On March 19^th the Globe and Mail (subscription wall) ran an article from the Canadian press entitled “Conservatives shed Reform baggage in move to centre”.   The focal point of the article was Elsie Wayne’s failure to have the party stand against abortion, but the article did mention others.   “Also removed from party’s platform were planks calling for the creation of a citizens assembly to adopt proportional representation, holding elections on fixed dates, referendums for constitutional amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance.” 

The question arises, though, by failing to endorse Elsie Wayne’s motion did the party moved to the center?  Of course not.  The party’s position on abortion going in was exactly what it was going out.  Confused.   Harper has said the Conservative Party will not table legislation on abortion, but that he would allow private members bills and he would not instruct his caucus how to vote.  However, he has also said that it is a provincial matter, presumably making any such potential vote unconstitutional. 

That said, confused policy is often good politics.  By talking out of both sides of his mouth, Harper has managed keep his critics at by and “theo cons”, such as Mary Ellen Douglas, Ontario President of Campaign Life Coalition, happy.   “I am happy to see that the Conservatives recognize that abortion funding is a provincial issue. We have been telling our provincial politicians that for years, but they keep insisting that the issue is federal.”  From watching what has transpired in the States, Marry Ellen knows that the best way of taking away abortion rights is to have the Provinces do it in a piecemeal fashion.  

As for “proportional representation, holding elections on fixed dates, referendums for constitutional amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance”, to call the abandonment of these platforms as constituting a move to the center is just plain weird.  Proportional representation once made political strategic sense for the party.  It does so no longer and is now PR strongest backers are the NDP.   As they extend the election cycle, fixed elections are not really practical for any party, let alone one with less money than the Liberals.   Besides, it is hard to say that such a policy is necessarily left or right.  As for amendments and general referendums for issues of national importance, Harper is not about to scuttle any chance to join up with Americans on some foreign adventure by letting the Canadian people decide important issue, such as whether or not to join the US in going to war. 

“This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... "   

“We also need to rediscover Burkean conservatism because the emerging debates on foreign affairs should be fought on moral grounds. Current challenges in dealing with terrorism and its sponsors, as well as the emerging debate on the goals of the U.S. as the sole superpower, will be well served by conservative insights on preserving historic values and moral insights on right and wrong. As we have seen in recent months, these are debates where modern liberals (with the exception of Tony Blair) have no answers: they are trapped in their framework of moral neutrality, moral relativism and moral equivalence.” 

So much for the move to the middle narrative, but where does Harper want to take the country on social issues?   Harper wants to “revise” the current agenda and take Canada to the right, a la, George Bush.  In this respect the ending of his speech to the convention faithful was very apropos.  “Thank you.  God Bless Canada.”  For those a little slow, substitute the word “Canada” and put in “America”.  http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050318-Con ventionAddress-Harper.pdf" title="http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050318-Con ventionAddress-Harper.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.conservative.ca/do... 

“REVISING THE AGENDA

This is not as difficult as it sounds. It does not require a radical redefinition of conservatism, but rather a shifting of the balance between the economic and social conservative sides that have always been there.

In particular, Canadian conservatives need to rediscover the virtues of Burkean conservatism as a key component of that balance. Rediscovering this agenda, to paraphrase Ted Byfield, means not just worrying about what the state costs, but also worrying about what the state values.

For example, we need to rediscover Burkean or social conservatism because a growing body of evidence points to the damage the welfare state is having on our most important institutions, particularly the family. Conservatives have to give much higher place to confronting threats posed by modern liberals to this building block of our society.

Take, for example, the debate over the rights of parents to discipline their children - the so-called spanking debate. Of course, there are legitimate limits to the use of force by parents - limits outlined in the Criminal Code. Yet the most recent Liberal Throne Speech, as part of its "children's agenda," hinted at more government interference in the family. We saw the capacity for this abuse of power in the events that took place in Aylmer, Ont. Children there were seized for no reason other than the state disagreed with the religious views of their parents. No conservative can support this kind of intrusion, and conservatives have an obligation to speak forcefully against such acts.

This same argument applies equally to a range of issues involving the family (all omitted from the Throne Speech), such as banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda.”  

 

Where to begin?  Well, let us start off with Harper’s views of the Aylmer case, views which he has never repudiated. 

The judge ruled in the Aylmer case that spanking the kids with a metal “spanking stick” went well beyond the use of “reasonable force” and that Children’s Aid Society had every right to intervene; the parents claims to the contrary were “sheer nonsense”.  "No community, or society, could reasonably agree with the concept that a parent who sexually abuses or physically mistreats a child should be entitled to give his/her consent to the interviewing, or examination of the child by a member of a Children's Aid Society." 

The Conservative party has vowed to stop such activist judges and Children’s Aid Societies from “interfering” again.  http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POL ICY" title="http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POL ICY" target="_blank"http://www.conservative.ca/do...%20DECLARATION.pdf  Policy Declaration: “The Conservative party believes in the right and duty of parents to raise their own children responsibly according to their own beliefs.  We belief that no person, government or agency has the right to interfere in that process accept though due process of law” 

The promise to ban child pornography should raise a few eyebrows.   First, call me stupid, but is child pornography not already banned?  Oh yes, I remember now.  Harper, err some Conservative staffer, decided to test drive this line during the last election campaign.  "Today, [Paul] Martin says he's against child pornography. But his voting record proves otherwise."   "The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography?"  When asked whether he thought the line was in bad taste he said this.  “What's in bad taste is the Liberal party's record on child pornography". 

Since the election debacle, Harper has toned things down the Rhetoric a bit.   Policy Declaration “The conservative government will eliminate all defenses that are currently used to justify the possession of child pornography.”  Sorry Harper there is only one.  The “public good” defense, or if you prefer the Lolita Loophole prevents the state from seizing copies of, well, Lolita.  This was the Globe and Mail’s take on the issue during the election. (subscriber wall)   

“What nonsense.  Canada has a tough a child porn law, brought in by the Liberals, among other things, provides for sentences of up 10 years in jail for putting child porn on the internet. …   The exception Mr. Harper refers to is the “public good defense, which would exempt writers, artists, researchers and legal authorities from prosecution in such circumstances.  Without it, the police could potentially break down your door for owning a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita.  Is that the kind of Canada that Mr. Harper wants?  To include such a sensible and necessary clause in a bill does not make the Liberals soft on Porn.”      & nbsp;

Needless to say, if that is the way the Globe and Mail feels about Harper’s policy agenda, maybe they should again focus on it instead of helping to conceal it by printing articles that such that the Conservatives have moved to the center in terms of policy.  

Raising the age of consent:  Policy Declaration: “The conservative party would rename the Age of Consent to the Age of Protection and raise it from 14 to 16.”  Age of protection huh; that is an interesting name change. 

Gay Marriage:  Harper has “always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy."  This is true with regards to Gay marriage.  Conservative MPs have the right to vote as they see fit.   However, what “controversial issues of a moral or religious nature” get adopted as party policy and what do not is a matter of political expediency.  Opposing gay marriage is politically expedient right now.  Opposing abortion is not.  

“we must realize that real gains are inevitably incremental. This, in my experience, is harder for social conservatives than for economic conservatives. The explicitly moral orientation of social conservatives makes it difficult for many to accept the incremental approach. Yet, in democratic politics, any other approach will certainly fail. We should never accept the standard of just being "better than the Liberals" - people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it - but conservatives should be satisfied if the agenda is moving in the right direction, even if slowly.”

 

Policy Declaration: “A Conservative government would support legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” 

The reason why gay marriage is harms the traditional family is simple.  It challenges what social conservatives hold near and dear, viz. “respect for customs and traditions (religious traditions above all)”.  If the state allows gay marriage, people might get the crazy idea that there is nothing wrong with be homosexual. 

Alas, education is a provincial responsibility.  Only with regard to first Nations people can the government seek to undermine, that “harmful” welfare state institution known as, public education.  “The Conservative Party proposes where available and agreed upon by all parties including provincial authorities to offer choice in schooling for first nations.”