revolt ignited among 20+ Tories MP

[scribblet]

Yeah, the only time a left winger would come out in support of pro lifers if they are disagreeing with the PM. If the PM allowed these MPs to speak I'm sure there'd be accusations that this is part of the PM's hidden agenda to take away a woman's right to choose.

Didn't Saint Jack whip his party on the Gun Registration vote.?

Yes he did, and two Thunder Bay MPs were disciplined by not being allowed to make statements or ask questions in the Commons. They were also removed from their critics' roles.

MP Bruce Hyer has said he will return to the fold if Mulcair stops whipping the votes.

[MightyAC]

Sad, but true. The problem here as well as Alberta and America is why do fiscal conservatives seem to end up wallowing in generally unpopular socially "conservative" causes? And thus the self-inflicted shooting of feet.

It's not an accident,they actively court the socon/christian vote. Then they try to keep em quiet.

[Peter F]

On the other hand, the NDP doesn't have to worry about people with different opinions. Such people are never permitted into the NDP in the first place. It's understood that you have no independent mind in the NDP caucus. Your votes belongs to the great leader on all issues. Any opposition, any public statement which puts an individual MP against his party's chosen philosophy on any given issue will result in the immediate expulsion of that MP.

http://www.johnrafferty.ndp.ca/post/rafferty-parliament-vote-to-abolish-long-gun-registry

[scribblet]

As N. Specter tweeted: I respect the right of women (journos) to choose a CPC backbench revolt over abortion rights!

[The_Squid]

This isn't about whipping votes. It is about SO-31s.

[scribblet]

In this case it is about standing votes, but it's also another chance to bitch about Harper 'muzzling' people. In this case it's a tough one, who are you gonna support. Pro-life MPs, or a pro-choice PM/gov't. Maybe only MPs with whom we disagree should be muzzled.

[scribblet]

It's not an accident,they actively court the socon/christian vote. Then they try to keep em quiet.

How do you know that and how do they go about it ?

[Bonam]

It is well known that many CPC MPs have very conservative or even regressive social views that may scare off a large number of would be voters.

It is? How many?

[Argus]

Sad, but true. The problem here as well as Alberta and America is why do fiscal conservatives seem to end up wallowing in generally unpopular socially "conservative" causes? And thus the self-inflicted shooting of feet.

There's no mystery about it. Conservative also means traditional. That can be a good thing, but there is a certain segment of society which is closed to new ideas about anything, a segment which is as unwelcoming to 'furiners' especially if their skin color or religion is different, as it is to new economic and social ideas. Those people are certainly not going to vote Liberal so the Tories are stuck with them. Now on the other hand, the radical leftists on the far side of the spectrum tend to be with the NDP, but the media doesn't take them seriously and so doesn't make a fuss about them. Calling someone a Fascist is considered a dreadful insult to them, but calling someone a Communist just makes people sneer --- at you. And it really doesn't matter if it's true or not. The media doesn't fear Communists. It even finds them interesting. It has a reflexive hate for Fascists, though. Not entirely sure why as the Communists are no kinder to the media or anyone else than Fascists.

[Argus]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/26/conservative-mps-accuse-harper-government-of-muzzling-them-on-abortion/

"Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said Warawa’s point of privilege is one of the most important she has heard.

“It cuts to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy,” said May.

“We are not here as teams. The principle of Westminster parliamentary

democracy is that we are here are representatives of our constituencies

and our constituents. Incidentally, we are merely members of political

parties.”

This kind of thinking could very well see myself actually supporting this women. The Lady has a point, a very valid one. Its time to rethink some things, and just maybe Harper will end up eating some crow.

Her point is technically true but lost in history. Further, I've noticed this about the Left. They're all about freedom up until the point where you get in their way and disagree with them. Then they're about censorship. As I've pointed out earlier, there is absolutely NO freedom or independence among the NDP, and I rather doubt her party would be any different if there was anything at stake, ie, they had a chance at power.

[Argus]

http://www.johnrafferty.ndp.ca/post/rafferty-parliament-vote-to-abolish-long-gun-registry

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/02/ndp-mp-long-gun-resgistry-discipline.html

[Argus]

How do you know that and how do they go about it ?

Oh I don't think there's any doubt they court religious groups. And you would expect religious groups to be anti-abortion.

Personally, I don't get why everyone gasps in horror whenever the subject is brought up. I lean towards choice but I recognize that Canada's total absence of laws around this touchie subject is kind of an aberration. The media and the liberal left scream in horror the moment anyone brings it up, though. It's really kind of amusing to see them respond to fairly sensible proposals which the likes of Sweden and Norway have as if they were a return to coat hangers in back rooms. Yes, that's right, Sweden has laws about abortion. ALL European countries have laws governing abortion.

Nevertheless, as far as the Canadian media are concerned, if you want any restrictions on abortion at all you must be an incestuous hillbilly religious fanatic who hates women. You will never hear about Sweden, of course, because as far as the media is concerned there is us, and then there is the Republican fanatics down south. No other opinions or jurisdictions exist. So trying to put laws around abortion is a Republican thing.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Argus

[Mighty AC]

It is? How many?

61. The Reform Party was dominated by social conservatives and reformers dominated the merger. Socons speaking their minds were a problem early on but Harper managed to turn them into good, sound bite reading, soldiers. I think this was seen as the means to an end, but the end has been achieved and now they are getting angry. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/28/conservative_revolt_reveals_fault_lines_in_stephen_harpers_party_walkom.html

[Topaz]

Harper has said that he doesn't want the abortion subject brought back up and he's not the kind of leader to stand for anything less and the Tory MP involved praised Harper as a good leader, so there's seems more going on than we see. I do agree witht he Tory MP, that they should represent their constituents first, but that not the way its been going. I'm wondering if these backbenchers are worried about the next election and if Justin gets in as leader, the Tories may lose some of thir seats and they don't want to be among of them into force retirement.

[Peter F]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/02/ndp-mp-long-gun-resgistry-discipline.html

Ah, So when you said

Any opposition, any public statement which puts an individual MP against his party's chosen philosophy on any given issue will result in the immediate expulsion of that MP.

You didnt really mean it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Her point is technically true but lost in history. Further, I've noticed this about the Left. They're all about freedom up until the point where you get in their way and disagree with them. Then they're about censorship. As I've pointed out earlier, there is absolutely NO freedom or independence among the NDP, and I rather doubt her party would be any different if there was anything at stake, ie, they had a chance at power.

The power of partisan politics is indeed awesome. That in fact is the problem, we need more democracy not less. We already have and need the right to speak our minds, yet that does not seem to apply in true political terms which is the cold hard reality we are talking about. Elected representatives are what we are talking about, nothing less.

We cannot vote for PM, we cannot influence the PM. We can and do vote for representatives to the House of Commons, and according to everything I have every read about this nation, our entire system of government is based on the will of Parliament being enforced by democratic right of the people. Now I know there are a ton of arguments out there about how the system really works in practical terms, but this is a little different in my books. An elected member of the House of Commons is required to represent the will of constituents, not partisan factions. This is the core of our system we are talking about. There simply are no rules, just mere tradition and precedent. The Constitution of Canada does not clearly define the roles of elected individuals. The House of Commons is where all decisions are made according to the Constitution, not the Prime Ministers Office, which by the way is hardly mentioned in the Constitution, the same applies to the Prime Minister as well. Everything says Parliament is supreme from tradition to constitution. According to our law of the land it takes a majority decision on the part of the House of Commons to create legislation.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Harper, like all those before him, has had to date so little respect for the will of the people. I can now say that our leaders have in the past shown little respect for the constitution of the nation as well, in my opinion. An elected representative of the people is being denied the opportunity to speak for their constituents and its not even against any rule. Its not a matter of Privilege, its not a matter of Order. The is no power or authority within the Constitution of Canada that has been violated. The Prime Minister has done nothing wrong according to the law, which of course means since it has worked once it will work again. Time and again really, since the nation was created. The blatant flaws exposed within the system are being viewed by the public under a new light.

As per usual, nobody in the government has done anything wrong, so there is nothing that can be done about something that simply isn't wrong in the first place. I am hoping what really happens is that the 24 backbench MP's involved in the non-rebellion enjoy their muzzles or join an opposition party out of spite. Either way the elected representatives in question are in a precarious position, screw the political consequences, leaving cabinet or caucus has huge personal financial consequences, MP's could be losing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in perks and deals every year just by pissing off the Prime Minister. Not something you really set out to try and do in politics nowadays. Then again, shit does happen.

I think I am going to enjoy how all this plays out. The PM can't really let these guys say what they want to say because he wants to control the message. Simply claiming scheduling issues will not cut the mustard here, waiting their turn will not suffice as an excuse. Harper has already drawn the line in the sand, and its there for all to see. Harper now gets to eat some raw crow and bring them back into the fold, or he fries up that crow and serves it up at a nice partisan buffet. The real key here is how the partisan base views the issue, not something the public will have any say on mind you. Its an internal issue, Harper has ruled with an iron rod for a long time in political terms. The elected MP's in the limelight have a hard choice to make, but one in which their constituents have a vested interest. They and their tax dollars support a representative that has limited political clout, and now has been determined to have little to say as well. Those constituents have been muzzled by Harper as well, and that is something a large number of those citizens will start to focus on.

The stakes are very high. The game is afoot and the players are dug in. What could never have been predicted is now possible. Those 24 MP's could be defecting from their conservative block, and it could cost Harper the government.

[RNG]

Back on one of my favorite soap-boxes. Several posters have suggested that the Pro-life MP's are trying to represent their constituents. Do they have polls to back that up? In fact I have no trust at all in any polls. All poll results should now be prefaced with "62% of people who don't have call display or have no life believe that............". So I would love on every civil, provincial and federal ballot there appear a multitude of questions. Death penalty, abortion, immigration and on and on. I am so sick and tired of hearing some politician stand up and say "the majority of Canadians want xyz" when neither myself or any of my friends want that. I could believe that we are out of touch with the country but want some proof.

Now I would also insist that the results be non-binding. In fact I would insist that there be a legislated "cooling off period" before actions could be taken on the results of such broad based referenda. Immediately after some particularly gruesome killing pro-death penalty sentiment might surge. Those types of emotional overreactions need to be countered. But I still advocate this system.

Edited March 28, 2013 by RNG

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Back on one of my favorite soap-boxes. Several posters have suggested that the Pro-life MP's are trying to represent their constituents. Do they have polls to back that up? In fact I have no trust at all in any polls. All poll results should now be prefaced with "62% of people who don't have call display or have no life believe that............". So I would love on every civil, provincial and federal ballot there appear a multitude of questions. Death penalty, abortion, immigration and on and on. I am so sick and tired of hearing some politician stand up and say "the majority of Canadians want xyz" when neither myself or any of my friends want that. I could believe that we are out of touch with the country but want some proof.

Now I would also insist that the results be non-binding. In fact I would insist that there be a legislated "cooling off period" before actions could be taken on the results of such broad based referenda. Immediately after some particularly gruesome killing pro-death penalty sentiment might surge. Those types of emotional overreactions need to be countered. But I still advocate this system.

I am in favour of voter initiated referendums out the wazzoo! I must also agree with very nearly every word you wrote! Nice post!!

[Keepitsimple]

I am in favour of voter initiated referendums out the wazzoo! I must also agree with very nearly every word you wrote! Nice post!!

Referendas can suit a purpose when there is a clear issue and a clear question. On the abortion issue, what if the question read as follows:

Understanding that every Western democracy has implemented legislation to restrict abortions after three months, would you be in favour of considering similar legislation to protect unborn babies?

As with every other country that has had a proper debate, I would think that aside from the zeolots on either side, Canadians would vote in favour of reasonable restrictions. But as you can see - it's all in the question.

[shortlived]

Referendas can suit a purpose when there is a clear issue and a clear question. On the abortion issue, what if the question read as follows:

Understanding that every Western democracy has implemented legislation to restrict abortions after three months, would you be in favour of considering similar legislation to protect unborn babies?

As with every other country that has had a proper debate, I would think that aside from the zeolots on either side, Canadians would vote in favour of reasonable restrictions. But as you can see - it's all in the question.

that is a bad question a dual question should be

Should abortions be permissible at any point during pregnancy? YES / NO

If YES how far into a pregnancy should abortions be allowed

a. anytime

b. 8 months

c. 6 months

d. 3 months

e. 1 month

f. within a week

g. within a few days

h. morning after

i. birth control should be illegal

Edited March 28, 2013 by shortlived

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Certainly it is indeed all in the question. A question that elected MP's need permission to answer if current events and media reports are a correct depiction of reality.

Abortion is not the issue here at all. It is the focus of the debate but it is not the issue. The issue is whether or not an elected representative to the House of Commons in Canada can be prevented from speaking in the House when their opinion is in contradiction to the whim of partisan authority.

Should Canadian citizens allow their democracy to be sacrificed in the interests of partisan support?

[RNG]

Referendas can suit a purpose when there is a clear issue and a clear question. On the abortion issue, what if the question read as follows:

Understanding that every Western democracy has implemented legislation to restrict abortions after three months, would you be in favour of considering similar legislation to protect unborn babies?

As with every other country that has had a proper debate, I would think that aside from the zeolots on either side, Canadians would vote in favour of reasonable restrictions. But as you can see - it's all in the question.

There is the other reason the results must be non-binding. There can be all kinds of intentional or innocent shadings of meaning in the wording of the questions.

[Mighty AC]

Well said Liz! She sums up how I feel about this issue and the failings of our system very well here. See the video or full text below.

"As a specific case, may I say this is one of the most important points of privilege I have heard in the brief two years, almost, that I have been serving here? It cuts to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy that the hon. government House leader could put before you a sports metaphor that we are here as teams, as brands or colours, and we are all to take instructions from our team boss.
We are not here as teams. The principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy is that we are here as representatives of our constituencies and our constituents. We are merely incidentally members of political parties. Political parties do not exist in our Constitution. They are not an essential part of our democracy. They have grown to be seen to be the most interesting thing going on, and we have grown to see politics as some sort of sport. However, democracy is not a sport." - Elizabeth May

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/statements/2013/03/26/privilege-s-o-31/

[matilda]

Governments have muzzled employees, etc. since Trudea days & probably before him .. it's nothing new but there were fewer activists as there are now and less media exposure.

[Bonam]

Well said Liz! She sums up how I feel about this issue and the failings of our system very well here. See the video or full text below.

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/statements/2013/03/26/privilege-s-o-31/

I too agree heartily with her statement. But sadly the reality is the reason she makes such a statement is because she really is there without a team. If she had a delegation of say 40+ MPs that she had the opportunity to whip into line to accomplish her objectives, she'd be singing a different tune. Politicians, including "Liz", lust after power first and foremost.