D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS.

When the news came that your

vote on Motion no. 312 was delayed until the

fall, I must admit, I heaved a sigh of relief. I

heaved it as far as possible and, in the process,

emptied my lungs so thoroughly that I could

not breathe. But I have not been asphyxiated

by this problem yet and return now, after

recuperating, to my tale. One might think

it would be done by now; one might wish it

to be done (on that point, believe me, I am

with you). One might wish the vote taken.

But duty, my friends. We cannot be done

whenever we want. Thank goodness I have

you to confide in, when so many around me

are washing their hands of the f o u l i s s u e

the very instant it turns f o u l .

We cannot say, ‘I have had enough of this

wretched topic’ and just turn away. We who

have obligations are not Lords and Ladies,

whose reason to be done with a thing can be

nothing more than that they wish to be done

with it. Only a pampered aristocrat employs

‘wretched issue’ as a Principle of Decision.

Proper government, as we well know, takes

work, and that there is more work in this

wretched issue, you know better than all of

us. For why else does it keep flying back,

except that there is more to it?

Of course, it could be that the people who

keep flinging it back, after it has been flung

away, are witless oafs driven by ignorance.

Ha ha - kidding! I know you better than

to project such a view upon you; you have

not stepped forth to lead the country out

of contempt for those you lead! No, you are

ready to acknowledge (of this I am sure) that

the people calling out for justice - Justice for

the unborn! Reproductive justice! - are not

utter and complete boobs. Each one has some

view of things to which they are committed -

‘ideological views’, some would say, that are

thus entirely unfit to undergird public policy

... which, as a matter of fact, leads straight

into the next instalment of my story.

O ne evening I was relaxing in the

comfort (such as it was) of my

home (such as it is) when several sharp raps

on the door shattered the quiet.

“Is this the Dissenting Fut? Out of there

FUT , you meddler!” These were the words

that roared in as I cracked open the door.

I opened it wider and there before me

was an old college friend, Mr. james

m cfaddingtono ’f laddington.How

did he know? How had he learned of these

letters, and how had he traced them to me?

The jig was up, I thought. But then ... what

was the jig? I was soon to get the lowdown.

“JIMMY, my friend, long has it been since

we have chewed cud together. Come in for a

brew,” I said with trepidation.

“No,” he replied. “I drink with

friends, I drink with foes, but

the presence of fools offends

my nose, thus interfering

greatly with enjoyment of

good drink. We’ll take a walk

first and see if you are fit to

drink with, which I very much

doubt.” And thus it began, our

ramble of discovery.

But how had he learned I had

been writing to you? It was

soon clear, owing to certain

phrases he employed, that he

had actually read the letters.

Was it, I have wondered, one of you who

shared them with him? More than one among

you might well know Jimmy, as the

mcfaddingtono ’fladdingtons are a

prominent family deeply involved in our

nation’s politics. If indeed it was one of you

who took him into your confidence, I hasten

now to thank you, as we had an informative

chat that I will not soon forget. If ever.

It is the mcfaddingtono ’fladding-

tons whom we must carefully listen to,

as the exit from our swamp most certainly

depends on them.

JIMMY counted out the Five Points

of edification he said I was most

in need of, folding each point down one by

one until they formed a fist. Which he then

allowed me to have, in the following manner.

“You think you are Helping, don’t you? You

think this is Helpful to people ... this ...

whatever it is you imagine you are doing.”

“Do you think these MPs need you? They

don’t need you. Their job is to represent their

constituents, not listen to you. Most people in

this country are satisfied with things exactly

the way they are, and the MPs know this.

It’s their job. They know their constituents

and they will cast their vote; they will

represent their constituents. I know that

comes as a shock to you, you noxious pox on

the political process.”

I was shocked indeed by that: a pox on the

process? But I was mystified. How was

communicating with you, as I have done,

interference with our system? I did not

think your minds had to be protected from

discussion, information,

and (the horror) influ-

ence. Goodness knows,

you expose that delicate

organ left and right (to

your in-box, newspapers,

novels, movies, the inter-

net, ...). I hoped the ex-

planation would follow

and, sure enough, it did.

As to the other remark,

about the mind of the

nation, I was somewhat

chagrined. I had no

knowledge that permit-

ted me to claim, as Jimmy had just done,

that ‘most people in this country are

satisfied with things just as they

are ’ - but I was aware that al l the

m cfa dd i ng t ono ’f l a dd i ng t on s

possess such knowledge by heredity. As for my-

self, I knew nothing of what the country thinks

about these matters and I had done nothing

to check, having blown all my time looking

into facts and listening to people who knew

something about what they were speaking of.

Dear Members, how I would like to know

your secret: how do you do it - know what

the country wants, learn the minds of your

constituents?

by this point I was already feeling

a tad deflated and we sat down on

a bench, while Jimmy continued. “You think

you are Hidden behind a veil of neutrality.

You imagine that no one can see what you are

up to, because of your earnest-nerd schtick.

Yes, you have been so supremely clever, with

this ‘gosh-and-golly-wherever-do-I-stand’

routine, that no one, you think, can see what

you are doing.”

No.

5 18 JUNE

2012}}

The DISSEN TING FU TILITARIAN {{

L ET T E R S TO M EMB E R S O F PA R L I A M E N T F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y

O s a y c a n y o u h e a r ? O r a r e y o u a l o g ? W h a t c o u r s e c a n y o u s t e e r , t o e x i t t h i s b o g ? !

B

The Honourable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , M.P.House of CommonsOttawa

scow ling sess ion

in progress

sneer ing, d ismiss ing, contempt,

glow er ing DARKLY, STARING ACCUSINGLY,

MOCKING, & any combination ther eof

A L L OW E D

too, that you think we should think through?

Are we not both defenders of thinking-

justice-through? And do you really think the

only issue of justice I care about is justice

for the unborn (because of my ‘continual

reference to the humanity of the fetus’ and

my ‘exhaustive embryology coverage’)? All

I am doing, in all of this, is considering the

reasons why some people say ‘Forget this’ and

others say ‘Don’t!’ All that concerned me was

trying to understand the people who keep

insisting that this issue will not go away.

Are they right or are they wrong?”

“James, you must

understand this,

i f you a r e a

humanitarian, as

I know you are.

In this country -

does it surprise

you? - we have

p e o p l e . Y e s ,

s h o c k i n g , a

country FULL O F

people , all over

the place. And

t h e s e p e o p l e

believe thing s

- are they nuts? - no, that’s what people do!

They believe things, and they get in each

other’s way, and we have to figure this

out. And you don’t do that by flaring your

nostrils and taking a position .”

“God save us,” I continued, “from the posi-

tions ! P eo p l e believe things for reasons,

and that is where you start: with the people,

who believe things, and why . You need to

hear the people, and all the reasons they

bring you. And for this you need patience

of infinite dimension, because you will

be tempted, before you are done, to take

a position and start treating these people

as dupes and minions of the wrong side .”

“This is not a country inhabited by issues .

This is not a land of eternal verities

dangling over us in the sky. It is a country of

people, who believe things, and if we bother

to uncover the root of those beliefs we shall

soon find out that sometimes, dammit, people

actually know thing s about life, for reasons

that are not an unfathomable mystery. Well,

let’s take the trouble. This is not too hard

for us. It is not in heaven, that we should

say, ‘Who will shoot up there to snatch the

answer?’ Let’s hear what people have to say.

But if I start with group A, then you call me

a partisan! Well, I started somewhere: with

Mr. VALEUR-DE-BOIS and Motion 312.”

“Jimmy, my friend, you should believe me

when I say what I am about to say. I have

never said anything with more earnestness. I

may seem sure about this bit or that bit, but

the story isn’t over, and if I knew what all

the bits would add up to, where all of this

were heading, I would say so, and I do not .

I will know what I am - Pro-choice, Pro-life,

or something different - in the end. But now?”

Suddenly, words spoken by the PM in years

past returned to me, unbidden: “I’ve always said

my views on the abortion issue are complex, I don’t fall into

any of the neat polar extremes on this issue.” Sir, I have

wronged you. Once I blamed you for those

words, which I called devious. Could you not

show your colours and label yourself? But

now I had come to see things differently!

Friends, I shall break off here: my companion

that day had much yet to say, but I must

leave all that for another time.

I am, etc.

1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca

“What am I doing?”

“You know.”

“I confess I do not.”

“There, you are at it again!” - This continued

for long enough to bore a dead squirrel, as I

know because the dead squirrel in the road

opposite our bench rolled over several times

in agony, crying ‘Stop it!’ For your sake, I cut

to the chase.

Reader, please believe that I was not being

coy in my plea of ignorance. I was ‘up to’ (if

we must put it that way) a hundred different

things, and what mattered in this instance

was what Jimmy thought I was ‘up to’. He said,

“Clearly, you are Anti-choice and are only

pretending to entertain Pro-choice viewpoints

so that you can trash them .”

“Do you think they are fools,” he went on. “If

you think they are actually reading your

rag then the only fool here is you. The only

ones who would bother are those already

in agreement with your perfectly obvious

sympathy for the right. As for the rest, if

all is well their staffer - not them, but the

kid working for them - will take one look

at your screed and sail it straight into the

wastebasket, where all this tedious lobbying

belongs, because even that kid will clearly

see that this is just more half-baked, Anti-

choice partisanship .”

I looked at him dumbfounded. “My dear man,

this puzzles me very much. I am Pro-life and

Anti-choice, you say: but what is it that

reveals this to you?” Now it was Jimmy’s turn

to be shy: I could get not a word out of him.

“So is that it,” I asked, “is that

all you have? Some generalized

suspicion about my views that puts you

(I gather) on the left , and me (you say)

on the right? It seems to me that you are

satisfied when you have done no more than

identify who is on ONE side and who is

on the other - so that we can scowl at

each other in silence, as you are now doing,

scowling at me! Is that your idea of our

political process?” (I could picture oddly

quiet days in the House of Commons.) “No,”

I continued (as I had hit on a ploy to break

his silence), “you are reluctant to cite the

specific evidence that in your mind betrays

my position, because when you do so, you

know that what you cite will be evidence

not of my rightwardness but of your feverish

habit of reading-things-into what I say.” My

plan worked. Rather too well.

“Well then, genius, don’t say you didn’t ask

for it. O n e , that you want to talk about this

at all; tw o , your obvious sympathy for and

comprehensive treatment of the Motion’s

rationale; t h r e e , your continual reference

to the humanity of the fetus, with your

exhaustive embryology coverage; f o u r ,

that you are a man, anxious to butt into a

woman’s business; f iv e , that whenever you,

out of your great largesse, treat the concerns

of your opponents, you quickly default to

‘logical minutiae’ rather than the emotional

reality of conscience-stricken actual women;

s ix , your conspicuously absent critique of the

appalling tactics of the Pro-life movement -

busing teens in to March for Life, the High

Moral Tirades, the guilt-tripping, and all the

rest of it! People can see you coming from

miles away, you partisan !”

I hung my head. But then I quickly lifted

it, thinking I would now be accused,

s ev e n , of emotional manipulation. Was this

the jig? And was it up?

There was truth here, in what James had

said. I had done all that he had said ,

done it all - this was now clear to me - and

it had driven us apart. This man, my friend,

though seated on a bench beside me, was

sitting very far away, across a great divide.

We stared at each other, across that gulf, in

opposition. I had done all that he had said,

but did it mean, as he had said, that he and I

were opponents? - Could I say anything at

all, in reply to him, that would not confirm to

him my partisanship and opposition to

what he considered to be right?

“James, it seems to me that you just spoke

to me - yes? But why? Why come to my

door?” He looked at me with an expression

I could not gauge, but said nothing. “If I

am up to something , in what I am asking

you now, this very minute - that is, if I am

being devious and partisan, and trying to

manipulate you into agreement with me, as

I was doing, you said, with the MPs - then

why should you listen to me? Why stay and

listen? What good could possibly come of it?”

As his silence persisted, I said, “If we are

just partisans across a divide, you will

expect me to spout more partisan nonsense,

and, indeed, that is all I will be capable of.

But is what I am saying right now more pro-

life drivel?”

“I don’t know what it is,” he said.

“It is my response to what you have said

to me, because we are talking together ,

not pelting each other with labels. It is what

I say back to you because I have heard you.

I don’t know if you will believe that I have

heard you, or if you can believe that a person

such as you take me to be could hear anyone

but his own kind! My friend, I am of no

kind but one - of your kind. I am a partisan

of thinking , just as you are, because you

think , as I know very well.”

“Because I am talking to you,” I went on,

“you know that I see you as a defender of

thinking, a partisan of thinking. I don’t

label you an opponent and write off all you

say: I hear you; I am listening! And it is not

partisanship to think together, because the

opposite side to that (refusing to think, not-

thinking) is nothing, no side whatsoever!

We reject it absolutely, together!”

In the heat of my speech I stood up. “You do

not understand that I do not have a position

on this issue. You do not understand the

first thing about me. You think you have

been given all these signs, so that you know

where I am g oing , on account of all these

clues I have dropped - but you have no

idea! Clue: ‘That I want to talk about this

at all’, you say. But why do I? What are

my reasons? There is a question of j u st i c e

here, which I want to think through. Yes, I

‘have sympathy for the rationale’, I admit it

- but what have I admitted? That there is a

question of j u st i c e , which we ought to think

through! And don’t you admit it with me? Is

there not a question of j u st i c e here for you,