Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!
There are days when I fear for the fate of the species. Sometimes we just seem so dumb, that the stupid burns so hot, there seems little hope.
Chief among the things that mystify me is the prevalence of moral relativism — the idea that everything is good in its own context. “Right” and “wrong” are not even debatable issues from this point of view because they do not really exist. In other words, while we in Canada might find something horrific, say executing people for the imaginary crime of blasphemy, but if some other country wants to do that well, who are we to criticize them? It’s their culture, leave them alone.
It is, insofar as I can tell, craven political ideology. A philosophy that will allow suffering to go on because it does not directly impact our own backyard. While this is most often applied to religion, used particularly by those who defend the brutal excesses of despotic Islamic regimes of the middle east, it also apparently can be applied when talking about how gay people are treated in Africa.
This week I published my regular Grant Rant column about a law recently passed by Nigeria, a fellow British Commonwealth nation, that makes gay marriage punishable by 14 years in prison. Those helping the couple get married or even voicing support for the concept of gay marriage will get 10 years behind bars. Over in another African Commonwealth state, Uganda, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Uganda it is effectively legal to murder a person for the imaginary crime of being gay.
I posted a poll with this column, asking if readers felt Canada should do more to defend the rights of gay people abroad. Canada already has an office dedicated to helping fight religious persecution oversees, so why not do the same for people who are being jailed or killed for being gay?
The response was, I am sorry to say, disheartening. At the time I write this, nearly 60% of respondents say no, Canada should leave well enough alone when it comes to gay people in Africa. True, this is not a scientific poll and the same size is ridiculously too small to draw any conclusions, but it is a frightening nonetheless.
Worse, were some reader comments who jumped on the moral relativist bandwagon, suggesting that Canada has no business telling another nation to stop murdering innocent citizens.
Reader “truththorold” says:
Is this argument really any different than immigrants who come to Canada and want to rewrite our laws ? Facial coverings and daggers for example ? We believe what we believe and we live here and our laws reflect that. They can believe whatever they want and make laws accordingly. Majority rules in that regard. If people don’t like whats going on they should relocate, but not try to change wherever they arrive to suit them.
And consider this reply by way of a for instance, from a reader who goes under the handle “Tyresias“:
And of course our way is the right way and we should go over there and tell them that they are wrong and they should do things the way we do. Sounds kind of familiar – you know – the Muslim extremists and how they think everyone should be like them.
This is an argument that requires one to dismiss all ideas of freedom, equality, justice, human solidarity and compassion. What this person is saying is that if gay people are put to death in Uganda or jailed in Nigeria for being a homosexual, so be it. That is their way, and who are we to say it is wrong.
This poster goes on to explain that Nigeria may find some Canadian laws objectionable, so we have no right to tell them to what to do:
Then you go right over and tell their government how to run things. And be sure to being back their list of objectionable Canadian policies. Because I’m sure they are just as righteous as you are.
Another reader, “James McCollick” defends this point view by saying:
Typical arrogance. Just because you believe something is right that doesn’t make it so.
Consider carefully what is being said here: Who are we to say killing someone for their sexual orientation is wrong? The Ugandan way is just as moral and right as the Canadian one in it’s own context. Essentially, they are using moral relativism as an justification for murder. To say “murder is wrong” is the height of arrogance.
Still others go on to say that we should not criticize Nigeria for jailing gay people and suppressing free speech because Nigeria is actually better than Canada on some fronts. Even if that were true, which it is not, how does Nigeria doing well in one area mean that jailing a gay couple for 14 years is just?
Reader “Chip Meister” had this to say:
Do you really think Nigeria is going to take criticism from Canada???
Nigeria already outshines Canada in many other areas. Why should/would they listen to our voice???
Here are just a few points where Canada could take some lessons from Nigeria.
Their economy is RED-HOT!!!
Nigeria sends out more peacekeepers around the world than any other country in the world. They have more soldiers on peace keeping missions than the US, Canada and EU!!!
I am really surprised that you neglected to mention Nigeria’s record for freedom of press. Nigeria won the Free Press Africa Award last year. How many Canadian journalists would give up their life in attempting to get the truth out?
Perhaps it would be best for Canada to look inward first before criticizing people in a country that few Canadian’s have ever been or are even thinking of travelling [sic] to. Have you been to Nigeria???
So, because Nigeria has peace keepers, an active economy and some brave journalists, Canada should say nothing about the active and systematic repression of people who have done nothing other than be born a homosexual and wanting to live a happy life. It apparently has not occurred to this poster than if any of these brave reporters speak out in defense of gay marriage, they can be thrown in prison for a decade. Free speech is the heystone of a free press, and to suggest that Nigeria, a nation that crushes the very notion of free speech in order to step on the throats of those its government considers undesirable, is laughable at best.
Canada is not prefect. We make mistakes. We have our own messes to clean up. But we do not jail or kill people for marrying the person they love or for just being gay. That difference is not trivial. Our way is, by any honest moral or ethical standard, better.
What these commenters have in common is a refusal to consider the human cost of the laws of Uganda and Nigeria and other like nations. They apparently regard the putting to death or imprisonment of innocent people as a debatable point, one that can argued in the same way that one could debate the merits of a parliamentary democracy vs a republican one, or an argument over who has the most effective j-walking regulations.
Such a view is shameful and cowardly. It is also hypocritical. I have no doubt that if Nigeria was rounding up Jews or Christians, or people with white skin, and imprisoning them for a decade or more, the outrage would be palpable. These are often the same people that will rail against the brutality of the Jihadist, but suggest we should say nothing about a Commonwealth government committing horrors.
“What’s good for us is good for us, and what is good for them is good for them,” rings hollow when what is “good for them” is a pile of bodies and destroyed lives.
Some of us have not learned from history it seems. Prior to start of World War Two, Jews fleeing Germany appealed for help from the West. But no one cared to believe or take seriously the stories of innocent people being rounded up into ghettos, or herded into death camps. The prevailing attitudes of the day, dripping with anti-semitic bigotry and a desire to avoid more war, was to simply pretend it wasn’t important, to ignore the human costs, and say “it’s not our business.”
It is our business. It is part of what being Canadian is about. It is part of what having a free society is about. Our convictions mean nothing if we say they only apply to ourselves, the rest of the world be damned. The murder or jailing of a person who has done no wrong and caused no harm is never moral. It is indefensible. And those who do defend it should to be ashamed of themselves.