Glenn Hubbers » Glenn's Right Brain

Masthead header

‘We don’t do God’

The following article, written by Elizabeth May, is reprinted from the National Post, Friday February 1, 2008, and is presented here for those among us that just can’t bring themselves to read that paper…

The last time I checked, being a practicing Anglican was not evidence of mental instability, as the National Post’s editorial board recently suggested (The bizarre Ms. May, Jan 29).

Of course, misreporting my views, and omitting the context in which they were expressed, made it easier for you to portray me as some sort of fanatic. My background prior to becoming leader of Canada’s Green party (at nearly 54 years of age) includes admission to the bars of Nova Scotia and Ontario, and being honoured as an Officer of the Order of Canada. I have been studying theology part-time since 2004. Your assertion that this is an odd interest for a politician is itself rather odd, given that Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister and at least two current Members of Parliament are ordained — one a United Church minister, one a Catholic priest.

The safe response when religion is raised in a political context is the one used by former prime minister Tony Blair’s communications team. Whenever reporters asked questions about Mr. Blair’s religious views, they were told: “We don’t do God here.”

That holds true for the Green Party. We don’t do God here, either. We are a broad and inclusive party with members from many religions — and no religion. None of that is relevant to matters of policy. The policies of the Green party are developed through a grass-roots democratic process. As a party, we do not cite scripture to defend positions. As party leader, neither do I.

Your editorial takes one (admittedly not terribly well-worded) Green Party press release about our presence in Afghanistan, and links it to a twisted version of my faith. Yes, I will admit that there should have been quotation marks around the words “Christian crusader heritage” — to avoid communicating the impression that this is how I (as opposed to the Taliban) saw our troops. Our Afghanistan policy is better expressed in Vision Green. I apologize for the confusion and any pain it may have caused, but not for the underlying policy, which is sound.

The point we are making is that Taliban recruitment propaganda portrays the NATO mission, led by the United States, Canada and other Western countries, as a conflict between the Christian West and Islam. We cannot defeat the Taliban and stabilize the region in a vacuum, ignoring the power of religious extremism. This important issue was ignored by the recently released Manley report on the future of our deployment to Afghanistan.

Your editorial also misrepresented my position on abortion. The Green party supports a woman’s right to legal and accessible termination of pregnancy, as do I. It is a matter between a woman and her doctor. The out-of-context quotation you cited in regard to this issue emerged from my participation in a discussion about the futility of using slogans to deal with complex issues. (I find both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” slogans divisive. I am “pro-life” in seeking to protect life on Earth. In an ideal world, every child would be a wanted child.)

As for your suggestion that I quote scripture to defend policy, you neglected to tell your readers that the quotation regarding abortion was excerpted from a guest sermon I delivered during an Earth service at a United Church in London, Ont. It was not from a political speech, nor was it used in support of party policy. Check any book of worship from Anglican, United and many other traditions, and you will find that such expressions of reverence for life on Earth have become quite common.

Church and state must be separate as institutions, but it is important that voters know the motivations of their political leaders and the extent to which they may be influenced by their religious beliefs. I am willing to explain myself and, following your editorial drive-by smear, I am prepared to defend myself. My religious faith is a large part of who I am, but it has nothing to do with the Green party and our policies.

Elizabeth May, O.C., is leader of the Green Party of Canada.

Share via emailShare on LinkedInDigg ThisShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSave on DeliciousSubmit to reddit

show hide 2 comments

WalkswithcoffeeFebruary 1, 2008 - 5:22 pm

Simply put, religious slurring in conservative cycles is standard operating procedure.

During my brief involvement with conservativbes, I was likewise smeared as radical for being Anglican (I’m anglican lite). That branch of faith was decribed as “radical” by CPoC people. Being Anglican does not pass the CPoC orthodoxy test of fundamentalists… and therefore does not meet the national post’s political orthodoxy test.

Aside: they really go after you if you are Indigenous and Anglican (they cannot compute that).

Cheers,

Coffee

ValFebruary 1, 2008 - 6:18 pm

Yeah Elizabeth! I actually saw the original article and wanted to respond but the comments were taken so out of context I wasn’t sure what the appropriate response would be – as always, Elizabeth is more than capable of defending herself so I guess we owe the National Post some props for the free publicity. :-)

I do have to read Vision Green to figure out one point the article made that was not replied to by Elizabeth. They claim that while the Green’s are opposed to Afghanistan and not opposed to an intervention in Sudan…

Hey wait! You’re a candidate… what’s the scoop sir? Or have you lost your foreign policy expert recently (in my dreams)…

I’m more than casually interested since I have an essay on humanitarian intervention due on Monday and I spend all my time reading about and being lectured to about this stuff. Oh yeah, cuz I’m in that degree program. :-)

I’ll go read Vision Green but I’d still be interested to know what you think.

————————————————–

You’ll want to read section 5-5 and 5-6 of http://www.greenparty.ca/visiongreen“ rel=”nofollow”>Vision Green (pages 94-96 of the pdf copy). This outlines our position on both Afghanistan and Darfur.

Elizabeth is correct. Vision Green outlines our position much better than that press release did. For example it avoids using the word “crusade” and rather talks about how success will not be possible so long as the Taliban is able to recruit by framing the fight as a “clash of civilizations.”

The National Post was inaccurate in both our position on Afghanistan AND Darfur.

To be clear, we do not oppose intervention in Afghanistan, but we believe that it should be a UN led mission to help the people rebuild their country and democracy. After all, Afghanistan was a modern democratic country before the US and Russia decided to fight their “cold war” there. (It was only cold for Russians and Americans. For much of the rest of the world things looked a bit different!)

In Darfur, the Green Party ALSO supports the United Nations call for intervention. Again, a United Nations peace keeping and rebuilding mission, not a NATO offensive.

The National Post has it wrong. Our policy is consistent.

–Glenn