CanPol: Conservative Platform

[St Leo]

Bloc | Conservatives | Greens | Liberals | NDP

Registered Loonies:
Canadian Action Party | Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada| Communist Party of Canada | Marijuana Party

Eligible Loonies:
Christian Heritage Party

Weird Loonies:
Freedom Party[0] | Libertarians | Parti Populaire | Socialist Party of Canada | Western Canada Concept

[0] Shades of Turtledove?^-^

This is reposted from the Nader thread for Weezil's benefit.

Originally posted by Wezil Reread my post. The electorate is STUPID. They WON'T look at Nader's platform. They will vote on what they hear from media/friends/family (most of which, no doubt, will be wrong).

The same problem exists in Canada. I know, I reside in dimwit Ontario.

Ach.

/me goes off to read the Conservative platform

WTF is it a PDF? Greens and NDP didn't make me deal with PDFs when I read theirs.

Blah blah. Stealing billions from Canadians with tax cuts. Blah blah.

A Conservative government will initiate an overall review of the relevance of the role played by the CRTC in Canada’s communication and broadcasting industries.

Idiots.

A Conservative government will try violent or serious repeat offenders fourteen and over as adults.

Whoa. Crazy.

A Conservative government will uphold the freedom of individuals and families to nurture aspects of culture that are important to them, recognizing that institutionalized multiculturalism as a taxpayer-funded program has run its course.

WTF? Are they ****ing crazy? Why would they want to dismantle something in which Canada is a shining example to the world? ****heads.

A Conservative government will support the election of senators. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in an equal Senate to address the uneven distribution of Canada’s population and to provide a balance to safeguard regional interests.

Ugh. More power to rural kooks?

A Conservative government will caonsider electoral reforms, including proportional representation, fixed election dates, and the single transferable ballot.

Not enough to vote for them, but still a good policy.

Eh.

[DinoDoc]

A Conservative government will uphold the freedom of individuals and families to nurture aspects of culture that are important to them, recognizing that institutionalized multiculturalism as a taxpayer-funded program has run its course.

Unless they are willing to remove the special status French enjoys, I don't see much point in this.

[Wezil]

Re: CanPol: Conservative Platform

Originally posted by St Leo



Blah blah. Stealing billions from Canadians with tax cuts. Blah blah.

Taking tax money for one stated purpose then using it to fund something entirely different sounds closer to theft to me. eg. excessive EI payments - theft from employers and workers of Canada.

A Conservative government will initiate an overall review of the relevance of the role played by the CRTC in Canada’s communication and broadcasting industries.

Good call. Long overdue. Civil disobedience on a massive scale (US satellite services demonstrates the problem with the policy as it now stands.

A Conservative government will try violent or serious repeat offenders fourteen and over as adults.

Adult crime - adult time (still a good deal under Canadian sentencing...)

A Conservative government will uphold the freedom of individuals and families to nurture aspects of culture that are important to them, recognizing that institutionalized multiculturalism as a taxpayer-funded program has run its course.

Multicult is a policy that is inherently devisive. Feel free to foster culture and beliefs but don't ask the Feds to help segregate you.

A Conservative government will support the election of senators. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in an equal Senate to address the uneven distribution of Canada’s population and to provide a balance to safeguard regional interests.

Senate Reform is another item well past due.

A Conservative government will caonsider electoral reforms, including proportional representation, fixed election dates, and the single transferable ballot.

Proportion Rep is beautiful. I don't believe they are serious - but it would be nice if they were.


edit: First quote is StLeo's. The remainder are from the Conservative website (not trying to put words in your mouth Leo. My comp skills are limited...)

[Starchild]

The Bloc's website is in french. I can't read it and therefore I cannot be swayed by fancy graphics alone. I require word play and libel dammit!

[notyoueither]

Neither Leo not Wezil has mentioned banning political contributions from businesses and unions. That strikes as a pretty big one, to me.

Also, the idea to eliminate corporate subsidies and instead cut corporate tax rates with that money. Another winner.

Their approach to youth crime I could do without. We have judges to decide if a youth is fit and deserving to stand trial as an adult, let judges do their job.

I also think they are on the wrong track taking a run at Multiculturalism. From what I've heard, Canada is doing an excellent job of bringing people from other cultures into the mainstream (with a few exceptions) compared to other countries with large numbers of immigrants. Don't fix what is not only not broken, but is being a raging success.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christian Heritage folks count as loonies?

[notyoueither]

Commies are loonies to many on the right. Many on the left consider religious people to be loonies.

It all goes 'round.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, to underscore these 'loonies' they have many excellent points.

Just for clarification, I'm a member of the Conservative party, and I disagree with their sentiments.

Here's one of their excellent points.


Buying Unity at the Expense of Truth

Ron Gray March 22, 2004
Buying unity at the expense of truth

In 1989, a little more than a year after the Supreme Court of Canada had unjustly struck down the last feeble shed of protection for pre-born children, a group of people in Vancouver organized a cross-country caravan from Vancouver to Ottawa, where we planned to lobby for pro-life legislation.

The kick-off for the caravan was a rally on the court-house steps at Vancouver. In preparation for the rally and caravan, I spoke to the pastors of many evangelical churches in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. In each one, I made the same request: for the pastors to preach a couple of sermons on abortion, then network with other churches to get people to the pro-life rally.

At one of the biggest churches, I spoke to a pastoral staff of nine; but when I made my request for two sermons on abortion, the senior pastor said, "No."

"Why not?" I asked, astonished.

"Because," he said, "there are people in my congregation on both sides of that issue, and I don't want to risk division."

My first thought was, "What on earth are you teaching them?!?" The Bible is very clear about the shedding of innocent blood.

On later reflection, I thought: he's buying unity at the cost of truth.

Today, not one of those nine pastors is still at that church, and it is deeply divided. There is always a price to be paid for compromising the truth.

I remembered that event while I was watching the close of the new Conservative Party's leadership convention this weekend. In his acceptance speech, the new leader did an admirable job of reaching out to all the fragments of his splintered party.

He even reached out to "SoCons" - social conservatives (i.e., pro-life and pro-family Canadians, especially Christians).

Unfortunately, during the leadership campaign - and even in the months before the merger of the Alliance and the Tories - he had already made a pledge that there would be no policy on issues like abortion and same-sex "marriage". And he promised that, if they came up he'd allow a free vote - but his party would not raise these issues in Parliament. His position was no different than third-place finisher Tony Clement.

Belinda Stronach, who took 35 per cent of the votes to win second place, made it clear that she's pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. When a position like hers earns more than a third of the votes, you have to wonder how "conservative" this new hybrid really is.

Like the pastor who didn't want to talk about abortion, they're purchasing unity at the expense of truth.

But critical issues surrounding the sanctity of life and marriage - like the Liberal Party's links to the decade of scandals - will not go away merely because they want to ignore them. In abandoning truth to get unity, the new Conservatives reveal a fundamental flaw they share with the Liberals: that power supersedes principles.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: CanPol: Conservative Platform

Originally posted by Wezil
Adult crime - adult time

And which crimes are the sole areas of minors?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, to underscore these 'loonies' they have many excellent points.

Just for clarification, I'm a member of the Conservative party, and I disagree with their sentiments.

Here's one of their excellent points.

I didn't read all that, Ben, but I feel safe in assuring you that any party that bases any major, or even minor, policy on religious sentiment is never going to form a government in this country federally, and most likely not in any province.

They may not like that the Conservatives chose to take Christian values off the table, but they are loons indeed if they expect the party to be successful if they didn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't read all that, Ben,

Well, try your best. The post says nothing about religion.

What it talks about more is the conflict between different party ideologies. In order to achieve power requires certain compromises to be made by the party, and the Heritage party is not sure what to make of the new Conservatives and the compromises they have chosen to make.

I have had many earnest discussions with friends of mine over this issue, and I've had to justify my membership in the Conservative party to them. It's easier to sit off to the side, but much different to put together a broad-based coalition.

but they are loons indeed if they expect the party to be successful if they didn't.

Neither abortion, nor gay marriage are explicitly 'Christian' issues. Opposition to both range along a far greater spectrum, and these folks are not well represented by the current administration.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, try your best. The post says nothing about religion. Like the pastor who didn't want to talk about abortion, they're purchasing unity at the expense of truth.

Haven't done this before to anyone that I can remember, Ben.

At one of the biggest churches, I spoke to a pastoral staff of nine; but when I made my request for two sermons on abortion, the senior pastor said, "No."

"Why not?" I asked, astonished.

"Because," he said, "there are people in my congregation on both sides of that issue, and I don't want to risk division."

My first thought was, "What on earth are you teaching them?!?" The Bible is very clear about the shedding of innocent blood.

On later reflection, I thought: he's buying unity at the cost of truth.

...

Like the pastor who didn't want to talk about abortion, they're purchasing unity at the expense of truth.

His truth and your truth, Ben.

Canadians by and large don't want your 'truth', or anyone elses to form the basis of public policy. Is that so hard to understand?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, to underscore these 'loonies' they have many excellent points.

Just for clarification, I'm a member of the Conservative party, and I disagree with their sentiments.

Here's one of their excellent points.

Actually, that article was incredibly stupid. The primary point of a chuch is to worship your god. This is what unifies a congregation.

Some Christians believe that abortion is wrong, but other Christians do not. The pastors in those churches recognised that the issue was divisive, that the argument would never end and correctly chose to avoid it.

What the writer is essentially saying is that Christians who believe in pro-choice should be denied a place of worship.

[Ben Kenobi]

Haven't done this before to anyone that I can remember, Ben.

Where did I say you were doing this to anyone?

I'd be doing this myself!

What I'm trying to say is that there are different ways of running a party, and that these different ways are the only thing that separates the Christian Heritage party from the Conservatives.

His truth and your truth, Ben.

Canadians by and large don't want your 'truth', or anyone elses to form the basis of public policy. Is that so hard to understand?

I do understand. That's why I'm with the Conservatives, and not with these folks.

But just because some folks have a religious justification, and others have a secular one, does not mean that the religious folks are less right than the secular ones. Two different ways of arriving at the same conclusion.

Public policy ought to be based on what works best for Canadian society. Most of the disagreement is over how people see Canadian society than over what works and what doesn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

The primary point of a chuch is to worship your god. This is what unifies a congregation.

You are focusing on the analogy, and not the thrust of his argument. In order to cobble together a party requires compromise, in short, sacrificing truth for unity.

The Heritage folks are very right, that in order to accomodate certain people, will require the party to give up everything that makes them distinctive and attractive to voters.

The key question is how far? What things can be accomodated and what sorts of things cannot?

In a congregation you have the same point. Suppose if one person insisted on worshiping in one way, while everyone did so in a different way? It's fine until the differences become disruptive to the service.

You are right that the primary purpose of worship is to provide a chance to thank God, and to ask for forgiveness, but these things can be done outside a house of worship.

One of the other purposes of worship is the fellowship among Christians, in supporting each other and carrying burdens.

This is what unifies a congregation. A congregation that worships as a collection of individuals is hardly a congregation. There need to be personal relationships among the parishioners, and the clergy.

Some Christians believe that abortion is wrong, but other Christians do not. The pastors in those churches recognised that the issue was divisive, that the argument would never end and correctly chose to avoid it.

And many pastors take the opposite approach, in challenging their congregation. So just because something is divisive, does not, in itself, render the issue untouchable. Even Christ admits this when he says that he comes not to bring peace, but a sword. More churches are coming to realise that this accomodation is not working. Rather than soothing division, they have instead brought about what they have tried to avoid.

What the writer is essentially saying is that Christians who believe in pro-choice should be denied a place of worship.

What does it mean to 'believe in prochoice?'

Would you not rightfully ask that the Christians expel someone for preaching violence against unbelievers, and calling for their death? Why is it that these people would be censured while those who support death of a different source are not?