Harper's conservatives and democracy

[segnosaur]

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.

Why exactly is him reporting the 'other commitment' required for openness and transparacy? If the CBC really wanted to follow up, they could have contacted his campain office to find out where he actually was. Its a campaign... he'd want to be out meeting people (even if it is in a more 'controlled' setting). Not like he'd be hiding under the crust of the earth with the mole people.

If he did explain, and CBC did not report the reason, I'm eagerly awaiting a complaint / investigation and correction.

Why? Did the CBC say he originally agreed to the debate and then dropped out? Did they say how long ago the debate was scheduled?

Not reporting something as minor as a candidate's prior commitment is not exactly a complaint-worthy event. Its not like the CBC would have been lying, etc.

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.

Which still doesn't answer the question... should candidates be expected to drop any and all previous commitments (regardless of how much earlier they've been scheduled) if and when a debate is called?

[Slim MacSquinty]

I'm not advocating one way or the other you are and I'm holding your feet to the fire, frankly your not doing so well.

I only used the Catholic thing as a demonstration of your methods, there are social conservatives in every party, but that doesn't mean that is the party policy or how the leader feels guilty by association is week logic.

I have one example that demonstrates two points; Joe Commuzzi, MP Thunder Bay, voted against gay marriage, kicked out of caucus by Paul Martin. Social consevative vote, muzzled by Liberal party.

[normanchateau]

I don't think the law is a place to score PC points.

That must be why Harper voted twice against same sex marriage.

[normanchateau]

I have one example that demonstrates two points; Joe Commuzzi, MP Thunder Bay, voted against gay marriage, kicked out of caucus by Paul Martin. Social consevative vote, muzzled by Liberal party.

Yes it does demonstrate two points. Neither point changes my point. Stephen Harper is a social conservative.

[independent]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Stephen_Harper

Stephen harper is generally considered to have socially conservative views on most issues.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Stephen_Harper

Stephen harper is generally considered to have socially conservative views on most issues.

I love the fact that the only reference they give is to the wheat board....

[independent]

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.

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.

The conservatives candidate in my area on his web site said he is against crime and mentioned nothing about any other issue. He refuses to participate in any public forum. He is not from this riding and was brought in thinking people might vote for his name.

[Slim MacSquinty]

That hardly makes it party policy, all the parties have used the drop in candidate approach at one time or another.

[segnosaur]

The conservatives candidate in my area on his web site said he is against crime and mentioned nothing about any other issue. He refuses to participate in any public forum. He is not from this riding and was brought in thinking people might vote for his name.

Well, if your conservative candidate really is avoiding all contact with the public, and you think that your local MP is important to you, then by all means vote against him.

I just think its rather idiotic for people to complain about conservatives avoiding debates when in many cases they have been attending all-party debates, and have been meeting the public, just not every possible debate.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Stephen_Harper

Stephen harper is generally considered to have socially conservative views on most issues.

Perhaps he does. But keep in mind that even if a politician has 'socially conservative views', it does not mean that they will necessarily decide to act on them.

For example, Harper may be against abortion; however, any attempts to make abortion illegal would A: be political suicide, and B: may not stand up to a constitutional challenge. Or perhaps he may be against abortion, but feels that it is still up to the woman to decide, or that it is a sufficently low priorty.

If Harper does decide to bring in anti-abortion legislation, then indeed I will likely vote against him. I just don't see that happening any time in the future.

[myata]

If Harper does decide to bring in anti-abortion legislation, then indeed I will likely vote against him. I just don't see that happening any time in the future.

Harper already made changes to the policy on death penalty, without any consultation in the Parliament, and in contradiction to Canada's law (which does not allow death penalty).

You can certainly wait for a tell-all omen. But don't say that Harper's socially conservative views don't come through in his policies.

[Argus]

Harper already made changes to the policy on death penalty, without any consultation in the Parliament, and in contradiction to Canada's law (which does not allow death penalty).

No he did not.

You can certainly wait for a tell-all omen. But don't say that Harper's socially conservative views don't come through in his policies.

So you're saying we shouldn't trust Elizabeth May when she says she's pro choice because her own views are anti abortion, right?

[Slim MacSquinty]

Please describe in detail the GOVERNMENT POLICY that Harper changed that altered the death penalty in Canada.

No one in the Conservative Government has made the slightest peep to lead one to beleive the Cons have any intention of returning the death penalty.

Facts man find them and give them to us, otherwise keep it to dreamland.

[myata]

No he did not.

So informative and well argumented, cheers!

[independent]

No he did not.

So you're saying we shouldn't trust Elizabeth May when she says she's pro choice because her own views are anti abortion, right?

http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/2008/05/...y-and-the-cons/

[myata]

Please describe in detail the GOVERNMENT POLICY that Harper changed that altered the death penalty in Canada.

It's been discussed here at length, but essentially he changed the long standing policy to ask foreign governments for clemency each time a Canadian is convicted to death abroad. Because death penalty isn't used in Canada by law, the essense of the previous policy is very clear.

Harper wouldn't dare to change Canada's stance on death penalty itself, so he kicked the policy instead. Only to mention that it was done, fully in line with tradition of openness and transparency, on a Friday night.

[segnosaur]

If Harper does decide to bring in anti-abortion legislation, then indeed I will likely vote against him. I just don't see that happening any time in the future.

Harper already made changes to the policy on death penalty, without any consultation in the Parliament, and in contradiction to Canada's law (which does not allow death penalty).

The death penalty is a different issue than abortion.

His actions on the death penalty do not concern me greatly. The individual in question was given a trial in a court system generally viewed to be fair and unbiased. (And yes, I know there can be flaws, but its not like the individual will get a summary execution). In additon, the person's crimes did happen in a foreign country; any demands for clemancy are basically Canada trying to impose its 'morals' on another country, somethign that should be frowned upon.

[myata]

I see it (the policy) as a consistent appllication of the country's laws to its citizens, by the government. Harper probably sees as one small place where he can express his displeasure with our laws (in more or less the same way as with Kyoto; or gun registry) without causing too much splash, i.e. attention to his ideology. If selective application of law does not concern you, it's just too bad. Because it's also another way to erode a working democracy. Laws in a democracy can be changed, but only via an open democratic process. Nobody can ignore or kick existing laws, without detriment, loss of democracy value to everybody.

[CrazeeEddie]

His actions on the death penalty do not concern me greatly. The individual in question was given a trial in a court system generally viewed to be fair and unbiased. (And yes, I know there can be flaws, but its not like the individual will get a summary execution).

Wow, could you imagine if these flaws affected a family member of yours, or even you? Wonder if you would be so careless about it if it was your neck on the guillotine.

[Slim MacSquinty]

There was never a policy, therefore there was never a necessity to go to parliment, get your facts straight.

The Canadian government has never asked for clemency (that is to forgive the sentance) I sure hope you don't believe that is Canadian policy, they have asked for the sentances to be commuted to life. Because this has been done before does not mean it is a policy.

The individual knowingly committed a heinous offence for which he knew the punishment was death, he admitted guilt. The US is a free and democratic society, the offender admitted guilt there is no faint hope, the US can do with him what they please.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[CrazeeEddie]

There was never a policy, therefore there was never a necessity to go to parliment, get your facts straight.

The Canadian government has never asked for clemency (that is to forgive the sentance) I sure hope you don't believe that is Canadian policy, they have asked for the sentances to be commuted to life. Because this has been done before does not mean it is a policy.

The individual knowingly committed a heinous offence for which he knew the punishment was death, he admitted guilt. The US is a free and democratic society, the offender admitted guilt there is no faint hope, the US can do with him what they please.

Official policy or not, it has been an expected act of government. And while the US may be a 'free and democratic society', the possibility of 'flaws' as you call them, is alive and well.

[Slim MacSquinty]

The point is that it was never a policy, it does not mean he (Harper) favours the death penalty nor that he intends or wishes to have it here. The specifics of this case did not warrant our intervention. There was no potential for a miscarriage of justice, he pleaded guilty, accepted the penalty then changed his mind.

The left has gone way overboard, as usually, taking a grain of sand and turning it into a truckload of poop.

[CrazeeEddie]

The point is that it was never a policy, it does not mean he (Harper) favours the death penalty nor that he intends or wishes to have it here. The specifics of this case did not warrant our intervention. There was no potential for a miscarriage of justice, he pleaded guilty, accepted the penalty then changed his mind.

The left has gone way overboard, as usually, taking a grain of sand and turning it into a truckload of poop.

Why is it that anytime anybody criticizes Harper, they have gone overboard? Why is it that the right seems so capable of dishing, yet has so much trouble swallowing the fact that Harper is not perfect, and that not all Canadians (in fact, a minority of them) actually share this man's views?

Perhaps he pleaded on the advice of his lawyer that, being a Canadian citizen, he would be granted clemency when his government stepped in?

How do you know what actually happened? Were you there?