July 9 - The following item appeared July 7 in the Globe and Mail and is all the more interesting when put into context with suspicions about Canadian PM Paul Martin's ties with Earncliffe [Act II, Scene 1.] Firm headed by Martin aide got $92,082 for medicare poll:

OTTAWA -- The federal government hired a communications firm with close ties to Prime Minister Paul Martin to track public opinion through every twist and turn of last fall's health-care summit between Mr. Martin and the provincial premiers.

The survey by Veraxis research and communications, which is headed by senior Martin adviser David Herle, tested support for the various proposals being considered, as well as who would bear the blame if the talks were to fall apart.

[...]

Among the survey's listed objectives were to "monitor change in public opinion throughout the course of the FMM [first ministers meeting]."

When that survey ended, the department commissioned another poll by the Strategic Counsel, which is now The Globe and Mail's pollster, at a cost of $162,142 to track public opinion throughout the week after the summit through phone calls and focus groups.

Conservative health critic Stephen Fletcher, who observed the summit first hand, said the government's use of rolling polls is "unbelievable."

Mr. Fletcher said it appears the Liberals are using Health Canada dollars to help craft partisan messages for the Liberals.

[...]

Mr. Herle, who was formerly with Earnscliffe Research and Communications, was the Liberal Party's election campaign manager.

In truth, there aren't many Canadians who will deny that it's time to throw the bums out, but many are convinced that Harper is "scary." I'm tempted to agree: his willingness to go along with the Liberal Party and throw more money into failed programs as well as his denouncement of a "two tiered" health system worries me, but of course that's not what people here mean. But a recent post by The Hack places the Scary Factor in a global context and the conclusion will surprise many.

According to one Canadian, Harper is not right-wing at all in a global context but left of that which is defined as right-wing in many countries. The Hack quotes a fascinating letter by James Allan that appeared in the National Post. Mr. Allan is a Canadian who lived in New Zealand and Australia for nearly 20 years and he brings some long-need perspective to this whole "scary" argument:

But here's the odd thing. In global terms, it's simply not true. Take today's Tories and Stephen Harper out of Canada and plunk them in New Zealand and they would be to the left of Helen Clark's Labour government. Down in New Zealand, there is a two-tier health system; there are civil unions but no gay marriage; the economy is far less heavily regulated in terms of labour laws, tax policy and tariffs than anything Harper is proposing.

The same goes for Australia. Compare the policies of the left-wing Labour Party there (on defence, immigration, the environment, health, education, you name it) to Canadian Tories' policies and Harper consistently stands to the left of Australian Labour, not the right.

And this is the same Tory party that is demonized in Canada for being "too right wing." Frankly, it was disorienting to return to Canada and to be met, continually, with this total lack of global perspective.

All I can say to that is that people down in Australia and New Zealand, even in the U.K., must be made of sterner stuff. They would never rejoice in such self-emasculation.

Posted by: Debbye at 04:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 5 kb.

July 2 - Excellent post by Flea - He's tipped - in which he links to a post which sadly observes the lack of coherent policies in matters other than gay marriage by the Conservative Party of Canada.

The post linked to this one from N=1 who wrote some follow-up posts here, here and here. I would strongly urge Americans to read these posts, as - and I honestly mean no disrespect by this - Canadian conservatives are to some extent freed from the personal concerns of war to examine and debate issues over which we are less focused but which we should not entirely ignore.

Although I have a great deal of admiration for Stephen Harper personally and although terming a union between gay couples "marriage" is not as important to me as to others, I was worried when opposition to gay marriage was the rallying point around which the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties merged yet, as I believed there were sound reasons around which to form a political party to oppose Liberal rule, I hoped they would be able to build the party on the basis of principled opposition to the imposition of nanny statism.

Regarding the issue of gay marriage in the U.S., I am opposed to a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage (I don't think it is properly a Constitutional issue) but must admit that it has at least initiated some serious discussion over the issue, something that was missing up here as it was imposed - rightly or wrongly - by judicial fiat.

I may have been unprepared to expand my definition of marriage beyond the traditional one of being a union between a man and a woman, but it is something I know I will come to accept especially now that it has become law in Canada. Legislating it as a right and then later removing it is not something I believe I can accept because I don't believe it would be just.

Like many others, I take issue with the manner in which it came to become law but we've got out own Supreme Court issues and I am far more concerned over the recent U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision which stripped personal property rights than the Canadian Supreme Court which awarded personal rights and am much more willing to fight the Kelo ruling than Bill C-38 (although Angry could be right, and this is will provoke contingent issues that will deepen Canadian polarization - although I fail to see how any potential challenge to monogamy can in truth be connected to recognition of gay marriage; the definition of marriage remains, in law, as being between two people.)

To put it more concisely, the decision in Kelo vs. New London has put things in perspective. Kelo clarifies that the true battleground is that of personal freedom and property rights vs. the encroachment of the state - which actually believes it has rights not accorded to it by the people - and not that of loving gay couples who want their committment to one another to be acknowledged by the state and, I suspect as importantly, by the people.

The failure of the CPC to assert itself confidently and aggressively in matters other than gay marriage at a period when Canadians are confronting increasingly higher taxes, the disaster of their health care system, the decay of their armed forces and the corruption not only of the ruling Liberal Party but of government itself has been disappointing. It is comparable to the Sept. 10 mentality of Democrats; if they truly believe that gay marriage is the most important issue facing Canadians then they are seriously out of touch with the fundamental issues facing people up here and almost as unfit to run the country as the Liberals.

The Conservative Party up here has behaved much like the Democrats in that both restrict themselves to opposing rather than proposing and thus have failed to electrify voters with vision and solutions. When will either of them grow up? The people of both countries deserve better.

July 3 - 17:20: Maybe I failed to make my one main point about gay marriage strongly enough:

To reiterate: the one prospect I find insupportable is that of allowing gays to marry yet a future Conservative Party government suddenly declaring those marriages null and void. Try to put yourselves in the position of marrying, making plans for a future together and even making joint financial investments and then imagine being told your marriage is no longer legitimate.

Forget the circusy atmosphere we see on television and some of the wilder "activists" showcased by a sensationalist media and focus on the human face of this issue. Gay couples love one another - in probably the same variables of intensity and committment as straight couples - and I believe their love is entitled to respect.

The damage to the institution of marriage was done long before gays emerged from the closet. We can blame easier divorces, the pill, Roe vs. Wade, or the sexual revolution and even the "disposable society" but we simply cannot with any honesty blame gays much less instituting gay marriage.

Continuing to oppose gay marriage now that it has passed in Parliament is much too much like the "selected not elected" crowd that has disrupted U.S. politics far too much in our recent past, and the CPC is likely to face the same kind of backlash that Democrats encountered in '04.

Lastly, a suspicious person (like me) might wonder if the focus on gay marriage as The Most Important Issue of the Day is intentionally diverting attention from other bread-and-butter issues.

There are serious challenges facing Canada and the CPC should endeavour to propose solutions to them. At the risk of getting cyber-slammed, I really think they need to "move on" and exhibit some freaking leadership.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 983 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Have you seen this? I hope it works: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2005 07:41 AM (PuNh2)

2 "although I fail to see how any potential challenge to monogamy can in truth be connected to recognition of gay marriage; the definition of marriage remains, in law, as being between two people." Debbye, What is there to stop polygamist marriage? What is there to stop adult-child marriage? How about man-dog marriage? The rules have been thrown out. Any objection that applies to polygamist marriage or adult-child marriage or man-dog marriage is identical to the objections to gay marriage; in the eyes of the Supreme court or the government they would be just as invalid. Yes, property rights are important. However, societies have functioned without property rights (for example, there are no property rights in Canada). Can you really say that a society can function once it descends into depravity?

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 03, 2005 12:13 PM (pPVQ0)

3 Man-child will have to come first. Man-dog marriage would have two problems to deal with - inter-species and age (unless one finds a dog over 1 . But, give them time.

Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2005 01:07 PM (PuNh2)

4 I get what that what you're saying, Ed, in that the floodgates may have been opened, yet I just don't see the logical connection between gay marriage, which is restricted as being between two persons, and the other possible consequences you mention. Polygamy is permitted in many Muslim countries, yet gay marriage is not. The basis for any challenge to our definition of marriage as a monogamous union won't be dependent on the legality of gay unions, but more likely on cultural grounds but economics will probably factor in refusing to allow it. Child marriage is tricky because the age of consent is so low (I think too low) and, although I am not a lawyer, I suspect a challenge there is more likely to be based on the age of consent than on enshrined gay marriage. Marriage to a child (i.e, someone under the age of consent) would be pedophilia which is most definitely not the same as homosexuality. As a side note, more girls are sexually assaulted than boys, yet we seem to be more outraged when boys are assaulted. Jay, the age of consent up here goes as low as 14! Besides, attempting to legalize inter-specifies marriage will likely face stiff opposition from PETA, and we really don't want to contemplate the advertising campaign they'd launch to fight it. And yes, I saw the Souter link you mentioned above but wasn't sure it if was a joke (it would fit nicely on the Onion or Scrappleface websites) or for real. To reiterate: the one prospect I find insupportable is that of allowing gays to marry yet a future Conservative Party government suddenly declaring those marriages null and void. That would be so very wrong.

Posted by: Debbye at July 03, 2005 04:41 PM (2Tmgx)

5 Debbye, marriage used to be restricted to two persons of opposite sex. Now that the "opposite sex" restriction has been removed, what possible argument can there be to removing the "two persons" restriction? As far as I can see, there is no argument against removing the "two persons" restriction that was not already used (and declared invalid by the Supreme Court and the government) against the "opposite sex" restriction. Similarly, the age of consent restriction no longer holds water; to uphold this restriction is to deny pedophiles equality under the law. Even marriage with animals cannot be prohibited anymore; that would deny bestialists equality under the law. ---------------------------------------------- Is marriage a right? If it is, then divorce cannot be a right, as the two are mutually exclusive. If marriage is a right, and I ask a woman to marry me and she says "no", is she violating my rights? My central point here Debbye is that this has not been thought through at all. Marriage is not a right. The arguments used to enshrine it as a right are disingenuous at best, and at the worst, plain evil. Calling gay marriage a "right" cheapens not only the term "marriage" but also "rights". People may shrug their shoulders that the term "marriage" has been rendered meaningless by the inclusion of its opposite. What will they do when they realize that the word "right" also has been rendered meaningless?

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 03, 2005 06:16 PM (pPVQ0)

6 BTW, that Souter link is for real; someone is using eminent domain to have his house torn down to make way for a hotel.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 03, 2005 06:18 PM (pPVQ0)

7 Debbye, I don't mean to slam you. I don't feel that I am either; I just think that this is completely wrong. And I am not limiting this to you either, I have posted this same set of questions in several blogs. If anyone responds with a single valid argument (valid meaning "not invalidated by the Supreme Court and government of Canada as an argument against same-sex marriage"), then I will spread that argument to each blog on which I have posed the question. ------------------------------------------- Government cannot grant rights. Rights are immutable. If you accept that government can grant rights, then you must accept that government can take them away - in which case, what you are talking about are not "rights" but "privileges".

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 03, 2005 07:12 PM (pPVQ0)

8 Ed, my crack about being cyber-slammed was due to my invoking the "move on" phrase which has a different connotation for Americans, but I certainly was not referring to you! Obviously I believe my rights are inherent, and agree with you that marriage is not a right but a freely entered social contract with or without religious blessing. But the laws of this country pay benefits to married people in the event of death or disability. The one argument against gay marriage could be that it produces no progeny, aka future tax payers, but so many hetero couples are consciously chosing not to have children so penalizing gay couples would be inequal application of the law. Actually, I was reading some of the comments over at N=1's blog and it struck me that any challenge to monogamous marriage would most likely be based on the basis of religous freedoms. Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality, and despite the failure of the courts to protect children from the predators I think any government which removed legislation which criminalizes and prosecutes pedophiles would be voted from office. It is a no go zone, probably more so today than even a year ago. By the way, reform of the manner in which judges are selected is another excellent focus for the CPC. One thing about which I suspect we both agree is that the federal government has no business getting involved in marriage because it is a provincial concern. That's the issue behind this one: increased centralisation. I could wholeheartedly support the CPC formulating a platform to reduce federal rule in provincial matters!

Posted by: Debbye at July 03, 2005 07:33 PM (ybCxK)

9 No need to worry about the *floodgates being opened*, as to a variety of unions under the term *Marriage*. Marriage is a term used to depict the public recognition of two people who make vows of loyalty to each other and where having children is a possibility. Just because a misguided government passes a bill to change the meaning of the term *Marriage*, does not mean that the term is actually changed. Bill C-38 merely allows that the term marriage can be applied to the *Civil Bond* paperwork, but the agreement remains a civil bond. The true meaning of the term marriage remains unchanged in the collective public mind. No number of incorrectly labeled documents will mean anything other than *civil bond*. As that scrappy old Quebec scammer would say, *a truth is a truth, and when you know it is a truth, then it is da truth.* 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 03, 2005 07:55 PM (rmMzv)

10 Unfortunately Tony, under the law the term has been changed. My concern is with the laws as they stand today. As Debbye said, any government that legalized pedophilia would be voted from office... but as we have seen, it is not necessary for a government to actually enact such a law. It is sufficient for the Supreme Court to rewrite the charter of rights, reading in rights where none exist.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 03, 2005 10:52 PM (pPVQ0)

11 "Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality" Debbye, "it is not the same" is not a valid argument. That argument was already used by the defenders of traditional marriage (ie "same-sex relationships are not the same as traditional marriages"). Thus this argument has already been declared invalid by the Supreme Court and the government. I have already posed this same question at Angry in the Great White North, Small Dead Animals, and Tory Blue. So far, nobody has come up with a single valid reason why polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality should not also be included in the definition of marriage ("valid" meaning "not already considered and ruled invalid by the Supreme Court and government of Canada"). Most of the responses have been either "right on Ed" or "you're a bigot", neither of which answers my question. (I find the "you're a bigot" response particularly entertaining, considering that I am arguing for the *inclusion* or these other forms of relationship in the definition of marriage.)

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 04, 2005 03:18 PM (pPVQ0)

12 Over at AitGWN J. Bielecki brought up the only valid argument I have seen so far against pedophilia and bestiality: that at least one of the participants is incapable of legally giving consent. So far, there have been no valid arguments against including polygamy as a legal form of marriage. J. Bielecki brought up a further possibility: that the restriction against "intrafamily" relations is now also invalid. I will be posting something on my blog soon to cover this issue. Thanks to all who have participated in the discussion.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 05, 2005 12:06 AM (pPVQ0)

13 Ed, sorry about not responding. I'm not quitting the field but there was this birthday party which occupied my attention as well as this uncontrollable urge to sing "Yankee Doodle" at inopportune moments. As to your points, the principle of "consent" will probably continue to hold sway (at least for now) but I retreat to my belief that the CPC needs to expand from what looks like a one-plank party and formulate proposals that will address unexamined judicial appointments and the unelected Senate (which is the worse kind of throwback to pre-Revolutionary War political abuse) and start acting as though they are prepared to offer Canadians thoughtful, political leadership. But then I am an American, and one of my core beliefs is that the government should fear us. I realize that Canadians have put up with things that would have had me and my fellow countrymen standing on the lawn of Parliament Hill in less than happy moods. You may well be right and bestiality and pedophilia will be decriminalized but it won't be because gay marriage received legislative approval but because the distance between government and the will of the people has become so vast that a revolution or national dissolution is the only remedy. Lastly, and I have no facts to back this up, I firmly believe that most gays would also oppose decriminalizing bestiality and pedophia.

Posted by: Debbye at July 05, 2005 12:08 AM (eAlPX)

14 Debbye, Happy 4th of July, God bless America etc. Of course, the issue of polygamy still exists, and J. Bielecki brought up "intrafamilial" relationships as well. (the questionable-content filter has rejected the more common term) Now, while it may be that gays (and indeed the vast majority of people) would oppose bestiality and pedophilia, such opposition has been proven irrelevant. After all, homosexuality itself has progressed from "illegal", to "mental disorder", to "if you don't accept it you're a bigot", to "equal to heterosexual marriage" in less than 4 decades.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 05, 2005 01:41 AM (pPVQ0)

15 Ed, I don't believe that homosexuality is a disorder and regard it as being as relevant to a person's character as eye colour. I guess I see the problem boiling down to the CPC focusing on tactics rather than strategy. Their "us too" responses regarding health care and federal spending doesn't offer the electorate clear policy positions but the threat to nullify gay marriages ex post facto sets off alarms because it is patently unfair. We'll continue to disagree on this, I suspect! (I hope this time the comment gets posted ...)

Posted by: Debbye at July 05, 2005 04:34 PM (ABn+1)

16 I have nothing to say, except, it's always fun to follow a good debate. 73's Ooops, who said that? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 07, 2005 10:57 PM (rmMzv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment