Conservatives new death penalty policy
Certainly for those looking for evidence the Conservatives had a hidden agenda, many will point to today's announcement of the Conservatives no longer making an effort to prevent the death penalty of any Canadian convicted abroad. I understand the argument for this which are this, in this particular case, Ronald Smith committed a brutal murder and he committed it in the United States so he falls under US jurisdiction. Still I have some serious problems here. In most cases, I believe you should get whatever sentence applies in the jurisdiction you commit the offence unless it involves violation of one's fundamental rights or involves human rights violations. We may not be able to stop the US from executing him, but we should at least voice our displeasure and do whatever we can possibly do to prevent it.
I know the Liberals are dead set against the death penalty since they believe it is morally wrong, however I am not against capital punishment per se, but I oppose bringing back the death penalty for the simple reason you can never be 100% sure the accused is not innocent. And killing one innocent person is too high a price. This is why as a matter of policy we need to argue against any Canadian getting the death penalty as a matter of principle since even if this guy is guilty, what happens if in another case one is wrongly convicted, which happens all too frequently in the US. Would it be right for us to stand aside and do nothing. I think not. Some say we should do nothing because it will waste taxpayer's money, but lets remember our policy does not say he must be returned to Canada. Indeed, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to serve a life sentence without parole in a US jail. Finally, I should point out the United States and Japan are the developed countries that still have the death penalty. Almost every European country has abolished it and in fact one cannot become a member of the EU without abolishing it and likewise if it were say a British citizen who was facing executing in the US, not only would the British government protest against it, but so would the European Union. In fact every country that I know of that has abolished the death penalty also has a policy of doing whatever is possible to prevent any of their citizens from receiving it. Considering the Tories only have a minority, one just wonders what other policies they have hidden from the public. And for those who say the public supports this, I would argue as I have in the past, that when it comes to rights, the government should defend them irrespective of public opinion. This has been a longstanding policy of both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, but certainly not the Reform Party who dominate the current one.
In addition to this issue, today Harper barred two Red Tories from running because their views we supposedly not in line with the party. This is just another reason why ex PCs like myself have left the party and plan to stay out until Harper and his Reform gang are no longer in control.
I know the Liberals are dead set against the death penalty since they believe it is morally wrong, however I am not against capital punishment per se, but I oppose bringing back the death penalty for the simple reason you can never be 100% sure the accused is not innocent. And killing one innocent person is too high a price. This is why as a matter of policy we need to argue against any Canadian getting the death penalty as a matter of principle since even if this guy is guilty, what happens if in another case one is wrongly convicted, which happens all too frequently in the US. Would it be right for us to stand aside and do nothing. I think not. Some say we should do nothing because it will waste taxpayer's money, but lets remember our policy does not say he must be returned to Canada. Indeed, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to serve a life sentence without parole in a US jail. Finally, I should point out the United States and Japan are the developed countries that still have the death penalty. Almost every European country has abolished it and in fact one cannot become a member of the EU without abolishing it and likewise if it were say a British citizen who was facing executing in the US, not only would the British government protest against it, but so would the European Union. In fact every country that I know of that has abolished the death penalty also has a policy of doing whatever is possible to prevent any of their citizens from receiving it. Considering the Tories only have a minority, one just wonders what other policies they have hidden from the public. And for those who say the public supports this, I would argue as I have in the past, that when it comes to rights, the government should defend them irrespective of public opinion. This has been a longstanding policy of both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, but certainly not the Reform Party who dominate the current one.
In addition to this issue, today Harper barred two Red Tories from running because their views we supposedly not in line with the party. This is just another reason why ex PCs like myself have left the party and plan to stay out until Harper and his Reform gang are no longer in control.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:43 PM
15 Comments:
Hidden agenda? This is what most centre right governments thrive on to gain legitimacy with the public.
A perfect wedge issue since Harpo wants to fall on the crime omnibus bill.
This case is Willie Horton and Sister Souljah wrap into one. Con MPs openly taunting Dion for being soft on crime.
The ad makers are salivating. Dion like figure carrying a knapsack letting criminals out of a revolving door. "Stephane Dion is soft on crime. Stephane Dion is not a leader."
Being the moralistic bunch, they will praise the "just" execution of murderers in the US and perhaps drug traffickers in Singapore, but would cry outrage when a nurse gets sentenced to a death penalty in Saudi Arabia.
Mushroom - While this policy may not freak Canadians out as much as some others would, the fact this is further to the right than any recent government, should be enough to make Canadians think twice that the Tories would go much further.
"the fact this is further to the right than any recent government"
You are right. Unfortunately, the political spectrum has moved consistently to the right since 1984. Chretien and Martin did not help to stem the tide. Their Third Way policies reinforced it, thanks to Preston Manning and Stockwell Day in opposition.
I would say the political spectrum has swung to the right relative to the 70s, but I don't think Canada is anymore right wing today than in the 80s or 90s.
I also disagree Chretien and Martin's third way policies helped this. If anything, their third way policies is in many ways what prevented us from electing a more right wing government. They essentially took all the right wing ideas that were popular, while ignored the less popular ones so all the areas the Reform party had some traction such as tax cuts and balanced budgets were taken away from them while areas where they lacked any traction such as privatizing health care, war in Iraq, outlawing abortion.
While TC has elected PC's in the past these people wouldn't fit in the Harper-led party: David Crombie and David Macdonald were just about the reddest of Red Tories.
In the Chretien years when the right was split - the PC's always outpolled Reform in that riding. Under Harper they actually lost their deposit in '04 and scored a very poor 18% in '06.
It's a pretty dumb idea even from a Tory point of view. I'd think the ceiling of CPC support in that riding is probably around 22-23%, even the strongest, reddest Tory candidate couldn't take it at this point, with someone like Harper as leader. Having Mark Warner run is good window-dressing. Dumping a candidate for (horror of horrors) attending the AIDS conference and supporting affordable housing only solidifies the fears of former PC's.
In the end this just further evidence Tory strategists have clearly written off "silk stocking" ridings like Westmount, Rosedale, St. Paul and Quadra.
King of Kensington - I agree, I would say with a leader like Joe Clark or Robert Stanfield, the riding would be winneable but not Harper. I agree their ceiling is probably in the low 20s even with someone like Mark Warner. The only part of the riding where the Tories are even somewhat competitive is Rosedale and this is only around 10% of the riding and even there I suspect the Liberals will still come out on top.
I agree they have probably written off St. Paul's and Westmount-Ville Marie, although it seems they still think they can win Vancouver-Quadra, although I agree they stand absolutely no chance of winning it. I think a lot of Tories overestimate their support in BC in general since they assume all the protest votes that voted Reform as a protest vote are conservative in their viewpoints, when in fact many are left of centre and voted Reform as a protest vote not because they agree with the Conservative ideology.
If the Tories think they have a chance in Quadra they are truly delusional. Stephen Owen may have had some personal popularity but not enough to explain a margin of victory north of 10,000 votes in the last 2 elections. Quadra is affluent but very small-"l" liberal in its values - it is the Vancouver equivalent of St. Paul. And not only is the Conservative vote in BC lower than Reform/Alliance but it is pretty clear the old PC vote there (the highest in BC I believe) now supports the Liberals.
Obviously a byelection allows them to throw more resources there than a general election - but that won't be enough.
King of Kensington - I agree they are delusional, but a lot of them do believe they can win in based on the fact it is a wealthy riding and has voted for centre-right parties in the past. Some also think the strong BC Liberal support provincially will carry over federally, but I don't buy that, since while the BC Liberals have many Conservative supporters in the ranks, they also have many Liberals too and never mind there is a big difference if it is a centre-right vs. socialist party as opposed to a right wing vs. centrist party.
If not Quadra, where for the CPC in Vancouver proper?
In a battle between the John Reynolds and the Pat Carney faction of the party, the Carney candidate won.
This is somewhere the Cons are running second, not poor third or even fourth as in Toronto Centre.
I think that's irrelevant. Peter Kent was a very high profile, articulate candidate and he is very socially liberal, gay-friendly, etc. and he still lost in St. Paul, a very similar riding to Quadra, by 14,000 votes. With someone like Harper at the helm I don't any Conservative is electable in Toronto or Vancouver proper, no matter how progressive or high profile the local candidate is.
I agree with King of Kensington that the Tories are unelectable in both Vancouver proper and Toronto proper. In fact I would say Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Don Valley West would fall to the Tories before Vancouver-Quadra would, although I expect the Liberals to handidly take all three of those. The main reason the Tories came within 10 points of capturing Etobicoke-Lakeshore in 2006 is due the whole nomination controversy that Michael Ignatieff faced. Rather than being a liability I think Ignatieff will be an asset. If the Liberals win the election, he will likely get a major cabinet post. If they lose the election, he could very well be the next leader so I think both of these will mean he will win by a larger margin than he did in 2006.
I could see the Tories cracking the 30% mark in Vancouver-Quadra, but I would say their ceiling is probably around 33% and with the NDP being pretty weak in Vancouver-Quadra, that won't be nearly enough.
As for the comment on if the Conservatives had a Red Tory leader they could win Toronto Centre, I disagree. I think that riding has swung enough to the left that having such a leader would make little difference (it would only hurt them badly out west and in more conservative areas). I don't think it is winnable for them under any circumstances anymore, as shown by the Ontario election.
Anonymous - When I am talking about Red Tories, I am referring to people like Joe Clark, Robert Stanfield, Flora Macdonald, David Crombie, and Bill Davis. These people were to left of Martin, Chretien, and Dion, so if the Liberals can still win here I don't think they would be too right wing for the ridings. Now it is also true that back then the Liberals were more like the NDP today. If anything the Progressive Conservatives then were like the Liberals today and the Liberals like the NDP.
As for it costing the Tories out West, the West is a diverse place and not monolithically right wing. I am from BC it is far from a conservative province. In fact a Red Tory might make the party more sellable in the Lower Mainland, while it could hurt them in the Interior, but there are more seats in the Lower Mainland than Interior. In addition Gordon Campbell took a right wing approach and his first term and nearly lost the election in 2005, but in his second term has taken a more centrist approach which has angered a lot of right wingers, but yet he has a huge lead over the NDP in the polls and a positive approval rating so if anything it says British Columbians like a more centrist option versus a more right wing one. I though do agree with Campbell's approach in his first term as much like in 1993 federally, tough choices needed to be made, but I also support his more centrist approach in his second term.
Even in Alberta, if there is no right wing party, where will they go, so I suspect they would still vote for a Red Tory since there is no other alternative much the way Joe Clark and Robert Stanfield swept Alberta. And never mind Peter Lougheed won a larger share of the popular vote and seats than either Ralph Klein or Don Getty and he was somewhat of a Red Tory.
I honestly don't think it makes a difference who the Conservatives are led by: they won't win Toronto Centre. The riding has over time become a solid Liberal riding both federally and provincially. I doubt it is so much the Conservatives swinging to the right; rather, the riding swinging to the left.
As the younger generation gets older, there is an influx of younger voters who are mainly urban liberals or "champagne socialists" more likely to vote Liberal or NDP, respectively. Also, throw in an increasing immigrant community (which tends to strongly vote Liberal). With an increase in population in both the immigrant and gay communities, not to mention a likely influx of younger voters, this riding is definitely farther to the left than it was 20 years ago.
BC is probably the hardest province to peg because it lacks a single political identity. The Liberals are strong in urban areas, yet practically invisible outside of the GVRD, only holding one riding outside of the region (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) mainly due to the personal popularity of the MP). The Conservatives have no shot winning in Vancouver proper, but are a force in Surrey, Langley, Maple Ridge, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, and are still quite competitive in Coquitlam, Richmond, and the North Shore. The NDP is stronger than anywhere else in the province, and, here on the Island, went from no ridings to holding 3 of the 6 ridings. Their success, however, is largely contingent on whether or not the provincial NDP is in government; the federal NDP tends to do better when their provincial brethren aren't in power (mainly because people forget how bad they were at running things). So yeah, to give BC any sort of homogenous identity is shortsighted.
I honestly don't think it makes a difference who the Conservatives are led by: they won't win Toronto Centre. The riding has over time become a solid Liberal riding both federally and provincially. I doubt it is so much the Conservatives swinging to the right; rather, the riding swinging to the left.
As the younger generation gets older, there is an influx of younger voters who are mainly urban liberals or "champagne socialists" more likely to vote Liberal or NDP, respectively. Also, throw in an increasing immigrant community (which tends to strongly vote Liberal). With an increase in population in both the immigrant and gay communities, not to mention a likely influx of younger voters, this riding is definitely farther to the left than it was 20 years ago.
I am not disagreeing that the riding hasn't swung to the left. Part of this to is also due to the ridings' boundary changes as Rosedale plays less of a prominent role while Cabbagetown and Regent Park have more clout. Still I think the Tories wouldn't get clobbered as badly if they had a Red Tory as opposed to a more right wing one and they might have a shot in Toronto proper. However, it would have to be a very Red Tory, otherwise one who was essentially on the same spot of the ideological spectrum as the Liberals.
In addition too, people base their opinions on parties partly due to previous leaders. For example, here in Ontario, the Ontario PCs are still viewed as right wing as people will automatically view any leader as a successor of Harris even if they aren't. The same could be said back in 1995 when the party was viewed as more centrist/left than it was due the legacy of Bill Davis.
In BC, I would generally agree with your assessment.
For the Liberals - They dominated Vancouver proper, are competitive in the suburbs and Victoria area, while dead everywhere else.
For the Conservatives - They dominate the Interior and Fraser Valley, are competitive in the suburbs although the further one gets from Vancouver the better they tend to do, i.e. Langley is rock solid Conservative, while they are weakest in Burnaby. Vancouver Island is a wild card and often depends heavily on how competitive the NDP is, while they are non-existent in Vancouver proper.
The NDP - If in power provincially, they usually get decimated province wide while when out of power they are more competitive and of the three parties they are probably the only one whose support in Rural BC and Urban BC is roughly the same as opposed to the Liberals who are much stronger in urban BC and Tories more so in Rural BC. With the NDP their support tends to be based less on population density but more on average income levels and levels of unionization. Areas with lower than average income levels and high rates of union participation is where they are strongest i.e. Vancouver Island, North Coast, West Kootenays, Eastern Suburbs, Northern Surrey, and East side of Vancouver. Areas such as West Side of Vancouver, Fraser Valley, Richmond, and North Shore, they usually get clobbered irrespective of whether they are in power or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home