navigation
good reads
internet stuff
- evolt is the best web community out there.
- listen to joel. he knows.
- Cluetrain Manifesto
- A List Apart
- Ask Tog
- Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
06/24/2004 Archived Entry: "More about the terrible Tories"
Okay so let's see... what topics did I not cover last time around?
The left has been criticised for years as "tax-and-spend" crazies that leave the country bankrupt, but over the last 25 years or so, it's actually been the right that has pushed up deficits. Why is this? Well tax-and-spend is really the right way to go. You have to tax in order to spend. What the Tories and other right-wing parties tend to suggest is cutting taxes, which always has benefitted the rich more than the poor, and to cut spending (oh sorry... my mistake I meant "find inefficiencies" yah right. that's a euphemism if I ever heard one), which again is bad for the poor and all right for the rich. Oh yah. I forgot. The one exception to the programs that need to be cut is always the military. Which, gets massive spending increases. Unfortunately for the Tories, cutting social spending (health, education, etc) deeply enough to pay for their tax cuts means cutting services that the great voting swath of the middle class uses. And so they don't do it to the level that they need to because they know it won't get them re-elected. And what do we end up with? Decimated programs that have barely managed to limp along and are ineffective, and humungous deficits, massive increases in military spending and more debt. What examples are there in real life of this happening? Well Reagan, Harris, Bush II... need I go on? What a great recipe for good fiscal management in government. I think I'll vote for them. Not.
The Tories don't like minority rights. They especially don't like the Charter of Rights. So they figure that they'll erode minority rights by making Parliament supreme over the Supreme Court. After all, Parliament is elected and we want a democracy don't we? We don't want nasty APPOINTED judges to have sway over us, do we? We want to be able to make our OWN laws, and not let nine people in funny dresses stop us, right?
Sounds good. Except that's exactly what the Supreme Court is there to prevent. Not a democracy, but the tyranny of the majority. Essentially, the Charter of Rights protects minority rights. It's there to say, "No, a law forcing the small number of Blue People to be slaves to the majority Green People is against the Charter of Rights and will be struck down." It's a much better idea than "democracy" without limits and there's lots of lessons in history for that tell us its a necessary idea for a fair, decent and peaceful country.
Now Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are saying the judges should be suggested by the provinces and then vetted before a Parliamentary Committee. They are looking at the US and its Senate Judiciary Committee for this idea. But just ask Anita Hall or Clarence Thomas what they think about the three-ring-circus that is the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the past, even Tories made decisions about who they would appoint based on the merit of the judges - as judges. But Harper does seem to think that Supreme Court Judges should be appointed based on their political leanings rather than their abilities to make good rulings. So what difference does that make?
There are two open spaces on the Supreme Court, and another opening this summer when one of the judges retires. That means that the next Prime Minister will have the authority to appoint one third of the Supreme Court. If Stephen Harper appoints three ultra-right-wing judges that are hostile to the Charter, it could seriously affect Canadian law for the next quarter century. It would be a travesty.
Our constitution says that we can't discriminate against people, that all laws must be applied equally, that all people should be treated equally. So two men, who have essentially the same relationship as a married man and woman, should also be able to get married legally. It's as simple as that.
Okay, not quite. What about religious freedom? Will churches and mosques and synagogues be forced, against their will, to perform gay marriages? The answer is no. The Charter also protects religion. So no, they won't. It's just not going to happen.
But what does Stephen Harper say about this? He says that “sexual orientation is not included in the Charter.” Well. He's wrong. That part of the Charter does, in fact, name certain groups:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[emphasis added]
but it names them IN PARTICULAR. It's open ended. It means if the X-Men were all real, then mutant super-heros would also be protected under our Charter. Which is really the whole point with the X-Men - civil rights and all... but I digress. It also means that sexual orientation is, despite what Mr. Harper says, included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So what would Harper do if the Supreme Court disagrees with him? Why, he'd use the Notwithstanding clause. A semi-obscure part of the Consitution that allows the government to circumvent the Charter by an Act of Parliament for up to 5 years - at which time it would have to renew the Act. It's a dangerous little piece of the constitution if abused. It's never been used by the federal government before, and with good reason.
Essentially, Harper is saying he would take away the rights of gay people and he's willing to go to extraordinary lengths to do so.
This, again, has to do with the Supreme Court. The the court has struck down abortion laws, laws that limit a woman's right to choose, based on a right of "life, liberty, and security of the person". But the Tories don't like that ruling.
So, they can't campaign on a platform that is anti-abortion, the laws have been struck down... what can they do? Weaken the Supreme Court and allow a private member's bill that outlaws abortion. And that's what will happen. Hey girls, if the Tories win, looks like we'll have to be fighting to get our rights back again.
Last year, before the war in Iraq started, Harper and his team were adament that we should be supporting our neighbours (oh puke, yah the way you support them is by going into an ill-advised and illegal war with them, without questioning anything about it. yah. good thinking). Harper actually wrote a an article in the Wall Street Journal arguing Canada should have joined the war.
Do you hear any of this now? No. Now the war is unpopular. It seems to have turned out that all those anti-war hippie commie peaceniks were right about the lack of weapons of mass destruction and the paucity of reasons for war. So now Harper is trying to hide and ignore (no. no. don't look behind *that* curtain) his former position supporting the war and the US. But you can bet that if he were PM in 2003 we'd be stuck over there with the 'mericans fighting pressures and costs at home, fighting to keep our friendly allies in other countries and fighting the insurgents in Iraq. Boy. That would be fun.
In fact, Harper wants to increase military spending. And while I know that Canada actually spends a lot on it's military (6th biggest spender in real dollars of NATO countries) and it's heresy for someone on the left to say that we aren't spending enough, I also think that we don't pay many of our soldiers well enough, that they don't get enough support from an equipment and logistics angle. BUT and this is a HUGE BUT, it all depends on how you are going to decide to spend the cash. What focus will the Canadian military have?
Stephen Harper wants a Canadian military that goes along when the US picks fights around the world. He wants an invasion force that complements the US forces. He sees the military as a way to fight wars, not as a way to solve conflicts. And that's what I think the military should focus on. We actually do much less peacekeeping than most people think we do. Would you believe that the top contributors of military and civilian personnel to current peacekeeping missions are Pakistan, Bangledesh and India? Although it is true that Canada has a good record on peacekeeping, we should be putting money and effort into keeping it that way. A strong peacekeeping force is not the kind of military that Stephen Harper wants.
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party want Canada's role in the world to be that of sidekick to the US. Canada as Tonto to the American Lone Ranger. Unlike the TV stories though, the American Lone Ranger in real life will actually kill people. I don't want Canada to be the trusty sidekick to some whacked out loner with a persecution complex and the biggest guns in town. I want Canada to develop it's own identity in the world as a strong defender of human rights, a peacekeeping nation that works towards unity, fairness, environmental security, social justice and global peace. And, while I know those are incredibly idealistic ideas, I also think it's important that we head towards them not - where Harper would lead us - away from them.
So, those are my thoughts on the incredibly scary and depressing Canadian elections. Despite how scary they are, I actually think they are pretty exciting and interesting for us political junkies who are interested in examining all the ideas that are emerging. Unfortunately, I think that many people who will be voting for the Conservative Party in this election haven't actually looked at these issues or thought about them. They'll be voting against the Liberals not for the Tories. Even though I'm sick of the Liberals too, the Tories are just so so so scary. I think if the Tories win, people will wake up with a huge and never-ending political hangover after the wild party of the election. So please. Don't vote Tory. Unless you are a Tory, in which case, you can just move along... these aren't the droids you're looking for.
Replies: 3 comments - add a comment
Please, oh please don't follow the media and label Harper's Conservatives as tories. That's a slur against a fine old term, especially amongst red tories who'd agree with most, if not all of what you speak about in your article. The conservative parties in this country (the national ones, not sure about all the provincial ones) have sold out to US-style ideology. I wish to hell they'd abandon the term tory-- it doesn't go along with their sellout.
Posted by DC @ 09/20/2004 12:36 PM EST
Please, oh please don't follow the media and label Harper's Conservatives as tories. That's a slur against a fine old term, especially amongst red tories who'd agree with most, if not all of what you speak about in your article. The conservative parties in this country (the national ones, not sure about all the provincial ones) have sold out to US-style ideology. I wish to hell they'd abandon the term tory-- it doesn't go along with their sellout.
Posted by DC @ 09/20/2004 12:35 PM EST
Hi Tara,
I just read your wonderful article--so very impressive and persuative, it's worth to be published in the newspaper or journal.
I am right now working in MPAC, not Ticorp any more. We all hate Ticorp, aren't we?
Take care, and looking forward to see more of your articles.
Zuhua
Posted by zuhua Luo @ 07/16/2004 04:20 PM EST