CANADIANS ARE BALKING AT BECOMING BERKELEY NORTH

According to Rick Mercer, Canada's resident satirist, the summer of 2003
witnessed the dawn of a new era when "we woke up and suddenly were a
European country." What he's referring to is the simultaneous arrival,
based of a string of recent court decisions, of gay marriage and legal
marijuana.

During the last month or so, gay and lesbian couples from across North
America have been flocking to Vancouver and Toronto to obtain civil
marriage licences. And because of the federal government's failure three
years ago to heed a court order to rewrite marijuana laws, Ontario courts
have refused to convict users caught with small amounts of marijuana. Last
week, the Toronto police had a call from a citizen reporting that her
personal stash had been stolen -- they logged the theft as a crime, but not
the possession of marijuana.

To the delight of some and the disgust of others, Canada appears to have
become the Holland of North America.

Or has it?

Despite glib references in the media about "majority" support for both
measures, my reading of recent polls, coupled with many in-depth but less
scientific soundings I've taken over the past month, reveals a Canadian
public deeply divided on both issues. Recent Ipsos polls show about 55 per
cent of Canadians support both measures while about 45 per cent oppose
them. However, these differences evaporate when voter turnout is factored
in since supporters are disproportionately younger Canadians who are the
least likely to vote. Also those opposing both measures (especially
same-sex marriage) are more as likely to have "strong" feelings suggesting
that, if anything, the political pendulum could tilt in their direction.

Even though the issues of gay marriage and legal pot involve very different
principles and issues, they share a common sociological lineage. Both are
major milestones along the path to a more permissive society in which
behaviours and relationships once considered criminal, deviant or different
are permitted, tolerated and ultimately seen as normal. Their simultaneous
appearance creates the sense of an epochal moment in Canadian society; a
time of high drama, big stakes and, depending on your perspective, feelings
of excitement or dread.

These elements will create the biggest debate about the future of Canadian
society in more than a generation. Social change may become as much a
defining issue of the 2004 election as free trade was in 1988.

Both measures have a similar support base -- not only younger, but better
educated and heavily concentrated in major metropolitan areas. These
Canadians see legal pot and same-sex marriage as elements of a more open
society that not only tolerates but celebrates diverse lifestyles. That we
are becoming what the Washington Post earlier this month termed "Berkeley
North" is seen as a point of pride.

The new Canada is hip and savvy -- leading the rest of North America in the
march towards a world without boundaries. Naomi Klein, author of the
international best seller No Logo, was almost giddy in her column this week
in the U.S. magazine The Nation over the attention that Canada is getting
south of the border because of gay marriage and legalized drugs. She said
several friends in New York and San Francisco have been inquiring about how
to apply for citizenship.

Although Canadian journalists (who also tend to be young, urban and well
educated) have done a good job characterizing the excitement and expectancy
surrounding this new era, their portrayal of voters who oppose these
measures underestimates their strength and misreads the foundation of their
beliefs. Opponents of this new Canada are drawn from a much larger
constituency than the tired, old religious right that so often figures in
media accounts.

On same-sex marriage, opposition is mounting less because of the words in
the Bible and more because of the words found in Webster's Dictionary. Many
middle-class, married Canadians who support full rights for same-sex
couples are increasingly annoyed that the term used for centuries to define
their lifetime relationship can so easily be suborned by others in
decidedly different relationships. "Why can't same-sex couples find a
different word to describe their lifelong commitment?" they ask.

It's virtually impossible to attend a social event in Canada without
hearing opinions on gay marriage. I sense that opposition is starting to
coalesce into a revolt about an excess of political correctness and a fear
that the matter won't end with the definition of marriage. As a neighbour
asks, "Will the next assault be aimed at the word 'mother' and 'father'
because they are too gender-specific and create a possible emotional bias
towards 'different sex' marriages?"

The emotional tone of opposition to decriminalized marijuana isn't as
pronounced, but the fears are as palpable. Again, opponents are drawn from
a broader constituency than the small cluster of cranky seniors and
religious zealots often featured in media accounts. They include many
parents (especially mothers) concerned about drug use in schools, business
associations worried about tarnished relations with the U.S. and law
enforcement agencies that are raising the alarm about the growth of
organized criminals groups like Hells Angels that play a central role in
drug production and distribution.

I suspect MPs have been getting an earful from constituents this summer on
both same-sex marriage and legal pot. Though we won't know the impact of
these consultations until Parliament resumes, there are already warning
signs for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, who is responsible for both
files. Earlier this week, all four Liberal MPs from the Niagara region
announced they will oppose legislation to permit same-sex marriages. Others
- -- especially those from outside the major metro areas -- have also
indicated deep reservations.

Expect an intense debate on marijuana when Parliament returns. In addition
to the Canadian Alliance party, opposition to the government's proposed
decriminalization bill will include several Liberals and a host of groups
and and associations including Mothers against Drunk Driving, the Vancouver
Board of Trade, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and several police
organizations.

Contrary to the sense of finality on both issues that pervade media reports
on Canada's "new era," this transformation of Canada is at best a work in
progress that could ultimately be reversed. We've barely finished the first
of what promises to be an intense three-round fight on the future direction
of Canadian society.

In the first round, important decisions about the future of Canadian
society were made by judges behind closed doors. In the next round,
Parliament will be the focus of attention. But in the final, decisive
round, Canadians themselves will get a chance to participate directly.
Indeed, the next federal election may turn into a colossal battle over
whether voters want Canada to keep the European characteristics that our
judiciary visited upon us in the summer of 2003.