Stephen Harper's Abortion Position
Stephen Harper when asked by the media where he stands on abortion gave an ambiguous response, which suggests those who value a women's right to choose should be very concerned. I agree he won't do anything in his first term, but I am worried that he will wait until he can stack the senate and judiciary with Conservative idealogues and then act to roll back abortion. I understand many people are upset with the Liberals, but I make a final plea, the Tories under Harper are still unfit to govern. Vote Liberal for the last time to let the Tories choose a new leader who is fit to govern and is truly a moderate, not a pretend moderate and at that point vote the Liberals out. But if you still insist on voting Conservative, at least check out your local candidate and don't vote Conservative in ridings with socially conservative candidates.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:19 PM
45 Comments:
Paul Martin on a Conservative candidate in southern Ontario who is an self-described Christian: "Stephen Harper (all of his sentences begin like that, you know) stood bside a man who said a woman's place was to follow.
Other christians Paul Martin must also hate include Tommy Douglas, father of medicare who wrote a bill of rights and introduced the minimum wage but was a minister f the Calvary Baptist Church in Weyburn Saskatchewan.
Paul Martin, memberf of the Roman Catholic church, that wouold deny women the right an abortion, (I fact Paul Martin himself has aid he personally opposes a woman's right to an abortion) and the church that will nt allow women to be ordained.
The new Liberal test of "Canadaian" values - "have you recently, or did you ever attend a church? Give us names!"
Who needs a hypocrite for Christmas when you havd an entire zoo of them in the Fiberal Party of Canada?
In Saskatoon, the incumbent Tory MP was on a call-in show when a caler accused him of sexual assault oo a woman in a church.
The producers weren't on 7 second delay but immediatey stopped the show, pressed star 62 and traced the origin of the call.
It came from the campaign headquarters of Liberal Chris Axeworthy.
(In fact, the Tory MP has never been a member of that religeon, much less that church.)
When asked to comment, National Liberal Campaign Headquarters replied, "oh, it's a only a local matter."
More Liberal values.
Chris Axeworthy says, "someone must have snuck in and used a phone."
Uh-huh, you can imagine that, can't you?
Ya, ya, someone used my hone, that's the ticket!
If you wanna hypocrite for Christmas, just call Liberal HQ....
Says Miles: I am worried that he will wait until he can stack the senate and judiciary with Conservative idealogues and then act to roll back abortion.
Even if it were true, and it's almost as desperate a stretch as most anything coming out of Paul Martin's mouth these days, Stephen Harper will be dead and gone before he could make a dent in 100 years of Liberal appointments.
AO
Fiberals will hate this, but:
I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.
John G. Diefenbaker.
I am NOT making this up.
Anonymous - the Liberals are not against Christians, they are against those who plan to bring religion into politics. Besides David Sweet belongs to the Promise Keepers, which is a sexist group that believes women should stay at home in the kitchen.
Your blatant fear mongering is nothing short of pathetic, Miles. Quite frankly I expect more from someone like you. But I guess you just can't resist the desperate e-mail talking point appeals from Jamie Elmhirst and other Liberal bigwigs to play the abortion card.
You know the Liberals are in big trouble when they resort to outright lies to make their case. Your logic is atrocious, and you have absolutely no basis for your argument against Harper on the grounds of abortion.
He's been crystal clear - he will NOT bring forward legislation on abortion, and he will OPPOSE efforts to bring forward such legislation from his back bench.
I know you Liberals are used to leaders who say one thing and then break their promises, but you can take Harper's promises to the bank.
I eagerly anticipate your post on Tuesday Jan 24th eating serious crow, Miles.
It wasn't the Liberals who brought this up, Harper was asked this question by both CTV and Global and he dodged the question. He should have said "I am against any legislation to restrict the right of a woman to choose and I will not allow it pass ever". Saying that his personal view on abortion is too complicated to explain and that he won't ever rule it out is unacceptable. Check the recent polls out. The Tories may still be leading, but Ontario, especially the GTA is moving back to the Liberals. Liberals have a seven point lead in Ontario and 20 point lead in the GTA according to the most recent SC poll. I wouldn't be so sure of a Conservative win, I think the Liberals just might pull it off, although certainly a weaker minority.
I just want to pick up on something totally outrageous that Miles suggested: "I agree he won't do anything in his first term, but I am worried that he will wait until he can stack the senate and judiciary with Conservative idealogues and then act to roll back abortion."
This is deceptive and downright absurd on so many levels. First - you admit that a Tory government would do nothing on abortion in their first term. So you have no argument against electing them now! If you think they'll do something about abortion in a hypothetical 2nd term or 3rd, that's not an argument against electing a Tory government TODAY! Bring it up if you like when Harper is up for re-election, but you can't say "well he'll be fine at first but when we re-elect him, watch out!" as an argument against voting Tory today.
Second, Harper can hardly "stack" the Senate or the Supreme Court in his first term in office, which is likely to be a minority. Supreme Court vacancies arise very rarely, and it would like a generation to reverse a long history of Liberal appointees on the top bench. Ditto for the Senate - it is so packed with Liberal patronage appointments there is virtually no chance Harper could paint the Red Chamber blue in 8 years let alone 2 or 4.
The faulty reasoning and downright absurdity of Liberal arguments against electing Conservatives is part of the reason why Stephen Harper will be the next Prime Minister of Canada - Canadians simply don't believe the outrageous spin coming from Liberals.
Joel - Even if he wouldn't do anything in his first term, he will start appointing Conservative judges to the Supreme Court and Conservative senators (and I don't mean Red Tories like Majorie Lebreton or Hugh Segal, I mean hardcore ones like Ted Morton, Link Byfield who support his neo-conservative ideology). By running a moderate government in his first term, he can say to Canadians, see I'm not scary and then hope they give him a majority. Once he gets a majority, then God help us all.
Besides, his public policies on ripping up Kyoto, ripping up the Kelowna Agreement, and joining the US BMD are good enough reasons for me to keep Harper out of power. A Liberal win is still possible Joel as many people are having second thoughts about electing Stephen Harper as prime-minister. One thing I can say for sure, is he won't win a majority government.
What happened to the Liberals running on their record? We have not heard PMPM speak of anything other than Stephen Harper for the past 10 days, personaly I think he has an unhealthy obsession with the man. Is attacking the opponent over non existent issues, like your case of the verbal trots on abortion, all the Liberal party has left? What the hell are the Liberals positions on, well, anything? Let me see if I have the Liberal position straight here, Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper,Fundamentaly, value,Stephen Harper, purple monkey dishwasher.
The Liberals have talked much about their accomplishments in the first half of the campaign, but no one seemed to want to listen. So if people decide to throw the Liberals out, they at least have the right to know what their opponent stands for. I for one am still frightened of Stephen Harper becoming prime-minister. I've seen the dangers of neo-conservatism in the United States and don't wish to go down that path.
What a great idea!
Exploit women's innermost sensitivities about their deepest personal choices,
by raising this non-issue for political gain!
I thought that this was as low as it could go, but I'm thinkin they're willing to slink a little more into the mud these next couple of days.
And Miles will be there cheering them on every step of the way.
I love the internet, and the fact that Miles will never be able to distance himself from what he's stood for this election.
Given that the Conservatives ...
1. Want to elect senators, and
2. Open up the judicial process to scrutiny,
... it's pretty hard to see how they could be pushing a "hidden agenda" to stack either the Senate or the courts.
(er, I meant "judicial appointment process")
Anonymous - the Liberals are not trying to scare female voters, they are simply pointing out the risks of electing a Conservative government. With only 12% of their candidates being female, I would be very concerned if I were a woman about electing a Conservative government. The Liberals and NDP are also under-represented by female candidates, but not the extreme of the Conservatives
Jason Hickman - I have am all for electing senators, but I oppose a Triple E senate, which Harper is in favour of. This would give the West where the Reform was strongest a disproportionate influence. Besides I don't believe PEI should get as many senators as Ontario. I do though think BC, Alberta, and Ontario should get more senators, especially BC and Alberta who are the most under-represented. As for the judiciary, considering how the American Conservatives want to stack the US supreme court with Conservative judges and Harper has said that the American Conservative movement was an inspirational light for Canada, I have every reason to believe he would do the same.
"the liberals are not trying to scare female voters"
What's the word I'm looking for that describes that statement.......................................give me a second........................oh, I've got it now.............that'd be A LIE!
You want the benefit of the fear, without taking responsibility for it.
You and your ilk are sad, hollow people.
"his public policies on ripping up Kyoto"
Miles, you seem to have forgotten the fact that you've been a stalwart opponent of Kyoto in the past.
In fact, you introduced a policy to the SFU BC Young Liberal club (which if passed would have gone on to be decided at the subsequent BC Liberal provincial convention) calling on the province to oppose the Kyoto Accord.
I know because I happened to vote for it.
That, incidentally, was around thesame time Harper was fighting Chretien's intention to procede with the ratification of the Accord.
Now, if this is simply an example of the leftward drift in your views that seems to be occuring of late, that's fine.
As Harper has said himself, people's views can views evolve over time and with the prevailing circumstances.
But it would be more than disingenuous to fearmonger against Harper on a policy if you happen to actually agree with him on it.
To paraphrase Dosanjh's line from that Lib ad, either you support Kyoto, or you don't.
You can't have it both ways.
Our company had to fire an employee today. Among other things, he was a liar.
But nowhwre near so pathalogical a liar as the Liberals. Not on the same planet.
I just heard their latest ad: one blatent, sickening lie after another.
Lying, cheating and lying to cover up your cheating has become so ingrained in Liberal culture that perhaps they don't even realize how sick they are.
Anyone who votes Liberal now is certainly free to do so. I'm not sure how they'll be able to look themselves in the mirror afterwards and I KNOW that they'll need to take a shower.
Paul Martin is running the most American-style political campaign in Canadian history. His polica style makes George Bush look like a sissy. It gives new definition to ugly and should be considered demeaning to their intelligence by anyone old enough to vote. Decent Canadians have been sickened by it.
Surely any Liberal victory now would be pyrric, fanning the flames of Quebec seperatism and western alienation, to mention only a few who will feel stabbed in the back by these pathalogical liars, cheats and hypocrites.
This is a nation the Liberals are playing with, not a sandlot game where the bully can do whatever he wants and those he has sucker-punched and kicked will quietly go home in shame. The Liberals are willing to light a fire of anger in the mistaken belief that they can douse the flames later.
I am going to vote Consrvative on Monday in the hope that theywill win at least a strong minority.
I know it won't happen, but if the NDP won, I could wake up Tuesday feeling disappointed but still proud to be Canadian because my leader was an honest, decent, (if ill-advised) man.
If the Liberals win, I'm not so sure. I think I'll burn my passport to start and donate to the PQ later Tuesday morning.
MP
May be not all Liberals are liars:
"Two veteran Liberal MPs say there is no difference between their party and the Conservatives on abortion, contradicting Paul Martin's claim that there is a "gulf" between the two parties on hot-button moral issues.Toronto MP Tom Wappel and Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway also say that Liberals are deeply divided over gay rights..." CTV. June 6, 2004 2:54 PM ET
Brandon - I believe it was a mistake to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but once you ratify it, you shouldn't pull out. I stand by my initial decision, but I think once you sign an agreement you keep your word. Hope this clarifies it.
I don't think the Liberals on the whole are liars, at least not Paul Martin. There are a few dishonest people in the party as in Conservatives. I still think the Conservatives under Harper are scary, but I guess will see what other Canadians think.
Miles, I think before the Liberals can go painting the Conservatives as anti-abortion types, they need to look in a mirror first. Tom Wappel, Jim Karygiannis, Alan Tonks, Maurizio Belacquiva, Joe Volpe, Albina Guaranieri, Joe McGuire, Joe Fontana and Paul Martin himself at one time or another showed their opposition to abortion. Tonks even said he would support anti-abortion legislation in the Globe and Mail last week. If Liberals can suddenly evolve and go from being pro-life to pro-choice, why can't Conservatives do the same?
BC Tory - I am well aware of the fact there are pro-life Liberals, but they are a minority within the party while pro-life Conservatives are the majority. I can tell you the results of an abortion vote would be very different under a Conservative government than Liberal government. Paul Martin didn't win his leadership by appealing to social conservatives, while Stephen Harper outside of elections has spent a lot of time pandering to social conservatives so that obviously means he owes them something in return.
What Ed Broadbent has to say of Paul Martin's Liberals:
"These are not progressive people," Broadbent told a news conference in Ottawa Friday.
"The only time they talked about being progressive is in the dying days of the campaign. It's the only time they use the word -- when they try to go after the votes of ordinary people who are indicating they're going to vote for the NDP. Well I can tell you that this time it's not going to happen." ...
"The Liberal campaigning has been deeply offensive," Broadbent continued.
"Offensive to women, offensive to workers, and offensive to members of the armed forces, and offensive to all Canadians for suggesting that a vote for anyone but themselves is not progressive. This, my friends, is the height of arrogance. It is clear the Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to deserve people's votes. Their cynical manipulation - will not work this time."
Unfortunately, Mr. Broadbent seems to still think the Liberals can be shamed. BUt when you have no shame to begin with...
The Liberals are not progressive in the sense of being left wing, they are a centrist party. But they are progressive in the sense of being forward looking, whereas the Conservatives are neither. I do have a great deal of respect for Ed Broadbent, however I disagree with him here.
The line that the Liberals are a "centrist" party is BS.
Now of course it is a party that is largely devoid of principle, that's for certain. But where it does hold to any, it is on the centre-left.
There indeed are issues where the Liberal Party deviates from the mainstream middle in this country. And that is a big part of the reason why they are all but certain to lose in 3 short days.
I would disagree Brandon that they are usually left leaning. They have tendency to run to the left and govern to the right. After all cutting corporate taxes is not exactly a left wing policy nor is privatizing Petro-Canada, eliminating the foreign content limit on RRSP. They have a lot of right leaning policies, but they never highlight those ones, it is always the left leaning policies they highlight. If you read their whole platform, they are plenty of right leaning policies.
It's so easy to be progressive, when you don't mean any of it.
Just sign a GHG agreement that you have no intent to live upto, indeed flout aboard your smoke-billowing Boeing 727.
Just ban handguns, which you already did anyway, with no plan or seeming intent to stop smuggling or resources to give to the people (police) who are trying to take illegal guns out of the hands of people who very much intend to use them.
Just give a corporate tax break, cancel it, re-introduce it, er...where are we on this merry-go-round now?
Just promise to clean up a harbour and the great lakes while Aboriginals die of tainted water on reserves.
Just call Conservatives intolerant while your party refuses to offically apologize for charging an offnsive, racist head tax. (The paty has not, let me repeat NOT apologized for this)
Say you oppose the war in Iraq while Canadian soldiers are being cared for in an American hospital after being neary blown up in the forward battle zone of Afghanistan.
Engage in Bush-bashing (so brave you know) while sending a Canadian destroyer to nthe gulf to support said illegal invasion of Iraq.
Promise to get rid of the NWC even though you were the last person to say you would use it.
Defame and belittle our Canadian Forces in ads on Quebec TV (Yes - they were shown there Miles) when the last party to put troops on the streets of a Canadian city was? Oh ya - your Dad's.
It just goes on and on - broken progressive promise after broken pogressive promise, most of them knowingly and cynically mere lies told to promote fear and hated of other, fellow Canadians.
Let me count the way that Liberals are progressive.
Well, their lies get progressivly more transparent.
Their arrogance has gotten exponentially bigger and will grow by a fearful, almost incalcuable factor should the Canadian electorate let them get away with it.
Did I mention thier noses. Definatey progressively bigger day by day!
DC
Speaking of cleaning the Great Lakes, guess who's ships have rountinely dumped toxic waste into them by the tonne?
That would be Paul Martin
http://thismagazine.ca/issues/2005/09/sweepingitunder.php
I'm counting the hours folks. Less than 72 to go.
Anonymous - With Kyoto Protocol as I said earlier we made a mistake to sign it without having a plan in place. But this was Chretien's dumb idea. In fact the last budget was defined as one of the greenest budget.
I am no fan of the handgun ban, however this does include hiring more police officers and tightening up border inspections if you read the whole press release.
Corporate tax breaks were only cancelled to get the NDP support for a budget. While this was regrettable, in a minority government, cooperation with another party is necessary for a government to survive. Had the Conservatives stuck with their initial plan to support the budget, rather than pull the plug out of pure opportunism due to their numbers, the corporate tax cuts would have gone through.
What happened in Kaschewan on the Indian Reserve was wrong. However considering that Tom Flanagan who is Harper's main advisor has called for cultural genocide of First Nations in "First nations, Second Thoughts", I suspect aboriginal policy would be worse under the Conservatives
The Liberals did apologize for the head tax. The reason for refusing was to avoid lawsuits. But I will say the head tax was wrong.
The Iraq War was wrong and is still wrong. As for Americans helping us in Afghanistan, that does not mean we let them off the hook for what they've done wrong.
The ships in the Gulf were sent in 2001 to fight the War on Terrorism, although I believe they should have been pulled out during the Iraq war.
I support eliminating the notwithstanding clause. His promise to use it was if religious institutions were forced to perform same-sex marriage, but the courts have ruled freedom of religion is protected, so this is a mute point.
The military ad was a dumb ad. Besides the most recent budget pumped lots of new money into the military, the first time this has been done in quite a while.
With Kyoto Protocol as I said earlier we made a mistake to sign it without having a plan in place.
I am no fan of the handgun ban.
Corporate tax breaks were only cancelled to get the NDP support for a budget.
What happened in Kaschewan on the Indian Reserve was wrong.
The ships in the Gulf should have been pulled out during the Iraq war.
The military ad was a dumb ad.
What am I doing? Just creating a Liberal election ad with your statments. Let's see:
I am all for electing senators.
The Liberals are not progressive.
I believe it was a mistake to ratify the Kyoto Protocol,
Statements of a Liberal voter. In Canada. In B.C. I am not making this up.
Choose your hypocrite!
I see now that there have been private member motions to limit a woman's choice to abortion.
These otions wre brought forward by Liberal Tom Wappell and Liberal Don Boudria:
Have a look at what they proposed:
Wappel (C-205 - Feb. 1, 1994)
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code (human being).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to add a definition of the term human being to the Criminal Code. The purpose of that definition is to focus the debate on the vexing issue of abortion and the question that has heretofore not been addressed, whether society wishes to extend protection to the unborn child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
And Boudria put forward bill to allow health care workers to refuse to perform abortion:
Boudria (May 27, 1994)
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a conscience bill. It is designed to protect health care workers who wish not to participate in the procuring of abortions. It makes it an offence for anyone to attempt to dismiss these people from their jobs if they refuse to do so on moral or religious grounds.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Liberal motions
To limit women's choice
In Canada
In our Parliament
I am not making this up.
The second one by Don Boudria has more to do with protecting religious freedom, even though I am not sure what I think of it since I have to see the whole context. As for Tom Wappel, yes there are a few nuts in the Liberals, but they are a minority. However in the Conservatives, they represent the majority. Finally Martin would make sure such bill never passed, whereas Harper wouldn't.
Martin would stop such a bill, Harper wouldn't(??!).
That's just Fiberal babble that you regurgitate like some chick-feeding Robin. You don't know it to be true, you can't prove it to be true, you just upchuck the Fiberal lie d'jour on command.
The fact that I can prove is that there are Liberals who oppose free choice for women and Paul Martin has done nothing to discipline them. I surmise, but can't prove, that he wouldn't do anything to discipline them either.
All Martin has actually done is mumble on incessently on how Stephen Harper should do somethng he hasn't shown the guts to do himself.
Hypocrite.
Martin would force cabinet to vote against it and would certainly sanction any person who brought one forward. The bill Tom Wappel brought forward was under Chretien when he had a large enough majority that there was no risk of it passing.
Harper on the other hand has committed to a free vote on abortion and if 70% of candidates are pro-life, it is not too hard to figure out what the results will be.
Martin would force cabinet to vote against it and would certainly sanction any person who brought one forward.
Huh? When? He would demand cabinet solidarity, there's precedent for you to say that. Sanction? You have not an iota of evidence.
Paul Martin's position on abotion, indeed on judges too:
“Martin said the prime minister must immediately recall parliament to introduce new abortion legislation” (Halifax Daily News, July 20, 1989).
"I am personally against abortion on demand, but I believe it is very clear that there must be legislation brought in that will deal with what is becoming simply a mish-mash of approaches" – Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, July 20, 1989).
“It’s very clear that we are going to have 10 different [abortion] laws and that we are going to have these laws made by judges” – Paul Martin (Halifax Chronicle – Herald, July 20, 1989).
Whew, sure glad that scary, extreme U.S. right wing nut didn't become Prime Minister!
Tonight's SES Poll:
Conservative 38%
Liars 28%
Honest NDP 17%
If yu are an NDP supporter, you can make a real difference by voting NDP. Fiberals will tell you that only by voting with them can you stop Stephen Harper.
A) Not true
B) A wasted opportunity
Paul Martin proved in the last Parliament that the Liberals are only interested in buying your votes, not your ideals, and as quickly as can be done - all NDP initiatives will be dropped quicker than a hot potato.
You were lied to once - shame on them.
Get lied to twice, well, shame on who?
PQ
Anonymous - Paul Martin would demand cabinet solidarity as he did with same-sex marriage that is where the precedence is. As for the NDP to the third anonymous, neither the NDP or Conservatives should form government. The NDP is fiscally irresponsible as one saw here in BC in the 90s and the Conservatives are too socially conservative. The Liberals are a middle of the road party and the best to govern.
In the interest of truth, here is the abortion policy approved by the Conservative Party of Canada in March 2005:
"a Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation to regulate abortion."
Now, some quotes from Liberals, some of whom, far from being sanctioned, have been promoted by Paul Martin:
Joe Fontana, then Minister of Labour and current Minister of Veterans Affairs:
"abortion should be limited to exceptional extenuating circumstances" involving rape or incest (London Free Press, October 12, 1988).
Albina Guarnieri: "The decision as to which life merits protection cannot be left to judges, doctors, or even women themselves. The issue must be dealt with on a national level by Parliament so that we as elected representatives may once and for all establish the supremacy of life and the protection of the unborn as would befit a civilized society. We must not be condemned by a future Parliament for legitimizing the termination of hundreds of thousands of unborn Canadians" (Hansard, November 23, 1989)
"Bill C-43 is abortion on demand with red tape...In effect, the legislation makes it possible for women to seek and obtain abortions for reasons that may have more to do with lifestyle considerations than with actual physical endangerment" - Albina Guarnieri (Hansard, November 23, 1989).
"In fact, the health clause will operate as nothing more than a rubber stamp condonement of abortion on demand. It will allow women to abort their unborn child based on a fleeting notion of immediate convenience" - Albina Guarnieri (Hansard, November 23, 1989).
"To imperiously determine which life should be afforded protection of the law and which should not would leave our society extremely susceptible to the social decision-making characteristic of the genocidal policies of certain Third World nations" - Albina Guarnieri (Hansard, November 23, 1989).
Joe McGuire,current Minister of ACOA: "Abortion is the murder of another human being" (Hansard, November 27, 1989)
Minister of Immigration Joe Volpe: "The government has contented itself with casting the issue in the context of abortion, a context which invariably favours the rights of those who are present against those who are silent, a context which too often is seen as purely a woman's issue" (Hansard, November 22, 1989)
"There is no legal right to abortion in this country, according to the Supreme Court of Canada." - Tom Wappel, former Martin Liberal MP
Now, this is the March 2005, CPC approved policy:
"a Conservative government will not initiate or support any legislation to regulate abortion."
Maurizio Bevilacqua:
"Hon. members, everything I believe, everything that I hold dear, my social and cultural make-up, my personal beliefs as a human being, tells me that abortion is wrong. I feel within myself, passionately, that abortion is against the natural order. It negates the essence of our being" - Maurizio Bevilacqua (Hansard, November 27, 1989).
"I do not understand how any of us can accept giving the responsibility and the right to anyone to decide on who will live and who will not" - Maurizio Bevilacqua (Hansard, November 27, 1989).
Paul Szabo:
"Last year there were over 110,000 abortions in Canada with a cost to our health care system of over $10 million. That is over 300 abortions each and every day. It says that each year 110,000 mistakes are made at the expense of all Canadians by those who fail to act responsibly. Is it too much to ask Canadians just to be responsible for their actions? We do have a choice and that choice should be made before we act, not after we have failed to act responsibly" - Paul Szabo (Hansard, November 27, 1998).
Alan Tonks (another current Liberal MP):
"Generally speaking, I opt on the side of life. I don't support carte-blanche abortion," Mr. Tonks said. "If there was a motion that was presented to review and send to committee, whatever the nature of the change being asked, I would always support it going to the committee" (Globe and Mail, January 14, 2006).
Wwe interupt this debate to bring you more news of Liberal values:
OTTAWA – Paul Martin and Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy have a lot of explaining to do. Two days ago a person from Mr. Axworthy’s campaign office called a local television program and falsely accused Conservative Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott of having been charged with sexual assault.
In perhaps the most incredible claim of the campaign, Chris Axworthy admitted the call was placed from his office, but said someone not connected to his campaign sneaked in and made the call (CP Wire, January 19, 2006).
Today, the Conservative Party released an affidavit from Tom Hengen, past leadership candidate for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, swearing the “mystery caller” is one George Laliberte – a well-known associate of Mr. Axworthy.
“The Liberal campaign was caught making false accusations, and now appears to be caught in a cover-up,” stated Conservative Party Campaign Chair John Reynolds. “Mr. Axworthy had a chance to come clean and instead chose to deny any involvement. Paul Martin should take immediate action to remove his party’s support from Mr. Axworthy.”
Meantime, in Edmonton Centre, Eections Canada has uncovered voter registrations tracked to non-residential mailing boxes, downtown addresses that don't exist and other families registering to vote from office towers.
Anonymous - most of those quotes were in the late 80s, so many of those have changed their views since. On the other hand the anti-abortion quotes for the Tories are generally quite recent. Paul Martin is right if there is a Liberal majority, it won't pass, even if some Liberals support it, while if there is a Conservative majority it will pass, end of story!!
Miles: most of those quotes were in the late 80s, so many of those have changed their views since.
Uh, but Stephen Harper can't change his views?
"Oh...a Giant Hypocrite for Christmas....."
Editorial from the Montreal Gazette:
Editorial
The Gazette (Montreal)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The most important issue in Canadian public affairs, and therefore in Monday's federal election, is the future of Quebec. Many Canadians outside this province ignore that simple truth. Some deny it. Others resent it. But we who live here understand that our future, and Canada's, pivots on the unresolved matter of Quebec's status.
La question nationale is the lens through which Quebecers assess every issue and every leader. And through that lens, it is obvious that Canada needs a change of governing party.
For the first century of Confederation, the idea of Quebec separation scarcely existed. Independence will never again be unthinkable, but we trust it will lose its allure over time. Already, many see it as a faded fad, as quaint as bell-bottoms or eight-track tapes. Quebec's recent politics include many who have renounced the notion: Jean Lapierre, Raymond Bachand, Richard Le Hir and apparently Mario Dumont.
So why, federalists ask themselves, does this exploded idea still poll so potently? The answer begins with federalist failures, in Quebec City and Ottawa.
Here it's helpful to remember Kenneth Clarke's dictum: The British Tory frontbencher likes to say that in a referendum, you ask people about, say, bimetallism, and they respond "Throw the rascals out." That's the way it is with Quebecers' notorious ambivalence: Voting Yes, or voting for the Bloc Quebecois, is a form of protest when federalism disappoints. The problem is that, when there's a lot to protest, there's always a danger that Quebecers could be lured onto the banana peel of a majority Yes vote.
Which brings us to the Liberal Party of Canada. The future of Quebec-in-Canada remains shaky today in large part because, for 12 long years, the federal Liberals have been doing well by doing good, milking national unity for their own political profit and even, as the Gomery inquiry confirmed, for financial gain. From Option Canada in 1995 through the sponsorship scandal of recent years, the Liberals have chosen to play fast and loose with the rules. This is the Quebec element of the "culture of entitlement" seen among Liberals from coast to coast.
Across Canada, federal Liberals have painted themselves as the "natural governing party" and the only bulwark against separatism. Inexorably they elevated themselves above the rules, because they are (in David Dingwall's memorable phrase) "entitled to my entitlements." With no healthy federalist alternative to challenge them, the Liberals have been a species facing no natural foes: They spread unhealthily across the landscape. Little transgressions grew bigger, abuses went unchecked. There's a nasty whiff of "l'etat, c'est nous" around the Liberals, manifested most recently in Prime Minister Paul Martin's willingness to start tinkering with the notwithstanding clause of the constitution just to make - rather obscurely - a partisan point.
The worst of these excesses was the sponsorship scandal, a made-to-be-abused $250-million boondoggle that insulted Quebecers in three ways. First came the presumption that the people of Quebec were stupid enough to be swayed, on something so fundamental as independence, by federal hand-outs to county fairs, music festivals and sports events. Second came the outright fraud in which $100 million got away, much of it slipped to the Liberals' friends, with cash finding its way back to the party. Third came the embarrassment of knowing that many outside Quebec see this massive scam as just business as usual in Quebec. In fact, our provincial politics are remarkably scandal-free, but do they know that elsewhere? The Liberals dragged our collective reputation in the mud from coast to coast.
No wonder Liberal support here has collapsed. The federal Liberal brand is now hopelessly stained. One more Liberal government in Ottawa, minority or majority, would certainly be welcomed in some quarters as one "winning condition" for a Yes vote in a new referendum.
This is a tragedy. These 12 Liberal years, under Jean Chretien and now Martin, have in many respects been good years for Canada. Booming resource industries have made our economy healthy, while we enjoy a level of social peace most of the world envies. Manufacturing is holding up. Unemployment is at record low levels. As finance minister, Martin made it his business, and the country's, to end crippling annual government deficits. His farsighted resolve in drying up the red ink has given Martin an enduring claim to Canadians' gratitude.
Since he became prime minister 25 months ago, however, Martin's government has looked stale and unfocused. His knack for discovering countless "urgent" and "fundamental" issues, each one his "top priority," has led to a startling jump in total spending but no corresponding sense that the country is accomplishing anything.
On policy matters, Martin and his ministers have had successes and failures, which need not be rehashed here. What's vital for voting day is the fact that on the essential Quebec question, the Liberals have fouled their own nest, discrediting themselves and soiling the federal system they were supposed to be championing. The great majority of Quebecers now have only a cold contempt for the Liberals. To re-elect this government under these conditions would be asking for trouble in a referendum.
The Liberal Party has failed, seriously and ignobly, on the principal issue of the day. For this reason, if no other, it is time for the Liberals to go.
That was from Thursday. Here is Friday's editorial:
Editorial
The Gazette (Montreal)
Friday, January 20, 2006
The Liberals, we said yesterday, must go. Each new opinion poll suggests Canadians agree. By all the portents Canada is in line after Monday's election for a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. This is a healthy prospect for Canada, and particularly for Quebec.
The change in Conservative fortunes, these last two years, has been dramatic. Harper is now widely seen as a charisma-challenged policy wonk with a bias toward lower taxes and respect for provincial jurisdiction. This is not exactly Harper-mania, but it's an improvement on his 2004 image, so eagerly painted by the Liberals, of a rootin' tootin' redneck rowdy with a sinister scheme stashed in his saddlebags.
Harper and his party have improved more than their image since 2004. His record and platform confirm that he has, as he says, evolved. So has his party. From the early-1990s birth of the Reform Party as a western protest vehicle, right through to this month, we see a maturing process that is now all but complete.
The 1993 Reform caucus was suspicious of federal power in general, included members frankly hostile to Quebec, and was deeply socially conservative. But today Harper is poised to reap the benefits of the work done, by himself and many others, to modulate Reform's yelps of protest into a consistent articulation of a legitimate vision of the country. The recent Liberal smear-scare ads failed because voters see a Conservative Party close to the main currents of public opinion on most issues.
There are other alternatives to the Liberals, to be sure. The New Democrats, despite Jack Layton's energetic leadership, cling to their surreal view of economic realities. The Green Party, though broadly correct on an issue that is growing in urgency, is plainly not ready for prime time. As federalists, we need not dwell on the Bloc Quebecois.
That leaves the Conservatives, who under Harper have now reunited two of the three elements of Brian Mulroney's "big-tent" party: western small-c conservatives and Ontario/Atlantic voters who reject the Liberals' omni-present and domineering federal power. This campaign finds Harper surprisingly well-placed to add some of Mulroney's third element, francophone "soft nationalists." Public-opinion polls suggest the Conservatives will win more votes than the Liberals across Quebec. It's a movement we invite Gazette readers to join.
What would a Harper government be like? Since we argued yesterday that the Quebec question is the Canadian meta-issue, let's begin with the fiscal imbalance, a phrase coined in Quebec and an issue Quebecers take seriously. Harper's pledge to do the same galvanized his campaign here - and didn't hurt elsewhere.
Ottawa has fat surpluses these days, while the provinces, except Alberta, are searching under the sofa cushions to pay for health, education, urban needs and more. As soon as he's elected, Harper says, he'll start talks with the provinces on this imbalance. And he promises to reduce it during his first term.
The Liberal approach to fiscal federalism has been to invent new shared-cost programs - day-care most recently - in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces grit their teeth, cash the cheques, and go cap in hand to Ottawa for subsequent top-ups, like peasants waiting for scraps at the squire's back door. John Manley, then deputy prime minister, once told The Gazette's editorial board that Jean Chretien's government would never just transfer revenue to the provinces, because Ottawa never gets enough credit for that.
Harper, coming from a tradition more respectful of provincial rights, appears to be serious about the fiscal imbalance. Even if his first one-point cut in the goods and services tax gives the provinces cover to raise their own sales taxes, that would help.
We are not so enthusiastic about the other main pillar of Harper's Quebec pitch, an increased Quebec voice in international affairs. But this issue resonates with Quebec's political class, not with the population: If he takes care of the imbalance, he can - and should - go slowly on this.
More important to Quebecers than the flag on the hood of a limo at a UNESCO meeting is the broad range of social policy. Here a fair-minded observer can see that Harper has little enthusiasm for rolling back the socially liberal status quo. On abortion, the party and leader have promised to change nothing.
On same-sex marriage, his position is frankly preposterous, but you can almost see him wink as he advances it: a free vote on the definition of marriage, but no use of the notwithstanding clause, and existing same-sex marriages would never be annulled. It's not easy to imagine such a free vote leading to a new law, even if Harper had a majority. In any case, by far his best way out of this morass would be to drop the issue.
To be sure, some Conservative policies would not be welcome in Quebec - get-tough sentencing is one. On the other hand, Harper's comprehensive "accountability" package - designed to make sure nothing else like the sponsorship scandal can happen - has earned admiration in many quarters, in Quebec and across the country.
The 2006 Conservative Party offers a program that can work very well for Quebec as a part of Canada. Given the Liberals' disgraceful abuse of the sacred trust of national unity, it's time for Quebecers to join their fellow Canadians in supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
One more, from today's Toronto Star:
Martin admitted yesterday that his position on the handling of the abortion issue in Parliament would be little different than Harper's.
He said a Liberal government would not bring in abortion legislation but would allow a free vote by MPs.
Watching Miles spin his way out of this dogpile is highly amusing. Here's what Andrew Coyne has to say:
"The campaign that [Martin] and his minions have waged over the last eight weeks -- by turns empty, dishonest, hysterical, vicious, crude, demagogic, shrill, incoherent, divisive, xenophobic, hypocritical, not to say staggeringly incompetent -- makes his impending departure from the scene a positive delight. I am literally counting the hours.
There has never been a campaign to match it -- not even the loathsome campaign the same team mounted in 2004. John Turner's 1988 campaign, with its litany of the biblical horrors that free trade would bring in its wake, was as over the top -- but that was about an issue. If it conjured up extreme and absurd scenarios, they were at least attached to something the Tories had actually proposed. They did not consist, as in the present campaign, of simply fantasizing, with almost pornographic relish, of all the things they might do.
It will be recorded that in this election, the Martin campaign commissioned, produced and ran ads (at public expense) suggesting that his opponent was, inter alia, plotting with separatists to destroy the country, bankrolled by extremist elements of a foreign power, and in a glittering tour de force, bent on imposing martial law. ("In our cities.") It will further be recorded that when called out on that last bit of filth, Mr. Martin claimed -- without flinching at the utter implausibility of what he was saying -- that he was just making a point about logistics.
And, to our eternal credit, every last person in the country laughed in his face."
If this was a game of poker, I'd write SFO right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home