By Dennis Gruending

The Canadian Council of Churches (CCC) has written to three large American religious groups offering positive comments on the value of a publicly financed and administered health care system. Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton, the CCC’s general secretary, sent a letter on August 10 to the National Council of Churches, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the National Association of Evangelicals. (The CCC has not yet posted the letter on its website at the time of this writing). I had reported on Pulpit and Politics on July 27 that some prominent American religious groups, including the powerful Southern Baptist Convention, were altogether opposed to significant health care reform, while others including the Catholic bishops and the American Evangelical Association were not prepared to support any plan that might include paying for abortion as a medical procedure. Rev. Hamilton’s low-key intervention comes at a time when American special interest groups are orchestrating a campaign of fear and misinformation about health care reform. Some angry Americans are showing up at town hall meetings on health care carrying handguns, rifles, and even automatic weapons – claiming that it is their constitutional right to do so in the United States of America. This is a chilling development that really does cross the line, and it is more in keeping with Germany in the 1930s or with experiences in recently-failed states than it is with a healthy, functioning democracy.

Rev. Hamilton’s letter

“Canadians are aware that certain lobby groups and media outlets in the United States regularly use critical references to Canada’s health care system and interviews with Canadian citizens to support their arguments,” Rev. Hamilton writes. “By means of this letter and its enclosures, we simply wish to inform you of our Christian reflection on health care in Canada, the implications of this reflection in our ministries, and the action we have taken to discern an appropriate role for Canadian Christians in terms of health care and health care advocacy.”

Hamilton tells her American coreligionists that prior to 1966 Canada had a health care system that failed to provide over 30% of the population with medical insurance. That situation, she says, “created enormous human suffering and ethical problems for those who believed with Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:26, ‘If one member suffers, all suffer together with it…’” She adds, “With varying degrees of fervour, Canadian churches publicly began to advocate for the establishment of Medicare. Canadian churches wanted health care for all.” Hamilton then provides a brief description of this country’s Medical Care Act and describes it as “one of Canada’s hallmark policies towards social inclusion and the alleviation of suffering related to poverty.”  The CCC in recent years, she says, has continued to urge that Canada’s public health system be strengthened.

Expensive health care

The Democrats are not proposing a publicly-administered, single-payer health care system such as we have in Canada, but rather a patchwork of private and public insurance that would assure coverage to everyone, including those 47 million Americans who lack it entirely. President Obama believes that having government as one of the insurers would bring some discipline to a system whose costs are out of control. They are bloated by competing health care insurance companies that are expected to turn a handsome profit for shareholders, and by the provision, for those who can afford it, of rampantly costly high technology medicine. Arnold Reilman, professor emeritus of medicine at Harvard University, writes, “The entire system behaves like a profit driven industry.” He adds, “In most advanced countries with universal coverage, the government determines how medical expenses are reimbursed, and the income of health care providers from technical services is therefore more modest.”

The U.S. spends more on health care than other industrialized country — 17 per cent of the gross domestic product in 2008. By comparison, health care spending accounted for 9.7 per cent of GDP in Canada in the same year. Obama says that the U.S. cannot afford to keep spending so much, even as millions of people are excluded from the service. He has proposed to increase taxes modestly on high-income earners to pay for the extended coverage, and he claims that new efficiencies can be found to reduce the rising cost of care in the future. Any mention of higher taxes is anathema to the rich in the U.S., as is any hint of state involvement, no matter how minor. Obama has now begun to back away from having the government involved at all and is talking about having health cooperatives in some cases, but a continuation of private plans in most others.

Rumours and lies

Nonetheless, the Democrats have been attacked relentlessly in an air war (on television), a ground war (at town hall and other meetings), and a digital war that is spreading like a viral flu on the web. They are fighting back as best they can. I received a message recently referring me to a site called Setting the Record Straight. “It seems like a new lies about health insurance reform crop up each day,” the site says. “These lies create fear and anger – and we’re seeing the results around the country. It’s time to work together to set the record straight and expose the special interests and partisan attack groups who deliberately spread these rumours and lies in a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo.”

What are some of those rumours and lies? Perhaps the most disgusting among them came from Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 election. She posted a note on her official Facebook page claiming that the Democratic plan would ration care and that “my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” Needless to say, no such panel exists or has been proposed in any version of the health care bills in Congress.

Canadian comparisons

There is some similarity between what is occurring in the U.S. today and what happened when Saskatchewan’s social democratic government introduced medicare in July 1962. That decision triggered an ugly 23-day doctors’ strike. In a biography that I published in 1990 about former Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney, I describe how someone painted the word “commie” on the wall of then-Premier Woodrow Lloyd’s home. That prompted police to provide him with around-the-clock protection. The Canadian (and the American) Medical Association and the private medical insurance companies were instrumental in financing opposition to medicare and were joined in their project by the Liberal opposition party of the day – much as the Republicans are now part of the corporate campaign against health care reform. There was also a religious dimension to the dispute in 1962, as there is in the U.S. today. Some Canadian Protestant churches had been among those advocating on behalf of medicare for years, but Catholics were mostly opposed. I was in grade eight at the time and recall the religious sisters who taught in our school telling us that medicare was communist-inspired and the beginning of a slippery slope that would rob us of our democratic and religious freedoms. And yes, we were told that under medicare the government would choose our doctors, our treatment, who would live and who would die.

Father Athol Murray, a well known priest who founded Notre Dame College at Wilcox, Saskatchewan, was one of the featured speakers in a series of Keep Our Doctors rallies held throughout the province and broadcast by an obliging radio network. At one rally, Father Murray was quoted as saying: “This thing may break out in violence and bloodshed any day now, and God help us if it doesn’t.” Murray’s bishop was not amused and sent him out of province on an unscheduled holiday. But there were other, countervailing religious voices as well. The Prairie Messenger, a Saskatchewan newspaper published by Benedictine monks, assessed the issues and became one of only two newspapers in all of Saskatchewan to support medicare.

Good Samaritans

In her letter of August 10, Rev. Karen Hamilton is deferential to her American counterparts. “We have no wish to advocate specific positions on the various public policy options being proposed by politicians in your country,” she writes. But, gently, she does make it clear that the principles embedded in public health care are good theology. Quoting from a former CCC general secretary, Hamilton writes, “Medicare can be the Good Samaritan parable writ large.”

The churches had a choice to make in Saskatchewan in 1962 and they have one today in the much grander theatre of American politics. The religious voices of reason and compassion now appear almost entirely absent from the American debate.

By Dennis Gruending

Three members of the Shafia family (father, mother and teenaged son) appeared via video conference in a Kingston courtroom on August 6 to face charges of first-degree murder in the mysterious deaths earlier this summer of four female family members. So far little hard information has been made public about what happened but there is, nonetheless, a great deal of speculation. Christie Blatchford, a writer for The Globe and Mail newspaper, managed in one column to create a narrative that links the Kingston deaths with misogyny, honour killings, Islam, terrorists, wimpy Canadian police, and what she sees as Canada’s failed public policy for the assimilation of immigrants. Blatchford often writes on crime and the courts. She has also done several tours of Afghanistan, where she was embedded with Canadian troops, and she has written a sympathetic book about them. I want to focus on Blatchford’s column as an example of how the debate about immigration and multiculturalism is sometimes framed in Canada – but first I will present a few of the facts that have emerged.

On the morning of June 30, a car was found submerged in the Rideau Canal near Kingston. Inside were the bodies of Zainab Shafia, 19, her sisters Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13. The fourth body was that of 50-year-old Rona Amir Mohammed. On the same day Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba and their son Hamid, 18, presented at the Kingston police station to say that one of their family cars and four family members had gone missing after they had all stopped to spend the night at a Kingston hotel on the way home to Montreal from a trip to Niagara Falls. The Shafias speculated in later statements to the media that their eldest daughter might have taken the car without permission for a late night joy ride and somehow ended up in the canal. They said that she had removed the vehicle without permission on previous occasions even though she had no driver’s licence. That did not explain how or why Zainab’s two sisters and the 50-year-old Rona Amir Mohammed were in the car and the canal as well. Mr. Shafia had described the older woman as being his cousin but later people from France claiming to be her relatives said that she was actually his first wife. The Shafias had emigrated from their native Afghanistan to Dubai and from there to Montreal and she had moved with them. Mr. Shafia, his second wife and son were arrested on July 22 and held without bail. They appeared in court briefly on August 6 and are due for another video appearance on August 14. The family’s three other surviving children, all under age 16, have now been taken into custody by child protection authorities in Montreal.

Christie Blatchford’s column

There has been speculation in media stories that 19-year-old Zainab Shafia had defied her parents’ wishes by dating (and some say secretly marrying) a young man of Pakistani origin in Montreal. There has been much other media speculation, none of it yet put to the burden of proof, as will happen before the courts. The following is a sampling drawn from Blatchford’s column on July 24: “Was this a gaudy example of those magnificently misnamed ‘honour killings’, the extrajudicial killings of people by their own kin for real or perceived infractions of the Islamic moral code – almost invariably by women, often involving alleged sexual or behavioural transgressions, like showing a bit of ankle to a male not a relative?” She went on to describe how Kingston police, when prompted, would not talk about honour killings in this case but did mention “the cultural issue.” That led Blatchford to recall how Toronto police “bragged of not uttering the ‘M word’ (Muslim) at a press conference held to announce the arrests of a group of charged in a terror plot.” That, in turn, led Blatchford to quote a colleague with experience in Afghanistan as saying that, as a matter of policy, Canada “tolerates a partial or some would say negligible assimilation or even acceptance of our Canadian norms, beliefs, fundamental principles.”

Were the Kingston deaths so-called honour killings? I don’t know and nor does Blatchford although that is what she implies. There is no justification, ever, for such killings or for any rationalization that allows men to use coercion and violence against women. Our laws say so and so does our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone in Canada is expected to obey the law. It is worth saying that these killings, although despicable, are extremely rare in Canada, something Blatchford could well have mentioned. What of the link between these murders and the “Islamic moral code”?  There is no doubt that Muslim fundamentalists connect their domination of women with what they perceive as the truth of their religion, and the consequences can be dire – acid thrown in the faces of girls attending school in Afghanistan, and yes, honour killings.

The unfortunate truth is that men have used the power of religion for millennia to force women into submission. Some fathers of the Christian church, including Pope St. Gregory, Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, said women should be ashamed of themselves for merely being women, that they were slow, unstable, naïve and useful only for “animal sex and motherhood.”  Some will argue that Christian churches don’t hold those views today. I would respond that while most Christians do not view women as inferior, a fundamentalist minority continues to do so. I would argue, as well, that most Muslims in Canada likely cannot be described as fundamentalists. The problem is with fundamentalism more than with religions, although most religions still have a long way to go in promoting gender equality.

And what explains the deaths of so many other women at the hands of men in Canada? I recall the case of a young man in Ottawa who murdered his former partner using a powerful crossbow. There was another Ottawa case where a man strangled his companion, a young medical doctor, and later hung himself in his prison cell. There is the medical doctor in Windsor who stalked and murdered a nurse on his hospital staff, then took his own life. There was no reportage about the religious affiliation of these three men and most likely religion did not play a part in what they did. These are sometimes described in Canada as crimes of passion but they are as senseless and gruesome as honour killings and the victims are every bit as dead. This is all about men who believe that they can or should have total control over the lives of women.

Blatchford criticizes police

Blatchford tweaks the Kingston police chief for reacting cautiously to a question about whether the Shafia deaths were honour killings. The chief was right to be cautious and to leave such a description, if indeed it is accurate, to be presented and tested in court. Blatchford and other commentators would do well to exercise similar prudent judgment in what they say and write – but they are paid to have opinions and to be minor celebrities. Blatchford ridicules the behaviour of Toronto police in the case of 18 young men who were charged in a terror plot in June 2006. She would have had them named up front as being Muslims, but that information did emerge in the trials when it could be placed in a context. Mr. Justice John Sproat said evidence that a terrorist group existed was overwhelming and that it was “motivated by an interpretation of Islam.” That is obviously a concern but police, who needed no help from newspaper columnists, intercepted the group. Having the men described immediately as Muslims would have had no positive effect on public safety. Two have pleaded guilty and trails of several others are pending but, significantly, charges against seven of the accused have been stayed or dropped. The point is that the courts are in a far better position than are columnists who shoot from the lip to decide whether religion played a contributing role in these cases.

Debating multiculturalism

Finally, in her July 24 column Blatchford implies that Canada’s public policies are at least partly to blame for crimes such as the one the Shafias are accused of committing. The criticism is that Canada fails to assimilate immigrants and that this nation’s policies do not work as well as the “melting pot” approach of countries such as the United States. This is a point of legitimate public policy debate. Blatchford and some others have a point of view but it’s not necessarily an accurate one. On June 2, I wrote in Pulpit and Politics about Professor Wil Kymlicka’s comments that multiculturalism works in Canada and some prominent Canadian commentators have it wrong when they warn that it is failing.

Kymlicka is the Canada research chair in political philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston and an expert on immigration and multiculturalism. He says that “cross national” research indicates that Canada is more successful than most countries in the integration of immigrants and their children. Despite those successes, Kymlicka says, some influential Canadians pursue a narrative that focuses upon failure, backlash and retreat. They say that multiculturalism has gone too far and they blame it for a variety of social ills, including the creation of parallel societies, political terrorism and honour killings. Blatchford writes: “What seems to underlie these murders, what appears to be the real bottom line context, is the belief that men are superior to women. Canadians don’t believe that, do not accept the core belief of many ethnic groups that men are superior to women.”  There is misogyny among immigrants groups, of course, as there is among native born Canadians, but Kymlicka takes the longer-term view that multiculturalism works, that many new immigrants and certainly their children see Canada and its values as something to cherish.