Saturday, January 21, 2006

Expressing my views and advancing my cause

What's going to happen after the election? Are these social conservatives going to stay in hiding ... (or) are they going to come out and start expressing their views, advancing their causes?" Paul Martin, speaking in Atlantic Canada today
I am a 'social conservative' -- not a radical. In fact, my views are moderate. I have no extremist vision and no desire to impose my values on anyone else -- unlike the radical left that Paul Martin has come to extol.

I believe that there should be some regulation on abortion based on the age of the fetus.
I believe that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. I do not believe marriage is a right. I believe civil unions or registered domestic partnerships of some sort would allow the same benefits as marriage, and would respect the dignity of gay people.

How are these positions controversial? They are in line with the mainstream, modern views of countries like Britain, Finland, Switzerland and France. Very few western democracies allow completely unfettered access to abortion and at least 17 modern, civilized, forward-thinking nations recognise civil unions between gay couples, but not gay 'marriage.'

My views on marriage and abortion are not related to my religion. I have no idea about the Anglican church's view on abortion, and on marriage, they are impossibly divided. I believe that most people who are against abortion or against gay marriage concede there must be compromise -- not so on the 'yes' side. The pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage contingent are so rigid in their views one might call them dogmatic, or even fervently religious to the point of intolerance.

When Stephen Harper says the issue of abortion won't be on the table should he become Prime Minister, I believe him. Why? Because this is a toxic issue for Conservatives. Should he want a solid mandate or second term (whatever the case may be) he can't touch the issue. He knows it. Paul Martin knows it. And yet Martin runs around Canada in the name of women everywhere, telling anyone who will listen, that my opinions are so extreme that they are frightening.

Whatever side of 'rights' issues or 'social' issues you come down on, it should be unsettling that the prime minister of our country has such contempt for so many of the citizens he is supposed to represent. A prime minister is supposed to be the Prime Minister of ALL of the people, not just the people who agree with his narrow world view, and fit his exclusive definition of Canadian.

Buzz Hargrove says that Albertans are not quite Canadian -- Paul Martin doesn't distance himself on that comment, and the media is still writing about the abortion non-issue.

Paul Martin keeps stressing there is a 'fundamental difference' between himself and Stephen Harper. Well, in Stephen Harper's Canada, people are entitled to express diverse opinions on matters of conscience and not be subject to ridicule or derision.
In Paul Martin's Canada, when the government wants your opinion, it will tell it to you.

Choose your Canada.

canadianna

9 comments:

thots said...

This whole idea that candidates are right wing extremists ready to launch who knows what on Canadians is absurd. Is MArtin suggesting that instead of allowing ridings and Canadians to choose who they want to run to represent them - that these people should be judged by him first and if he doesn't like their attitude, religion, views, then to heck with the wishes of the people in that riding? I knew he was in favor of absolute power, but I wasn't so convinced his hidden agenda was to do away with the democratic system. Perhaps in his great drive to protect minority rights, has also decided that average Canadians can not be trusted to choose and run candidates and he should introduce laws that would stop them. What is his hidden agenda?? Destroy democracy?

Perhaps a reporter could ask him if he believes the people who support these "terrible destroyers of Canadian values" candidates should be denied a voice in this election? And if a riding actually elected one of these to be their MP, should they be allowed to sit in parliment and voice the opinions of those that elected them?

Peter Thurley said...

Canadianna, I agree with much of what you have written. When it comes to social issues, Harper and the Conservatives are not that 'scary', if only because they do not have any wiggle room whatsoever in today's Canada. (in the interest of keeping my comment short, the rest can be read here.)

TrustOnlyMulder said...

Rona Ambrose got Belinda Stronach good on this issue on Countdown Friday night. Belinda was at the policy convention the Conservatives had when the abortion issue was brought up.

I agree with you 100% Canadianna. Abortion is one of those holy grails that conservatives like you and me "get". It shouldn't be touched. I have far more pressing things that the Conservative Party has promised to fix that are more important to me and there will probably always be things more important to me to keep pushing abortion on the backburner.

Even I would not tolerate a leader supporting a change to the abortion bill without stating it clearly before an election. This would go for any leader. It is too hot a subject to not let people know what you will honestly do before an election.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Canadiana. As long as the media keeps harping on this & following Martin around like a dog & that bone, it will continue to be "news". As bloggers & Canadians, we have to get out there & refute those comments. So hopefully, people who haven't as yet made a decision as to who they will vote for, can get past this & back to the platforms. We haven't seen the Liberal platform for sometime, have we? If there was one to begin with???

Where, Mr. Martin is your platform???? So I can make a comparison & a decision.
Lou-Lou

Chairm said...

That's a good point about Hargrove. He admits he is to the left of the NDP. Yet Martin campaigns alongside Buzz as Buzz calls the increasingly popular federalist option in Quebec, "separatist". But the current Premier of Saskatchewan is an NDPer and he praised Harper's approach to federalism re equalization.

And now that Martin admits there is no difference between how he'd handle the abortion issue in the Commons and how Harper would, that leaves same-sex marriage.

Just a couple of years ago his party, including himself and his Justice Minister, voted to affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

That idea is not so scary to the moderate left in the Liberal party, nor to the voters in the Western region who elected MPS who voted against same-sex marriage in the summer of 2005. They also elected Liberal and NDP provincial governments.

And since about half -- or more -- of the surviving Liberal caucus will be opposed to same-sex marriage, and probably a larger majority of newly elected MPs will also vote against same-sex marriage should a free vote be held in the new House, well, that might just leave Martin on the extreme outside of mainstream Canada.

Far right? Riiiiight.

* * *

Tacking back ... Extreme Politics.

Canadians favor gay rights and are against enactment of SSM

Sharon said...

Hi Canadianna,
I have had your blog bookmarked for months and read it regularly but I don't think I have ever left a comment before. Reading your post today made my day. You have summed up your position in a simple yet eloquent way.

I often have to defend my beliefs. I am a new Conservative supporter. I go to Trent and I used to be one of the misled sheep. I am dating a strong Conservative believer but wanted to change for myself and no one else. Thanks to reading blogs like your and the War Room, SDA and Angry in GWN I have seen the light.

Conservatives often are misconstrued as old white men, and this will sound corny but reading your blog as a woman inspires me.

Thanks

Sincerely

Sharon

Canadi-anna said...

Thanks Sharon, I'm glad you decided to comment. You made my day!

Anonymous said...

Wow. Very well written, and very much true on every single point mentioned. I especially loved how you pointed out how hypocritical the left can be when they try to stifle debate and dissenting views on contentious issues such as abortion and SSM. It's sad that we've gotten to the point in this country where we can't even TALK about abortion or other social issues, lest 'something dangerous' happen. The real reason, of course, being that the leftist grip on public opinion would be openly challnged, that their doctrine would not be accepted as given.

How did we get to the point where martin is able to use 'if the conservatives get in, they'll advance their causes and start expressing their views' as an attack, while it is perfectly acceptable for martin to appoint activist judges and fund left-wing special interest groups to advance the leftist-socialist agenda? How did we let it become a crime to express our opinions, as conservatives? Why is Martin allowed to run willy-nilly with supporting left-wing activism while we aren't even allowed to hint that we'll be supporting our own agenda if elected?

The reality of the situation is, whether majority or minority, if we wake up tuesday to a conservative government, then the candian people have given them the authority and the mandate to pursue a conservative agenda, and not a liberal one. We will have the right and the authority to support our causes and beliefs and I believe that we should do so unflinchingly when we can.

Perhaps we can actually look forward to having debate on issues when the tories are elected...maybe.

Safiyyah said...

Excellent post. There's been a great deal of scare-mongering in the past few weeks. I think most Canadians would agree it's a bit insulting to have a Prime Minister who is willing to undermine the intelligence of the populace through attack ads and related statements on Harper.