Revenge of the socons

As regular readers know, I've been tracking the influence of the religious right within the Conservative Party since last summer. (See here, here, and here, for example).

Nor is my concern isolated--there has been concern expressed within the Conservative party over their role. In Sudbury, for example, the nomination of a Pentacostal pastor prompted a former Conservative candidate to quit the party (here); there were similar repercussions in Richmond following Darrel Reid's nomination (here).

There are new developments on this front. There are a handful of Conservative politicians whose voting record or publicly stated positions disappoint social conservatives (cf. here). Two of the more prominent in this group are Jame Moore in Port Moody, B.C., and John Baird in Ottawa-West Nepean. Both are prominent, promising, moderate conservatives; both are potential cabinet ministers in any future Conservative government. Both now have prominent local conservatives running against them because they do not toe the anti-ssm line.

The story can be read at Lifesite, which is closely associated with the Campaign Life Coalition, an anti-abortion group.

The aim is nothing less than to defeat these two Conservatives. Consider Pacheco's statement:

“If our campaign were to attract enough votes away from the Conservative Party in Ottawa West Nepean for Baird to lose, the Conservatives will get the message that social conservatives are serious about their politics,” Pacheco emphasized. “Moreover, since the next Parliament is likely to be a minority one again, the Conservative Party, should they lose the seat this election, will think twice about running another anti-family candidate again in two years time. On the other hand, if John Baird wins, the voters of Ottawa West Nepean will likely be represented by him for years and years to come, and there will be no chance of having their socially conservative views of marriage and family represented. In fact, quite the opposite will happen.”

Similar thoughts are expressed by Greg Watrich at his website (here):

Many of us in Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam voted for our current MP in previous elections. He has served us well in many ways over the years. However, it has become clear that our local Conservative MP has rejected one of the main commitments of his party from the previous election - to defend the traditional definition of marriage. Even after massive public protests, he has chosen to support the Liberals Same-Sex Marriage Legislation.

The Conservative Party has mandated that incumbent MPs can not be challenged for the nomination to be the party candidate in the upcoming federal election. Consequently, many Conservative Party members are supporting me to challenge our MP as an Independent candidate in the upcoming election to give each of us in Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam the opportunity to vote to restore our traditional values.

The attitude reflected here is highly dangerous for the Conservative Party, and (in my opinion) for the country. Not only are social conservatives organizing to win nominations within the party (which they are entitled to do), but they're willing to wreck the party's chances in ridings where they lose. If we take Pacheco at his word, a Baird win would make the riding association more difficult to take over next time; a Baird loss gives them another kick at the can.

While there may be those who take pleasure in this Conservative civil war--"it couldn't happen to a nicer party"--I respectfully disagree. One way or the other, we will eventually have a Conservative government in this country. It would do us all good if they somehow made themselves fit for that task.

[Edited]

Hiding Agendas (5): Cindy Silver's appearance before the senate

As I've been pointing out, Cindy Silver, the Conservative candidate in Vancouver North, wants to portray herself as a social moderate, asserting to a reporter from the North Shore News (here) that several of the positions that she publicly took as in-house lawyer for Focus on the Family were not her views, but those of her client.

This cannot stand-up to much scrutiny. In April 1996 she appeared before a senate committee discussing extending federal civil rights protections in matters of employment and provision of services to gays. You can read the whole day's testimony in Hansard (here). But this extract strikes me as especially telling:

I would want to pose the question to the Senate on this issue: How would sexual orientation be protected? I have three children between the ages of 13 and 5. If this bill is passed, what we teach them at home will be different from what they will learn at school. Already, there are pamphlets dealing with homophobia. Homophobia is everyone's problem. The fact is that I am not homophobic. I happen to believe that homosexuality is wrong. If that makes me homophobic, then these pamphlets are telling my children that their mother is homophobic and putting a very nasty name to something which I feel is a deeply held conviction."

What are we to make here of Ms. Silver's excuse that her arguments were as a lawyer and therefore potentially not her views?

Yes, she did appear at the senate as Focus on the Family's lawyer. But her argument here steps from the lawyerly to the personal. She asserts that she didn't want discrimination against homosexuals in employement to be outlawed because she thought that this would make it harder to teach her children that homosexuality is wrong. That may be consistent with her clients' view. But she is not talking about their children but her own.

For other Cindy Silver posts, follow the link.

Hiding Agendas (4): Cindy Silver's petition against recognizing gay relationships

As I've pointed out in several points, it seems that Cindy Silver, Conservative Canadidate in North Vancouver, is trying to portray herself as a social moderate. In a story about her in the North Shore News, Ms. Silver denies being a social conservative at all, and claims that she did not share all the positions that she had to take while she was lawyer for Focus on the Family. This may well be true. Only Ms. Silver knows her own mind.

There are occasions in her career where her actions seem to belie any suggestion of moderation. Here is one of them.

Parliamentary Hansard of Oct. 7, 1994:

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from Cindy Silver and 98 others where the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

Ten years ago, Ms. Silver petitioned parliament not to allow any legal recognition of gay relationships. The fact that she is mentioned by name suggests that she not merely signed the petition, but organized it.

Now, maybe her thinking has evolved on this issue, as it has for many of us. But if that is the case, a more forthright acknowledgement of the change and complete clarity of what she will vote for is in order.

(If Ms. Silver or her agents, who seem to read this site, wish to comment, they can email me at bucketsofgrewal@mac.com)

For other Cindy Silver posts, follow the link.

Hiding Agendas (3): look ma, no endorsements!

As you may know, last week I posted about changes to the endorsement page at the website of Cindy Silver, Conservative Candidate for North Vancouver.

It began when someone noticed that Ms. Silver had been endorsed by Sharon Hayes, a former Reform MP who is now on the board of directors of Focus on the Family Canada, for which Silver worked. Someone decided, it seems, that Ms. Hayes' endorsement was not worth keeping and it was deleted (see here, with screenshots).

The old pages were still available through google-cache, however. Once someone noticed that the change had been noticed, the google-cache was purged (see here).

Not only that, but it seems that one of the remaining endorsements contained something that Ms. Silver's campaign managers found awkward. One of her remaining endorsements implied that she was anti-abortion. Here it is:


But compare yesterday's page to this morning's:


Notice the difference? Cindy Silver's website no longer gives links to her own endorsement page. It is, as I write this, still there if you go to http://cindysilver.ca/endorsements.php. But please go see it now. Who knows how much longer it will last?

For other Cindy Silver posts, follow the link.

Hiding Agendas (2): learning the code

The North Shore News recently published a fairly sympathetic story about Cindy Silver, Conservative candidate in North Vancouver which included this:

Silver is still smarting from an opinion column in the Globe and Mail several months ago that described her as a member of the "religious right." Much of the controversy stems from Silver's five-year stint as in-house lawyer for Focus on the Family, a group which has lobbied against gay marriage and been active on other social issues.

Silver says that was a job and she does not share all of the views of the organization, such as those on abortion. "I'm for respectful disagreement," she says.

Fair enough. But look again at Ms. Silver's endorsement page (which I've pasted at the botton of this post.) Among her endorsements is one from Iain T. Benson, described as a lawyer, speaker and writer. He says about her

"[Cindy Silver] is concerned about the dignity of human person – all human persons – and that is the kind of voice Canada needs more of"

So what's the problem? Unless I'm completely missing the point, "all human persons" is a code for the unborn. Mr. Benson (as you can see by googling him, is Executive Director of The Centre for Cultural Renewal, a think-tank that aims at reinvigorating the religious element in public discourse, which in itself may be a worthy goal. Most of what he writes is serious and thoughtful and deserving serious engagement in the spirit in which it is offered.

But what does Mr. Benson mean here, unless to assure to pro-lifers that Ms. Silver is one of them? She believes, he assures us, in the dignity of all human persons.

Ms. Silver wants to assure voters that she is not a prolifer, but includes on her website an endorsement that implies that she is anti-abortion:


(On Ms. Silver's other attempts to distance herself from the prolife, Focus on the Family see here.)

For other Cindy Silver posts, follow the link.

Hiding agendas

Blogger Koby here and here discusses again the question of why Cindy Silver, Conservative nominee in North Vancouver has removed the endorsement of Sharon Hayes from her webpage (see here). Apparently Ms. Silver's web-people have made it so that the google cache was purged (for the method, see here).

The point is not trivial one. The decision to get one person or another to endorse a candidate may be a bit arbitrary, but the decision to remove one is less so. To go to the effort of covering-up the fact that an endorsement ever existed surely suggests a clearly defined objective here: to obscure Ms. Silver's association with Focus for the Family and its director Sharon Hayes. (For some speculation about what it is in Ms. Hayes past that is so embarrassing see Koby.)

Part of this is a campaign decision. Clearly Cindy Silver wants to minimize her association with Focus with the Family, for whom she worked. And so, in the recent piece about her in the North Shore News:

Another woman tells her that she's praying Stephen Harper will get in - literally. "Prayer will do it," she says, smiling.

Truthfully, it's not the kind of comment Silver is keen to receive in public.

Silver is still smarting from an opinion column in the Globe and Mail several months ago that described her as a member of the "religious right." Much of the controversy stems from Silver's five-year stint as in-house lawyer for Focus on the Family, a group which has lobbied against gay marriage and been active on other social issues.

Silver says that was a job and she does not share all of the views of the organization, such as those on abortion. "I'm for respectful disagreement," she says.

Silver says she would have preferred to see gay marriage handled as a "civil union" - a position also put forward in the past by Bell - but isn't eager to see the issue come back to Parliament now the law has been changed. If it does, she'll poll her constituents and vote accordingly, she says.

It is difficult to know where to start here. She seems to want to describe herself as a moderate on both same-sex marriage and on abortion. There are, however, reasons to doubt this. I'll try to return this to explain why in another post.

For other Cindy Silver posts, follow the link.

Harper & the fiscal imbalance

There's a good post over at Tilting at Windmill on Harper's attitude towards the so-called fiscal imbalance. He concludes with this point:

There are only two have provinces - Ontario and Alberta. If you are in any other province “fiscal rebalancing” means less money. And if you are in Ontario all the money “saved” will come out of your pocket paying for welfare and prisons for the poorer Canadians who flood to Toronto and the Golden HorseShoe.

While I suspect this might be overstated--depending on the specific 'solution' adopted, Quebec and BC might also benefit from a rejigging of Canada's fiscal arrangements, the point remains valid. A 'tax-point' transferred to the provinces (which is probably what is at issue here) is worth more when given to Alberta than to Newfoundland, and it is worth making clear why that is: it is because the average wages are higher in Alberta and therefore the marginal rate of taxation in our progressive system is higher there. Transferring tax-points would therefore undermine one of the chief advantages of the system. Anyway, go read it for yourself here.

Canada described as 'retarded cousin' by U.S. pundit, in spate of attacks

More American attacks on Canada.

Canada described as 'retarded cousin' by U.S. pundit, in spate of attacks
By BETH GORHAM
2005-12-19 15:40:00

WASHINGTON (CP) - Canada has been described lately by a conservative U.S. television host as "a stalker" and a "retarded cousin."

Another pundit recently asked if Canadians weren't getting "a little too big for their britches." There's been a spate of Canada-bashing by right-wing media commentators in the United States ever since Prime Minister Paul Martin's complaints about lumber penalties and U.S. policy on climate change. His remarks prompted an unusual rebuke last week from the American ambassador.

The attacks on Canada have had web bloggers typing overtime and a non-profit group that's monitoring the trend, Media Matters for America, says it's disturbing.

Yet Paul Waldman, a senior fellow for the group, said Monday the criticism is confined to the usual faction that erupts whenever there's criticism of President George W. Bush's administration and it probably won't last past Canada's Jan. 23 election.

"There are always going to be occasions when it pops up. But Canada is never going to occupy an extraordinary amount of American thought," said Waldman.

"It's more like: 'Who can we beat on today?' It's never going to reach the heights of animosity toward France in the run-up to the Iraq war."

Last week, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, a well-known conservative pundit, let loose with a string of anti-Canada rants.

"Anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York," he said.

"Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada."

Carlson also said it's pointless to tell Canada to stop criticizing the United States.

"It only eggs them on. Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States, right? Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right?"

"It's unrequited love between Canada and the United States. We, meanwhile, don't even know Canada's name. We pay no attention at all," he said.

The day before, Fox News host Neil Cavuto highlighted Martin's remark at a news conference that the United States is a "reticent nation" lacking a "global conscience" on climate change. "So have the Canadians gotten a little too big for their britches?" Cavuto asked. "Could our neighbours to the north soon be our enemies?"

Douglas MacKinnon, a press secretary to former Republican senator Bob Dole, also recently accused Canada of harbouring terrorists. "Can Canada really be considered our friend anymore?" he asked in a recent commentary in the right-wing Washington Times newspaper.

"What other question can be asked when the Canadian government not only willingly allows Islamic terrorists into their country but does nothing to stop them from entering our nation?"

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins warned Martin last week to tone down anti-American jabs or risk hurting bilateral relations. But Martin was unrepentant, saying he would "not be dictated to" by the United States and his hard line appears to be resonating with some voters.

While the offensive from American pundits isn't widespread, it still has the potential to affect cross-border ties, said Waldman.

"On Capitol Hill, the TVs are turned to Fox News. This kind of media environment is what the White House pays attention to," he said.

"That hostility is probably shared by a lot of people in the administration."

Harper on division of seats

The following is from a story in the Edmonton Journal.

Harper made his own grassroots appeal, telling supporters Saturday in Vancouver that the current NDP bears little resemblance to the populist Tommy Douglas or Dave Barrett variety of the past.

“Today’s NDP is no longer a party of ordinary British Columbians. It’s for high taxes, it’s soft on crime, and it puts the demands of special interests ahead of the needs of ordinary working families,” Harper said.

The Tory leader made the pronouncement on the weekend after unveiling a broad “Stand up for B.C.” platform that includes the promise of more House of Commons seats for B.C., Alberta and Ontario — a potentially risky move in Quebec because it would reduce slightly that province’s relative share of seats in Parliament.

Harper, in an intense three-way race with the Liberals and New Democratic Party for B.C.’s 36 seats, predicted that Canadians will be staying up late on election night to see if West Coast voters will boot the Liberals from office.

The Conservatives are locked in a battle with the NDP in many parts of B.C., fighting over the populist, anti-establishment vote that swung to Reform in the 1990s but has started moving back to the NDP.

“British Columbia could elect some opposition MPs for a party (the NDP) that won’t change a government, or they can elect opposition MPs for a party (the Tories) that’s going to throw the entire political establishment out on its ear,” he said in an interview.

Canada’s current formula for redistributing seats every 10 years is biased against Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. because Quebec and the smaller provinces have constitutionally-guaranteed minimum number of seats.

Harper predicted that B.C. would get four more seats to go to 40, Alberta two or three more than their current 28, and Ontario would go from 106 to 116.

Quebec, which has 75 seats in the 308-seat chamber, would see its relative share of seats compared to larger provinces drop slightly under the Tory plan.

“There may be some reaction (in Quebec) on that, but we’re simply doing a fairer system here,” he said, stressing that the Constitution intended to have provinces represented based on population.

“We’ve departed simply too far from the reality.” He said there are “other ways” to deal with Quebec’s concerns, and said he’ll reveal those plans later in the campaign.

Strangely, this is cast as especially effecting Quebec. (Well, not that strangely.) In fact, however, the effect on Quebec would be minor, which would see it's share of parliamentary seats go from 75 of 308 (24.4%) to 75 of 324 (23.2%).

The real effect that this would have would be on the smaller provinces. Under the current system, PEI is overrepresented by 2, NS by 2, NB by 3, NF by 2, Manitoba by 3 and Saskatchewan by 4. Is Harper arguing for fewer seats for them?

Proof that Harper's scary

(Hattip to L4L.)

Standing up for BC at whose expense?

The Conservatives have released a BC plank to their policy platform. Included within it is this statement, which deserves to be fleshed out a little:

Under a Conservative government, British Columbia will have more seats in the House of Commons and more equitable representation in the Senate.

How will this be accomplished? Changing the number of senate seats for BC is in itself a reasonable proposal--but the only way to accomplish that is to negotiate an emendation to the constitution, which is a pretty hard thing to do.

And an increase in the number of seats for BC? Perhaps that's justifiable, too, but it would be a difficult thing to do without decreasing the number of seats allotted to the Atlantic provinces, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

Harper wasn't joking, he was mocking

Several bloggers, including Skippy the Wonder Dog have made some good points about the controversy about Harper and his comments to a right-wing think-tank in 1997.

Some of Harper's defenders have offered that Harper was joking, when he said. But consider the context and the butt of his jokes. This is some of what he said:

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

And he said it in front of a rightwing American think-tank.

Now, I'm not sure whether this was joking or not. (There are jokes in the speech, as one would expect.) But I think that saying that this was meant as a joke rather misintereprets the tone. Harper may indeed be looking for laughs, here. But from whom? and at whose expense?

Harper is not joking. He is mocking. And he is mocking his own country before American right-wingers in order to get a few laughs.

Personally, I don't think that's funny.

Why did Cindy Silver remove the endorsement of Sharon Hayes?

Everyone no doubt remembers the foofurah last May about the way in which the religious right had been able to capture Conservative nominations in several ridings.

One of the nominees about whom concern was expressed was Cindy Silver, who had been legal counsel for Focus on the Family.


Until recently, however, Ms. Silver's endorsement page looked slightly different. Thanks to the miracle of google-cache, we know that it looked like this (here is a screen capture):


Who is Sharon Hayes? She is a former Reform MP who represented Port Moody-Coquitlam from 1993-1997. Ms. Hayes is best remembered for issuing a press release on Parliamentary letter-head accusing the Chinese of eating aborted fetuses. She is now on the board of Directors for Focus on the Family Canada.

Anyway, in her words: "When I first met Cindy twelve years ago I saw in her a unique combination of skills. Here is a woman whose person priorities are in place, who gets to the crux of the legal issues and find soutions, who speaks and writes well, and is wiling to wrok with and on behalf of others. As one of the first women elected to represent the Reform/Alliance Party, I would be delighted to see Cindy take the btaon and run with int in the next Conservative government."

For other Cindy Silver posts, follow the link.

Former candidate quits Conservatives over take-over by religious right

There's a story from Sudbury from last week that raises again the issue of the influence of the religious right within the Conservative Party.

Party over for former Tory

The man who ran for the Conservatives in Sudbury in the 2004 election has quit the party. Stephen Butcher, who came in third place behind Diane Marleau and Gerry McIntaggart, with 9,008 votes, said he no longer supports the values of the party.

“I no longer feel the Conservative Party of Canada, under the leadership of Stephen Harper and the present national council, represent the core values of the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada prior to the merger of the two parties,” he said in a letter which he released to the media.

Butcher said he believes the party is on a mission to promote Christianity, and will make anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation a priority if they form the next government.

He also disagrees with the way in which Kevin Serviss, the present candidate for the Sudbury Conservatives, was nominated last spring. Most of the people who voted for Serviss came from the church where he is a minister, and had bought party memberships right before the nomination, he said.

The president of the riding association, Bob Bateman, said he’s sorry to lose Butcher as a party member. However, Butcher fully supported the party’s policies in 2004, he said. No rules were violated during the nomination process, said Bateman.

“I have the feeling that Stephen is smarting. He had run a hard election the last time around, and the process being what it is, he was undervoted at the convention when he would or could have been re-nominated,” he said. “I fear there may be some sour grapes here.”

(For the original story of Serviss's nomination, see the story here and here.)

GST, SSM, & CPC

There has been much discussion both in the MSM and in the Blogworld about two positions recently taken by the Conservative Party.

The first was Harper's announcement that a Conservative government would hold another vote on same sex marriage; the second was his announcement that the Conservatives would lower the GST by 1% immediately, and another 1% in the near future.

It seems to me, however, that the combination of the two is significant. The two most important parts of the Conservative coalition in this country are Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives. How do these two policies reflect on that coalition?

Clearly the promise to have a vote on SSM is a gesture to the so-cons. Might a lowering of the GST as one to fis-cons? Here there is a problem.

GIven a choice as how to lower taxes, most conservative economists argue strongly that it is economically better to tax consumption (like the GST does) than to tax production though the capital gains or income taxes. (See the survey of economists' views, here).

What's interesting about the Conservatives' two big policy announcements of the election is that it reinforces the idea that fiscal conservatives are less influential in the party than social conservatives.

Buckets of inquisition

With a hat-tip to the Wingnuterer, I took the 'which Monty Python character are you' test and got the followin results:

You are a cardinal! You love to try & get others
into trouble, even if you have to make up
lies...NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!


What Monty Python Sketch Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

NP story on Evangelical activism

The National Post has a story today on a conference at the Crossroads Centre (which is where 100 Huntley Street is based). It is being organized by Tristan Emmanuel, who had appeared in the news last spring when stories about an alleged evangelical take-over of the Conservative Party.

Canada: Christians seek voice in politics: Evangelicals 'mocked'
Siri Agrell, National Post


Saturday, November 12, 2005


BURLINGTON, Ont. - With its neatly arrayed chairs and Christmas decorations, the atrium of the Crossroads Centre looks more ready to host a nativity play than a political workshop.

But 150 evangelical Christians from across the Golden Horseshoe region of southern Ontario will gather here today, outside the studio where the evangelical TV show 100 Huntley Club is filmed, for a lesson in political activism.

"In order to see anything different in Ottawa, we need to see a change in our culture," said Tristan Emmanuel, a conference organizer and executive director of the Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre. "People need to change. The church needs to change."

In the United States, the Christian community has emerged as an influential force behind the current Republican administration and the impetus toward faith-based initiatives.

Mr. Emmanuel believes that a similar move is necessary in Canada, but it is up to evangelical voters -- not political leaders -- to drive the agenda.

So Mr. Emmanuel is planning a televised town hall meeting in January, coinciding with a possible election call, when Christian Canadians could discuss their beliefs and priorities in an open forum.

By organizing events around political involvement rather than partisan stripes, he hopes party leaders will recognize the electoral advantage of acknowledging the Christian community in their campaigns.

"They're politicians and a politician won't take a step unless it's politically advantageous," he said.

Three million evangelical Christians live in Canada, a voting bloc whose political voice should not be dismissed or underestimated, Mr. Emmanuel said.

Christians have long been vilified by the Liberal party, he said, a trend crystallized by the public derision heaped on the creationist beliefs of former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.

"People like myself have been mocked over that issue," said Mr. Emmanuel, who is studying at the McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ont. "You would never do that with anyone else's religious views."

During Mr. Day's unsuccessful campaign to unseat the Liberals, Mr. Emmanuel said many evangelical Christians watched as religion was used to undermine Mr. Day's credibility as a leader, in spite of the fact that both former prime minister Jean Chretien and his replacement Paul Martin are avowed Roman Catholics.

But Mr. Emmanuel said he reached his breaking point during the 2004 federal election, when the Liberal government threatened the electorate with the Conservative party's "hidden agenda," which he believes was a thinly veiled attack on Christian beliefs.

"They used a strategy to vilify a natural constituency of the Conservative party," he said. "Normally you go after your opponent, not a specific community who might support him."

That was the moment he decided evangelicals had to demonstrate their political influence, not by throwing their weight behind a specific candidate but by making their voices heard at all levels of politics.

"Ideally, what we want to be is an organization that defends and advocates for Christians who want to be involved in the public square," Mr. Emmanuel said.

To that end, the conference has not invited MPs or would-be candidates to speak today, but rather Christian activists who believe their beliefs have been misrepresented or maligned.

"I basically looked at the last 10 years of political marginalization of the Christian view," he said of the invited speakers. "I think what people will take away is that this is happening, this mistreatment of our standpoint is not theoretical."

One of the speakers who will address attendees today is Chris Kempling, a B.C. teacher who was suspended from his job as a guidance counsellor after writing a series of letters to his local paper that criticized same-sex relationships.

The conference will also hear from Stephen Bennett, a U.S. radio personality, musician and public speaker who has flown to Canada to discuss his personal rejection of homosexuality. A self-professed "former homosexual," Mr. Bennett is now married to a woman and has dedicated himself to reaching out to "homosexuals who want to escape the lifestyle."

Mr. Emmanuel said the evangelical community is not necessarily going to fall in line behind Mr. Harper's Conservatives.

"I want to be careful not to be too critical, but I think Stephen Harper could do a better job defending our community," he said. "To be honest, I was shocked at his inability to fight for his beliefs and to keep the [sponsorship scandal] in the forefront of the debate."

Contrary to popular belief, he said evangelical voters are not politically monolithic.

Christians interested in social outreach and other "compassionate endeavours" might have a natural proclivity toward Liberal or NDP candidates, he said. But he said it is the public disavowals of religion that push the evangelical constituency toward the Conservatives.

"If you constantly marginalize us, that's when we could galvanized into one voting bloc," he said. "But really we're all over the map. We're pretty open-minded people."

The quantum mechanics of search engines

Most of the time, they do most of what you expect. Sometimes, however…

To see what I mean,

1. go to blogpulse.com.
2. In their search window, type "conservative t-shirts"
3. hit return

Here is a screen capture of what I got on Nov. 4th:

Here's an interesting one…

Literally, A Web Log, is a blog dedicated to track the abuse of the word 'literally'. Hmm. And people think Buckets of Grewal is weird….

August 24, 2005: Jakarta Post: Police target illegal institutes

The Jakarta Post
August 24, 2005
SECTION: 4

POLICE TARGET 19 MORE 'ILLEGAL' INSTITUTES

After sealing off the Institut Manajemen Global Indonesia (IMGI) for allegedly selling fake academic titles, the National Police said on Tuesday they were investigating 19 additional educational institutions. National Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Saud Usman Nasution said the 19 institutions were reportedly operating in Jakarta without licenses from the Directorate General of Higher Education at the Ministry of National Education.

The institutes include the International University Transfer Program, the International Agyata Foundation, the American Management University, the American International Institute of Management and Technology, the Washington International University, San Pedro College of Business Administration and Kennedy Western University.

"Their operations are similar to that of IMGI, which offered fake diplomas to the public for small amounts of money," Saud said.

He said the names of the 19 institutions had been obtained from the Ministry of Education.

The police have yet to make any arrests and are still gathering evidence against the institutes.

IMGI was reportedly working with American World University, Northern California Global University, Jakarta International Management Studies and Senior University to issue allegedly unauthorized diplomas, ranging from bachelor's degrees to doctorates.

As the investigation proceeded into IMGI, its graduates began to return their fictitious diplomas to the police.

Another National Police spokesman, Brig. Gen. Soenarko, said his office received a master's and a PhD issued by IMGI in May 2001.

The academic certificates were turned in by a graduate identified only by the initials SW.

"We promise that graduates who willingly return their certificates will face a less harsh punishment," Soenarko said.

He said the IMGI database showed that more than 100 PhDs and approximately 400 masters of science were issued by the institute.

To receive the degrees, it is alleged people simply had to pay between Rp 1.5 million (US$ 150) and Rp 5 million.

Several top government officials, including a former vice president and former Cabinet ministers, along with Muslim clerics and a number of retired senior police officers, are among the some 5,000 graduates of IMGI.

If these graduates are found to have used their academic titles from the unregistered educational institute, they could face up to five years in jail or a maximum fine of Rp 500 million (US$ 50,500), according to the National Education Law.

Eva C. Komandjaja, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Faron Ellis' earlier 'research' on Western independence

There's been some interesting reactions to the recent story in the Western Standard that claims that separatist sentiments in the west are soaring. Over at the Grandite, it's been pointed out (here and here) that JMCK and Faron Ellis, who did this poll, is not really at an arms length from the Western Standard.

Faron Ellis is described thus in the Western Standard story:

The research, which was conducted by pollster Faron Ellis, a political science professor at the Lethbridge Community College, was commissioned by the Western Standard to determine how well the federal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin has been managing the issue of western alienation–something that Martin promised to reduce as part of his 2004 election campaign.

The description is probably misleading. Lethbridge Community College has no Political Science Department, so Ellis is hardly a 'political science professor', all the more since being a community college, the LCC will not have 'professors', but 'instructors'. As far as I can tell he is an instructor in 'Applied Social Sciences' and in charge of Citizen Society Research Lab, which describes itself as

"an applied research and teaching initiative specializing in quantitative public opinion studies. Each semester, Lethbridge Community College and Athabasca University students conduct one omnibus public opinion survey within the city of Lethbridge."

At the site, you can find earlier student surveys, including one on one of Dr. Ellis' favorite themes, Western Independence, 'published' in March 2003, which tracked support in Lethbridge for the statement "Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of creating their own country" and got these results:

	Feb. '01	Oct. '01	Oct. '02
Strongly Support	4.7	4.6	4.6
Support	14.2	17.4	18.0
Oppose	42.7	42.0	43.4
Strongly Oppose	38.4	35.3	31.8

The question is reminicent of the one in his famous 'Kyoto poll' that was released in Nov./Dec. 2002 that I mentioned here, quoting a Calgary Sun report on it.

The odd thing is that Ellis' separatism-rising-because-of-Kyoto poll (also done for JMCK) gathered its data at about the same time as Dr. Ellis had his students polling citizens of Lethbridge on their attitudes. But compare the numbers. When asked how the government should respond to the ratification of Kyoto, the JMCK poll (run by Ellis at almost exactly the same time) got these results:

Nothing can be done	43.8
Explore Independence	46.8
Seek to join U.S.	9.4

The question is, why did nearly identical questions asked at nearly identical moments get such different results?

Fun with figures: Western separatism is declining

The recent story in the Western Standard claims that separatist sentiments in the west are soaring. 43% of Albertans agreed with the statement “Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country”.

This struck me as rather remiscent of a poll conducted by the same pollster and same firm three years ago. (On the methodology of that poll see here.) It asked what Albertans should do if Kyoto was confirmed: 55% said they would be open to considering separation if Kyoto were ratified.

Calgary Sun
November 18, 2002 Monday, Final Edition
SECTION: News; Pg. 3

ALBERTANS IN FIGHTING MOOD; POLL SHOWS MAJORITY WOULD RATHER TALK SEPARATION THAN RATIFY KYOTO
by Michelle Mark, Calgary Sun

Most Albertans would rather talk separation than take the Kyoto Protocol lying down, results of a new poll show. In fact, more than 55% of the 1,204 Albertans approached by JMCK Polling said they would be open to those possibilities if Kyoto is ratified against Albertans' wishes.

"Support (for Kyoto) is continuing to drop in Alberta," said pollster Faron Ellis, who conducted the research. "In a hypothetical situation, if it comes down to the two options of capitulate or fight, it looks like more Albertans are willing to fight at this stage."

The poll, conducted by phone between Oct. 30 and Nov. 9 of this year, targeted a random sample of Albertans from across the province, Ellis said, adding that while JMCK Polling normally conducts the surveys on behalf of paying clients, this one was sparked primarily by his and his partners' curiosity.

The first two questions asked Albertans if they'd heard of the Kyoto Protocol and, if so, did they think the federal government should ratify it? Slightly more than 94% of respondents confirmed they had heard of Kyoto and 57% of them opposed its ratification.

The third and final question asked Albertans if the federal government ratified Kyoto against the wishes of the Alberta Government, what should Alberta do? Respondents were given the following answers to choose from:

1. There's nothing we can do.
   
2. Albertans should begin to explore other options such as independence from Canada.
   
3. Alberta should seek to join the U.S.

In general, Calgarians were found to have stronger opposition to ratifying Kyoto than Edmontonians, and more of a willingness to go to extremes in defiance of it.

Ellis, a seasoned political scientist, said he was surprised to find more than 9% of Albertans hypothetically supported the drastic measure of bypassing separation and hooking up with the U.S. "Clearly people are willing to choose the radical political approaches than sit by and do nothing," he said.

However, Ellis conceded that being in favour of discussing separation in a what-if situation and actually supporting separation are two very different things. "Certainly, different words would give you different numbers," Ellis said, adding attaching Kyoto to the issue of separation significantly drives the numbers up. "It's not as clear a read on independence itself as it is on what a fighting mood Albertans are getting into over Kyoto," he said.
- - -
BY THE NUMBERS
RATIFY KYOTO PROTOCOL BY GENDER:

	Male	Female	Alberta
* Ratify	25.0	22.7	23.9
* Don't Ratify	61.1	52.5	56.9
* Undecided	5.4	8.7	7.0
* Don't know enough	8.4	16.0	12.3

- - -
RATIFY KYOTO BY REGION:

	Calgary	Edmonton	Total Alta
* Ratify	19.1	37.5	23.9
* Don't Ratify	63.5	40.0	56.9
* Undecided	6.1	7.9	7.0
* Don't know enough	11.3	14.5	12.3

- - -
ALBERTA RESPONSES TO RATIFICATION BY GENDER:

	Male	Female	Alberta
* Nothing can be done	40.9	46.6	43.8
* Explore Independence	49.3	44.5	46.8
* Seek to join U.S.	9.8	8.9	9.4

--------------------------------------------------

That was the story three years ago. To judge from this, there are now fewer people willing to consider separation.

There are, of course, two other polls that are relevant. In the last provincial election, the Separation Party of Alberta gathered 4680 votes, less than 1% of the total votes cast. Four years before that, candidates associated with the Alberta Independence Party gathered 7521 votes running as independents.

Judging from both sets of data, support for separatism is declining.

[Edited to replace Alberta Report story with a Calgary Sun story that is a little shorter and a little more direct.]

Equalization math 2: net benefits of the Equalization Programme

As I mentioned in my first post on equalization (here), equalization is a federal programme that is funded by federal taxes. The 'share' of the cost that falls to each province is roughly equivalent to share of the country's total taxation that that province pays.

Roughly 13% of federal taxes are collected from Albertans. Therefore, 13% of the cost of equalization is born by Albertans. Quebecers pay about 20% of federal taxes, and therefore fund 20% of the equalization. The difference, of course, is that the Quebec government gets an equalization cheque and Alberta doesn't. (This isn't accidental--that's the way the program was set up to run.)

This table attempt to sketch out in a rough way where the net benefits are. Each province's share of the tax burden is assumed to be their share of the cost of equalization.

	% of tax burden*	Program cost (mil.)	Benefit (mil.) 2003/4	Net benefit (mil.)	pop. (2001)	net benefit per capita
Nfld	1.05%	$113.00	$766	$653.00	512,930	$1,273.08
PEI	0.28%	$30.60	$232	$201.40	135,294	$1,488.61
NS	2.27%	$247.20	$1130	$882.80	908,007	$972.24
NB	1.68%	$183.10	$1142	$958.90	729,498	$1,314.47
Que	20.70%	$2,256.00	$3764	$1,508.00	7,237,470	$208.36
ON	44.24%	$4,822.50	0	$(4,822.50)	11,410,046	$(422.65)
MN	2.85%	$310.80	$1336	$1,025.20	1,119,583	$915.70
SK	2.42%	$263.00	0	$(263.00)	978,933	$(268.66)
AB	12.33%	$1,343.00	0	$(1,343.00)	2,974,807	$(451.46)
BC	11.75%	$1,280.90	$590	$(690.90)	3,907,738	$(176.80)
Yuk	0.08%	$8.80	0	$(8.80)	29,900	$(294.31)
NWT	0.14%	$15.60	0	$(15.60)	40,000	$(390.00)
Nun	0.06%	$6.60	0	$(6.60)	27,400	$(240.88)

The pattern is one that is fairly well-known. Ontario makes the largest contribution to equalization, which is perfectly appropriate given that it is almost half the country's economy; Alberta makes a large contribution given its size (13% of the cost, though having only 10% of the country's population); BC and Saskatchewan pay in more than they get out. Quebec receives the largest cheque, but on a per capita net basis the sums are quite modest.

*Note: the share of taxes is an old number and reflects only federal income taxes. So this table is useful only for illustrative purposes. If you know more recent or exact figures, by all means mention them and I'll update the table.

Update. Andrew Spicer conducted a similar exercise here and got roughly similar results. (I suspect that his numbers are better than mine.)

Welcome to Bouquets of Gray

This is my second blog. The first, which was dedicated to discussing the Gurmant Grewal tapes, was more successful than I'd expected, and, given the amount of information that became available about the Grewal Affair, it became clear that if I continued to post on other questions, my work on Grewal would soon disappear into the mysts of time. Instead, I've decided to leave Buckets more or less as it is, and create a new blog. Here it is.

Down in the archives you'll find some old posts that I've moved from the Buckets site that were not related to the Grewal affair.

Equalization math

Several bloggers have already noted the new call for Alberta to separate made by Leon Craig, an emeritus professor of political science from the University of Alberta. (See especially the discussion of Muck Shoveller, a former student of Craig, here and, especially, here.) Prof. Craig has published an essay with the folksy title, 'Let's get while the gettin's good', which begins with this paragraph

To be sure, the $250 million of graft involved in the Adscam racket is but a small portion of Alberta’s annual donation to keeping Quebec tenuously tethered to the rest of Canada, barely a week’s contribution of the $12 billion Ottawa sucks out of Alberta every year in “equalization” payments (which the Liberal party then uses to buy votes east of Cornwall), a mere $60 of the almost $3,000 that every man, woman and child in Alberta pays per year for the privilege of remaining in a federation governed for the benefit of Ontario, Quebec and cronies of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The prose is, frankly, pretty sloppy, and its invective cliché, but let's leave that aside. Instead let's concentrate on the math behind his characterization of what equalization costs Alberta. Prof. Craig asserts two things here: (1) that equalization costs Alberta $12 billion per year, and (2) that this is 'sucked out' of Alberta in '"equalization" payments. (I'm not sure why he uses quotes here; perhaps someone can explain.) On the Buckets Truth Index, both statements sit somewhere between highly misleading and rank nonsense.

First, Craig mischaracterizes equalization payments. Alberta does not make any equalization payments--check its annual budget and public accounts if you don't believe me. Equalization is a program in which the Federal Government makes payments to some, but not all, of the provinces. At the moment there are eight provinces that qualify--all but Ontario and Alberta. (If you need to review the facts about this program, see here.) It cost $8.7 billion per year in 2003-4 (here), which is about 4.6% of the federal budget of $189 billion. Where do the Feds find this money? Out of the federal budget, which comes from federal taxation, which Canadians from all provinces pay.

Second, Craig is obviously wrong to imply that Alberta's share of equalization comes to $12 billion--which would be truly remarkable for a program that costs $8.7 billion. What is Alberta's share? Strictly speaking, of course, Alberta doesn't have a share, since it makes no payments. The money for the program comes from the federal taxes paid by individual and corporate Albertans. Now, we could roughly calculate what Albertans collectively pay towards equalization, since figures are available for share of federal taxation by province. The ones I have to hand are out of date (2000, I think) and are only federal income taxes, but they should give us a rough idea:

• Nfld 1.05%
• PEI 0.28%
• NS 2.27%
• NB 1.68%
• Que 20.70%
• ON 44.24%
• MN 2.85%
• SK 2.42%
• AB 12.33%
• BC 11.75%
• Yuk 0.08%
• NWT 0.14%
• Nun 0.06%
• foreign 0.15%

So, Prof. Craig raises the question of how much Alberta is paying towards equalization. Albertan's share will be equal to its share of total federal taxation, or 13% (rounding up). The total budget for the equalization program in 2003/4 was $8.7 billion. 13% of that is $1.1 billion. Not a trifle, but only a small fraction of Prof. Craig's $12 billion.

What went wrong with Craig's math? Did he slip a decimal point? I will try to return to this in a future post*, only pointing out here that it's a good thing that Prof. Craig taught Political Science in university rather than math in high-school.

*For this post, see here

Satorial snarkiness

If you haven't seen it yet, go check out My Blahg'ssartorial attacks (complete with pictures). Especially praiseworthy is that Robert is an equal opportunity drive-by shooter. Ah, the things that bring us Canadians together.

Right 'Ho' sells himself for traffic!

Over at Right Ho!, we see just how far a once respectable blogger will stoop in order to increase his 'traffic'. First, he joins the Blogging Tories (see here); now he works a gratuitous Harry Potter reference into a title to generate hits. These surely are the blogging equivalents, respectively, of putting on the fishnets and heels and leaning into car windows. Now at last we know what the 'Ho' part means! (For a more innocent explanation, see here.)

(Of course, in broadcasting his, um, 'services', I could be accused of pimping … nah ... couldn't happen.)

How typical are Blogging Tories?

Over at Progressive Bloggers, Scott Tribe has a diary entry asking how much influence Blogging Tories have within the Conservative Party and concludes that their influence is minor.

There is, however, another side to this question that Scott mentions tangentially, but doesn't explore. Are the views espoused at BT typical of the Conservative party?

I dont think we should be getting into the same pattern over calling all the Conservatives xenophobes or whatever just because we see a few of their bloggers state what we consider to be idiotic remarks.

Now, if Monte Solberg starts saying stupid stuff like that, and/or high ranking Conservative Party members, then we need to get concerned. But not til then.

Fair enough. But what are we supposed to do with, say, Vitor Marciano? He is on the National Council of the CPC. How different are his views from those of the Blogging Tories generally? If you were to judge him by the BT posts he recommends to his readers, you'd have to assume that he approves of many of BT's least attractive posts. And if a member of National Council approves, should we not conclude that this is (sadly) reflective of something in the party and its activists?

Fake separatism will not work

There is a recent column of Link Byfield in the Calgary Sun advocating Alberta separatism. The article has gotten a mixed reaction. An interesting one is offered by M.K. Braaaten, who decides against separatism but recognizes its potential advantages:

However, I guess there could be some benefits of having a separatist party - and it’s precisely not to separate but to use it as leverage against the federal government. I mean, look at Quebec, they have done it for years and they have yet to separate. Quebec has used the threat to extract huge sums of money and power from Ottawa. If Alberta had a credible separatist party I’m sure Alberta wouldn’t leave because it would be given enough clout in confederation that it wouldn’t want to leave (similar to Quebec). If only we could find a separatist party leader that promised to never actually separate but to only use for power, then Alberta would be set.

And here, of course, is the problem with the whole endeavor. Alberta Separatists cannot seem to make up their mind whether they are really separatists or whether they are only pretending to be separatists in order to get leverage in Ottawa. But in saying that their goal is leverage, they give away the fact that they don't want to separate and destroy any leverage that they ever could have had.

Let's indeed look at Quebec, which has had some leverage. Whatever leverage they get out of separatism is due to the fact that their separatists seem to be sincerely interested in separation. They don't muse aloud about the fact that all they want is leverage in Ottawa.

Arguments I hate, pt. 1: hypothetical hypocrisy

One of the exasperating things about reading political blogs is the low level of argumentation that we find. There is too much name-calling and cheap-shots, and not enough thinking of high quality. This is a point that I suspect most bloggers agree with, although most of us find it easier to identify posts that offend against this when they are made by the other side. Such is human nature.

It struck me thta it would be helpful to create a taxonomy of false arguments that we all (left, right, and center) might try to avoid.

With this in mind, I offer the first 'argument I hate', which I dub 'hypothetical hypocrisy'. This argument begins with a political or moral position of its target; a hypothetical situation is concocted into wihch the target is placed; the target is imagined to act against their original position and is condemned for hypocrisy.

A classic example of this came a couple weeks ago when Laurie Hawn, conservative candidate in Edmonton-Centre, wrote a post with the title 'A conflict hypocrisies', which included this swipe at Jack Layton:

Okay everyone, hands up all who think that Canada's federal socialist leader, Jack Layton, would put himself at the back of the queue if he (or his wife) needed an MRI. I didn't think so.

The original post was worded slightly differently, causing a controversy about name-calling, but let's leave that aside, and whether it is true (which it probably isn't: Layton's wife is undergoing cancer treatment and apparently gets no special consideration). What is noteworthy is the unfairness of the argument. Layton is placed in a hypothetical situation, imagined to have acted hypocritically, then condemned for hypothetical hyprocrisy. In essence, it is as if I said 'X says theft is wrong; but if his family were starving, surely he would steal; therefore x is a hypocrite'.

This argument comes in various forms, and I invite people to include examples (left, right, and center) in the comments.

What to do about terrorism?

There are many blogs from left, right, and center condemning today's bombing in London. This is surely something that everyone in the Canadian blogosphere joins in condemning.

There are differing ideas about what should be done in response. There will inevitably be calls for military action--though the inevitable question is how to pick the target and the unfortunate possibility that some military actions will only become a recruiting tool for the enemy. So, too, police actions. Some will call for action to remove 'the causes of terrorism'. But what are those? Supposing that the ideology behind this recent outrage was caused by a lack of freedom, democracy, or any other good strikes me as extraordinarily naive. The one course we can agree on is to denounce it. But words are insufficient, and since part of the terrorist strategy is to seek publicity, terrorists are likely to believe that the harsher the condemnation, the better.

The sad fact of terrorism is that, like being in quicksand, almost anything that we do will make it worse. Yes, let us improve internal security. Yes, let us strengthen our intelligence and arrest those whom we can catch. And, yes, destroy the infrastructure where we can. But the best revenge, as they say, is living well.

More on our flag

The last few days have seen several discussions about Canada's flag and its origins, largely in response to recent Conservative complaints that our current flag has an especially Liberal heritage.

When we're having this discussion, it is worth looking at an important influence, the flag of the Royal Military College.


This places the college's coat of arms on a white background between red bars. From the Royal Military College site:

The design of the RMC flag proved to be instrumental to the final selection of the Canadian flag in 1965. In fact, the former RMC Dean of Arts, Deputy Director of the Army Historical Section and author of the book The Story of Canada's Flag (Ryerson, 1965), the late George F.G. Stanley, writes that during the great flag debate in 1965, he suggested that the design of the RMC flag be used as the new National flag, substituting the College crest for the styled red maple leaf. From his idea came the flag we know today.

Church clamp down a two-edged sword

The Catholic church, as has been fairly widely reported (see, e.g., here), has begun to punish MPs who had voted for same-sex marriage and against Catholic doctrine.

Many bloggers have commented on this. Those who supported ssm were appalled; those who were opposed, enthused. My view is that the RCs (and other churches) are free to use the whip on their members if they like. But I think they would be wiser not to. There is a potential back-lash here that I think they should be wary of. It was not long ago that JFK had an uphill argument to make in trying to convince protestant America that although a Catholic he did not take marching orders from the pope. Now, the church seems to be saying that all Catholic politicians should do precisely this. But does this mean that we have to begin scrutinizing Catholic politicians more closely than others in order to find out whether they are going to impose church doctrine concerning abortion, divorce, birth control, etc., on the rest of the country? If that process begins, I can only assume that it will work to the detriment of the Church.

Canada-haters, honest critics, and separatists

Over at BlogsCanada, Jim Elve calls on the right to quash Canada-haters, pointing to the collection of comments collected by Peace, Order, and Good Government. The discussion continues, and several commentators point out that many of the anti-Canada posts are not anti-Canada per se, but critical of various aspects of our character and polity, an act that need not be interpreted as anti-patriotic.

The 'smoking (shot)-gun' for the charges of Canada-haters come from comments to several entries in the Western Standard's blog (here and here). I choose several examples that I think illustrate different attitudes. First,

"In short, a Canadian Liberal is a liar, a thief, a bigot, and narcissist, but accuse others of the same. A Canadian conservative is an honest, hardworking person who just wants to make a living and provide for their family."

This post gives us no grounds to complain about anti-Canadianism. This is merely a piece of partisan polemic asserting the virtue of its political soul-mates and the vices of its opponents. This is not anti-Canada, but anti-Liberal. Compare this to

"I'm ashamed to be Canadian. Ashamed of our refusal to assist others, whether it be in the fight against terrorism or our fake committments to the tsunami relief. Our refusal to reform the UN but to instead be an intimate part of its corruption. I'm ashamed of our consistent smug superiority, our condescension to others and our utter ignorance of the hard realities of the world."

Again, I don't think this is necessarily the post of a Canada-hater. Instead, it is someone who is disappointed in a series of political decisions that Canada's government has made over the last decade or so. My third case, however, is something different.

"No one can detest Canada more than I. It's racism, fascism and apartheid are all too obvious. The sooner Alberta leaves this putrid dictatorship, the better off our people will be."

Here, of course, is a Canada-hater: he self-identifies. Nothing could be clearer.

The calls made by Jim Elve, POGGE, and (I'm sure) others that conservative bloggers to quash anti-Canadianism misses the mark. The problem is not so much anti-Canadianism but separatism, and a tendency of conservative commentators to try to use the rise of separatism for their own political ends.

[Edited and revised]

The new flag debate

Over at BlogsCanada, Scott Tribe points out the recent anti-flag stance being increasingly taken by some Conservatives. Ezra Levant, for example, has denounced our current flag as 'Liberal':

Canada Day replaced Dominion Day the way the Liberal-red Pearson Pennant replaced the Red Ensign

Scott quite correctly points out the weird a-historicity of this. The Maple Leaf had been a symbol of Canada long before it was made our flag. Look at the accompanying picture of the war medal awarded to participants in repelling the Fenian raids in 1866. There is nothing very remarkable about the medal--with Queen Victoria on the obverse, a flag of victory on the reverse. But look at the field. What's that? Maple leaves. Indeed, this is the only thing about this medal that iconigraphically identifies it as 'Canadian'.

The same point could be made from the cap badge from World War I to the left. What is Canadian here? Again, it is the maple leaf. And here the maple leaf has taken over the whole medal. Clearly, then, the maple leaf was regarded as a national symbol long before it became our flag in 1965.

Where, then, did Ezra and his kind get the idea that Canada's maple leaf is a Liberal flag? 

It presumably comes from the image to the right: the Liberal Party logo, which has been made to look like the Canadian flag.

In doing this, the Liberals have wrapped themselves in the flag, so to speak. But they are hardly alone in this. To the right is the logo of the Liberal Party in Australia.  There is a flag buried there.

Or Bush-Cheney in the last American election.  Again, note the flag theme.



There is nothing exceptional, then, in a political party associating themselves with national symbols, including the flag. What is exceptional is the petulant rejection of those symbols out of a misguided partisan pique.

Tipping points

I've been trying to broaden my blog reading recently, seeking out worthwhile Conservative and Libertarian posters to include in my blogroll.

Today I found quite an interesting post by N=1 on his/her tipping-point, a highly eloquent discussion of the choices that face socially liberal Conservatives. Do, please, go read the whole thing, a particularly quotable bit is this:

Harper and the CPC appear to be opposing SSM with a tenacity, a ferocity, that they reserve for absolutely nothing else. Not health care, property rights, war, trade, separatism, terrorism... nothing. It is easy to conclude that fighting an inevitably losing battle against allowing gay Canadians to wed one another must be the single most important thing in the CPC platform. We hear from the CPC nothing but compromise on the issues that will actually affect my personal life: compromise on taxes, compromise on medicare, compromise on fatty foods for Heaven's sake. But on a matter which will not directly affect me at all, the CPC is ready (aye, ready!) to Fight To The Death. It has become readily apparent to me that the CPC doesn't actually care about my issues at all. They evidently care about the issues of those who don't much like gay people, and who don't think homosexuality is normal. But I like gay people--at least, I like them as much as straight people, which is to say I like them as much as I like any individual. And I think homosexuality is normal--at least, it's as "normal" as any type of human predilection in which no-one is injured and in which all participants engage willingly. I accept that for millions of Canadian Christians, Jews, and Muslims, homosexuality is considered evil. They're wrong, and I no longer wish to associate with a party that acts as if it agrees with these Canadians.

The question that comes to mind, however, is why does this tipping point for N=1 come now? I hesitate to offer an explanation for someone I don't know. But it strikes me that the passage of C-38 may be the important fact. That the leader of a Conservative party might oppose changing the definition of marriage should not cause us much surprise--even if we disagree with him. But now that the law is passed, ssm is the new status quo, and Harper's promise to repeal it becomes not a conservative gesture but a radical one. The leverage has changed, and many Canadians who were neutral or tepid about ssm will very soon discover that they have tipped over into accepting it.

No Comment

Norquay quits

Ottawa — Stephen Harper's communications team will be stripped to the bone after two key members announced they will leave their posts. Their departures follow those of two other senior PR staffers who quit in recent weeks.

Geoff Norquay, the affable and accessible director of communications, and Yaroslav Baran, the strategic communications director, announced Wednesday that this would be the last day.

"I've decided for personal reasons to move on. I'm not going to discuss those reasons," said Mr. Norquay.

Comuzzi should be praised, not criticized, for resigning

Many have no doubt already noticed the story that Joe Comuzzi has resigned his cabinet post rather than voting for same-sex marriage (see here).

I have not much engaged with the question of the ssm on this site, but I doubt if many will be surprised that I disagree with Comuzzi over ssm. Nevertheless, I think Comuzzi has done the right thing. As many have pointed out before, more free votes for parliamentarians would be a good thing. But in our system of government, cabinet solidarity is important: any government bill is by its nature a bill that cabinet has accepted collective responsibility to promote. If a cabinet minister disagrees with a bill to the extent that he cannot support it, he should resign.

Thus, I would argue, Comuzzi should be praised for what he has done, not criticized. (Of course, I might feel differently about this if ssm were to lose by a vote because of this.)

KMG: Accentuate the Contradictions

Over at the Ambler, Kevin Michael Grace eviscerates Harper in his Accentuate the Contradictions, which includes what I think is the best paragraph I've seen summarizing the contradictions:

Back on May 19, the Conservatives got the confidence motion the Liberals had long denied them. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the Bloc Québécois that day and lost by a single vote. Five weeks later, the Liberals faced another confidence vote, again precipitated by the desire the Conservatives share (or shared) with the Bloc to force an election. This time they came up five votes short, after falling victim to the same "counting problem" that brought down Joe Clark's Conservative government in 1980. Instead of sacking his House leadership, Stephen Harper decided to blame the Bloc for forcing a vote he'd demanded repeatedly.

"When push comes to shove, the Liberals will make any deal with anybody," Harper said after the vote. "And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find. That's how they govern the country."

The problem with Harper's math

As many have already noted, Steven Harper stuck his foot in it this afternoon by suggesting that the law that is about to grant marriage rights to gays is somehow less valid because it is being supported by the Bloc (see here). As it is, the vote will probably be 166-142 (see here). Let's look at the breakdown.

	FOR	AGAINST
ROC	101	132
Quebec (Bloc)	47	7
Quebec (Liberal)	18	3
Total	166	142

If the Bloc were not voting, he points out, ssm-marriage would not pass. But if the Bloc did not exist, there would be other MPs in their place, and given that support for ssm-marriage is higher in Quebec than in any other province, we can assume that these notional MPs would have voted not much differently than the Bloc did.

And this, of course, is the other irony. Many of the Bloc are old Tories--part of the Mulroney coalition that went so disastrously wrong. If the Bloc did not exist, the Conservative vote on ssm would not be so one-sided. Indeed, it probably would more closely reflect the division in the country as a whole. But that itself is a problem. Most polls on this legislation suggest that Canadians are split 50-50 on the law. The Conservatives are 95-3.

Hypocrisy, thy name is politics!

I'm not quite sure what to make of this story:

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says most Canadians won't think the same-sex marriage law is legitimate because it will only pass with support from the separatist Bloc Quebecois. The bill legalizing same-sex marriage is set to pass in the Commons this week.

The other three parties in the Commons jumped on Harper's remarks. Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe says his party has as much legitimacy as the Tories in Parliament, and that it's called democracy. NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Conservative leader's latest outburst is further proof of why his party's popularity is in decline. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says the Bloc is a legitimate party in Parliament.

What is going on in this guy's head? Sure, many of us wish that the BQ didn't exist. But as long as it does, and as long as Bloquistes have seats in Parliament, they will have a role in making our laws. That doesn't impact the validity of those laws.

(And for those who follow such things: Harper didn't seem to think that BQ votes were any less valid when it came to voting for his non-confidence motions. But this is surely the politicians disease--condemn today what you embraced yesterday. Hypocrisy, they name is politics.)

Harper appeals to socially conservative immigrants

Over at The Amazing Wonderdog, Skippy notes that Harper's choice to be in Toronto on Pride weekend, but avoid the parade and instead went to a Muslim convention where he spoke in defence of traditional marriage.

For the newsstory, see here):

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper told a Muslim convention in Mississauga that the Liberals are in league with the NDP and Bloc Québécois to erase the traditional concept of marriage.

"You believe, I believe, most Canadians believe that the traditional institution of marriage should be recognized and respected in law," Mr. Harper said. "Unfortunately, the Liberal government doesn't believe this. It is working with their allies in the NDP and the separatists to attack these beliefs and to abolish the traditional institution of marriage."

This makes some strategic sense: the ssm-marriage issue at least theoretically provided Harper with the opportunity of improving their share of the immigrant vote in Ontario.

But all signs are this hasn't worked. Why? In the comments to Skippy's post, Greg of Sinister Thoughts makes a perspicacious observation:

Harper got a polite reception [at the Muslim convention] but his message was not overwhelmingly endorsed. In fact the crowd seemed to have agreed more with Joe Volpe's message of group rights and tolerance.

And here, I suspect, is the rub. A country that will give equal rights to homosexuals is a country where every minority has a chance at equal rights. If we refuse to tolerate gays--a member of any other minority might ask--whose rights will be compromised next?

In addition, I think that this dynamic has special resonance in the post-9/11 world. There was an anti-Muslim backlash following September 11th, and many Muslims were made to feel insecure about their place here. This insecurity, I suspect, decreases any desire on their part to undermine the rights of others.

Tories in no hurry to vote on same-sex bill

The G&M (see the link above) reports that many Conservatives will want to speak against the same-sex marriage bill, the idea being to stretch out the process as much as possible. Neither the Liberals or the NDP seem keen on cutting-off the debate or forcing an immediate vote. So it'll be a long, hot couple weeks for MPs.

Update. A slightly different emphasis this morning in the Globe (see here): fewer Conservatives will speak against the bill than did at second reading.

Did a Conservative nominee call Layton a Nazi?

For those who missed it, the Conservative nominee in Edmonton-Centre (which is currently represented by Anne McLellan), Laurie Hawn has a blog in which he shares his thoughts on life and politics. Most of what he says is the sort of stuff that one would expect. His party's positions are advanced, those of the other parties criticized. That is only to be expected, and I think this new phenomenon of creating direct access to politicians is a good thing.

In a recent entry, A Conflict of Hypocrisies, Mr. Hawn accuses Jack Layton of hypocrisy:

Okay everyone, hands up all who think that the Duty National Socialist Leader, Jack Layton, would put himself at the back of the queue if he (or his wife) needed an MRI. I didn't think so.

This is, of course, a cheap shot. I have no idea what I would do in such circumstances, much less Mr. Layton. But politics is full of cheap shots. One might fire back that it is hypocritical to condemn others for doing something that you yourself advocate. But once we start that style of argument, we'd pretty quickly all be convicted of hypocrisy on some score.

So, what is the problem with this post? Hawn calls Jack Layton "the Duty National Socialist Leader". The National Socialists, in case you missed high school history and never watched the History Channel, were Hitler's party, and National Socialism his philosophy. The shortened form of 'National Socialist' is Nazi.

Admittedly, we have to put up with a lot of name calling in Canadian politics. We have recently heard a cabinet minister likened the conservative party to the Klu Klux Klan (he apologized); we've also heard the Liberal party likened to fictional serial killer, Hannibal Lector. But calling someone a Nazi--for failing some strange hypothetical hypocrisy test--is a new low.

Update. Mr. Hawn responds:

For the benefit of those who get their exercise jumping to conclusions and making leaps of logic, please allow me to clarify something from my blog "A Conflict of Hypocrisies". I refered to Jack Layton as the Duty National Socialist Leader. For those who like to "exercise", that meant that I was calling Jack Layton a Nazi, and that I was disrespecting all those who died at Hitler's hands.

Please settle down and park your misplaced indignation. "National" refers to Canada and "Socialist" refers to a political philosophy. Period. Dot. Stop. In no way did I intend those words to mean anything else. I'm sorry if capital letters confused some people. I have de-capitalized the description of Jack and changed the word "Duty" to "Canada's" to help them out.

For those who lectured me on history and defending democracy, back off. I spent more than thirty years and buried more than forty friends defending your right to yell at me. I hope that you enjoyed it, even though you are way off base. Now get back to work or go to the gym for some real exercise.

Update2 Here is my exchange with Mr. Hawn in his comments. As far as I'm concerned, this ends the matter.

buckets said...
Mr. Hawn, thank-you for your clarification. It seems to me, however, that you should be more careful with your choice of words in the future. How, really, could you have expect people to interpret your words in any other way? National Socialism is a historical phenomenon; it only means one thing. The NDP/CCF have been called socialists since the thirties; they've been a national party the whole time. But in my recollection no one has ever called them National Socialists. Why? Because those words, when put together, mean more than the sum of the parts.

Laurie Hawn said...
Point taken, buckets. Thanks.

Dryden on SSM and the dangers of passionate certainty

Flash Point Canada links to Ken Dryden's piece, Why I support gay marriage bill, in the Toronto Star.

Dryden has always had a gift of using 100 words where 20 would do, as this piece shows. Much is worth repeating, but especially interesting, I think, is this paragraph:

In the midst of this heated debate, it is hard not to be swayed, usually in the reverse direction, by the words and tone of the advocates who scream their certainty, who tell the rest of us that we surely must be stupid or at least depraved if we aren't as certain as they are. It's okay to be 60-40 or 70-30 on this. As the debate more and more attempts to polarize us, it is important to know that on one side of the question or the other most of us have more in common than it seems. It is important to know, because it will help us immensely to get along again when all this is done.

This puts its finger on something important. That it is not merely arguments that sway people, but their tone, too. There are many people who are uncomfortable with gay unions of any kind; there are many who would prefer to create some kind of separate-but-equal civil unions for gays. But I suspect that come the next election, most of these people will decide not to vote for anti-ssm candidates. Why? Someone who is 60-40 against ssm will be less comfortable with a 100-0 anti-ssm candidate than a 60-40 pro-ssm. There is something about the passionate certainty of a black-and-white world that alienates those who see more shades of gray in the world.

In that moment of humiliation, the last vestiges of civility remain

In the G&M, Ibbitson reports (google link, here) on one of the few moments of decency to be heard in Ottawa recently:

Stephen Harper approached Paul Martin and the two spoke briefly. Then they went their separate ways.

What did the Conservative Leader say in that moment of humiliation? Did he offer a quiet, deadly vow of revenge, or a stiff-upper-lipped word of congratulations on a contest fairly won? The mind races.

Sadly, reality was more prosaic. Mr. Harper was asking a favour: It being midnight, no more commercial flights were leaving Ottawa that day for Edmonton or Calgary. But Conservative MP Lee Richardson was scheduled to tour flood-damaged areas in Alberta yesterday, as was Mr. Martin, who was flying out on the government jet. Mr. Harper wanted to know whether Mr. Richardson could hitch a ride. Of course, the Prime Minister replied.

Better to be dishonest than out-manouevred?

Just to add another point about why it is that the Conservatives were so upset at being out-manouevred Thursday night.

An awful lot of it has to do with Stephen Harper and his strengths and weaknesses. Many have mentioned that he is a bit too aloof and cerebrial to succeed in politics. Maybe true, maybe not. But one thing that commentators allow is that Harper is a good tactician and strategist.

I think part of the reason that the Conservative MPs blew up the other night is that they have been bested on what they had thought was their leader's strong suit. Tactically, the Liberals snookered the PCs. But probably strategically now, too. There may be fireworks about same-sex marriage in Parliament, but from this point forward being strongly anti-ssm will be an increasingly losing position as ssm locks itself into being the Canadian status quo.

For the PCs it is the equivalent of losing a very close hand in poker over one misplayed card. They not only lost the hand, but it did enough damage to their capital that it will be an uphill struggle from here.

Dancing with whackos

Politblogo (here and here) engages with crypto-separatist the Monarchist, dissecting the latter's argument and exposing its logical missteps and rhetorical excesses. For those who missed it, the Monarchist argued that because Ontario has not (to judge from recent polls) abandoned the Liberals despite their obvious failings, 'the West' has reached a 'tipping point' that will lead it into separatism.

Now I suspect that all progressive and non-partisan bloggers are highly grateful to Politblogo for undertaking this unpleasant task. But are western separatists our problem? Shouldn't the argument about separatism be taking place among Conservatives? It is, after all, the failure of the Conservative Party that is motivating the Monarchist's outrage. He seems to think that he can work for the Conservatives and advocate separatism at the same time. (He is a member of Blogging Tories, who seem to have no problem having him in their number.) So, too, members of the CPC Caucus. When asked about separatism recently, MP Myron Thomson said : "I reserve my opinion till later". Over at FreeDominion, a site that describes itself as "the voice of principled conservatism" and is populated by conservative activists, a poll asking "do you support Western separatism" had 42% year, 24% no, and 28% "if the Liberals win the next election" (here). Rather than coddle separatists, the CPC should be expelling them and denouncing them.