Dr. Morgentaler Is Just What the Order of Canada Needs
The Globe and Mail becomes the first MSM site to report in detail about the proposed appointment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada, and from its details it looks like the rumours from yesterday were very much a trial balloon:
The Conservatives sent out talking points to MPs on Friday that did not name Dr. Morgentaler, but were clearly in preparation for a controversial appointment. They emphasized that Order of Canada recipients are not chosen by the cabinet, but rather a panel whose nine members include only two government appointees.
Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP from Saskatchewan who has been a long-time opponent of abortion, said the honour normally goes to someone who is the unanimous choice of the advisory council. Mr. Vellacott said he has heard this was not the case with the selection of Dr. Morgentaler.
“You would think it should be, as it has been in the past, a consensus,” he said. “This is a pretty divisive issue. I think we can all agree on that. So why would we have the highest honour in the country being issued when there is obviously strong difference of opinion about it?”
I’ve highlighted a telling comment here, and I’d also like to quote a response from Joanne McGarry of the Canadian Human Rights Action Catholic Civil Rights League:
“As Canadians we would like to see the Order of Canada given to people whose contributions to such initiatives as charity, education, culture, the environment, things of that kind that are uniformly viewed as positive and tend to unite people,” she said. “With this choice, the one thing that everybody really agrees on about Morgentaler is that he is a very divisive figure.”
And that, it must be said, is the biggest problem with today’s Order of Canada: the idea that it should be something that everyone agrees on. In other words, inoffensive. And the trouble with inoffensive things is that they’re easily forgotten.
There’s an old adage in human resources: if you can’t be fired, you can’t be promoted. This applies to government programs as well as people, and at its base the Order of Canada is a government program. If you’ve noticed, the only time people talk about it is when someone famous gets nominated to it.
And when the nomination happens, the most coverage it usually gets is a brief story, tenth in the newsreading order or a burial in the entertainment / social pages. “Contributions to the community, huh? Gee, that’s nice.” And that’s the end of it, as far as the public’s concerned, until the next list of nominations.
Think about it. The Order isn’t a chivalric one, so recipients don’t get to call themselves “Sir” or “Dame.” They get to add the letters “O.C.” to the end of their names on business cards, and they get a fancy medal or ribbon to wear at formal occasions, but famous people rarely bill themselves with their degrees anymore, and formal dress events happen once a year, if that. Thus, the Order of Canada is an invisible honours system, one that attracts a little attention but fails to keep it. Which is in sharp contrast to the British honours system which encourages its recipients to show off its recognitions.
An appointment like this, that generates controversy, is exactly what the Order needs, because it forces Canadians to ask, “What exactly constitutes a lasting contribution to the Canadian way of life?” It can’t be denied that Morgentaler is a prominent part of 20th-century Canadian history, and it can’t be denied that he has supporters as well as detractors. If Dr. Morgentaler receives the Order, or is denied it after an outcry, then it says something about how Canadians and the Canadian Establishment defines a famours Canadian’s role in Canadian history and society.
If controversy is what it takes to stimulate serious thinking about how we decided whom our best people are, then by all means let’s hear why Dr. Morgentaler should be admitted — and by extension, let’s hear what the Order’s advisory committee thinks makes for a great Canadian.
UPDATE (19h02 PDT): Ms. McGarry’s organization is corrected. And I’d like to point you to Raphael’s post on the subject.
![](http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1462/1818/320/262511/btweek.gif")
July 1st, 2008 at 11:47
I think it’s a rather sad commentary that the only time Canadians actually think about the Order of Canada is if it is given to someone as controversial as Dr. Morgentaler.
For the record, I think every woman should have the right to choose. Nevertheless, I understand that there are many people who have strongly opposing views, and for that reason I cannot agree with Dr. Morgentaler’s award.
The Order of Canada is supposed to be the most prestigious award in Canada, and I think rather than trying to get people’s attention by being controversial, we should instead treat it as a prestigious award. For instance, not a quick little presentation at Rideau Hall, but perhaps some kind of celebratory concert that is televised. Instead of simply putting out a list of nominees, the Advisory Committee should have a full presser with explanations as to why the individuals were being recognized and the contribution they had made.
Yes I know this sounds like a lot of trouble to go to, but if the award really is worth having, then it’s worth a bit of effort to make sure people know about it.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:23
I cannot think of a more divisive issue than the abortion issue. If there was one issue to pick that would guarantee widespread polarity and animosity, and virtual impossibility to come to any sort of concilliation between the opposing sides, abortion is it.
It appears that Morgentalers award went through the ‘stealth” approval process and apparently did not require unanimous approval from the Advisory Committee, which has been past protocol. Why the change?
So if there was such an effort to both keep this quiet and push it through, then why award it on a day when it is most likely to cause maximum hue and cry. There is no historical reason or precedent that says the OAC must be awarded on July 1. A bit of research shows that the OAC is not typically given on Canada Day.
And why, since Morgentaler has long been lauded by pro abortionists and Liberals, did his nomination have to wait until now? This could have happened at any time between 1993 and 2006 when a Liberal government was in power.
My conclusion is that all of the above point to bringing the abortion debate back to the forefront nationally. The Liberals have not had any success with their series of manufactured “scandals”, nor are they getting any traction with Kyoto or the Carbon Tax. And Stephane Dion continues to absolutely underwhelm (if not alienate) Canadians.
So whats an issue they feel they can gain traction with? The old tried an true abortion (non) debate, where they shout alarmist accusations at the Conservatives, and the media happily amplifies them for public consumption.
Liberals, and their activisits, have no respect for any value or institutuion. There is no action they are not willing to take in order to advance their own agenda or gain political power.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:30
The Order Of Canada has become a farce under lieberla bureaucratic BS I don’t think it matters who gets it.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:36
Just a correction………….Joanne McGarry is the executive director of the Catholic Civil Rights League, not the Canadian Human Rights Action League, if they exsist.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:36
A courageous post that will no doubt not sit well with the majority of your readers, which makes it even more impressive. It is precisely what I had been thinking about this whole situation, and you have clearly taken a higher road than so many of those who have allowed the polarizing issue to cloud their sense of perspective.
July 1st, 2008 at 18:10
On the contrary I wonder if he was picked to embarrass the Conservatives because it will make people talk about abortion again. You know, that hidden anti-woman agenda.
The committee that picks the nominees is not stuffed with Conservatives, that’s for sure.
Having said all this I agree that controversial people can be picked who dared to make waves. It is often the unpopular cases that protect our rights. In Quebec Maurice Duplessis tried to persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses and the regulation to do this was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. He also used the Padlock Law to bar the use of a building for a year so that leftist groups (especially communists) and some union members could not meet.
July 1st, 2008 at 18:24
[...] Update: Dr. Morgentaler Is Just What the Order of Canada Needs [...]
July 2nd, 2008 at 00:41
Your argument is in a vacuum. This appointment was a political tactic to throw a gernade in the Conservative camp. The gernade is exploding and their will be lots of blood on the floor. Clever move by the Chief Justice to manipulate the GG this way.
This is a long war though, with much fighting left to come.
July 4th, 2008 at 00:33
Finally the population are realizing that there has not been an abortion law either for or against since 1988, and the scare tactics used by liberas for years, beware of conservative they will change the law, is shown to be the scam it was. As for trying to paint the conservatives as anti-woman, we just have to mention liberal treatment of a woman named Jennifer.
One can see her and hear her, but you can’t see or hear an abortion.