12 minute read
OPINIONS
Do we need a “new left” after the Roe ruling?
Students Olivia and C talk about where western leftists should go after the disastrous Roe v. Wade decision
WRITTEN BY OLIVIA VISSER & C ICART
ILLUSTRATION: Lori Jiang / The Peak
The end of Roe v. Wade, the latest of a slew of rulings by a farright US Supreme Court, underlines the need for a concerted, long-term effort by left-wingers to effect progressive change. Just like how right-wingers worked for half a century to construct a judicial framework willing to overturn Roe, the left might need a new movement to effect meaningful, long-term change on issues like labour rights, climate change, voting rights, and protections for minorities.
Olivia: Ever since I found myself involved in politics, I’ve heard others stress the importance of civility. According to them, the “other side” won’t be as receptive to someone perceived as overly passionate about a social cause. My thoughts? Civility has gotten us nowhere. From politicians refusing to take solid action on crucial issues to social media “slacktivism,” it’s clear by now that the modern left is not working. There’s a trend of steadily increasing far-right ideology in Canada, and I don’t think a moderate approach will secure a healthy and happy future for our future generations. From climate change to democratic backsliding, western countries are suffering the consequences of left-leaning citizens getting too comfortable in their privileges while thinking they’re contributing to change through performative activism. And so it’s time the left stops relying largely on so-called “regular” civilians to champion progressive causes, day-in, day-out.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a pressing example but only one of many that show our politicians aren’t getting the job done. We should have the genuine support of those with privilege and political power, instead of their performative and reactionary gestures. Don’t think abortion could ever be restricted in Canada? I’d say think again. One Conservative MP, Arnold Vierson, celebrated the Roe v. Wade decision and described abortion as “the greatest human rights violation of our time.” The silence from the rest of the Conservative party does not necessarily mean they disagree with the ruling, but perhaps that they’re waiting for a better opportunity to act against our country’s abortion rights.
C: The overturning of Roe v. Wade is devastating. That being said, I think it’s essential to avoid a knee-jerk reaction about what the left should start doing because it obscures the work already being done. So many citizens have been doing the work for so long regarding abortion rights and many other social justice issues, like LGBTQIA2S+ rights and climate activism. I agree that we need to be patient, deliberate, and strategic. But to me, that means not attempting to reinvent the wheel every time something negative happens.
The left consists of experts, activists, and community organizers working against existing power structures. Issues like systemic racism in politics can be part of the reason marginalized Canadians may favour non-electoral political activities. Marginalized leftists face obstacles getting into politics or feeling like they don’t belong once they get a foot in the door. For instance, in her farewell speech to the House of Commons, NDP MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq said the racial profiling she regularly experienced from Parliamentary Protective Service made her feel unsafe. We need to pressure politicians, but we also need to recognize that systemic issues can get in the way of us having the politicians we want. of legislation that could open the door to politicizing and criminalizing abortion in Canada, but we have a decent legal framework for abortion in this country. That framework includes Section 7 (iii) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which explicitly affirms Canadians’ right to abortion as part of their “personal autonomy and [ . . . ] ability to control his or her own physical or psychological integrity.” We don’t need a “new” anything. We need to start listening to activists and supporting their efforts.
Olivia: I’d argue that in many ways our government’s left is not representative of actual leftist values, and I’m sure you’d probably agree with me there. Activists have been doing hard work without recognition for a long time, and you’re right that marginalized people face significant barriers in politics. It feels like the left has gotten complacent by settling over and over for the “lesser evil,” which has contributed to systemic inequalities and poor governance. I, for one, can’t count how many times I’ve heard people say they’re voting for Trudeau because it’s the “safer” choice.
By “new left,” I mean one that listens to the people who are already doing the work, so I agree with you there — I just don’t think we have enough of that listening being done right now. I’m also not sure that leaving abortion legally untouched in Canada is necessarily a good thing. I do understand the argument that rights-based legislation might make it easier to restrict abortion in the long run, but I also think it could just as easily go the other way. By avoiding a clear stance on the issue, abortion remains a grey area in Canada, and we open ourselves up to even more difficulties in accessing this crucial service. Making abortion a legally protected right would help increase its accessibility, which remains a huge barrier. People often suffer when healthcare is left almost entirely up to the discretion of provincial governments. For instance, rural areas in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Manitoba have no public access to abortion. The R. v. Morgentaler case resulted in abortion being decriminalized, but we still have no legislation to protect fair and equal access to the service.
C: You’re right. I agree that it is sometimes challenging to find leftist values represented. The deeper we dive into this conversation, the more I have a problem with the vague term “the left.” What is that? Right-wing reactionaries fearmongering about “the left” and “the liberals” paints a far more unified picture of leftist politics than what it actually looks like. By creating legislation, we separate it from other healthcare procedures by politicizing it. The Canada Health Act exists, and it promises universal healthcare. When that is not happening, that is not a policy failure or proof that we need legislation. It means that our governments are failing to enforce a regulatory framework we already have. We don’t need a new framework; we need consequences to be systematically imposed on provinces that do not uphold the Canada Health Act. Abortion should not be treated as a single issue. Many of the barriers that citizens face regarding reproductive justice are connected to other forms of marginalization. A legal rights framework is not the best way to address these inequities.
Olivia: Where we disagree is that I think abortion is already a political issue, and there’s no turning back from that at this point. It’s been made a political issue by the people who fight to criminalize our rights because of their personal beliefs. The US’ lack of federal legislation enshrining the right to abortion is in part what led to its overturning. Avoiding legislation in Canada to try and depoliticize abortion doesn’t make a clear stance, it opens it up to restrictions. Moreover, something being healthcare does not necessarily ensure unrestricted access. Abortion should be a single issue, just as other issues that are still healthcare-related are single issues. The process of Medical Assistance in Dying has its own legislation and understandably, its own restrictions. Someone going through the process must see two physicians and undergo a waiting period of 90 days after being cleared as eligible. If the same process applied to abortion, there would be serious humanitarian consequences. The Canadian Health Act does not do enough to protect equal access to healthcare because its very framework relies on the undefined phrase “reasonable access,” which counts on provincial interpretation. Decriminalization is not enough to make abortion accessible. To me, viewing it as the end goal of abortion legislation underlines a need for leftists to take bolder institutional stances. It’s very difficult to challenge corrupt systems with a non-systemic approach.
C: Abortion has been politicized, but it shouldn’t be. We don’t want the conversation to be about who is for or against abortion in the same way we don’t have conversations about who is for or against hip replacements. We agree that people need them, and we focus on finding better ways to provide them. I say that abortion is not a single issue because the folks with the most difficulty accessing abortion in Canada include those living in remote areas, people living in poverty, racialized, LGBTQIA2S+, disabled, and undocumented individuals.
For this reason, I want to ensure we look at abortion as inherently connected to reproductive justice, gender justice, racial justice, and economic justice. This reminds us that the right to choose is not only about abortion. Even today, Indigenous women are being sterilized without their consent in Canada. Decriminalizing abortion does not inherently make it accessible, but neither does legislation. While the overturning of Roe v. Wade has brought this issue to the forefront, it is not a new issue. Sexuality and reproductive health (SRH) advocates across Canada have been doing the work and provide great insight into what still needs to be done. That includes increasing funding to provinces to expand SRH and implementing comprehensive health education in all Canadian schools. If you want to support them, I encourage you to read the BC Reproductive Justice Manifesto and reach out to your MLA and MP to ensure that addressing and funding SRH is a priority for them.
Inspired by poets like Rupi Kaur and Atticus, Sekhon seeks to appeal to poetry enthusiasts of all levels. PHOTO: Gudrun Wai-Gunnarsson / The Peak
In conversation with Neha Sekhon on life cycle of a wildflower
SFU student reflects on love, anxiety, and cultural identity in her new collection
MAX LORETTE // PEAK ASSOCIATE
SFU student and poet Neha Sekhon pours her heart and soul out in her self-published poetry book, life cycle of a wildflower. This book explores Sekhon’s coming of age story in an easily digestible way, all the while being heartwrenchingly sad, celebratory, and hopeful. It features short form poetry and stylized letters reflecting upon various kinds of love, personal anxieties, and cultural identity. Inspired by poets Rupi Kaur and Atticus, Sekhon’s poetry appeals to both the seasoned and unseasoned poetry enthusiast. Upon reading her work, it’s apparent how much care, love, and vulnerability went into this collection, which prompted me to interview her and ask some burning questions.
Responses have been edited for concision and clarity.
P: I can tell from the way that you’ve written a lot of your poems that you put a lot of care into editing and revising them in order to get your ideas across. Could you walk me through your process of taking a poem from its first to final draft?
NS: Editing was the hardest part of this journey for sure. Because of how long the book has been in the works (over three years) a lot of them look very different from what they started out as, which is amazing to see because it’s evidence of how much my writing has grown. I am now in a position where I can get the same message across but in better words. Because it was self-published, the editing process was very pressure-inducing. There was no professional editor to tell me that something was wrong — it was just me and my sisters reading it time and time again, hoping we weren’t missing anything. I will say that on a non-grammatical level there is comfort in poetry because almost every line can have a double meaning, so even if it might seem one way to one person, the next ten can read it and see something totally different. I guess that’s the beauty in this form of writing. helped me work through ones in the past and attempt to understand ones ahead of me. The book definitely helped me start to understand my relationship with romantic love; how I felt about it, how I wanted to feel about it, and how others feel about it. It helped me explore and see through my own fears and doubts about it.
P: What was the process like in structuring the order of your poems and letters?
NS: I didn’t want chronological because I wanted everything to be mixed. I never wanted it to seem obvious that some pieces may have been written at a much younger age; I wanted it to flow. I also decided to stay away from the progressive chapter idea because it felt dishonest to an extent. Though I have been through and grown through many seasons of my life, I am not a fully formed being of full confidence and security. I can have a life-is-great day and then wake up the next morning feeling crushed by my anxiety and not knowing what I’m looking ahead at. I wanted it to come across as one giant letter, to flow as one piece, wavering in and out of different experiences and emotions.
P: A lot of your poetry centres around the concept of love, romantic love, heartbreak, familial love, and self-love. Could you walk me through what all these various kinds of love mean to you?
NS: This is an interesting question because love is probably the emotion I’ve struggled with the most in my life. My relationship with it has always been strange, I guess. Self-love was foreign to me for much of my childhood and adolescent years. They were so unfortunately shadowed by insecurity and shame and self-doubt that it left such little room for self-love. Familial love has always been so strong for me. It is in my programming, in my bones and blood, to carry family as my highest priority. My parents and sisters and onward extension have been central to my upbringing and, even now, continue to be so important to me. That definitely had roots from a cultural standpoint. When it comes to heartbreak, I believe that it can truly be caused by anyone: partners, family, friends, or yourself. So writing about those experiences and different forms of heartbreak I wanted people to feel heard and understood because books and poetry did that for me. When a poem can put your loneliest moment into words — it’s so powerful.
NEHA SEKHON // POET
P: What do you most hope that your readers will get out of your writing?
NS: I hope that they can relate to it. I loved writing these pieces because I knew that what was a letter to a version of myself could, to someone else, be an expression of their past relationships. I wanted to write something people felt. I wanted people to feel heard and understood because books and poetry did that for me. When a poem can put your loneliest moment into words — it’s so powerful. I hope at the end of the book they can feel something, whether understood or reflective; I hope they can walk away with a piece of the wildflower.
