|
By Lloyd Mackey
 THE SUPREME Court of Canada reserved judgment, this week, on an appeal by
septuagenarian Vancouver broadcaster Rafe Mair against a BC
appeal court finding that he had defamed a
socially-conservative political activist.
The case has been proceeding upwards in the courts since 1999, when Mair
told his then CKNW audience: "I really hate to give Kari Simpson any more
publicity, something she soaks up like a blotter, but she's become such a
menace I really think something must be said . . . "
What he said, which led ultimately to then 40ish Simpson's lawsuit, we
will leave to another day, when we learn whether the high court finds for
Mair or Simpson.
But, to put it into context, Simpson is a single mother of four who fought
vigorously for a range of pro-life and pro-family issues during the 90s,
under the structure of an organization known as the Citizen Research
Institute.
A one time Simpson ally, Mair became something of an adversary, as he
gradually came to the conclusion that she was on a bit of a power trip and
had a tendency toward anti-gay bigotry. (I am paraphrasing Mair mildly,
and in a way that I trust will protect me from being seen to repeat his
alleged defamation.)
For his part, Mair, a constitutional lawyer by profession, was a cabinet
minister in Bill Bennett's Social Credit government in the late '70s.
After leaving politics, he became a well-regarded and, at times,
controversial radio talk show host.
There are many Christian people in British Columbia who will remember both
Mair and Simpson, although both have had a lower profile in recent years,
as politicians and religious leaders have moved on to other interests and
causes.
But the outcome of the Supreme Court's hearing on this case, no matter how
it falls, will be interesting -- and instructive -- to Christian people
who want to communicate their values in a sometimes alien world.
* * *
The Mair-Simpson case caught my eye this morning (Wednesday, December 5)
as I wondered how best to introduce a letter I found at Word.ca.
The letter was penned by the website's host, Charles McVety, one of a
number of people I consider to be friends, scattered across the political
and faith spectrum in Canada.
Simpson, as I remember her, and McVety, are similar types in several
respects. They are both staunchly social conservative. And their
particular forms of conservatism are shaped in a Christian faith that is
evangelical, leaning in both fundamentalist and charismatic directions.
Both are known to stand up strongly against family and life stances that
they believe are out of line with traditional and/or biblical morals.
Continue article >>
|
McVety's strong suits are -- not necessarily in order of significance to
him -- defence of Israel, opposition to "earthism" and resistance to gay
marriage. He does battle through his presidency of Canada Christian College,
Canada Family Action Coalition as
well as several other loosely affiliated organizations. Some of his allies
are or have been televangelists John Hagee and the late Jerry Falwell as
well as futurologists Hal Lindsey and Grant Jeffrey.
* * *
The McVety letter to which I refer is entitled Brian Mulroney: 'Low taxes
- low morals - low ethics.'
It attempts to connect certain dots politically, and does so advancing
arguments which I have read before in his pieces, but more in reference to
Paul Martin than any Conservative politician.
Permit me to synthesize his points: - Mulroney, McVety
says, is not a true conservative, but "a liberal in a blue suit."
- He is
adept at profanity, as witnessed by the tapes journalist Peter Newman made
of some of their conversations.
- He stickhandled the lowering of the age of sexual
consent.
- He appointed "liberal" supreme court justices.
- His
environmentalism was of an "earthism" variety promoted by Paul Martin
mentor Maurice Strong.
McVety cautions the current prime minister,
Stephen Harper, to distance himself from the "Mulroney style of
government."
* * *
When the Mulroney-Schreiber story broke, I suggested that
"faith-based-ethics might end up being a factor in seeing some eventual
resolution to this issue."
I said that in the context of Mulroney's delivering his first defense
against the Schreiber allegations, as guest speaker at a Toronto gala of
his alma mater, Nova Scotia's St. Francis Xavier University.
The ethical approach that McVety espouses comes out of one slice of the
Christian continuum. That advanced by Mulroney emanates from another. The
commonality is that both slices were, perhaps, more in vogue in the '80s
than they are today.
One of the first acts of the present government was the passage of the
Accountability Act. There are a range of views on exactly how tough and
effective it might be in the long run. But, if nothing else, it does
represent a much more thoroughly-coded standard with respect to governance
and ethics than anything that has existed to date.
It means that there is a new ethical game, where practices which were once
common will now face substantive consequences.
* * *
Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery
and author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW
Press 2006). He can be reached at lmackey@canadianchristianity.com.
December 6/2007
|
