The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of CFOB

Now That's What I Call Family Values

As most people, after the results of the U.S elections were officially announced, I feverously scanned through all the newspapers, websites and commentaries I could find, to provide some insight or explanation why George Bush won a second term. While I had prepared myself for a Bush victory, it still came as a surprise, I was shocked and awed indeed. Being a keen observer of society, I was fascinated to know what it is about President Bush that appealed to, well 52% of the population.

What I kept coming across was a reference to "family values". Apparently, observers link Bush's stance on so-called family values, as being a key issue on which his support was based. An issue some say was equally as important as the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. I have no doubt believing many people strongly considered Bush's "values" or "morals", when making their decision to vote. My problem is the use of the term "family values". When people mention Bush's family values or his moral stance, it is usually in reference to his position on gay marriage, abortions and things like stem-cell research. Values which can be considered Christian or religious values. Bush being a self professed man of God, disapproves of homosexuality, abortion and "unholy" scientific research.

Well, if being an intolerant, homophobic, misogynist, is what it means to have family values, then I proudly declare to be a person lacking any kind of family values. In the U.S and Canada as well, we perceive ourselves as being the freest, most open and tolerant society. We've shed the shackles of European conservative social mores and are far more egalitarian than "backwards" third world countries. The problem is that our actions don't seem to match the rhetoric. We talk about human rights, fundamental freedoms, civil liberties, we have a Charter of Rights, the Americans have a Bill of Rights but if you are gay, a woman or someone in need of new medical technology, then just forget about it.

Human rights are meant to be values which apply to all people not just 52% of the country. It is necessary to constantly reflect upon ourselves and the policies of our government because society changes, therefore it is crucial to have policies which reflect such changes. This is democracy. If our government does not consider the protection of the rights of minorities to be necessary, then it is simply imposing a tyranny of the majority, a slim majority at that.

There was a time when blacks and whites were not permitted to sit together. Looking back now most people of sound mind would say, that's not right, blacks and whites are equal and both need to have their human rights protected. What if we never looked back on our past, or pushed for change? Human history has been a history of progress and change. Europe saw an eventual tranisiton from autocratic feudal rule, to civilian democracy. What if no one bothered to question the rule of kings or the status quo of the time, where would we all be?

Furthermore, imposing a belief structure for an entire society on selected excerpts from a 2000 year old book, with countless contradictions and little historical accuracy, is like having a 5 year old manage your finances. Maybe, some person, some time ago, said women are inferior, abortion was a sin, or those that look different are somehow inferior or subhuman, but to not question such unfounded views, especially in light of a changing modern society is simply ludicrous.

I for one think, that the beauty and essence of humanity and life is progress. Our thoughts and minds have changed and we have made leaps and bounds in philosophical thought and scientific knowledge. To live in a world where change never occurs would be the end of humanity.

Gujarat A Scar on the Nation's Conscience: The Role of the Media in Perpetuating Hate