Monday, May 23, 2005
Harper the Ideologue
On March 19th the Globe and Mail (subscription wall) ran a “news” article from the Canadian press entitled “Conservatives shed Reform baggage in move to centre”. The focal point of the article was Elsie Wayne’s failure to have the party stand against abortion, but the article did mention others. “Also removed from party’s platform were planks calling for the creation of a citizens assembly to adopt proportional representation, holding elections on fixed dates, referendums for constitutional amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance.”
The question arises, though, by failing to endorse Elsie Wayne’s motion did the party move to the center? Of course not. The party’s position on abortion going in was exactly what it was going out. Confused. Harper has said the Conservative Party will not table legislation on abortion, but that he would allow private members bills and he would not instruct his caucus how to vote. However, he has also said that it is a provincial matter, presumably making any such potential vote unconstitutional. http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/2004/06/01/elxnharpabort040601.html
That said, confused policy is often good politics. By talking out of both sides of his mouth, Harper has managed keep his critics at by and “theo cons”, such as Mary Ellen Douglas, Ontario President of Campaign Life Coalition, happy. “I am happy to see that the Conservatives recognize that abortion funding is a provincial issue. We have been telling our provincial politicians that for years, but they keep insisting that the issue is federal.” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04060102.html
As for “proportional representation, holding elections on fixed dates, referendums for constitutional amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance”, to call 1) the abandonment of these platforms as constituting a move to the center is just plain weird and 2) the party still promises to “consider” such things. Proportional representation once made strategic sense for the party. It does so no longer and now PR’s strongest backers are the NDP. As they extend the election cycle, fixed elections are not really practical for any party, let alone one with less money than the Liberals. That could however change. As for amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance, Harper is not about to scuttle any chance to join up with Americans on some foreign adventure by letting the Canadian people decide important issues, such as whether or not to join the US in going to war. In defending his party's Iraq policy, he said this in the house.
So much for the move to the middle narrative, but where does Harper want to take the country on social issues? Harper wants to “revise” the current agenda and take Canada to the right, a la, George Bush and Karl Rove. He believes he can dupilcate the success the Republicans have had in resphaping the US political scene.
In this respect the ending of his speech to the convention faithful, double meaning intended, was very apropos. “Thank you. God Bless Canada.” For those a little slow, substitute the word “Canada” and put in “America”. http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050318-ConventionAddress-Harper.pdf
Only, the wording of two has changed. The age of sexual consent is renamed the “age of protection”. As well, having insulted all Canadians by implying that Canada had not banned child porn and saying flat out that the Liberals and NDP supported child porn, the Conservatives now acknowledge the existence of Canada’s child porn laws and say that “The conservative government will eliminate all defenses that are currently used to justify the possession of child pornography.” This should not, incidentally, please the Globe and Mail; the paper took Harper to task for wanting to eliminate such “defenses”.
With regards to Aylmer case, the Conservative party has vowed to stop such activist judges and Children’s Aid Societies from “interfering” again. Policy Declaration: “The Conservative party believes in the right and duty of parents to raise their own children responsibly according to their own beliefs. We believe that no person, government or agency has the right to interfere in that process accept though due process of law”
It is strange no one in the press picked up on this. The judge ruled (July 2002) in the Aylmer case that hitting the kids with a belt, stick, electrical cords, clothes hanger and metal “spanking stick” went well beyond the use of “reasonable force” and slapping the wound of boy brunt by hot water so that a remedy including diluted bleach could be a applied to the wound was not protected by law. http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt33.html The Children’s Aid Society had every right to intervene; the parents claims to the contrary were “sheer nonsense”. "No community, or society, could reasonably agree with the concept that a parent who sexually abuses or physically mistreats a child should be entitled to give his/her consent to the interviewing, or examination of the child by a member of a Children's Aid Society." http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt35.html
For Harper, the Liberal promise to “ensure that appropriate child and family services are available” (e.g., “interfering” children’s Aid Societies) is one key area where Conservatives and Paul Martin diverge and this division has far researching consequences.
Harper has “always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy." This is true with regards to Gay marriage. Conservative MPs have the right to vote as they see fit. However, what “controversial issues of a moral or religious nature” get adopted as party policy (e.g., gay marriage) and what do not (e.g., abortion) seems to be a matter of political expediency. Opposing gay marriage is politically expedient right now. Opposing abortion is not.
It should be noted that Conservatives have been trumpeting their "compromise" solution on the gay marriage issue. The Conservatives have promised to keep the traditional definition of marriage, but have said they will offer same sex couples the same rights under federal law as what married couples have. It is good to always read the fine print though. The problem is that civil unions come under provincial jurisdiction and only with regard to entitlement provisions that come under Federal jurisdiction have the Conservatives promised that they will have equal standing with married couples. In other words, such unions would first have to be recognized under provincial law for gay couples to be in a position to receive such entitlements under Federal law and the Federal government would not have a say whether gay couples would receive equal treatment under provincial law (e.g., adoption).
In least with regards to adoption, Conservatives have made it clear that gay couples should not receive the same rights. It should be noted in reading this that Alberta and BC both allowed for same sex adoption prior to Ontario June 2003 court decision.
(Given her concerns, it is a wonder why Ablonczy is not also calling for an end to divorce as well.)
Alas, education is a provincial responsibility. Only with regard to first Nations people can the government directly promise “choice” in education. “The Conservative Party proposes where available and agreed upon by all parties including provincial authorities to offer choice in schooling for first nations.
The best Harper can do on a Federal level is increase tax deductions available to parents who send their kids to religious schools and to keep fighting to insure that they schools maintain their charity status even as violate the terms of their charitable status by waxing poetic about the Conservatives "defense of marriage". Many religious-based private schools are among the 78,000 registered charitable organizations in Canada.
Parents are currently entitled to the following tax credit on the religious portion of the tuition. On the first $200, the federal tax credit is 17 percent and on the remaining balance, the federal tax credit is 29 percent.
(1) comments
On March 19th the Globe and Mail (subscription wall) ran a “news” article from the Canadian press entitled “Conservatives shed Reform baggage in move to centre”. The focal point of the article was Elsie Wayne’s failure to have the party stand against abortion, but the article did mention others. “Also removed from party’s platform were planks calling for the creation of a citizens assembly to adopt proportional representation, holding elections on fixed dates, referendums for constitutional amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance.”
The question arises, though, by failing to endorse Elsie Wayne’s motion did the party move to the center? Of course not. The party’s position on abortion going in was exactly what it was going out. Confused. Harper has said the Conservative Party will not table legislation on abortion, but that he would allow private members bills and he would not instruct his caucus how to vote. However, he has also said that it is a provincial matter, presumably making any such potential vote unconstitutional. http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/2004/06/01/elxnharpabort040601.html
That said, confused policy is often good politics. By talking out of both sides of his mouth, Harper has managed keep his critics at by and “theo cons”, such as Mary Ellen Douglas, Ontario President of Campaign Life Coalition, happy. “I am happy to see that the Conservatives recognize that abortion funding is a provincial issue. We have been telling our provincial politicians that for years, but they keep insisting that the issue is federal.” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04060102.html
As for “proportional representation, holding elections on fixed dates, referendums for constitutional amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance”, to call 1) the abandonment of these platforms as constituting a move to the center is just plain weird and 2) the party still promises to “consider” such things. Proportional representation once made strategic sense for the party. It does so no longer and now PR’s strongest backers are the NDP. As they extend the election cycle, fixed elections are not really practical for any party, let alone one with less money than the Liberals. That could however change. As for amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance, Harper is not about to scuttle any chance to join up with Americans on some foreign adventure by letting the Canadian people decide important issues, such as whether or not to join the US in going to war. In defending his party's Iraq policy, he said this in the house.
“This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will
not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on
phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic
opinion...
"
So much for the move to the middle narrative, but where does Harper want to take the country on social issues? Harper wants to “revise” the current agenda and take Canada to the right, a la, George Bush and Karl Rove. He believes he can dupilcate the success the Republicans have had in resphaping the US political scene.
rebalancing means there will be changes to the composition of the
conservative coalition. We may not have all the same people we have had in the
past. The new liberal corporatist agenda will appeal to some in the business
community. We may lose some old "conservatives," Red Tories like the David
Orchards or the Joe Clarks.
This is not all bad. A more coherent coalition can take strong positions it
wouldn't otherwise be able to take - as the Alliance alone was able to do during
the Iraq war. More importantly, a new approach can draw in new people. Many
traditional Liberal voters, especially those from key ethnic and immigrant
communities, will be attracted to a party with strong traditional views of
values and family. This is similar to the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats"
in the United States, who were so important in the development of that
conservative coalition.”
In this respect the ending of his speech to the convention faithful, double meaning intended, was very apropos. “Thank you. God Bless Canada.” For those a little slow, substitute the word “Canada” and put in “America”. http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050318-ConventionAddress-Harper.pdf
“REVISING THE AGENDAIn the March 2005 policy declaration all examples that Harper mentioned in June 2003 are addressed.
This is not as difficult as it sounds. It does not require a radical redefinition of conservatism, but rather a shifting of the balance between the economic and social conservative sides that have always been there.
In particular, Canadian conservatives need to rediscover the virtues of Burkean conservatism as a key component of that balance. Rediscovering this agenda, to paraphrase Ted Byfield, means not just worrying about what the state costs, but also worrying about what the state values.
For example, we need to rediscover Burkean or social conservatism because a growing body of evidence points to the damage the welfare state is having on our most important institutions, particularly the family. Conservatives have to give much higher place to confronting threats posed by modern liberals to this building block of our society.
Take, for example, the debate over the rights of parents to discipline their children - the so-called spanking debate. Of course, there are legitimate limits to the use of force by parents - limits outlined in the Criminal Code. Yet the most recent Liberal Throne Speech, as part of its "children's agenda," hinted at more government interference in the family. We saw the capacity for this abuse of power in the events that took place in Aylmer, Ont. Children there were seized for no reason other than the state disagreed with the religious views of their parents. No conservative can
support this kind of intrusion, and conservatives have an obligation to speak forcefully against such acts. [(The government “interference” Harper is presumably referring to is this: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/sft-ddt/vnav/04_e.htm
Parents have the primary responsibility for providing their children with
the tools to learn and develop. But Canadians also have a collective
responsibility to protect Canada's children from exploitation in all its
forms, and from the consequences of family breakdown. The government
will therefore reform the Criminal Code to increase the penalties for
abuse and neglect, and provide more sensitive treatment for children who
take part in justice proceedings as victims or as witnesses. It will also reform family
law, putting greater emphasis on the best interests of the child; expand the Unified Family Courts; and ensure that appropriate child and family services
are available.”)]
This same argument applies equally to a range of issues involving the family
(all omitted from the Throne Speech), such as banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda.” equivalence.” http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html
Only, the wording of two has changed. The age of sexual consent is renamed the “age of protection”. As well, having insulted all Canadians by implying that Canada had not banned child porn and saying flat out that the Liberals and NDP supported child porn, the Conservatives now acknowledge the existence of Canada’s child porn laws and say that “The conservative government will eliminate all defenses that are currently used to justify the possession of child pornography.” This should not, incidentally, please the Globe and Mail; the paper took Harper to task for wanting to eliminate such “defenses”.
“The exception Mr. Harper refers to is the “public good defense, which wouldHowever, the Globe’s attitude seems to have changed. This time around such a policy seems to be proof that the Conservatives have moved to the middle.
exempt writers, artists, researchers and legal authorities from prosecution in
such circumstances. Without it, the police could potentially break down
your door for owning a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita. Is that the kind of
Canada that Mr. Harper wants? To include such a sensible and necessary
clause in a bill does not make the Liberals soft on Porn.”
With regards to Aylmer case, the Conservative party has vowed to stop such activist judges and Children’s Aid Societies from “interfering” again. Policy Declaration: “The Conservative party believes in the right and duty of parents to raise their own children responsibly according to their own beliefs. We believe that no person, government or agency has the right to interfere in that process accept though due process of law”
It is strange no one in the press picked up on this. The judge ruled (July 2002) in the Aylmer case that hitting the kids with a belt, stick, electrical cords, clothes hanger and metal “spanking stick” went well beyond the use of “reasonable force” and slapping the wound of boy brunt by hot water so that a remedy including diluted bleach could be a applied to the wound was not protected by law. http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt33.html The Children’s Aid Society had every right to intervene; the parents claims to the contrary were “sheer nonsense”. "No community, or society, could reasonably agree with the concept that a parent who sexually abuses or physically mistreats a child should be entitled to give his/her consent to the interviewing, or examination of the child by a member of a Children's Aid Society." http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt35.html
For Harper, the Liberal promise to “ensure that appropriate child and family services are available” (e.g., “interfering” children’s Aid Societies) is one key area where Conservatives and Paul Martin diverge and this division has far researching consequences.
“Take taxation, for example. There are real limits to tax-cutting if
conservatives cannot dispute anything about how or why a government actually
does what it does. If conservatives accept all legislated social liberalism with
balanced budgets and corporate grants - as do some in the business community -
then there really are no differences between a conservative and a Paul
Martin.” http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html
Harper has “always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy." This is true with regards to Gay marriage. Conservative MPs have the right to vote as they see fit. However, what “controversial issues of a moral or religious nature” get adopted as party policy (e.g., gay marriage) and what do not (e.g., abortion) seems to be a matter of political expediency. Opposing gay marriage is politically expedient right now. Opposing abortion is not.
“we must realize that real gains are inevitably incremental. This, in my
experience, is harder for social conservatives than for economic conservatives.
The explicitly moral orientation of social conservatives makes it difficult for
many to accept the incremental approach. Yet, in democratic politics, any other
approach will certainly fail. We should never accept the standard of just being
"better than the Liberals" - people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it
- but conservatives should be satisfied if the agenda is moving in the right
direction, even if slowly.”
It should be noted that Conservatives have been trumpeting their "compromise" solution on the gay marriage issue. The Conservatives have promised to keep the traditional definition of marriage, but have said they will offer same sex couples the same rights under federal law as what married couples have. It is good to always read the fine print though. The problem is that civil unions come under provincial jurisdiction and only with regard to entitlement provisions that come under Federal jurisdiction have the Conservatives promised that they will have equal standing with married couples. In other words, such unions would first have to be recognized under provincial law for gay couples to be in a position to receive such entitlements under Federal law and the Federal government would not have a say whether gay couples would receive equal treatment under provincial law (e.g., adoption).
In least with regards to adoption, Conservatives have made it clear that gay couples should not receive the same rights. It should be noted in reading this that Alberta and BC both allowed for same sex adoption prior to Ontario June 2003 court decision.
BC MP Russ Hiebert (CPC) If the definition of marriage is
redefined, same sex adoption and fostering will forever legally deny some
children a mother and a father. It is not speculation that this will be the
reality. I note the New Brunswick Minister of Family and Community Services
told the CBC on February 8 that his province will move to allow homosexual
adoption: Once Ottawa passes this bill, if they do, then as a provincial
government we have to adhere to the federal laws, and if the federal
definition of marriage includes same-sex couples, then we will have to look
at that legislation.
Alberta MP Diane Ablonczy (CPC) The preservation of marriage is in the best interest of children. It is of paramount interest to the state whether children are born and grow up within or without the marital bounds because children that live in
alternative family structures may incur multifarious disadvantages economically,
socially, emotionally and physically. Even though many children raised in such
alternative families do well, psychological and sociological studies indicate
that children generally do best when raised by their biological parents in a
stable marriage. Children require more than love from their parents. Every
child raised in a same sex home is raised in a home without either a father or a
mother and therefore misses out on experiencing the inherent differences, unique
sexual relationship and bonding of men and women that are at the heart of the
institution of marriage as a cornerstone of a stable society. It is unacceptable
that Bill C-38 intentionally causes this situation.
(Given her concerns, it is a wonder why Ablonczy is not also calling for an end to divorce as well.)
Alas, education is a provincial responsibility. Only with regard to first Nations people can the government directly promise “choice” in education. “The Conservative Party proposes where available and agreed upon by all parties including provincial authorities to offer choice in schooling for first nations.
The best Harper can do on a Federal level is increase tax deductions available to parents who send their kids to religious schools and to keep fighting to insure that they schools maintain their charity status even as violate the terms of their charitable status by waxing poetic about the Conservatives "defense of marriage". Many religious-based private schools are among the 78,000 registered charitable organizations in Canada.
Parents are currently entitled to the following tax credit on the religious portion of the tuition. On the first $200, the federal tax credit is 17 percent and on the remaining balance, the federal tax credit is 29 percent.
