Where does YOUR local CPC candidate stand ?

[Argus]

But why only the Tory candidates? You don't care how the other candidates vote? Are you under the illusion there aren't many pro-life people in the Liberal Party, that there aren't pro-lifers in the BQ and NDP?

As I said in my last post, the CPC is the party that will allow completely free votes, so they should be telling us what they think.

That's no answer. So you're going to find out your local Tory is pro life and vote against him - only to find out that your winning Liberal candidate is even more pro life? What's the point of that?

In any event, Harper has not ordered his candidates to refuse to answer questions about abortion or same-sex marriage. He just doesn't want screaming headlines. It's perfectly all right for an MP to say "If there was a free vote on same-sex marriage I would vote against." It's not perfectly all right to say "Homosexuals are the children of Satan and must be expunged from the universe!" So to speak.

Whether he told them to be quiet or not, they're not being so forthcoming.

Specifics, please. Which candidate has refused to say how they would vote on abortion or same-sex marriage?

So how I would vote would depend on the bill in question."

And they would jump all over your statement as being anti-choice.

I have heard of NO ONE being jumped on for merely expressing their opinion on this issue. Making dramatic, reactionary statements is another thing.

The CPC has a large conservative force that wants to be able to have its ideas heard.  Fine.  Harper's solution is to push that off on free votes, so that mainstream voters won't be scared into voting against the CPC.  Also fine.  No contradiction there.

Harper's desire for more free votes goes back more than a decade to his time in the Reform Party. It has nothing to do with allowing arch conservatives a voice. Nor have you identified just what opinions you think are so detestable to the public. As has already been pointed out half or over half the population wants laws against abortion and is against same-sex marriage. So why is an opinion which mirrors that half of the population scary and unacceptable but an opinion which goes on the other side called "mainstream"?

Further, if the Liberals are allowed their Tom Wappels and Roger Galloways why are the Tories scary with their Cheryl Gallants?

[Argus]

Why is Harper afraid to take questions from the people,

Why haven't I noticed that Harper is afraid to "take questions from the people"? Could you point out an example of where Harper has been "afraid to take questions from the people"?

Not attending the debate today, and avoiding one with Layton earlier, as well the party circling the wagons regarding commenting on social issues.

You'll have to be more specific. What debate? He is preparing for a debate tomorrow, is he not? And another the day after.

As for your assertion that even if all MPs were gone except for Conservatives that there would be no change in the abortion issue, that's kind of hard to prove, since they're not supposed to say anything publicly about such things. 

We know that attempts to put an anti-abortion plank in the Reform Party platform failed. We know similar efforts failed with the Alliance, with a very large percentage of the members saying no. The present Conservative Party is to the left of either of them, and I have no doubt the great majority of the membership would be against any radical moves on abortion.

As I've said before, I have no life long allegiances to any party, but their "hush hush" style is just too much.

And you really think the Liberals are more open? Perhaps they'll give you reassuring answers but can you believe any of them? Think on how tight and secretive they have been in power. No press conferences. No information. Tight controls on the MPs, turning them into barking seals, legal suits against the access to information commisioner, opposition to the access to information act, no honesty and no integrity. I think I'd rather try out the Tories, thanks.

[Argus]

And I agree with you about private members bills being almost impossible to get through.  But I believe C-250 was Mr. Robinson's private members bill and that seems to be getting a lot of response on these forums.  C-250 deals with a social issue.

There are several issues here. To begin with, who was talking about this bill last election? No one. Was it ever put to the public for approval? Nope. It was indeed a private member's bill. Now if this bill can be introduced and approved as a private member's bill why can it not be rescinded in the same fashion? Paul Martin is crying "Man the ramparts" to defend the bill and say that under no circumstances would he allow a free vote on it. Why? This was an NDP private members bill, but suddenly it's the heart and soul of the Liberal Party? If they liked it so much why didn't his party introduce it? Oh I grant you they supported it fully, ramming it through parliament and the senate, replacing Liberal MPs on the commitee who were against it with those who favoured it, but it still was a private member's bill introduced by an opposition MP. It passed by the slimmest of margins, with dozens of Liberals voting against it. Are they now all classified as evil homophobes and not allowed to run? I don't think so.

If a private member's bill to rescind this comes to the House a lot of tories will vote for it - but some won't, nor will all Liberals vote against it. The NDP, of course, will be given no choice. You get no vote in the NDP but what the leader tells you. They had no choice in the first vote, and will get none if there is a second. But if more than half of all MPs vote to rescind this then that will in all likelihood represent the will of the people - and that's how democracies work.

[Argus]

But donno, I might have to hold my nose and vote Liberal.  Imean seriously, between an aparteid-supporter and a corrupt Fiberal...which would you choose?

Would you care to name us the Tory candidate who supports apartheid? I bet it would be a surprise to teh national media - not to mention the candidate.

Do be careful not to be libelous. You rarely have anything to back up your accusations, after all.

[Argus]

Your comment that He has not told them to refuse to answer where they stand on those issue, merely told them not to make any outspoken, quotable, damaging statements. sounds kind of contradictory.  In other words, you're saying that MPs can say what they want, unless is outspoken, damaging and/or quotable... what the heck is left?

There is no political party that will not come down hard on its candidates making stupid comments which costs the party popularity. None. If there ever was one it died quickly. You may ask your candidate how he or she stands on abortion or same-sex marriage, and they will tell you. That seems fair enough for me. What more do you want?

There are candidates debates all across this country and I heartily doubt that when the issue of same-sex mariage or abortion is raised the Tory candidate says "I'm sorry but I can't answer that".

If anyone ever finds one who does - let me know.

[Michael Hardner]

That's no answer. So you're going to find out your local Tory is pro life and vote against him - only to find out that your winning Liberal candidate is even more pro life? What's the point of that?

I'm not saying whether I would for or against anyone.

I'm saying if a party says that they're going to allow free votes on anything that's not party policy, the members of that party have a moral obligation to be forthcoming on those views.

I'm not arguing about the utility of the policy, or whether one party or another is more pro-life. I'm saying that a party that has a policy such as this needs to show consistency.

In any event, Harper has not ordered his candidates to refuse to answer questions about abortion or same-sex marriage. He just doesn't want screaming headlines. It's perfectly all right for an MP to say "If there was a free vote on same-sex marriage I would vote against." It's not perfectly all right to say "Homosexuals are the children of Satan and must be expunged from the universe!" So to speak.

Again, this is beside the point. Whether or not the CPC told the local candidates to be quiet they should be forthcoming on their views, just to be consistent.

Specifics, please. Which candidate has refused to say how they would vote on abortion or same-sex marriage?

Check the straw poll I did at the top of this thread. Nine CPC candidate websites, many of them touting free votes, did not explain the candidates' views.

The tenth had a statement concerning the traditional family, and defunding of abortions.

I have heard of NO ONE being jumped on for merely expressing their opinion on this issue. Making dramatic, reactionary statements is another thing.

Are you saying that the CPC has been treated fairly by the media then ? Did you hear the reporter who was booed by the Harper supporters in (I think) Kitchener.

Harper's desire for more free votes goes back more than a decade to his time in the Reform Party. It has nothing to do with allowing arch conservatives a voice.

How can you say for sure that is has nothing to do with it ?

The free votes issues certainly serves a political purpose for Harper to manage social conservatives from within the party.

Nor have you identified just what opinions you think are so detestable to the public. As has already been pointed out half or over half the population wants laws against abortion and is against same-sex marriage. So why is an opinion which mirrors that half of the population scary and unacceptable but an opinion which goes on the other side called "mainstream"?

In an election, there is no advantage to turning off half of the voters, if that is the number.

Harper isn't winining because Canada turned socially Conservative. That half of the voters that is for same-sex marriage and pro-choice must also be supporting him to a large degree.

Further, if the Liberals are allowed their Tom Wappels and Roger Galloways why are the Tories scary with their Cheryl Gallants?

See above, re: party consistency.

[willy]

Why every view a politician holds is not relevant? They are not all on the agenda. They should be forthcoming of anything they plan to move with the party or personal agenda.

a·gen·da    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-jnd)

n. pl. a·gen·das

A list or program of things to be done or considered: “They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process” (Daniel Sneider).

A plural of agendum

If they will not act, you need not worry.

[maplesyrup]

The Harper Conservatives seem to be big on free votes.

Is that like free as in free trade?

It is essential then for each of their canadidates to post on their website their positions on the social issues such as abortion, etc.

If every Conservative candidate does not post his/her positions on social issues on their website, then it is a legitimate to say that the Conservatives have a hidden agenda, eh?

[Michael Hardner]

If every Conservative candidate does not post his/her positions on social issues on their website, then it is a legitimate to say that the Conservatives have a hidden agenda, eh? 

I'd say so.

It seems that there's a gap there if the party allows for free expression of its candidates and we're left to guess on what their positions are.