Harper's socially moderate image under attack

[Goldie]

Blackdog and maple

What about the Morality of Abortion?

Some religions in Canada consider abortion to be a moral choice. Other religions teach that fetal life is sacred from the moment of conception and should never be deliberately ended, regardless of the circumstances. People have different personal moral views about abortion.

Polls show that 79% of Canadians consider the abortion decision to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

link

79% of Canadians. That would meam a hell of alot of men unless 100% of female respondants supported that claim which is unlikely, even in Canada.

  Bull crap. Abortion is a women's issue. Every significant abortion crusader, and the vast majority of thos eon the frontlines of the fight to retain a women's right to choose are women.

So calm down, big bad conservative men are not going to stop women from having abortions.

A free vote is safe unless your in the pro-life minority. what was that about protecting the minority view in the charter?

[Argus]

If they were voting as their constituents wanted - yup. Democracy just says the people should decide. It doesn't absolutely require they make the right choice.

That argument is extreme. I am unaware of any democratic State that does not offer guarantees of protection to individuals.

Our protections against the State have been hard won. Do not assume them or dispense with them so easily.

What guarantees the state "offers" are through the choice and will of the voters. And the only guarantee of them is their continued ability to vote. Anything which enhances the ability of the people to make their wishes known and froce the state to abide by them is a good thing, imho.

[maplesyrup]

Goldie.....why would you even touch this no-win issue for the Conservatives? Can't you see what the Liberals are trying to do with this?

Now the campaign focus has shifted from the corrupt Liberal government to regressive Conservative social policies.

[Goldie]

Because I will state over and over that the Conservatives are no threat to anyone but the Government.

[maplesyrup]

That may or may not be true, but by getting into discussing abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. the Consevatives will get blown out of the water by the Liberals. This is a big mistake.

[August1991]

What guarantees the state "offers" are through the choice and will of the voters.

Huh? The body of Parliamentary laws means nothing? If the Supreme Court declares a particular law unconstitutional, that means nothing?

IOW, to use your reasoning, what happens if the voters are inconsistent. What happens if they vote for Law A, and then later, they vote for Law B (which is contrary to Law A)?

Such situations arise when majority rule threatens an individual - or the power of the State is used against an individual, or a minority.

[Black Dog]

August! We agree on something!

I'm tired of hearing about "activist judges", when the courts actually have a significant role to play in our parlimentary system. Under this system, the Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity.

So, when the SCC justices upheld the Ontario Court's decision, they were simply doing their job.

[idealisttotheend]

Yes, it is those nine men and women who our first line of defense against the majority putting "jews in ovens" as Argus argued in another thread. Without them there is no democracy, simply a well organized mob.

I noticed that three recently retired though and wondered if they knew something about the Liberals re-election chances that we don't lol.

[Argus]

What guarantees the state "offers" are through the choice and will of the voters.

Huh? The body of Parliamentary laws means nothing? If the Supreme Court declares a particular law unconstitutional, that means nothing?

Well, it means nothing to me. I lost all respect for the Supreme Court a long time ago. My point is that the law is whatever those in charge say it is. If you appoint 5 born-again right-to-lifers to the SC the court will "interpret" the Charter to mean the "pre born" have full rights, and outlaw abortion.

If you appoint 5 Nazis to the SC then before you know it they'll interpret Jews as being non-people. If you appoint 5 man-hating feminists to the SC you'll soon find all the laws interpreted to take mens' rights away. The SC has no authority over it. It can interpret the law and the Charter any way they want to - and have done so in the past.

IOW, to use your reasoning, what happens if the voters are inconsistent.  What happens if they vote for Law A, and then later, they vote for Law B (which is contrary to Law A)?

I don't understand the question. No one is proposing people vote on individual laws without guidance. In fact, no one is proposing people vote on laws at all. What I said was that a piece of paper is no guarantee of anything. Take a look at the laws in pre-Nazi Germany. They didn't protect anyone from anything. All you need to do is appoint judges that believe as you do - which is the practice in Canada, btw - and you can get laws interpreted to support whatever you want done.

[Argus]

I'm tired of hearing about "activist judges", when the courts actually have a significant role to play in our parlimentary system. Under this system, the Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity.

The problem, BD, is that our laws are appointed under a system which existed prior to the Charter. When the system was changed and judges got much, much more powerful, no one gave any thought to changing the system.

The United States has activist judges, but their system was designed for that. Their judges get elected, or face very careful scrutiny before appointment. Our judges are appointed in back rooms in exchange for favours or deals. They are generally people with political connections, not great legal knowledge or wisdom. No one knows them, but they have great power, even power to overrule our elected representatives.

And as I said in an earlier post a few moments ago - the law is whatever they tell you it is.

[Argus]

Yes, it is those nine men and women who our first line of defense against the majority putting "jews in ovens" as Argus argued in another thread.  Without them there is no democracy, simply a well organized mob. 

So you would think that such people would be very carefully scrutinized, that only the most wise and knowledgeable, the most unbiased and learned would be considered.

Okay, now back to the real world. Wanna get on the Supreme Court? How many favours ya done someone with pull? Got a decent IQ? Not important.

It's interesting to note that in their pathetic acceptance of the gag rule which violated freedom of speech, the six members of the SC who supported the law were Chretien appointees, mostly Quebecers. The three who dissented were all Tory appointees and English.

Like I said, the law is whatever the hell they feel like.

Think their decision is stupid and unfair? Tough. There isn't any appeal.

[maplesyrup]

Struggling to find wedge issue to beat Tories, Martin settles on charter

A Liberal party stung by scandal and struggling to base its campaign on the loosely defined "Canadian values" theme believes it has finally found a cause to defend as its own: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Liberals approach the third campaign week counting on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's to keep mentioning his willingness to override the charter on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has barely been able to pass a microphone the past few days without defending the charter.

Harper needs to button it for now.

[Argus]

Prime Minister Paul Martin has barely been able to pass a microphone the past few days without defending the charter.

Harper needs to button it for now.

How? He's not going around making speeches about abortion. He's being greeted at every stop by frantic media people desperate for a new quote on abortion. If he ignores them you'll see more stories about his "hidden agenda", and his "refusal to talk about his abortion policies".

[takeanumber]

Told you so.

(They couldn't keep their hidden agenda hidden for very long.)

[idealisttotheend]

So you would think that such people would be very carefully scrutinized, that only the most wise and knowledgeable, the most unbiased and learned would be considered.

You must have more faith in people. Not everyone is a stark ideologue (Nazi, man-hating feminist) some people are quite reasonable, most people in fact we just usually don't hear from them.

Yes there are ideologies on the Court and it can lean left since the Charter was put in but they are not that bad. I mean Arbour wasn't head of the War Crimes Tribunal because she was a yes woman for Chretien. As to scrutinization, I'm not sure the Bourque incident among others gives me a lot of faith in US style confirmation hearings, what is the point really. Are there cases of the Americans finding important legal biases through these hearings?. And if you want to elect them then you might as well get rid of them all together and put nine politicians in their place.

It's interesting to note that in their pathetic acceptance of the gag rule which violated freedom of speech,

I believe the argument was that while they agreed that it did violate freedom of speech that that violation was justified under S. 1. The freedom from people with money monoploizing the democratic process outweighed the freedom to people being able to spend without limits on advertising. This is the kind of blancing the SCC must do.

Furthermore I recall that the Liberals weren't overly impressed with the SCC decision on gay marriage. In fact, it was supposed to be a major election issue and it divided the "Natural Governing Party" down the middle if you remember (and gave the Cons a great "wedge issue"). Chretien himself was uncomftorable with gay marriage but he went with the Court and refused to use the not withstanding clause even with almost open revolt in his party. This is different from Harper who blitely states that he will use the not withstanding clause as he sees fit. I think Harper's position on the unlimited use of S. 36 should send up a lot of red flags for those of us who believe in the Charter and limits on parlimentary power.

(They couldn't keep their hidden agenda hidden for very long.)

I don't think there is an institutional hidden agenda among the Cons. Harper is not Day and I think Harper only mentions prayer and such as it is politically expidient for him in his party (which really annoys me by the way, to use religion as a political tool when you don't believe in it).

Nevertheless there are a lot of individuals in the old Alliance-Conservative crowd who have been cropping up with all sorts of opinions on social issues that I assume the Con brass is trying hard to shush. I think these opinions could become law in a majority but never in a minority.

[takeanumber]

Nevertheless there are a lot of the old Alliance-Conservative crowd who have been cropping up with all sorts of opinions. I think these opinions could become law in a majority but never in a minority.

Canada has the most to fear from a Conservative cabinet.

If Harper had been the PM during the runnup to the Iraq war, in spite of his snarky back-tracking and historical revisionism, we'd be there.

He wanted to go, physically, "shoulder to shoulder", not 'morally' as he's trying to peddle.

See, Harper really is just as bad as the Liberals.

Man, given what Harper et al has been saying (he really hasn't moderated after all, there goes hope), the status quo is starting to look downright bearable, if you hold your nose and drink a lot of pepto.

[Goldie]

I couldn't have said it better my self

[idealisttotheend]

To have no opionion is A) to have an opinion that you have no opinion to leave a vacuum wide open to be filled by the loudest voices on either side.

I believe Mr. Harper was adamently against the SCC in the gay marriage debate because it was parliament's jobs to make laws. How can he now want to govern and have no opinion on a law like abortion, that invites the SCC to make the decision for him if he has no opinion. If elected it would be his job to have an opinion on behalf of himself or his party.

[DAC]

I believe the argument was that while they agreed that it did violate freedom of speech that that violation was justified under S. 1. The  freedom from  people with money monoploizing the democratic process outweighed the  freedom to  people being able to spend without limits on advertising. This is the kind of blancing the SCC must do.

That is indeed the reasoning of the liberal appointed justices. And it is plainly a lie. 301 people in one riding spending $10 each to put up a sign on their lawn attacking the liberal position on this law would be subject to condemnation as criminals -- read a criminal record and up to five years in jail. That's the price of one lottery ticket, hardly the mark of a rich person. The limits are so low that someone like me, who doesn't have much money to spare, could easily borrow enough to break them in a single riding, and with 5 or 6 other lower middle class home partial owners, could borrow enough to break the national limits. That national limit would not even purchase a single one page ad in a national newspaper - as the Supreme Court admitted.

As the dissenting justices pointed out plainly, the election law makes it impossible for the citizens of this country to have a meaningful voice (i.e. one which can be heard by a significant portion of the people) in presenting their concerns in the election. And when is free speech more important? :angry:

[takeanumber]

I'll agree with DAC on this.

What the SCC is doing is pure new anti-liberalism.

[idealisttotheend]

What the SCC is doing is pure new anti-liberalism

I won't pretend to even know what new anti-liberalism is.

As the dissenting justices pointed out plainly

The difference is clear in the terminology used by the judge upholding the appeal and the dissenting judges in Harper v. Canada. The dissenters keep refering to "the citizen's" rights while the majority talks of certain groups or affluent citizen's rights. So lets apply the common sense test shall we?

Name one group of citizens who've ever gotten together to purchse major election time advertising (which seems to be all anyone is concerned about) that are not affiliated with a major body. Be that body Focus on the Family or the NCC. The law is intended (along with the campaign funding law) to muzzle corporations from speaking as citizens where they ought not be entitiled to do so. The NCC (much like the Fraser Institute) will not release membership lists to prove that it is funded by average citizens because it is in fact funded by corporations. Corporations' money comes from the prices you and I pay for things. Focus on the Family is different and maybe they should be exempt but only if they can prove that they recieved all their money from relatively equal individual donations and it stays that way.

Practically, this law is new. In the 140 or so years this country has been holding elections name one group of 301 people who paid $10 for lawn signs not related to a political party. The only signs I can remember seeing were Save our CBC signs, besides that I have seen no independant lawn signs. Name a group of citizens in your riding that bought election ads on the radio or television last year. Name anyone who mortgaged their house to pay for election advertising of all things.

Practically, affluent people have less opportunity to advertise under this law.

Practically the average citizen has as much opportunity to buy national newspaper ads as they ever have and won't notice the difference between before the law was in force and after.

Practically elections should be about the ideas of the politicians, not what a third party buisness lobby thinks about the ideas of politicians. To argue for third party election advertising is to argue for paternalism. People ought make up their own mings.

In a purely theoretical world this might be a bad law, but in the real world the only people this law affects is the buisness lobby and maybe some large religious lobby organizations. Therefore it is a good law to keep money's influence a little farther away from the democratic process and let more people be heard.

If that's new Anti-Liberal then count me a new Anti-Liberal.

[takeanumber]

An Old Anti-liberal is an old defender of inequality.

Think: the ppl who used to beat on Jews in Toronto up until 1950. (And then, think of the fringe who continued to do it up until, well, the current day.).

Old Anti-liberals are like that. A defender of negative inequality.

A new-Anti-liberal is a defender of new inequality. Things like, discriminatory hiring practices...hiring people based solely on the color of their skin with disregard to equality.

Ah, defenders of quota systems.

Ah, defenders of a policy that defeats equality in the name of equality. Like....

The SCC, by gagging the rich, they're taking away their freedom to even responsible speech.

That to me is a defence of this new inequality, that political parties should be the only actors during an election, to the exclusion to all others.

An old-Anti liberal might argue that the SCC is totally wrong for their decision, but for the inequal reason. One such person might argue that if you have money, you must be virtuous, and you thus have the right to dominate society. You know, 'Torie' logic from the 1850's. (? That logic wouldn't still exist today, would it?)

The liberal position would be to defend the rich's right to free speech, but to equalize the gap through subsidy or other forms of equalization.

Balance the scales in a manner that is 'equal', instead of doing so in a way that is inequal.

I know it's nuanced; and any nuanced arguement is attacked by those who don't 'get it' as being socialist or whatever names they can hurl (attack the person, and not the arguement). But there it is.

[idealisttotheend]

I thank you for explaining the new anti-liberalism thing, I think I understand now. Thank you again.

I still don't quite understand your argument against the third party spending law though.

Ah, defenders of a policy that defeats equality in the name of equality. Like....    The SCC, by gagging the rich, they're taking away their freedom to even responsible speech.

Ok. But if everyone is equally restrained by the law how can it be unequal? Is it not by definition equal, since every citizen has the same obligations under the law (there are no quotas here).

If I accepted your argument that the SCC has gagged the rich and taken away their right to "even responsible speech" where does that leave you and me? You and I can not buy the ads either, not now or ever, we don't have the money. So then does it mean that we never had the "freedom to even responsible speech."

In fact, haven't you just made the argument for the law?

I know it's nuanced; and any nuanced arguement is attacked by those who don't 'get it' as being socialist or whatever names they can hurl (attack the person, and not the arguement).

I agree and try to never do that myself or let it bother me when people do it to me. But that's just my experience.

[takeanumber]

Superior points idealist.

Alright, if we accept that parties shouldn't have a monopoly on the public discussion.

But that corporate money, and the rich in general, can monopolize public discussion.

And then we accept the premise that NGO's should be able to speak on behalf of the interests we like the most (ie. we put our money where our mouths are.),

then I gotta side with 'equalization'.

I mean, if Alberta is soooo rich, we don't tell Alberta "No, you can't make any more money, you're making Nova Scotia look cheap!", we equalize the money, and that way everybody gets equal opportunities.

Now, if you're generally against social mobility and equality in general, then you're just not going to like the idea of equalization. It smacks of US style liberalism, and you'd be right. So feel free to attack equalization of opportunity, I understand the critiques and I'll never be able to change the mindset of an entitled persons' mind.

Anyway, how do you achieve equalization?

If you're a third party involved in the election, you gotta register, and if you're spending more than a certain amount, prepare to be taxed, with the taxes being transfered directly to the under-caps. That's one way.

It's not pretty, but at least it's transparent.

the real terror are the photocopied sheets of paper mysteriously being distributed the night before election day.

Even the relative poor can put 100 photocopies together (25 dollars roughly, maybe a bit more). Maybe more.

[DAC]

Practically elections should be about the ideas of the politicians, not what a third party buisness lobby thinks about the ideas of politicians. To argue for third party election advertising is to argue for paternalism. People ought make up their own mings.

Stalin also thought elections should be about the ideas of recognized politicians, not the people. And I was not talking about a business lobby but about a citizen lobby, a lobby of people like myself who understand that their charter rights have been thrown away by the anti-freedom Liberals and their SCC lackeys.

Seems to me there is far more paternalism in the view that only political "fathers" should be allowed to tell us what policy ought to be. I agree that people ought to make up their own mind. But speaking for myself, I have often changed my mind when somebody else pointed out something I hadn't considered.

As to mortgaging houses to advertise, it's something I'm seriously considering on this issue. If I were single ... you see I also have to consider seriously my wife's unhappiness with spending which will cut heavily into our small retirement savings.