Since my last blog post I have seen numerous news stories, people being interviewed, read numerous articles and peoples responses and frankly I am fed up. What I have read being posted by those in favor of the appointment has been frankly 95% mudslinging and garbage. Those opposed are not that much better either. This has degraded into a pro-choice pro-life arguement (which I will save for another post) as opposed to what it should be which I think is this: Whether you agree with abortion or not, does what Henry Morgentaler has done in his life deserving of the Order of Canada by it's very definition?

Now I now that in my previous post I already posted what the Order of Canada is by it's very definition from the Governor General's website. (One note of interest is that the motto is from Hebrews 11:16 and the whole verse reads as follows "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them") But I think that this whole arguement centers around that issue. Now some people may view me as being very picky but should not the things that anyone appointed to the order have done be what the Order stands for in it's very definition? Lets be honest here. Would Henry Morgentaler be nominated for the Order of Canada if it wasn't for what he did concerning abortion in Canada? Where is that a service to our nation? A lifetime of outstanding achievement? Dedication to community? Going to jail is something to be later honored? The Order of Canada is also something that is suppose to be uniting canadians. I have heard nothing else about this that is uniting. On the contrary this is a very dividing issue. One news report I watched showed a mother and daughter being interviewed who opposed each other. Read any of the blogs and you have both sides mudslinging. Even our own prime minister stated that he would rather see Canada's highest civilian award be something that unifies and brings Canadians closer together.

Another thing that has bothered me. In researching the Order of Canada I have found out that since 1967 all advisory councils (the make the nominations to the Governor General who then makes the appointments) has worked on a consensus/unanimity model, where all members had to agree with every appointment. (There have been 5,400 appointments over the past 41 years) This is the first time that it has been put to a vote. And it has since come out that at least two members voted against the appointment. Why after 41 years was the way to go about things changed just for this one appointment? Also from my understanding of what I have read the person who can decide to change the way things are done is the chair of the commitee and that would be Beverley McLachlin , Chief Justice of Canada. Did she have ulterior motives? Who knows.

I am opposed to Dr. Morgentaler's appointment based solely on the fact that I do not think that what he has done meets the definition of what the Order stands for. I feel that the whole thing is being rammed through so that the Order can be awarded before he dies. (as they do not give Orders posthumously and he has previously had a stroke) I think that this has done nothing to help Canada at all, but rather put people more at each other's throats. And I just have this point for people to ponder. What would public opinion be if the nomination was for someone who was pro-life, who's works were to say that all life is sacred? Would there be just as much of an outcry from pro-choice? See I think that someone like that would not get appointed at all. They themselves would be deemed too controversial!