In a viral interview that racked up 2.4 million views in just four days, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre sat down with podcasting giant Joe Rogan for a wide-ranging interview that lasted more than two hours and was widely seen as a coup for the leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. But on the subject of assisted suicide, Poilievre’s interview was a missed opportunity.
Rogan brought up assisted suicide just ten minutes into the conversation, noting that “one thing that really concerns me is this assisted suicide thing,” citing Canada’s sky-rocketing rate of euthanasia deaths and viral horror stories.
“Well, listen, my view is that people should have the choice, but the concern we have is the suggestion that it would be offered to kids or offered to people whose only condition is mental illness,” Poilievre responded. “I don’t agree with that.” He went on to cite some of his concerns with Canada’s expanding euthanasia regime, and those critiques were necessary and well-articulated.
Presumably, Poilievre felt he needed to caveat his response to Rogan’s concerns with an expression of support for assisted suicide because the idea – in principle – is broadly supported by the Canadian public, especially older Canadians (the “white, worried, and wealthy” voting bloc). But Poilievre certainly could have made a far more robust case than he did.
A few examples.
Poilievre could have rejected the language of “MAiD” and instead referred to killing people by lethal injection as assisted suicide or euthanasia. Permitting suicide activists to choose the language of this debate has helped them frame suicide-by-doctor as healthcare. Rogan led with the phrase “assisted suicide,” and it would have been simple to respond in kind.
Poilievre could have mentioned the fact that the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has formally condemned Canada’s euthanasia regime, referred to the system as “state-sanctioned eugenics,” and called on the Liberal government to repeal Track 2 MAiD and halt the expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness and those using “advanced directives.” For Carney, a staunch internationalist, this condemnation is a sore spot and highlighting it to such a large audience would have been helpful.
Poilievre cited Viktor Frankl’s famous framing of suicidal ideation – despair is suffering without meaning – without mentioning that Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and famous psychiatrist, was a staunch opponent of assisted suicide in principle. Frankl rightly held that the “quality of life” philosophy that undergirds assisted suicide is synonymous with the Nazi belief that some lives were unworthy of continuing.
Poilievre should have emphasized that Canada has become an international cautionary tale – which, indeed, was the premise of Rogan’s initial foray into the topic. Scotland voted down an assisted suicide bill last week, with Canada’s horrific regime being one of the primary reasons that legislators ultimately decided against it. The Canada case study is also partially responsible for Slovenia’s rejection by referendum of assisted suicide last November, and the impending failure of Westminster’s bill.
As Chris Selley of the National Post sarcastically noted: “It’s funny how Canada influencing the Scottish euthanasia vote hasn’t made more press here. Usually we love being noticed!” Indeed, as Robert Clarke of ADF International wrote this week at The Federalist, assisted suicide laws are losing support around the world in part due to Canada’s headline-making horror stories.
What Canada desperately needs now is moral leadership. Pierre Poilievre has a unique opportunity to take the moral high ground on this issue. He could side with Canada’s disability rights organizations, which have been unanimous in their condemnation of our euthanasia regime. He could cite the demands of the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities –which not a single federal leader mentioned during the last election. He could platform the many desperate family members who have been telling their soul-crushing stories of seeing loved ones sucked into the machinery of “MAiD.”
In short, Poilievre could win this argument – if he wanted to, and if he tried. The Joe Rogan interview was a missed opportunity. But there is still time for him to reverse course, and to show the world that Canada may be an international cautionary tale, but that there are still some willing to speak for the vulnerable. It is the right thing to do, and the right time to do it.
