Dissenting Futilitarian no. 1

2
“It is an insult!” “A farce!” “It is proud progress in human rights!” “The country reviles it!” “The country supports it. My throbbing head - help! If only the country would support my head. D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS: How keenly you love to hear all sides, I know. I take joy in you, Men and Women of Service, because I know very well how you freely assemble in a House designed for debate and go at it with vigour, debating. Who forces you? No one. You take this work upon yourselves, willingly bearing for us the heavy burden of turning over weighty issues until their true character is seen and a wise course of action can at last be set for our fair country, in the full daylight of KNOWLEDGE . In this turning-over-of-weighty-issues you spare no effort, begriming your suitcoats and tearing your stockings. Thank you! How much we need you! And yet you have said NO . You have said it. You have urged on each other the duty to say it: here is one weighty issue you will not turn over. Your answer is NO . You ask, “What issue are you speaking of, dear author. Kindly tell us.” Why, this whole DEFINITION OF HUMAN BEING & ABORTION business. You said NO - or seem ready to say it. ‘No, we will not study it. Take T H AT FOul issue away!’ Honourable Members, how well I under- stand you!! Y ou are not alone! You may feel alone, for I well know that many decry your decision. Just how many was made blindingly clear to me only two Thursdays past, when your lawn was filled and the neighbouring streets jammed tight with those crying out for the human rights of The Invisible, The Unborn, The Innocent! Shoulder to shoulder they marched and chanted, sang and prayed. I slid past them under a cloud: my clouded thoughts. “Just look at how many are surely against that NO ,” I thought. “The very government these marchers voted for has said NO to study of the single issue that brings them here: the rights of The Unborn. Their elected representatives will not even study this issue. What a back-handed slap it must seem to them!” I believed that I could see their thoughts: “These people must all say NO to your NO ,” I thought - and how glad I felt, at that moment, to know that they could not see my thoughts, which said ... - well, not exactly YES to your NO but something considerably closer than what I sensed in each head, in the many heads directing the many feet shuffling past in that impressive, endless crowd. I slunk by keeping my face expression- less - which, to be honest, I soon feared betrayed me, and so I began to run, not daring to look back. I ran: a certain cowardice moved my legs. What did I fear, you wonder. The fear that restrains my hand in this letter and keeps me incognito. (Do not look for my name: you will not find it.) The fear of isolation, rejection by my own kind. If I felt alone among those ‘Marching for Life ’ then surely, you say, I could find allies on the other side of the issue - but no. Let me explain what happened when I ran. To recover my ease I withdrew to a quiet alley away from the March. Soon a group of gaily dressed people approached, engaged in animated discussion. I could not help but stare at them: their curious apparel commanded my eyeballs to behold their difference. And as I beheld, the signs they carried and the words they spoke reached me. jesus was pro -choice .” “Private Property ( written beside a drawing of what resembled a pea pod, with a single pea at the top) . These are not chickens ( alongside a sketch of two eggs) . “I can’t believe I need to protest this shit - It s 2012 !” A man with a big scarf was saying, “It s a woman s right . It s up to the woman to decide the fate of her own life and the fate of the fetus inside her body .” It is all so clear to those who know, but how do they know? how have they done it? Those who are sure of the rights of The Invisible know. Those who are sure The Invisible have no rights know. However have they done this? How have they acquired this certainty?! Whence their acuity in these obtund times? T here is no company for me except you who have pushed this issue away. Like Our Leader ! I honour especially Our Leader, the Right Honourable M r. ORPHEUS, a harper to my ears in saying, “I’m not opening this debate . I don t want it opened . I have not wanted it opened . I haven t opened it as Prime Minister . I m not going to open it . This is not the priority of the Canadian public or this government and it will not be .” There was a time, I confess, when I despised him, was confused by him, feared him. Inscrutable man! - you were brought to power by those who support ( do they not?) the assigning of rights to unborn humans - but you said, The public doesn t want to open this debate .” And at last I know your secret. We are alone in our insight, you and I. And what a strange insight it is! Members, have I not purchased your under- standing - crashed into the precinct of knowledge where you reside, to acquire your wisdom and behold what you see already? I am no one, a mere citizen. Nothing gives me the right to speak on any issue - I speak through a tin can picked from the recycling. And yet I would speak to you because I understand you! Let us meet here in print; I shall explain the wisdom you possess - unfold THE VERY RIDDLE OF ORPHEUS - and then tell me if we are not kin in thought, aligned in spirit, futilitarians! And, if you would permit, let me also narrate how I came to possess your secret: the knowledge of a KNOWLEDGE we CANNOT have ! You are busy men and women with better things to do than read some boring crank, but I will charm you with your own story! On ne v a pa s ou vri r ce d eba t, le droi t ac tu el. On va l aiss er N o. 1 23 MAY 2012 } } The D I S S E N T I N G F U T I L I T A R I A N { { LE T T E R S T O M E M B E R S O F P A R L I A M E N T F R O M A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E C T O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N I N T O O U R H U M A N I T Y P r e -f a b de b a t e, ch e a p c h u n k s o f t h o u g h t , d u m p e d o n y o u r p l a t e , r e a d y o r n o t ! B

description

Issue 1 of an epistolary newspaper addressed to Canada's Members of Parliament

Transcript of Dissenting Futilitarian no. 1

Page 1: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 1

“It is an insult!” “A farce!”

“It is proud progress in human rights!”

“The country revi les it!”

“The country supports it.”

My throbbing head - help! If only the

country would support my head.

D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS:

How keen ly you l ove

to hear all sides, I know. I take joy

in you, Men and Women of Service,

because I know very well how you

freely assemble in a House designed for

debate and go at it with vigour, debating.

Who forces you? No one. You take this

work upon yourselves, willingly bearing

for us the heavy burden of turning over

weighty issues until their true character

is seen and a wise course of action can

at last be set for our fair country, in the

full daylight of K NO W L E D G E . In this

turning-over-of-weighty-issues you spare

no effort, begriming your suitcoats and

tearing your stockings. Thank you! How

much we need you!

And yet you have said N O .

You have said it. You have urged on

each other the duty to say it: here is one

weighty issue you will not turn over.

Your answer is N O .

You ask, “What issue are you speaking

of, dear author. Kindly tell us.”

Why, this whole D e f I n I T I on of

Hu mAn BeIng & ABorTIon business.

You said N O - or seem ready to say it.

‘No, we will not study it. Take T HAT

FO u l i s s u e away!’

Honourable Members, how well I under-

stand you!!

Y ou are not alone! You may feel

alone, for I well know that

many decry your decision. Just how

many was made blindingly clear to me

only two Thursdays past, when your

lawn was filled and the neighbouring

streets jammed tight with those crying

out for the human rights of The Invisible,

The Unborn, The Innocent! Shoulder to

shoulder they marched and chanted, sang

and prayed.

I slid past them under a cloud: my

clouded thoughts. “Just look at how many

are surely against that N O ,” I thought.

“The very government these marchers

voted for has said N O to study of the

single issue that brings them here:

the rights of The Unborn. Their elected

representatives w i l l no t ev e n st u dy

this issue. What a back-handed slap it

must seem to them!”

I believed that I could see their thoughts:

“These people must all say N O to your

N O ,” I thought - and how glad I felt,

at that moment, to know that they

could not see my thoughts, which said

... - well, not exactly Y E S to your N O

but something considerably closer than

what I sensed in each head, in the many

heads directing the many feet shuffling

past in that impressive, endless crowd.

I slunk by keeping my face expression-

less - which, to be honest, I soon feared

betrayed me, and so I began to run, not

daring to look back.

I ran: a certain cowardice moved my

legs. What did I fear, you wonder. The

fear that restrains my hand in this letter

and keeps me incognito. (Do not look for

my name: you will not find it.) The fear

of isolation, rejection by my own kind.

If I felt alone among those ‘Ma rc h i ng

for L i f e ’ then surely, you say, I could

find allies on the other side of the issue

- but no. Let me explain what happened

when I ran.

To recover my ease I withdrew to a

quiet alley away from the March. Soon a

group of gaily dressed people approached,

engaged in animated discussion. I could

not help but stare at them: their

curious apparel commanded my eyeballs

to behold their difference. And as I

beheld, the signs they carried and the

words they spoke reached me.

“jesus was pro-choice.” “Private Property” (written

beside a drawing of what resembled a

pea pod, with a single pea at the top).

“These are not chickens” (alongside a sketch

of two eggs). “I can’t believe I need to protest

this shit - It’s 2012!” A man with a big scarf

was saying, “It’s a woman’s right. It’s up to the

woman to decide the fate of her own life and the fate

of the fetus inside her body.”

It is all so clear to those who know,

but how do they know? how hav e

t h e y d on e i t ? Those who are sure

of the rights of The Invisible k now.

Those who are sure The Invisible have

no rights k now. However have they

done this? How have they acquired this

certainty?! Whence their acuity in these

obtund times?

T here is no company for me

except you who have pushed

this issue away. Like O u r L ea de r !

I honour especially Our Leader, the

Right Honourable Mr. ORpHeUS,

a h a r p e r t o my e a r s i n s a y i n g ,

“I’m not opening this debate. I don’t want it opened.

I have not wanted it opened. I haven’t opened it as

Prime Minister. I’m not going to open it. This is not the

priority of the Canadian public or this government and

it will not be.” There was a time, I confess,

when I despised him, was confused by

him, feared him. Inscrutable man! - you

were brought to power by those who

support (do they not?) the assigning of

rights to unborn humans - but you said,

“The public doesn’t want to open this debate.” And

at last I know your secret. We are alone

in our insight, you and I. And what a

strange insight it is!

Members, have I not purchased your under-

standing - crashed into the precinct of

knowledge where you reside, to acquire

your wisdom and behold what you see

already? I am no one, a mere citizen.

Nothing gives me the right to speak on

any issue - I speak through a tin can

picked from the recycling. And yet I

would speak to you because I understand

you! Let us meet here in print; I shall

explain the wisdom you possess - unfold

THe very r I DDl e of or pH e u s

- and then tell me if we are not kin in

thought, aligned in spirit, futilitarians!

And, if you would permit, let me also

narrate how I came to possess your secret:

the knowledge of a K N OW L E D G E w e

CA N N OT h av e ! You are busy men and

women with better things to do than

read some boring crank, but I will charm

you with your own story!

On ne va pas

ouvr ir ce deba t ,

le droit actuel.

On va la i sser

No. 123 MAY

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

P r e - f a b d e b a t e , c h e a p c h u n k s o f t h o u g h t , d u m p e d o n y o u r p l a t e , r e a d y o r n o t !

B

Page 2: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 1

Months ago I began by going in the

opposite direction from you!

D ecemb er - fa tefu l month!

I was so innocent in December;

now how old I feel in May! Do you

recal l ? One of your members ,

Mr. vALeUR -De -bO I S , proposed a

national discussion of something “odd”

in our law: “Canada’s 400-year-old definition

of human being.” but you know the story;

§ 2 2 3 ( 1 ) o f o u r C r im i n a l C o d e

(drafted in 1879, based on language of

1642, adopted in 1892) reads:

“A child becomes a human being within the meaning

of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a

living state, from the body of its mother, whether or

not: (a ) it has breathed; ( b ) it has an independent

circulation; or ( c ) the navel string is severed.”

Having read that I thought, “How odd

indeed” (and not just because of “navel-

string”). I was oblivious. In February

vaLEur-DE-bOis’s press-release said more:

“For me –and I think for most Canadians” - and at

that time I keenly counted myself in -

“this law clearly misrepresents the facts. It’s based

on limited 17th-century medical knowledge.”

“t h e facts .” O hallowed principle!

Is adherence to facts not sacred to

every modern society? Surely “modern medical

science will inform us that children are in reality

human beings at some point before the moment of

complete birth.” I was in agreement. Who

could deny that?

Can you deny it? - Honestly, can you

disagree with that one claim, that at

some point before birth we have, as a

matter of fact , a human being within

the abdomen of its mother - a child and

nothing less? I could not.

Whether I like the Member’s smile or

not (and I admit it is not to my taste),

I was bound to agree with his words.

We therefore have, in our law books,

a “law that says some human beings are not

human beings!” How disturbing. What could

be clearer? I was all for the national

discussion.

I became a follower of the Member. He

spoke to my soul when he said, “Don’t you

want truthful laws? Don’t you wish we could get rid

of every misrepresentation in Canadian law? How can

... any law be based on a lie and be just?” Indeed.

“Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are

not human beings!” I would never: would you?

Do you believe that we should accept a

law that says some human beings are

not human? Said the Member, a law that

does that “without any principled justification or

scientific basis is not a just law.”

I was convinced. That was February.

I t began to

interest me

greatly how this

“respectful dialogue to

update a 400-year-Old defi-

nition of human being, with

the aid of 21st-century

i n format i on ,” would

unfold. (I will not

detail the Motion of

6 February asking

t h a t a s p e c i a l

c o mm i t t e e b e

appointed by the

House to review

the defining quality

of ‘human’ in Cri-

minal Code § 223(1)

in the light of fact

- you know all

about the rules of

Motions.) but I began to read, began

to think, carefully followed the ‘news’

on this ‘story’.

Such as: the dispatch that the Member has

“attempted to kickstart ‘conversation’ on the

def in i t ion of ‘human be ing ’ .” Interesting,

I thought; is it true that that motor

will not be started easily - is even reluctant

to start? When Mr. vaLEur-DE-bOis then

addressed the members of the reporter's

profession, she commented as follows:

“Oh, now he’s speaking directly to journalists,

and their ‘personal commitment to the truth’.... So

- we’re the ones who are supposed to start the

c o n v e r s a t i o n n o w ? F o r a f o u r t h t i m e , h e

or de r s journalists - and the rest of you too,

I think - not to accept this law.”

“O r de r s ”? Must one be c om ma n de d

to care about injustice? I sensed a

mocking tone. “And that as purveyors of truth

and light, we –- journalists, that is -– can’t not carry

forth his banner.” What am I seeing here,

I wondered? Who are these journalists? In

my journal (the foolish, homespun page

that is now in your hands), I inform: I tell

you what transpires. Should I also tell

you what to think about it? For heaven’s

sake, think whatever you like - but pay

attention to the substance, the matter

at issue: We are talking here about

justice, not cracking jokes.

One remark in particular puzzled me: a

criticism of the Member, who “thinks those

committed to the truth ‘will courageously follow

those facts wherever they lead’.” Is that thought

ridiculous? Is such a thing improbable?

In what land am I living, I wondered. Is

it one in which those paid to inform us

about our leaders think that our leaders

will resist the facts, will in cowardly

fashion back away from the trouble or

labour or l ea d e r s h i p that the facts

dictate? - Members, I awaited your

response to this slur from the journalist,

but heard none.

I agreed entirely with Mr. vALeUR -

De -bO I S , that “Just laws must be based on

accurate evidence, not arbitrary lines unrelated to

reality.” I was convinced: I believe it now,

to this day: don’t you? Yet the man

stepping forth for justice was being

treated as a laughing-stock. I was keen

to know why, and so I resolved to see

prof . GROAN, a political philosopher

of my acquaintance.

m y friend listened to my

questions with an oddly

indulgent expression. “Are you such a

fool?” he said at last. “He has boondoggled

you with his schemes.”

“To what schemes do you refer: is the

rectification of injustice a scheme?”

“Injustice? You moron!” he snapped. “He

is an instrument of injustice.”

Dumbfounded, I stammered back that

the Member “wants no more than that

the government would consider the

scientific evidence.”

“No,” said prof . GROAN, “you do not

understand. It has nothing to do with

evidence, either for us or for him. This is

just a smokescreen. What he wants is to

take us back to a more primitive time of

crueller law. Does a man who cares about

evidence and “modern medical science” want to

go backwards? No: such a man wants to

go forwards. but he and his kind want

us to go backwards.”

“In truth,” he continued, “he has no

interest in facts at all. He merely feigns

interest in science. Is he religious,

perchance?” “I believe so,” said I. “Well,

there you go! The reason he has proposed

that this case be settled on a scientific

basis is that by asking scientists he

can guarantee a decision in his favour -

because he has already consulted the

scientific texts to find that these books

confirm his conclusion. Whyever did he

pick scientists?”

“He said, ‘I’m merely proposing that parliament

inform itself from the relative disciplines’.”

“Well then tell me: what disciplines are

they?”

(At this point I rather lost my

composure, as I had no idea what to

reply. Goodness, ‘what disciplines’

indeed? but here I must break off my

tale - u N t i L N E xt t i M E ! )

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

OR

INSTRUCT ON for

identifying a H man Being.

I T I S HUM WHEN

it has com te p ceeded,

in a living state,

from the body of the mother,

whether not:

A it has bre thed;

B it has an indepen t circulation; or

C the navel stri is severed

o u r D e f I n I T I on

I N 2 0 1 2 ?

I�ll be out when I am R

EA

DY

no s CreAmIng ru sH To Be Hu mAn