The Right to Conscience Is a Matter of Creating a New SocietyToday Canadians are generally quite worried about what is happening to societies all over the world, their own included. They are given the right to do, say and act in whatever way they want so long as it has no consequences on the rule which prevails over them. They can choose whatever they want to purchase. They can vote or not vote in any way they want. In this way, freedom is described as consumer choice on one hand, and political choice on the other. Nobody has to listen to anyone they don't want to listen to but, if they do something that the ruling class deems does not benefit the narrow private interest it enforces, they face what is called "the full force of the law."
How is it possible to live a dignified life when such a state of affairs exists? A fierce battle is being waged between what is progressive, positive and healthy and what is retrogressive, negative and unhealthy. And Canadians have to set their orientation in life within these circumstances. They live in a world in which classes exist and, thus, conflict is certain to be found between the two ways and outlooks which give rise to conflicting views about practically everything. Furthermore, in our society anarchy prevails in different fields, especially in the economy, which means that besides the policy of paying the rich come what may, everything else is left to chance. This includes how the younger generations are cared for and nurtured, as well as the elderly and those who require social assistance and how all other aspects of living are undertaken. What all of it reveals is that those in positions of power cannot justify their positions by sound logic and facts from life. As a result, they find a rationale for doing what they do in the abstraction. "In Canada, any individual can do whatever she/he pleases," they say. As if this supplants a substantive discussion on what constitutes a democracy fit for the times and how rights are defined, this is used as the first and last word on the matter. There is no evidence to back up this assertion. There can never be a society where an individual can do whatever she or he wishes, because the very existence of society imposes definite limitations on its members. We create our own society, but it isn't created according to our every wish. Nor can we say that we have no say whatsoever in its creation. Thus, the argument that an individual can do anything she or he wishes is either a mere abstraction, a profound detachment from life, a negative and unhealthy opinion or an impossibility. Writing for the New Magazine in September 1987, a period when the conscience of society was based on arrangements of a social welfare state that were being pushed aside by the onset of neo-liberalism -- called neo-conservatism in those days -- the editor B. Paul wrote[1]:
By law, the demand is enforced that all future citizens swear allegiance to Canadian institutions, that is, to the society which is constructed on the basis of a pay-the-rich economy and which belongs to the aggressive U.S. imperialist military alliance NATO. This is the Citizenship Act which only applies to permanent residents who want citizenship, not to born Canadians. Born Canadians are, nonetheless, also treated as legitimate or illegitimate beings according to whether they support what are called Canadian values as represented by the so-called liberal democratic institutions. It shows that the government wants to preserve the pay-the-rich system and enforce the status quo while, at the same time, claiming that a person can believe whatever she or he wishes so long as she/he swears allegiance to "our way of life." B. Paul writes: "The question of conscience is a question of science and civilization, of the well-being of the people, of freedom and progress, of the advance of society. It is not fortuitous, then, that only progressive people deal with the question of conscience in a sincere, open and honest manner. It is a broadly accepted view that freedom is the recognition of necessity. Can our conscience be independent of this?" The Government of Canada takes a position on rights and human rights in particular, which clearly suggests that yes indeed, rights are an abstraction. Our consciousness of what constitutes a right must be framed by the anachronistic liberal democratic institutions. Ours is to merely repeat some version of what they tell us. If we fail to abide by this dictate, we are extremists of some sort and worthy of exclusion, defamation and civil death, in other words, we are criminalized. B. Paul raised the following for consideration: "What is necessary now is that a new society be created which does not have the evils of capitalism. What kind of conscience is it that does not recognize this?" This means that today, the clashes around the question of conscience, outlook and conduct in life are not only very fierce but have a sense of urgency. Everyone has to make up their minds about the direction society is to take and everyone has to take concrete actions which lead it in that direction. This is also the case of the younger generation. Young people deeply feel the need to decide how to orient themselves. This preoccupation drives some to nihilism, fatalism and tragic consequences. It drives others to take up revolutionary positions. The same is the case with the workers, especially young workers, from coast to coast. It underscores the significance of the question of conscience.
Nobody can accuse the likes of Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Irwin Cotler or Jason Kenney of being men and women of conscience. This is not because they are reactionary politically, but because their very conception of the present-day world leaves the question of conscience in the Middle Ages. The question of conscience can never be reduced to the right to counterrevolution and reaction. "Conscience and science, conscience and progress, conscience and revolution -- these have much in common," wrote B. Paul. "One cannot see one without the other. [...] Those who try to justify self-serving and self-destructive attitudes do so only at the cost of conscience. Having no conscience is tantamount to deliberately denying human values and civilization, to support blindness and inhuman behaviour," he added. B. Paul pointed out that prejudice has nothing to do with conscience. "It so happens that because everyone is a product of society, they feel as if their views and conscience are well worked out and looked after. But conscience demands a fully conscious and wholly justified view on the basis of science and entirely in the interests of freedom and progress. Just because we have picked up some things spontaneously does not yet make us men and women of conscience. It does not matter how many times it is repeated, it will simply not wash. We stand for a very definite conscience. This definitiveness comes from the concern and needs of the people. Our conscience is neither vague nor fleeting and transitory. It is rooted in the very soil of the human advance to create a society where everything blind and backward becomes a thing of the past." B. Paul stated the conclusion succinctly: "The right to conscience, then, is the question of creating a new society." Note1. "On the Question of Conscience," B. Paul, The New Weekly Magazine, October 14, 1987.
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
In other words, a
marked feature of the present situation is that
governments which have no argument for the
terrible things they are doing, speak about
rights in the same fashion, as if they are
abstractions without consequences.
"The right to
conscience, to hold opinions, to advocate and to
practice them is a fundamental right. And this
right is not merely an idea, an intellectual
exercise. Take, for example, a worker who is
conscious of his conditions of life and
advocates that the capitalist system must go.
Why would he do such a thing? Because only in
this way can he see his interests served and his
future guaranteed. Such a worker instinctively
gravitates towards socialism, while a capitalist
would consider it a mortal sin even to think of
overthrowing the capitalist system."
While governments
and establishment forces including media,
universities, think tanks and spokespersons for
all manner of business interests and social and
charity organizations claim that in Canada the
right to speak freely is protected, the most
important issue here is the denial of the right
to conscience. It is not possible to have the
right to conscience when those who are the
enemies of this right have such power.
