Week of Action Demonstration & Harris Goodbye Party
Eric Miller
protest rising tuition, cutbacks to education, student debts, and the like
concerns of students across Canada.
This week in Ottawa, there are a few events worth noting:
-- Friday Oct. 16th:
11:30 - "Jeans Without Means" in the Tory quad. An OPIRG-organised event,
this time is scheduled for a press conference highlighting the jeans with
their pockets drawn, haning in the trees. For info: Jason, 234-5579,
ja...@bombshelter.ca.
1:00pm - Rally & march. University, college, and high school students.
Starts at the U of Ottawa outside the Morisset Library and roceeds downtown,
pass the Revenue Canada building, BCNI office, and I believe ends on
Parliament Hill. Organized by the Candian Federation of Students.
-- Saturday, Oct. 17
Mike Harris Goodbye Party
1:00pm - Major's Hill Park
The Mike Harris Tories are holding their last policy convention before
the next provincial election; in Ottawa October 16 to 18. People across
Ontario are working hard to make sure this is their final policy
convention as government. People will gather at Major's Hill Park, just
behind the Chateau Laurier in downtown Ottawa. Activities begin at 1:30 p.m.
There will be a march past the convention centre, ending at Confederation
Park.
More info at:
- Canadian Federation of Students itinerary for Ottawa:
http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/english/days/itinerary/program.html#3
- Other website of interest: www.ofl-fto.on.ca/campaigns/index.htm
- Goodbye Party headquarters:
(613)233-7820 Fax: (613)230-8404 E:mail: ltoombs@cupw:sttp.org
--
Jeff Jedras
I didn't know he was leaving.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF JEDRAS "beware any news editor quoting conrad
History III black. they tend to have, um,
delusions of grandeur?"
jjedras(at)chat.carleton.ca - Maria Babbage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Brooks
spit on, and narrowly avoided a fist fight.
Jason,
dave schultz
> I'm not going. During the last anti-Harris rally I went to, I got
> spit on, and narrowly avoided a fist fight.
Was that from pro-Harris people on the sidelines, or another faction of
the people supposedly united in their anti-Harrisism eg. the Trotskists, or
some other crazies? Seriously, I want to know. I've seen a very broad
cross-section of people who don't like Harris, including very centrist
folks like myself all the way to commies, and I'm sure once they get
talking beyond generally not liking this-or-that Harris policy, they don't
exactly get along.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Schultz
Vice-President, Carleton Reform Club * Treasurer, History Society
History III, Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Knock, knock. Who's there?
Autumn again. What do you want?
The coolness of your temple. You can't have it.
I'll take it.
Knock, knock. Who's there?
Autumn again. -Federico Garcia Lorca (1898-1936)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erinn Cunningham
>
> Jason Brooks (jbr...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
> > I'm not going. During the last anti-Harris rally I went to, I got
> > spit on, and narrowly avoided a fist fight.
>
> Was that from pro-Harris people on the sidelines, or another faction of
> the people supposedly united in their anti-Harrisism eg. the Trotskists, or
> some other crazies? Seriously, I want to know. I've seen a very broad
> cross-section of people who don't like Harris, including very centrist
> folks like myself all the way to commies, and I'm sure once they get
> talking beyond generally not liking this-or-that Harris policy, they don't
> exactly get along.
I think this highlights an important aspect of the anti-harris
movement. There are liberals, for example, who don't like Harris,
because they aren't the ones who won the last election, and overall,
represent another faction of the ruling class which Mike Harris
doesn't. Then there are those who oppose Harris because he represents
an all-out attack on their existence - organized labour, students,
lesbians and gays and other oppressed groups in society. Obviously,
there is a huge chasm in the sociological interests of the former
category, and the latter.
Erinn Cunningham
dave schultz
> I think this highlights an important aspect of the anti-harris
> movement. There are liberals, for example, who don't like Harris,
> because they aren't the ones who won the last election, and overall,
> represent another faction of the ruling class which Mike Harris
> doesn't. Then there are those who oppose Harris because he represents
> an all-out attack on their existence - organized labour, students,
> lesbians and gays and other oppressed groups in society.
Whoa. Its pretty obvious which end of that anti-Harris spectrum you're on.
Obviously,
> there is a huge chasm in the sociological interests of the former
> category, and the latter.
I have the feeling that if we had a deeper political discussion, this
would be the only point we'd agree on. How we'd describe those
"sociological interests" would be a different matter entirely.
But at least neither of us like Harris.
Daniel McHardie
> spit on, and narrowly avoided a fist fight.
Now Jason I know you are not one to stir up trouble. ;-)
So dare I ask why people would spit on you when you were at an anti-Harris
rally?
DJM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel McHardie
Carleton University
Third-year Journalism
"I think therefore I am." - Descartes
"You are not me, therefore you are irrelevant." - Dogbert
e-mail address: hit reply you idiot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erinn Cunningham
>
> But at least neither of us like Harris.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dave Schultz
> Vice-President, Carleton Reform Club * Treasurer, History Society
How come you don't like Harris. Because he hasn't openly supported
Reform yet? From whwere I stand, he's a helluva lot closer to Reform
than any other political party!
Erinn Cunningham
New Socialist Club
dave schultz
> How come you don't like Harris. Because he hasn't openly supported
> Reform yet?
Well, that's an interesting point. During the last federal election, Klein
held a press conference with Charest to explicitly give his backing. No
such thing with Harris. While Harris is not a Reformer, there is much
speculation that Eves, Johnson or some other bigwig is. So all the more
reason for Reformers to like Ontario Tories, and vice-versa.
From whwere I stand, he's a helluva lot closer to Reform
> than any other political party!
On the surface, yes, and I've met Reformers who can't understand how I
can't like Harris, so keep in mind the following is just me- I'm not
speaking for Reformers as a whole in any way, shape, or form.
But I'd argue that since Reform's platform is cutting other programs such
as multiculturalism and bilingualism to put more money into education and
health care, and Harris' education "reforms" slide ever more into making
history, politics, and sociology political correctness zones, while he
slashes health and education- that is reason for a Reformer to dislike Harris.
And since Reform's values are based on the grassroots, and Harris
dismisses all protesters- middle class teachers, nurses, students,
etc.- as special interest groups; and Harris creates a 2.5 million person
megacity, thus taking democracy further from the people; and Harris
amalgates school boards, thus taking input away from local school reps and
parents- those are reasons for a Reformer to dislike Harris.
And finally, since hand-in-hand with Reform's faith in the grassroots goes
a belief that all people are essentially good and want to be productive,
and Harris is instituting, albeit half-assedly, a degrading "workfare"
program for those who, in most cases, simply need their innate
intelligence and skills harnessed into a constructive training program;
and since "workfare" only takes the lowest jobs from the market,
which all Reformers have faith in, without instilling long-term growth
- those are reasons for a Reformer to dislike Harris.
Again, I speak only for myself. But I think I've shown how my Reform
Party membership, and a deep, sincere dislike of Harris can be very
compatible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Schultz
Vice-President, Carleton Reform Club * Treasurer, History Society
william bowman
dave schultz (dsch...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
I would like to point out, as a Reform Party supporter, member,
and 1997 Federal Reform Candidate, I also dislike Mike Harris and his
government.
I agree with what Schultzie has posted here. I would point out
a few other reasons why I oppose the Harris PC's:
*Said time and again, he would not have to close ANY hospitals. He plans
to close in the neighbourhood of 25 very soon.
*He said that the Ministry of the envirnment would be streamlined, and
regulations would be updated and cost-efficient. But come on folks- he
gutted that ministry with 44% budget cuts.
*Said that he was committed to his goals of efficient, smaller government
that did its job well. Sure, I agree with that, I thought he was serious
when he said he was open for suggestions of how to make government that
way. But you saw the Omnibus bill,(C-26) and how his hacks tried to ram
it through the legislature w/o much debate, how 'bout the megacity vote?
He said it didn't matter what people said, he'll go ahead anyway.
So there you have it, another Reformer's reason's for disliking
Harris. This guy sadi one thing, and has marched his merry way on his own.
He listens to his backroom hacks before he listens to the concerns of
those who pay the provinces' bills- the average Ontarian who is trying to
live good, work hard, and feel safe. But this guy ignores them, and in my
humble opinion, he ignores them at his peril.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bowman, If it's not necessary to say it,
President, it's necessary not to say it.
Carleton Reform Club
wbo...@chat.carleton.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erinn Cunningham
>
> I agree with what Schultzie has posted here. I would point out
> a few other reasons why I oppose the Harris PC's:
>
> *Said time and again, he would not have to close ANY hospitals. He plans
> to close in the neighbourhood of 25 very soon.
>
> *He said that the Ministry of the envirnment would be streamlined, and
> regulations would be updated and cost-efficient. But come on folks- he
> gutted that ministry with 44% budget cuts.
>
> *Said that he was committed to his goals of efficient, smaller government
> that did its job well. Sure, I agree with that, I thought he was serious
> when he said he was open for suggestions of how to make government that
> way. But you saw the Omnibus bill,(C-26) and how his hacks tried to ram
> it through the legislature w/o much debate, how 'bout the megacity vote?
> He said it didn't matter what people said, he'll go ahead anyway.
>
> So there you have it, another Reformer's reason's for disliking
> Harris. This guy sadi one thing, and has marched his merry way on his own.
> He listens to his backroom hacks before he listens to the concerns of
> those who pay the provinces' bills- the average Ontarian who is trying to
> live good, work hard, and feel safe. But this guy ignores them, and in my
> humble opinion, he ignores them at his peril.
>
significantly different? When Preston Manning was talking about
balancing the budget in 3 years, he was talking about doing it without
the same sort of draconian cuts? Multiculturalism would have been
chopped up so hard and fast you wouldn't even know what had happened!
Likewise when Manning pushes for tax cuts. The whole of the Canadian
ruling class will not be satisfied even if all the present budgetary
surplus goes to tax cuts. If they're aiming for US levels on all
fronts, it will require much larger cuts in the long run - especially
with a shaky economy.
It's never been clear to me that Presto is a rassroots man. I think he
likes to listen to advisors such as Tom Flanagan more than the public.
Just as one example: if he were a grassroots populist, he would also be
pro-choice and fairly unequivocally, like the rest of Canada. Opinion
polls have shown the public t be firmly in support of abortion rights,
but Manning's own graasroots party is more likely to take an
anti-abortion stand!
Erinn
Tony Hahn
> likes to listen to advisors such as Tom Flanagan more than the public.
> Just as one example: if he were a grassroots populist, he would also be
> pro-choice and fairly unequivocally, like the rest of Canada. Opinion
> polls have shown the public t be firmly in support of abortion rights,
> but Manning's own graasroots party is more likely to take an
> anti-abortion stand!
While there is no doubt that Manning himself is pro-life and the majority
of Canadians are not, it is Reform policy to hold a referendum on the
issue. Why? Because on this issue, there is little apathy. *Everyone*
has an opinion about abortion based on their own morality, and so, it
would be nearly impossible for 301 MPs in Ottawa to represent the feelings
of Canadians on this issue with any semblance of authenticity. Since the
emotions surrounding the abortion issue run deep, a referendum would allow
for expression of those emotions.
Although a potential referendum on abortion would be very divisive, it
would demonstrate that Canada has a healthy degree of democracy. Perhaps
the argument could be made that these moral issues (i.e. abortion, euthanasia,
capital punishment) should be left up to the elites to decide (read:
Supreme Court) because direct democracy is not part of Canada's political
tradition. Maybe.
The biggest question of all, though, is this; although Preston Manning has
stated that in the event of a pro-choice mandate from the people he would
vote in favour of it, I don't think this would actually happen. I think
he, along with at least one-third of the Reform caucus, would sooner
resign than enact abortion legislation. Does this still make him a
populist? I don't know.
I must ask ... could we not expect the same from all of the other parties
on the issue of capital punishment? There would never be a referendum on
it from anyone despite the fact that 70% of Canadian repeatedly have
supported the reinstatement of it.
It is an article of faith in Manning as to whether or not he would
actually hold an abortion referendum in the first place. Assuming he did,
and whether my prediction of a resignation came true or not (moot), at least
he is giving the people their right to express themselves on their most
deeply held values. This is more than can be said about the
other parties as shown by the comparable issue of capital punishment.
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
D A R E T O B E Y O U R S E L F
Tony Hahn
Political Science M.A. I
Carleton University
Email address: th...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erinn Cunningham
>
> It is an article of faith in Manning as to whether or not he would
> actually hold an abortion referendum in the first place. Assuming he did,
> and whether my prediction of a resignation came true or not (moot), at least
> he is giving the people their right to express themselves on their most
> deeply held values. This is more than can be said about the
> other parties as shown by the comparable issue of capital punishment.
I suspect that capital punishment would a convenience for Reform, and
would be one of the times they hide their reactionary politics behind a
populist face. As you said before, many Reformers (I believe more than
1/3) would likely resign before they enacted pro-choice policy. This
doesn' sound like very consistent populism to me.
Erinn
--
Tony Hahn
Are you saying that 70% of the population are "reactionary"? After seeing
Paul Bernardo get cable and Homolka getting a psych degree
(ironic?) from Queen's, they are indeed "reacting". Nothing wrong with
"reacting" (and I am adamantly anti-capital punishment myself).
It's possible to remain true to your values while having a healthy
respect for majority opinion. If this means that you have to resign before
voting for abortion, or it means that you are anti-capital punishment but
would respect a vote in favour of it as an expression of democracy, so
what?
Doctrinaire ideology is not always a virtue.
Clement Ng
> Likewise when Manning pushes for tax cuts. The whole of the Canadian
> ruling class will not be satisfied even if all the present budgetary
> surplus goes to tax cuts. If they're aiming for US levels on all
> fronts, it will require much larger cuts in the long run - especially
> with a shaky economy.
What's this 'ruling class' thing mean? Is this some new reserved seating
section on airliners? Can I now ask for coach class, business class,
first class, or ruling...?
> It's never been clear to me that Presto is a rassroots man. I think he
> likes to listen to advisors such as Tom Flanagan more than the public.
I'd be mindful about the Flanagan reference. As Scotty pointed out in
the Barlow and Orchard post, Flanagan is no longer a spokesperson for
Reform (although in my view, his opinions are nonetheless representative
of the grassroots). Ever since he wrote a less-than-glowing biography of
Manning several years ago, the two have apparently not spoken to each
other, although the professor remains a member of Reform, if not an
advisor to the party establishment.
As for this populism debate, I would have to sympathiaze with Bowman and
Hahn. Scholars and commentators have indeed noted discernable ideological
and political differences between conservative populism and Canadian
Toryism; whether Reform will continue to exemplify this populism as it
inevitably slides toward the centre to attract more votes, is another
matter. Most Reform supporters (I'm not sure about the party brass and
MPs) shun the hierarchical dominance found in the Grits and Tories, the two
parties where elites tend to run the show. Since both the PC and Liberals
have been with us since Confederation, they pride themselves as the parties
steeped in tradition, looking in turn (during earlier days) at Reform and the
NDP as protest movements.
There are obviously noticeable distinctions between someone like William
Buckley, the doyen of American conservatives, and the average, gun-toting
NRA member, despite their solid Republican credentials. Likewise, the
typical Albertan farmer and Mike Harris are both on the right yet this
neighbouring in ideological space does not logically translate into shared
values, especially when it comes to ideals of democratic governance. It
might be noted that ideologues on the left often claim the mantle of
popular support when in fact, ambiguity is in the air. Canadian
environmentalists, for example, believe that a majority of the
public desires cleaner surrondings but I don't exactly see a sea of people
screaming about massive budget cuts made to federal and provincial
environmental departments.
<><><><><><><><>--------------------> <--------------------<><><><><><><><>
Clement Ng aka "chigger" (not Clementine...)
4th Year Integrated Science, Faculty of Science, Carleton University
E-mail: cn...@chat.carleton.ca
____ __ ______
/ __\ / | / / \ "War cannot be avoided, only postponed to the
/ / / || / / O \ advantages of others."
__ \ \__/_/||/ /\____ /
/ /__\_____/_|__/_____/ / - Niccoli Machiavelli in *The Prince*
/_______________________/
<><><><><><><><>--------------------> <--------------------<><><><><><><><>
william bowman
> It's never been clear to me that Presto is a rassroots man. I think he
Well Bam-Bam Cuningham, his name is Preston, with an "n". If you are going
to use his first name, and by all means do so, at least have the decency
to spell it correctly.
> likes to listen to advisors such as Tom Flanagan more than the public.
> Just as one example: if he were a grassroots populist, he would also be
> pro-choice and fairly unequivocally, like the rest of Canada. Opinion
> polls have shown the public t be firmly in support of abortion rights,
> but Manning's own graasroots party is more likely to take an
> anti-abortion stand!
Let me tell you something- if you've never met Preston, or had a
chance to ask him his personal opinion about who he serves in politics, then
you should really do some research. Because you simply are a deceived
little person. Preston Manning personally is a pro-life supporter, that is
fine. BTW- not every Reformer is pro-life, or pro-capital punishment,
those are just rumours and hearsay.
I have had the honour of being able to spend a little bit of time
with Mr.Manning. I can tell you, he certainly DOES listen to the people.
They are who he serves, not a backroom political hack like the traditional
parties. Look at his history as Calgary Southwest MP since 1993, he has
held TV townhalls on issues such as Dr.assisted suicide, and national
unity. He has spelled out, and it's in Reform Party policy- I know I ran
on the same guarantee, how a Reform MP would handle an issue of personal
conscience. Here's the procedure:
1) MP and/or candidate makes their personal views known
2) MP, through polls, townhalls, newsletters, call in shows, petitions,
and any other means of conducting surveys, finds the consensus in her/his
riding. This involves healthy, albeit lively discussion and debate, upon
which an MP can try to persuade people as to the rightness of her/his
position.
3)If majority of constituents' wishes are contrary to MP's view, a
Reformer would vote with *THE PEOPLE* because that is who an MP serves,
not a political boss.
4)If, after much debate, polling, etc, there is no consensus, 50-50 split,
then a Reform MP would vote according to her/his previously stated views.
That is how, wether they like it or not, a Reform MP would vote on
a Bill involving issues like abortion, capital punishment, doctor assisted
suicide. Let me be clear, THE REFORM PARTY DOES **NOT** HAVE OFFICIAL
PARTY STANDS ON:
*ABORTION
*CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
*DOCTOR ASSISTED SUICIDE
Sure, if the pattern keeps up that the people are always at odds
with an MP, there will come a parting of the ways. But this outline,
which I have provided, is how Reform would handle itself an the above issues.
But really, there are more important issues than these that need to be
addressed.
Eric Miller
>While there is no doubt that Manning himself is pro-life and the majority
>of Canadians are not, it is Reform policy to hold a referendum on the
>issue. Why? Because on this issue, there is little apathy. *Everyone*
>has an opinion about abortion based on their own morality, and so, it
>would be nearly impossible for 301 MPs in Ottawa to represent the feelings
>of Canadians on this issue with any semblance of authenticity. Since the
>emotions surrounding the abortion issue run deep, a referendum would allow
>for expression of those emotions.
B-S!!!! Referendas to not allow for the expression of emotions - there's no
place for "comment" on the ballot. Only Yes or No. Referenda are for the
most part (and especially in this case) *decisiveness at the expense of
thoughtfulness*.
Why is the Reform party so intent on making government the purveyors of
"morality" through majority votes, votes held uniquely on issues that
currently do not suit the Reform mindset?? Obviously you & the R-party have
a very different idea as to what the government is there for - to conform
the population to a certain morality.
Look at abortion now - if you are "pro-life" than you are under absolutely
no pressure to have an abortion. You are under no pressure to change your
"morals" - indeed you do remain pro-life and noone is going to take that
away from you. If you are "pro-choice" you are free to exercise your right
to abort your child. Wow - what a wonderful system! Is it not? - it allows
for individual choice on the matter. Why is the Reform, along with its
extensive use of the word "individual" not able to accept this system we
have in place in Canada? It suits "pro-life" and "pro-choice" equally.
>Although a potential referendum on abortion would be very divisive, it
>would demonstrate that Canada has a healthy degree of democracy. Perhaps
>the argument could be made that these moral issues (i.e. abortion,
euthanasia,
>capital punishment) should be left up to the elites to decide (read:
>Supreme Court) because direct democracy is not part of Canada's political
>tradition. Maybe.
Very typical of you to be afraid of the Supreme Court - just like Manning
who wants all judgements by the Supreme court to be scrutinized and
potentially invalidated by the parliament. How wonderful - if Manning
dislikes a judement, kill it. If he likes it, he keeps it and says that the
court was correct. You think Chretien is bad now with limiting certain
expressions of protest, etc. .- wait for Manning to void whatever clauses of
our Charter & constitution that he dosen't like on a given day.
>The biggest question of all, though, is this; although Preston Manning has
>stated that in the event of a pro-choice mandate from the people he would
>vote in favour of it, I don't think this would actually happen. I think
>he, along with at least one-third of the Reform caucus, would sooner
>resign than enact abortion legislation. Does this still make him a
>populist? I don't know.
It's hard to define "populist" - I would say that Manning is as much one as
is Harris - a "false populist." By that I mean him selectively putting to a
referendum issues which they know of the outcome of the vote. Referenda are
used simply to support their own egos and convey the idea that somehow they
are "with the people" Again, referenda are decisiveness at the expense of
thoughtfulness. For making good public policy, which demands much organised
debate, discussion and thought, referenda on issues seem more in contempt of
the populace than anything else. It allows for very little progress.
>I must ask ... could we not expect the same from all of the other parties
>on the issue of capital punishment? There would never be a referendum on
>it from anyone despite the fact that 70% of Canadian repeatedly have
>supported the reinstatement of it.
Patrick Boyer brought the topic up in Parliament in the 80s and the MPs
didn't spend time on it. No one seemed to care. It appears that we've more
to do than worry about the dealth penalty. As for capital punishment - I'm
not sure why that term was used for the death sentence - the term seems more
fitting to what's been happening around the world these days with capital
flowing around the world, infesting a country, leaving it quickly and
destroying so many victims in its path. And alas, we'll all be under a
spell of capital punishment for the next 20years for our economic, social,
and environmental laws and policies that don't conform to the MAI. Martin,
Reform, PC keep threatening us with 'capital punishment' if we abandon our
drive to be just like the U.S. and appease the "men in red suspenders."
- Eric
Tony Hahn
> B-S!!!! Referendas to not allow for the expression of emotions - there's no
> place for "comment" on the ballot. Only Yes or No. Referenda are for the
> most part (and especially in this case) *decisiveness at the expense of
> thoughtfulness*.
> Why is the Reform party so intent on making government the purveyors of
> "morality" through majority votes, votes held uniquely on issues that
> currently do not suit the Reform mindset?? Obviously you & the R-party have
> a very different idea as to what the government is there for - to conform
> the population to a certain morality.
> Look at abortion now - if you are "pro-life" than you are under absolutely
> no pressure to have an abortion. You are under no pressure to change your
> "morals" - indeed you do remain pro-life and noone is going to take that
> away from you. If you are "pro-choice" you are free to exercise your right
> to abort your child. Wow - what a wonderful system! Is it not? - it allows
> for individual choice on the matter. Why is the Reform, along with its
> extensive use of the word "individual" not able to accept this system we
> have in place in Canada? It suits "pro-life" and "pro-choice" equally.
Pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike are obligated to pay for abortion through
tax dollars. Hence, the current system does not treat both "moralities"
equally.
> Very typical of you to be afraid of the Supreme Court - just like Manning
> who wants all judgements by the Supreme court to be scrutinized and
> potentially invalidated by the parliament. How wonderful - if Manning
> dislikes a judement, kill it. If he likes it, he keeps it and says that the
> court was correct. You think Chretien is bad now with limiting certain
> expressions of protest, etc. .- wait for Manning to void whatever clauses of
> our Charter & constitution that he dosen't like on a given day.
Typical of me? How do you know where my allegiances lie? Whom do I speak
for, Eric? You tell me.
Now that we've got that straight, are you saying that Supreme Court
judgements should not be held up to scrutiny by our *elected* (empahsize:
elected) representatives? What is wrong with that? Or are you afraid
that perhaps the back door would close on the so-called "civil society"
groups, because there is no way that Canada's elected representatives would
deal with such issues?
> >The biggest question of all, though, is this; although Preston Manning has
> >stated that in the event of a pro-choice mandate from the people he would
> >vote in favour of it, I don't think this would actually happen. I think
> >he, along with at least one-third of the Reform caucus, would sooner
> >resign than enact abortion legislation. Does this still make him a
> >populist? I don't know.
> It's hard to define "populist" - I would say that Manning is as much one as
> is Harris - a "false populist." By that I mean him selectively putting to a
> referendum issues which they know of the outcome of the vote. Referenda are
> used simply to support their own egos and convey the idea that somehow they
> are "with the people" Again, referenda are decisiveness at the expense of
> thoughtfulness. For making good public policy, which demands much organised
> debate, discussion and thought, referenda on issues seem more in contempt of
> the populace than anything else. It allows for very little progress.
Do you honestly for a moment think that Manning insists on a referendum
for abortion because he looks at the potential outcome and sees that the
pro-life side has a chance at winning? Why would he insist on putting
abortion to referendum when obviously the pro-life side would lose by a
massive count? If he engineers the referendum issues, based on only
issues he knows will win, why then the abortion promise? Same as
euthanasia. He would lose on two of the three issues ... the only one
that would pass would be the capital punishment one. So why the promise
to hold referenda on three issues where his own point of view would be
victorious in one instance?
This being politics of course, this is all hypothetical ... who is to say
that if Reform were elected, he would deliver the goods on his promise?
Basically there is no way to tell unless Reform were elected.
> Patrick Boyer brought the topic up in Parliament in the 80s and the MPs
> didn't spend time on it. No one seemed to care. It appears that we've more
> to do than worry about the dealth penalty.
Agreed about more to worry about than the death penalty, but these issues
are symptoms of the greater debate here ... representation. BTW, Brian
Mulroney seemed to care when he staged the "free" vote in Parliament.
As for capital punishment - I'm
> not sure why that term was used for the death sentence - the term seems more
> fitting to what's been happening around the world these days with capital
> flowing around the world, infesting a country, leaving it quickly and
> destroying so many victims in its path. And alas, we'll all be under a
> spell of capital punishment for the next 20years for our economic, social,
> and environmental laws and policies that don't conform to the MAI. Martin,
> Reform, PC keep threatening us with 'capital punishment' if we abandon our
> drive to be just like the U.S. and appease the "men in red suspenders."
Seeing as you know the explicit positions of the Reform, PC and Liberal
parties on the MAI, please explain them here, in detail, for the benefit
of all of us who are so plainly being duped.