On this excellent op-ed that ran in the National Post.
As most of you know, Justin Trudeau stated last week that going forward, all Liberal MPs are expected to be pro-choice.
Two points I want to highlight from Mr. Wappel’s piece:
In 1990, I ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, again espousing, amongst other things, my belief that we should work to respect life, from conception to natural death. The issue of abortion was debated amongst the candidates at various Liberal forums. All candidates were allowed to address the convention, and the nation, since it was being covered by the press. There was no censorship of what a candidate could say or think or address the convention about. The Liberal Party survived this now apparently heretical approach, and went on to win a crushing victory in the 1993 election.
Please note that abortion was debated and the sky did not fall. Nor did the Liberal Party self-destruct.
I appreciate the historical perspective he’s bringing to this debate. Or media mess. Or however you want to characterize the firestorm Mr. Trudeau started. There I go characterizing…
Such a unilateral decree is an affront to the historical principles of liberalism. It amounts to saying, if we cannot stop people from talking about something we don’t want to talk about, then let us just ban them from the room and the topic will magically disappear. This is naïve at best and dictatorial at worst. It is to be decried as unprincipled, undemocratic, unappreciative, and intellectually bankrupt. Surely I am not the only Liberal who cannot support such an edict, such a leader, such an abandonment of democratic principles of fairness, openness, free speech and healthy public policy debate.
There should be nothing scary about open debate. Let the voters decide what is important to them. Seems like the democratic thing to do.
Thanks Mr. Wappel.by