Is a negotiated peace between the Greens and the Christians possible?

Can common ground be found? It is a question confronted by Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, in 2007 when, even while supporting her party’s policy on legal abortion, she dared to admit she thought it a moral dilemma. “I believe that respectful dialogue is possible even around such an emotionally charged issue as this,” May wrote. “Not every opponent of legal abortions is unthinking. Neither is every supporter of legal abortion unwilling to acknowledge the moral complexity of the issue. Some common ground could be found, I believe, when the discussion shifts to a broader context ... It should not be a thought-crime to state publicly that the issue of abortion is one fraught with moral dilemmas.”

Not all agreed. The prominent Canadian feminist Judy Reibeck informed May in an open letter that: “Since you have so little respect for me or for the women's movement which mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green Party and you can no longer rely on me for support ... There is no middle ground on the abortion issue as you are no doubt finding out.”

With attitudes like that (which are, I hasten to add, by no means the preserve of any particular movement), finding a path to even a respectful, civil dialogue, let alone common ground, is difficult. But it is one that members of the Australian Greens need to think seriously about. That the de facto philosopher of the Australian Greens is the utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer should give them some pause for reflection. Not that I think most of them have read much of Singer; his views on abortion are as discomforting to most pro-choicers as they are to pro-lifers (I haven’t, for example, noticed any high-profile Greens campaigning for infanticide); even the most avowed animal lover, while appreciating Singer’s arguments for vegetarianism, would probably hesitate to publicly endorse zoophilia); nor can the disabled find much solace in his relative estimation of a human being’s right to life.

Which leads me to two questions.

How important is the environment to Brown? Is action to address climate change more or less urgent than the agenda to radically reshape the moral precepts underpinning our civilisation? If the fate of the planet is at stake, shouldn’t he be seeking to make social conservatives feel welcome within the Greens ranks?

A corollary: Why has Pell allowed the climate change to so box him in? Does he not recognise that not being part of the solution to environmental problems means being part of the problem, and in so doing he helps undermines secular respect for his core beliefs as well as alienate the spiritually minded who yearn for a “seamless culture of life”?

Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote that in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate, published last year. There’s a lesson in there that both the good archbishop and the good senator, and those they lead, could do well to take to heart.