Scanning the news yesterday, I came across a raft of reports that seemed to indicate Stephen Harper’s campaign had completely come acropper. Odd, I thought. Hadn’t he just announced a package of juicy tax cuts for the middle class? But there it was on the CBC Web site: Tax cuts may have been what Mr. Harper intended to talk about that day, “but the message was sidetracked as he continued to be dogged by social policy questions.”

Over at CTV, the portents were even grimmer. “Despite his best efforts to portray the new Conservative Party as socially moderate, Stephen Harper is coming under attack on a range of divisive issues, from abortion to the death penalty.” The Canadian Press report was most damning of all. “Harper campaign runs into storm over allegations of right-wing agenda,” it headlined.

But wait a minute. Who was it that “dogged” Mr. Harper on the matter? From what corner did he “come under attack”? What was that “storm” he ran into? Protests from outraged voters? Partisan shots from rival parties? Read on … CBC: “His attention was diverted from money to abortion when reporters continued to probe him throughout the day about his views on abortion, capital punishment and same-sex marriage.” CTV: ” ... reporters asked Harper to clarify his earlier statement that a government led by him would not table legislation to tighten Canada’s abortion laws.”

In other words, this was a completely self-generated story: reporting about reporting, a controversy limited entirely to the bored inmates on the leader’s bus. The media manage to make themselves a part of every campaign, but it’s rare to see them openly acknowledge this role.

And what was it that excited this “storm”? Canadian Press traced it to the moment the Conservative leader “said he would allow a free vote on abortion if an MP introduced a private member’s bill,” apparently under the impression that this was news. But of course it wasn’t. It was exactly what he had been saying for weeks: that his government would not introduce legislation on abortion, but that it would not forbid individual MPs from putting the subject to a vote. Or any other subject, for that matter. Remember? The Conservatives are in favour of free votes as a general rule, allowing members of Parliament to vote their conscience. As, last I checked, are the Martin Liberals.

On the other hand, in some reports it was what Mr. Harper had not said that was so disturbing. the Toronto Star complained that “Harper’s position on abortion is unclear.” The Post’s John Ivison warned that “his refusal to clarify his stance on abortion could cost him this election.” It is apparently not clear enough to promise, over and over, that your government “will not be bringing in abortion legislation,” that it is not part of your agenda, that you will not even mention the matter in public. You also have to share your innermost thoughts. As Colby Cosh noted in these pages yesterday, the consensus media position seems to be that abortion is not open for discussion, except for Conservatives, who are required to discuss it at every turn.

This is not the first time we have seen this sort of election-induced hysteria over abortion. Last time out, the occasion for outrage was the Alliance’s suggestion that the public be allowed to vote on the issue in a referendum. Opponents said it was too complex a matter for the general public to decide, that this was the sort of thorny issue that could only be addressed by Parliament. Now apparently not even Parliament can be trusted to vote on it. Why?

Because, we are told, the matter has been settled. There’s a consensus. On the other hand, it’s because the issue is too divisive: it would tear society apart. Well, which is it? If there’s a consensus, how can it be divisive? Or if it is indeed divisive, that’s a pretty strong indicator there’s no consensus. Those who insist that abortion cannot even be debated are simply saying they happen to like the status quo, and are intent on shouting down anyone who deviates from that position to the slightest degree.

There’s a word for those who are intolerant of any opinion other than their own. That word is “extremist.” The more so, since the status quo—no abortion law of any kind—is, objectively speaking, at one extreme among the possible legislative options. Canada is the only country in the Western world in this extraordinary position, with the bizarre consequence that the child in utero has no legal status whatever, not only with respect to abortion, but in any other regard. To compound the absurdity, we have arrived at this extreme, not by any act of Parliament, nor even by decision of the courts, but because the last legislation, passed by a free vote in the Commons, died by a tie vote in the Senate!

In fact, there is no consensus on abortion. Gallup polls on the issue regularly, and regularly reports that Canadians are divided on the matter. About one-third say they are in favour of the status quo, while the rest favour options ranging from allowing abortion “only under certain circumstances” to total prohibition. Apparently these other two-thirds of Canadians are all extremists.