Conservative MP Mark Warawa’s Motion 408 condemning sex-selection abortions and the subsequent decisions by the Conservative Party to disavow it have raised a host of hotly debated questions. Few, however, have questioned the unanimity with which the issue is now being framed as one of free speech and democratic rights. We should. Because if this becomes the dominant frame, it will be a significant victory for the anti-abortion movement.

The anti-abortion movement in Canada, while increasingly enlivened and sophisticated, remains a small minority. Clearly phrased polls show that Canadians do not want the issue re-politicized. This is precisely why Harper promised not to do so. He knows that it is a toxic issue for his goal of mainstreaming conservatism. The anti-abortion movement has also understood that the old arguments and positioning have not worked. They are therefore increasingly seeking to frame the issue in ways that piggyback on values, issues and rhetorical strategies traditionally used by progressive movements (and which have greater traction and resonance in Canadian society).

The current fight over M-408 bears all the hallmarks of this strategy. The motion was ingeniously defined as a question about women’s and girls’ rights. Mark Warawa’s website highlights this explicitly (“Protect Girls. Stop Gendercide. Support M-408. The anti-discrimination motion against sex selection.”) and implicitly (from the pink and black colouring, to the multicultural collage of adorable little girls). The strategy is not unique. North American conservatives have increasingly appealed to the “we must protect the women” frame in a variety of political contexts (justifying military intervention in Afghanistan/Iraq, promoting the oil sands as “ethical oil” in light of Saudi gender practices, toughening NCR sentencing, etc.). But the Canadian anti-abortion movement has become particularly skilled at this.

Playing the victim card has also been an equally important strategy. Key to this has been the anti-abortion claim that they are heroic defenders, speaking “truth” to power, while constantly being “censored” (usually by an amorphous “liberal establishment”). The goal of framing their supposed exclusion as a fundamental affront to the principle of free speech is to shift the debate onto terrain that more Canadians would be sympathetic to.

Supporters of Warawa have used both of these approaches to structure the discussion around the recent events. And no wonder. The brilliance of this framing is that it takes a very small kernel of truth (who is for sex-selection? who is in favour of absolute party control of its MPs?) and makes these, rather than the issue of abortion, the focus of debate (all the while ensuring that the issue of abortion remains in play). What is stunning, however, is the degree to which most political observers and participants have taken the bait and helped cement this as the sole framing of the issue. The point isn’t that there are no questions about free speech and parliamentary privilege raised by this issue. There are. The point is that treating this situation as if these are the primary questions distorts our understanding of the stakes of this drama.

First, is it reasonable to accept the idea that this motion is primarily a principled issue of protecting women’s rights? It is hard to defend this looking over the evidence of the last seven years. Where were these courageous voices of dissent when the status of women budget and programming was slashed? When the Harper government cut federal health coverage for pregnant refugee claimants? And most horrifyingly, when the Harper government not only withdrew funding for Sisters In Spirit (a grass-roots program that police forces credited with helping them track the hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women across Canada, and which supported the families of those victims), but also banned the Native Women’s Association of Canada to continue supporting this commendable program?

Second, is it reasonable to accept the idea that Harper’s actions are such an unprecedented trampling of the principles of free speech that we must rush to the ramparts on this issue? Why didn’t these same MPs stand up in outrage over Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament several years ago (a much greater transgression of democratic values and practice)? Why haven’t they rebelled over the absolutely undemocratic intransigence the government has shown in response to the parliamentary budget officer’s attempts to ensure transparency and accountability? And why have they been uniformly silent when the Conservative Party ruthlessly cut off ties and shunned other members of the party and movement when they spoke out of turn on other issues?

But if not the principle of women’s rights and free speech, what explains why things have developed as they have? It would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that this theatre has been meticulously staged by the PMO (although it is curious that Warawa – a buttoned-down insurance executive and up-until-now hyper loyal partisan who no one would have predicted this of – has now apparently gone rogue). But it isn’t too far fetched to say that there is an end-game scenario here that could benefit all conservatives involved.

This episode has allowed Harper, for example, to burnish his own centrist image considerably with middle-of-the-road voters. His decision to shut down the motion makes him appear both moderate (resisting the right flank of his party) and trustworthy (living up to his 2011 promise). Given his overall goal of mainstreaming conservatism and the fact that few outside the Queensway care about MPs’ ability to speak in the House, these events have turned a potential lump of coal (the Conservatives are coming after abortion!) into mainstream gold (Harper, defender of abortion!). Moreover, if Harper does finally cave and allows Warawa and others to speak to the issue, this could be sold as a gesture of good faith to the social conservative wing.

Ironically, these events and the media’s willingness to frame this as a question of free speech and democracy has also been a huge win for the anti-abortion movement. It builds up their image as heroic, principled victims (very useful ideological capital in a country that sympathizes with the underdog). It has attracted a variety of “neutral” observers to defend (at least partially) their cause – making the anti-abortion position seem more mainstream and more broadly supported than it actually is. And it has legitimized debating the topic itself, something that the movement must do before it can make any progress on the legislative front.

Other issues have been tangentially raised by these events – and it is useful to use this episode to raise questions about democratic norms. But make no mistake. Both in motivation and in consequence, this is primarily about abortion.

Paul Saurette is an associate professor at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. You can follow him on Twitter @paulsaurette .

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: