Be afraid...

Oh not because of what's in here. Strangely enough, in here, there's nothing that can hurt you. Your own thoughts may be led in frightening directions, but here? No it's safe, and look I've got enough wood for a fire all night. So I'd like to share this with you. Again, this is going back a bit for something I've previously written but it's a rather important bit of work I would say. So read on and then spend some time just pondering, I might even gather some food for a little midnight snack.

Hiding in Plain Sight
Our current conservative Canadian government is attempting to pass a law that will make the killing of a fetus by physical violence to a woman part of the manslaughter charge. The argument behind this law is to make the penalties for domestic violence, and violence against women in general, a more severe crime, handing out stiff punishments for these types of assault. While that might be the public reason, it is easy to see that this is the first step in making abortion illegal, by giving a legal definition to the life of a fetus. Many groups, both supporting and against the law, have publicized as much in their campaign in regards to the law. Rather than deal with the rather murky waters of women’s rights in regards to abortion, I will deal strictly with the reasons presented and the subsequent ramifications outside of the abortion debate that make this law a very dangerous idea.

The first question raised in regards to the law is the underlining policies of the conservative agenda. Domestic abuse, and most violence against women, is a social issue. The causes of it generally are the results of such general societal ills such as poverty, marginalization, and past abuses inflicted upon the abuser. As is the common response from conservatives when it comes to social issues, the answer is more laws and stiffer penalties. This response is evident in the drug policies of conservative governments, the cutting of social funding for family planning which is then funneled into intervention policies which remove children from abusive homes, and the stopping of rehabilitation programs within the justice system. This response has always surprised me as it is in direct conflict with two other policies of conservative thinking: fiscal solvency and non-interference in the publics’ lives.

Government fiscal solvency, less taxes and more revenue, is a keystone of conservative thinking. This is the explanation given when social programs are cut. If people want to pay less tax to their government they need to expect fewer social programs from their government. This thinking leads to more expenditure, particularly in the case of this law. If more people are given longer sentences and placed in the care of the justice system, the costs for detaining them will skyrocket. Rather than addressing the issues that caused the domestic abuse, the response is to create more jail time which places new costs on the government. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark have shown that the cost of rehabilitating various social ills, like the connection between drug abuse and domestic abuse, have drastically reduced their costs associated with these problems. These social program spending initiatives have shown to cost one tenth the amounts for jailing someone for similar offenses in North America. These kind of programs show that true financial prosperity comes from dealing with the root causes of the issues rather than handing out stiffer and more comprehensive jail terms.

This leads to the idea of non-interference. With less social programs the onus is on the community to deal with the issues that may afflict it. When conservative governments gain power neighborhood groups tend to step up to provide the services that the government used to and in some cases it can be amazing to watch how the members of these communities work harder to look after themselves. With that in mind it seems contradictory that the government would then feel the need to address social issues with such overt interference. By repressing the community’s ability to deal with their social issues the government directly interferes with the life of the public by creating an environment of impotence. Taking away a community’s access to solve the problems within a society is left powerless to the governmental influence exerted over it. The social programs that may help the community is met with skepticism or an attitude of indifference is fostered, an idea that the government will clean up the mess left by a lack of social control. This is not non-interference in the public’s life; this is directly changing the possible social structures that create healthy and viable communities.

If the very precepts of a conservative government and the basis for this law are questionable we must determine the actual motivation for these activities. Taking apart the opposition of these ideals with the actions taken shows the agenda of fiscal solvency and non-interference are not universally applied, but instead only reserved for those in power. A law that creates stiffer penalties for social issues that generally are associated with the lower socio-economic class is not an attempt to create less government control and better revenues, but instead is an attempt by the hegemonic group to retain power. Breaking down of community power and destroying the possibility for social and economic advancement through stiff criminal penalties and stigmatized criminal records of individuals is the end result of laws such as these. By consolidating the power of one central group and removing the possibility of actual social advancement creates a subclass of individuals who may be used to continue to chip away at personal and societal freedoms and allows the exertion of greater control by that group.

This law is also the first step to remove one of the few rights women have managed to attain in their own personal freedom. It is hard not to see that this law will infringe on previous decisions in regards to abortion as a legal definition of life is being given to the fetus. Groups on Facebook have surfaced in support of the law claiming that this is the way to finally outlaw abortion, and women’s groups across the nation have decried it for the exact same reasons. While the MPs behind this bill claim that it is for the protection of women, it is instead a subtle way to remove existing rights and further repress women. If the political agenda of the conservative government, that of non-interference and fiscal solvency, were to be universally applied then the law itself is a violation of these ideals. Since those ideas are violated it leads to the conclusion that these goals are not a universal, they are instead part of an agenda that is focused on retaining and gaining more power over Canadian society.

Laws that create stiffer penalties and destroy the fabric of community agency are directly opposed to the publicly stated goals of conservative politics. When the goals of this law are compared to the consequences a much different pattern of reason becomes apparent. This law to protect women is nothing more than a further attempt by the Harper government to create a more centralized power structure in Canada by directing resources towards the creation of a secondary class of citizens, both the poor and women. When the supporters and detractors of a given law both see the same end result that is different from the stated objective it is impossible not to question the intentions of the government attempting to pass it. Passing it would not help women, or our society, it would instead continue to allow a monopolistic leader consolidate more and more power into the hands of a select few.