucking infant. A snot nosed mouth mulleted short pant wearing basement dwelling fucking infant.

"and the honour once presented to Catherine Doherty belongs to them no more than Conrad Black's belongs to me."

Except for the fact that, you know, it actually belonged to them. And that's the great thing about basement dwelling in unaccountable Canada: blurt random words, however nonsensical, and nothing really happens.

"Can there really be only one man of faith in the thousands-deep ranks of the Order of Canada willing to act on his principles..."

The only complete fucking retard to believe that all Catholics - and only Catholics, you putrid, revolting fucking anti-western civilization pig - *must* return their precious snowflakes *or* be unprincipled is you, basement boy, and your grotesque, hideous logic would get you laughed out of any *proper* profession where there are consequences for irrationality, like software or networking.

Got a problem with the 42% of Canadians who are Catholic? Then leave. Get the fuck out of my country. I'm not asking you, bitch, I'm telling you: take your anti-western civilization hate elsewhere. Like Cambodia. I think you'd do well there.

Colby,

I got lost in this thread after realizing that everyone commenting was male. I fear that now you have opened this can of worms, you are experiencing some of the misogyny many of us women deal with on a regular basis. Kind of scary, hey? That inflexibility?

Women don't go have abortions because they are murderers. Pregnancy is not some magical experience. Women get abortions usually because they know how much love a child needs to thrive.

Saying that girl or woman should keep the human life growing inside of her is sacrificing her own human right to have control over her body.

What surprised me about this derelict's cheerleading column on Morgentaler was that the National Post editors allowed the word "papist" to remain.

"Papist" is generally regarded as a slur against Catholics. There's really no arguing it.

So, if pro-lifers are papists, let's see how this feels:

Morgentaler. Satanist. Jew.
Cosh. Racist. Illogical. Dimwit.
National Post. Amoral. Unreadable. Fishwrap.

You know, it never occurred to me before, but the emotionally stunted quality of that "Let's see how this feels!" got me thinking: if you belonged to a institution that made a habit of sexually abusing children, wouldn't it be in your interests to exaggerate the moral seriousness of abortion as a way of making your group look less horrible in contrast to secular society? It could even serve as a convenient defence mechanism for the individual.

Sincere thanks for a thought-provoking comment!

Colby,

You are so brave. Thank you for this. I have newfound hope. Thank you. It's a tiring fight but one well deserved to be won.

Not only does it exaggerate the moral seriousness of abortion, it keeps an imbalance in the equality of the genders.

Abortion is evil. Who gets abortions? Women. Why?

Why can't be discussed though. Only murder and the act itself. That serves no purpose in helping anyone. It's a waste of all that energy which seems to feed off itself.

Ya know, Cosh, I love your stuff. And this article was you at your best cutting through the BS. It has amazed me that you started with a position that was fairly friendly to the pro-life position and ended up with this. Very few here, or at the Post, bothered to address your argument, i.e. yeah, you think X, but why does your leadership not back you. I kinda, kinda, appreciate the point by a few posters there, and here, that the "Order" is just an award. That being this case, you should not give up the award because it was bestow upon someone with whom who vehemently disagreed. But still, it seems weird that those who believe in the Kingdom of God would in the greater scheme of things would accept to keep a secular award that put them in the same category as a baby killer. Nevertheless, You've gotta wonder if being part of the RC cult is more important than standing up for a point. I actually feel optimistic that we can convert Islam, as the middle/upper middle class of that religion will also strive for secular approval and not really fight for what the lower income/crazy portion desire.