Harper's conservatives and democracy

[myata]

As yet another conservative candidate refused to take part in a public meeting with other candidates in the riding, the pattern of disappearance of conservative candidates from public becomes 1) established and 2) somewhat of concern.

This is because, as we all know, a real, functioning, democracy is more than people putting a mark on a piece of paper. It's lot more than this simple, and in itself, potentially quite meaningless act (e.g. if people have little clue about the names printed on the piece of paper) and one of the important factors that transform a meaningless routine into a functioning democracy is openness and transparency of the political process. Which not in the least means openness of the parties and representatives about their intentions, ideas, platforms, etc and possibility to discuss those intentions, platforms, etc in a free discussion.

This possibility is quite seriously and negatively affected if one or more of the parties withdraw from open and transparent political process. I.e. would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion; restrain party representatives from participating in the democratic forums; avoid or restrict the contact or availability of information to free media or public.

As we know by multiple examples, allowing a group or a party, exhibiting such behaviour, access to power may result in serious, and sometimes dramatic consequences for the entire society. Though these dramatic incidents are rare and unlikely, non democratic behaviour of any one party should be a matter of concern for the voters, and should be strongly discouraged. If we want to keep our democracy well and functioning, in practice and not only on paper.

Reference:

CBC Radio Ottawa Morning, today, 7.30-8.00 am: candidates discussion in Ottawa's Orleans riding. Conservative candidate Gallipeau - apologies for possible misspelling - declined invitation

[g_bambino]

This possibility is quite seriously and negatively affected if one or more of the parties withdraw from open and transparent political process. I.e. would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion; restrain party representatives from participating in the democratic forums; avoid or restrict the contact or availability of information to free media or public.

Wouldn't the simple result be that fewer people would vote for such a party?

[myata]

One'd hope so, but unfortunately, it hasn't always been the case. Sometimes people overlook offenses to democratic process for promises of this / that, fear, etc.

It's our's and ours only responsibilty to keep the democracy alive and well. That includes keeping all parties in check and to the standard of openness and transparency.

[normanchateau]

As yet another conservative candidate refused to take part in a public meeting with other candidates in the riding, the pattern of disappearance of conservative candidates from public becomes 1) established and 2) somewhat of concern.

If I were a Conservative party strategist, I'd totally favour this approach of muzzling candidates. Imagine if Donna Cadman were now to speak to the media. It could only backfire on Harper. And a Cabinet minister who jokes about listeria deaths is best muzzled as well. When Stockwell Day insisted that dinosaurs and humans co-existed and that Earth was 4,000 years old, even Harper, who keeps quiet about his similar religious beliefs, thought Day should be muzzled. Given the large number of Conservative candidates who are stupider than Harper, he's wise to muzzle them.

[myata]

That may very well be so, but this isn't about what's good for Harper, or his party. It's what good for Canada.

By refusing to participate, openly and transparently, in the democratic political process, Harper's party is showing disrespect and contempt to the very idea of functioning democracy.

[White Doors]

Myata

I have reassured Harper that his candidate in your riding can be counting on your vote.

[normanchateau]

That may very well be so, but this isn't about what's good for Harper, or his party. It's what good for Canada.

What's good for Canada is that Harper receive even less votes next week than he did in 2006. The polls now show that's a distinct possibility. It really is a shame that with an overwhelming number of Canadians planning not to vote for this right winger, he will still likely obtain a plurality. Fortunately, the combined opposition in parliament will guarantee that this social conservative with a bizarre notion of democracy doesn't have the opportunity to run amuck.

[segnosaur]

As yet another conservative candidate refused to take part in a public meeting with other candidates in the riding, the pattern of disappearance of conservative candidates from public becomes 1) established and 2) somewhat of concern.

...

This possibility is quite seriously and negatively affected if one or more of the parties withdraw from open and transparent political process. I.e. would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion; restrain party representatives from participating in the democratic forums; avoid or restrict the contact or availability of information to free media or public.

Reference:

CBC Radio Ottawa Morning, today, 7.30-8.00 am: candidates discussion in Ottawa's Orleans riding. Conservative candidate Gallipeau - apologies for possible misspelling - declined invitation

First of all, it should be noted that the Orleans candidate (Royal Galipeau) has actually appeared in a debate with all the other riding candidates, so its not like he's been totally invisible.

http://www.orleansonline.ca/pages/N2008093001.htm

Secondly, your 'reference' doesn't really do much to put his refusal into context. Perhaps he had other commitments that could not be moved/rescheduled. Or perhaps he felt that he would not be given a fair opportunity to state his case. (After all, very little would be gained from a meeting where the only purpose was to attack a single candidate.)

As for your suggestion that candidates avoiding such face-to-face debates "would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion", I have to disagree again. Frankly, I think debates are probably the worst situation for introducing party policy. Such debates usually end up being reduced to sound bites. Even if someone did introduce some new policy at a debate, the opponents would be unable to make informed comments about any such new policy points.

[independent]

First of all, it should be noted that the Orleans candidate (Royal Galipeau) has actually appeared in a debate with all the other riding candidates, so its not like he's been totally invisible.

http://www.orleansonline.ca/pages/N2008093001.htm

Secondly, your 'reference' doesn't really do much to put his refusal into context. Perhaps he had other commitments that could not be moved/rescheduled. Or perhaps he felt that he would not be given a fair opportunity to state his case. (After all, very little would be gained from a meeting where the only purpose was to attack a single candidate.)

As for your suggestion that candidates avoiding such face-to-face debates "would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion", I have to disagree again. Frankly, I think debates are probably the worst situation for introducing party policy. Such debates usually end up being reduced to sound bites. Even if someone did introduce some new policy at a debate, the opponents would be unable to make informed comments about any such new policy points.

Where can we get a sense of what our candidates are all about. How they can stand up to questioning. In the house of parliment he/she will have to stand up and speak and be questioned.

[normanchateau]

your 'reference' doesn't really do much to put his refusal into context. Perhaps he had other commitments that could not be moved/rescheduled. Or perhaps he felt that he would not be given a fair opportunity to state his case. (After all, very little would be gained from a meeting where the only purpose was to attack a single candidate.)

Perhaps Donna Cadman also had other commitments. I'm sure "leader" Harper has no motive to muzzle her.

[segnosaur]

Where can we get a sense of what our candidates are all about.

Well, probably all candidates have web sites where they discuss their own (and their party's) platforms. They usually give various speaches where they talk about their activities, plans, etc.

How they can stand up to questioning. In the house of parliment he/she will have to stand up and speak and be questioned.

First of all, I've already pointed out that this candidate did participate in an open debate with the other candidates. If you wanted to see how they'd react to being questioned, you would have had the opportunity.

Secondly, keep in mind that the type of 'debate' that goes on in the house of commons is quite a bit different than the type of 'debate' that occurs during an election forum.... although speakers in the house of commons do have to put up with oppostion 'cat calls', the rules of the house are more 'question-response'; in an election debate its more of a free-for-all.

[myata]

I have reassured Harper that his candidate in your riding can be counting on your vote.

Tell him to loosen up, and stop being such a control freak instead.

To segnosaur:

1) The program did not mention any reason for his refusal. I'm 100% sure of that.

2) "Feeling" danger in an open public discussion is exactly what worries me most in the Harper's conservatives. Perhaps there's something they don't want public to know, either about the candidate, or the party's platform? Why else would a party avoid public / media discussions, on many occasions, in favour of controlled limited message from the center? Isn't that exactly what we don't like about other, less democratic societies?

3) There's no way to tell what works for everybody, but for me debates do provide new insights into positions / views and ideas of candidates and their parties. Being an established part of the democratic process, every time anybody attempts to bypass it should be a serious warning sign to everybody.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I defy all you mud slingers to give me one shred of EVIDENCE that Harper instructed any candidate not to attend all candidate meetings. I have no doubt that all parties have given instructions to their candidates on talking points etc.

"even Harper, who keeps quiet about his similar religious beliefs, thought Day should be muzzled. Given the large number of Conservative candidates who are stupider than Harper, he's wise to muzzle them."

I'd like you to show me anywhere where Harper has stated in any way shape or form his adherance to that doctrine. Otherwise you are simply lying to suit you own purpose.

Just cause a bunch of STUPID lefties don't like the man is absolutely no reason for you to make up stories, state his motives if not stated by himself, or to ascribe to knowledge of an agenda that does not exist, stick to the facts. Otherwise you are participating in the lowest form of electoral fraud. I have seen this done in Municipal politics where a rumour is started in a small town to assasinate an innocent victims character, its is the lowest of the low.

This is the sort of behaviour one would expect in the third world shame on you.

[normanchateau]

Tell him to loosen up, and stop being such a control freak instead.

Given the quality of some of the CPC candidates, he is doomed to remain a control freak. And why would he want Donna Cadman to speak to the media and remind Canadians that she accused Harper of knowing about the bribe? The reason why Art Hangar's committee has yet to approve Harper's omnibus crime bill is that Hangar shuts down the committee because they keep raising the issue of Harper and Cadman. Fortunately after October 14th, I suspect some of his supporters will begin to question his control over the party as they come to realize that they'll never win a majority with control freak Harper as leader.

[normanchateau]

"even Harper, who keeps quiet about his similar religious beliefs, thought Day should be muzzled. "

I'd like you to show me anywhere where Harper has stated in any way shape or form his adherance to that doctrine. Otherwise you are simply lying to suit you own purpose.

"Stephen Harper defeated Stockwell Day in a Canadian Alliance leadership campaign in 2002-MAR. During the leadership race Harper criticized Day's reliance on signing up members at churches and allying himself with Evangelical and Catholic pro-life groups."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/poli_crel.htm

Sure sounds like Harper trying to muzzle Day's reliance on religious nuts. Harper knows that winning a majority requires him to pretend not be be a crazed social conservative and religious extremist.

[Slim MacSquinty]

So the only documentation you provide to support your arguement is that he opposed it. Yet you keep blathering?

[segnosaur]

To segnosaur:

1) The program did not mention any reason for his refusal. I'm 100% sure of that.

Quite possible they didn't mention a reason for his refusal. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for him not to attend. He may have had another commitment but just did not relay that to the CBC, or the CBC may simply not have reported what his prior commitment was.

2) "Feeling" danger in an open public discussion is exactly what worries me most in the Harper's conservatives. Perhaps there's something they don't want public to know, either about the candidate, or the party's platform?

Or perhaps they feel such debates quite often turn into a bash-the-conservative free-for-all.

Why else would a party avoid public / media discussions, on many occasions, in favour of controlled limited message from the center? Isn't that exactly what we don't like about other, less democratic societies?

Ummm... no. The problem in those 'less democratic' societies is not that they're missing face-to-face debates, the problem is that the opposition often isn't even allowed to publish anything at all.

3) There's no way to tell what works for everybody, but for me debates do provide new insights into positions / views and ideas of candidates and their parties.

Well, did you attend the debate that I posted a reference to earlier? If not, why not? You had a perfect opportunity to hear the candidate speak if you really wanted. (Well, assuming you live in his riding.)

Being an established part of the democratic process, every time anybody attempts to bypass it should be a serious warning sign to everybody.

So, do you think that candidates should be available any time, anywhere for debates? Should they drop any and all other commitments when a debate is called, regardless of what that other event is?

[Argus]

Given the quality of some of the CPC candidates,.

How many of them believe the JOooos blew up the world trade centre?

How many believe there are crosses being burned on the lawns in Prince George AS WE SPEAK!?

[Argus]

Wouldn't the simple result be that fewer people would vote for such a party?

Candidates get a lot of invations to meet or to attend debates. I imagine they decide whether to attend based on the possibility/probability of it helping or hindering their campaign. I'll presume that the candiate in your area felt that a "debate" on a CBC channel was less likely to help his campaign than whatever else he had schduled.

So big deal.

[normanchateau]

How many of them believe the JOooos blew up the world trade centre?

How many believe there are crosses being burned on the lawns in Prince George AS WE SPEAK!?

I think Harper is wise to muzzle this CPC MP:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/12/01/TheManw...swithDinosaurs/

[myata]

Quite possible they didn't mention a reason for his refusal. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for him not to attend.

That would be up to him to report - in a party committed to openness and transparency. If he did explain, and CBC did not report the reason, I'm eagerly awaiting a complaint / investigation and correction. I wouldn't be betting a lot on it though, as this is not the first incident of CPC candidates refusing to speak to the media.

Ummm... no. The problem in those 'less democratic' societies is not that they're missing face-to-face debates, the problem is that the opposition often isn't even allowed to publish anything at all.

As there're steps leading to them. Societies do not descend into problems all of a sudden, but it surely begins with abandoning rigorous,open and transparent process of questioning candidates to hold power.

Well, did you attend the debate that I posted a reference to earlier? If not, why not? You had a perfect opportunity to hear the candidate speak if you really wanted. (Well, assuming you live in his riding.)

All of the candidates attended it as well. As they've been at the CBC interview this morning. More of openness, democracy, is better, unless you think otherwise.

So, do you think that candidates should be available any time, anywhere for debates? Should they drop any and all other commitments when a debate is called, regardless of what that other event is?

As I said, the report did not mention any previous committments, and all other candidates were able to attend.

[Slim MacSquinty]

The tyee is NDP propaganda and you know it.

That article speculates on Days motives without him ever expressing them, dirty politics as usual from the left.

Dion's a Catholic right, so he's against abortion and gay marriage right? Otherwise he's not a really a Catholic, just like Paul Martin. So either their bad Catholics or bad liers.

You see I know how it works I just CHOOSE not to stoop.

Try it you'll feel better about yourself.

[normanchateau]

Dion's a Catholic right, so he's against abortion and gay marriage right? Otherwise he's not a really a Catholic, just like Paul Martin. So either their bad Catholics or bad liers.

I don't give a damn whether Dion and Martin are good Catholics or bad Catholics as long as they're not social conservatives in their voting patterns. Stephen Harper is apparently a good evangelical Christian in that he not only voted twice against same sex marriage but he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate killing homosexuals and lesbians.

I remain amused that you don't view Harper as a social conservative. It's because many Harper supporters share your view that CPC is saddled with a leader who will never win a majority in Canada.

[normanchateau]

Dion's a Catholic right, so he's against abortion and gay marriage right? Otherwise he's not a really a Catholic, just like Paul Martin. So either their bad Catholics or bad liers.

I don't give a damn whether Dion and Martin are good Catholics or bad Catholics as long as they're not social conservatives in their voting patterns. Stephen Harper is apparently a good evangelical Christian in that he not only voted twice against same sex marriage but he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate killing homosexuals and lesbians.

I remain amused that you don't view Harper as a social conservative. It's because many Harper supporters share your view that CPC is saddled with a leader who will never win a majority in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

....he not only voted twice against same sex marriage but he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate killing homosexuals and lesbians.

Which is as I said before, already a crime. In essence he voted against legal redunancy. I don't think the law is a place to score PC points.