Sad news from Canada

[altivo]

In what looks very much like a backlash against social progress, Canadians have apparently given their Conservative party a plurality in Parliament. This is nothing like the stranglehold the right wing presently has on US politics, but I think it's a bad sign. I hope the Liberals and the NDP will join forces and cooperate to keep the Tories in check. Lacking that, things look bleak for minorities, women, and abortion rights in Canada.

The intolerance of humanity really gets me down sometimes. Anyone know of a desert island for sale?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately, people vote sooner for one of their interests, than they vote against one of their dis-interests.

An example: "Ooh, cake every Sunday! Right, let's ignore the lack of court warrants for phone taps, then ..."

[calydor.livejournal.com]

Umm, that anonymous comment above was mine ... dunno why I wasn't logged in. *goes to check cookie settings now*

[duncandahusky.livejournal.com]

It wasn't your cookie settings. LiveJournal reset everyone's cookies last night due to some changes in cookie security they have been working on.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Livejournal messed up the cookies again, without warning.

Yes, you're right. That's a fundamental flaw in democracy as it is practiced today. People don't usually give deep and serious thought to all the issues. They aren't that interested. Instead, they vote their emotion of the moment, or their hot button. The gay marriage thing won millions of votes for the Republicans here in 2004, not because the Republicans had earned those votes, but because they stumped on that issue and swept all their failings under the rug.

[dogteam.livejournal.com]

Conservative attitudes towards the issues you mention above certainly cause concern, yes. But few people are willing to be governed by thieves, especially thieves that are caught red-handed and refuse to acknowledge their guilt. The alternatives are the NDP, too small to form a goverment (and who would spend us into bankrupcy within six months), and the Conservatives. It's a minority government, and hopefully that check will prevent wholesale reversal of positive social measures.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I hope so too. Canada has made great forward strides in human rights and social policy in the last 50 years. I've seen a lot of rhetoric from people who want to reverse that.

As for people unwilling to be governed by thieves, I'm not so sure. In the US at least, people seem to vote for thieves and the unprincipled as long as they offer lip service to the right hot button issue (such as abortion ban, or no gay marriages, or jingoistic patriotism.)

[duncandahusky.livejournal.com]

As near as I can tell from listening to the CBC, the parallels can be drawn between the US and Canada this way:
NDP - Left wing of the Democratic Party
Liberals - Moderate wing of the Democratic Party
Tories - Moderate wing of the Republican Party

I don't think there really is an analogous group to the right wing of the Republican Party, at least not among the major Canadian parties. (Oh, I might throw in that Bloc Quebecois is sort of like the Dixiecrats, but I suspect that's a real stretch).

From these analogies, I'd say that while things will definitely be taking a rightward swing, it's not nearly as bad as it might look at first, especially since the Tories have a minority government.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I hope the other parties will keep the Tories in check. While in theory Canada's Conservatives are not like the US Republicans, if you read much of the election rhetoric that was put forth, particularly in the western provinces, you will see attitudes that sound pretty familiar. "Defend the sanctity of traditional marriage" and all that stuff. In the present state of the US, I have felt more and more that Canada was the only reasonable refuge if things tilt any farther right here. Now I'm in doubt about even that.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

For commentary from a Canadian whose opinions align with my own, have a look here.

[deffox]

Overall the Conservative party is a lot more moderate than US Republicans, but there are still exceptions. They did a good job of keeping the nuts from saying stupid things in front of camera.

But it doesn't change that one of the platforms they ran under was to reverse gay marriage. As someone who is considering emigrating, I take exception to that.

The NDP shouldn't have called elections now.

[hgryphon.livejournal.com]

Hold your horses, 'Tivo, don't you think you're jumping the gun? You call this "sad news," but is it just because they're conservatives? Or do you really know that they're about to do something evil to Canada? And how does this relate to intolerance? I think I'm going to need some explanation before I understand a single word of this post...

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The Conservatives ran with a specific party plank to repeal the gay marriage changes in Canada. To me that is very sad news. Some of their candidates have also been explicit about other intentions, such as dismantling the National Health system. Since I'm not a Canadian myself, perhaps I shouldn't be so interested, but I have really respected Canada's steps forward in social policy and I seriously hate to see them destroyed by a political backlash.

[ducktapeddonkey.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the abortion issue.


...there's also that little "war" thing too.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

When the election campaign was only a few hours old, the Conservatives' leader promised that he would hold another vote in parliament on gay marriage. Getting rid of it may or may not be the top priority of the Conservative platform, but it is obvious that it is a very high personal priority for the prime minister-designate. And many of the newly elected Conservative members of parliament seem to have been intentionally kept out of the public eye, purportedly for having views too socially regressive for the general public to readily accept. So if not a sad day, then certainly a very nervous day.

[dogteam.livejournal.com]

That's the key...he promised to hold another vote...
one in which MP's would be free to vote their concience, not be forced to follow the party whip.

Isn't that what Democracy is all about? (Not that we actually have Democracy in Canada, but close.)

[hgryphon.livejournal.com]

Nervous I'll agree to.

[pioneer11.livejournal.com]

GO CONSERVATIVES!!!

*ducks*

^_^

[altivo.livejournal.com]

*being a "liberal clown" according to US attitudes, pulls out his seltzer bottle and squirts you thoroughly*

[pioneer11.livejournal.com]

*acks and holds up his hands*

Bad hoss! Bad!

XD

[darkhorseman.livejournal.com]

More and more I think the island idea wouldnt be a bad thing but then even as much as we got all the likeminded people together nobody could agree on anything and we would probibly destroy eachother within a month.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Heh. Who said anything about letting anyone else onto my island?

[darkhorseman.livejournal.com]

It was an idea tossed around by friends at one time. I dont ever see somthing like that happening

[goldenstallion.livejournal.com]

Dear Rider,

Do not let it get you down. Jesus taught tolerance and love for fellow men (and women and animals and the world and to be no part of the political State) and so it is the lost Christians who think they have the answers and, of course, they do not.

It boils down to control and power over others, something, I feel, deeply ingrained in the human psyche and no power (even God) will ever change that. Still, we who have open minds and study and try our best to love our fellow denizens of this little blue dot should keep on struggling and fighting for our individual liberties. Or else it will all be lost in the end.

Your loyal and loving mount, Imperator

[altivo.livejournal.com]

True, Jesus did teach that. And the party sent St. Paul behind him to do "damage control" and protect the status quo by keeping women and slaves in their place, making sure people still paid their taxes, and that no one challenged law and order or tried to kick the priests out of the Temple. The Christian church of today ought, in fact, to be called the Paulian church because it adheres more to the views of Paul than to those of Jesus, at least if we take what's in the New Testament seriously.

Now we have a president who claims that god is telling him what to do and that he is answerable to no one else on earth, not even the American people. This is frightening stuff, at least to me.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Note: There's no way that Stephen Harper can claim he has a "mandate".

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/24/vote-poll060124.html

Only 41% of those who voted for Stephen Harper's party did so because they wanted a Conservative government.
71% of all voters said it doesn't make a big difference what political party is in power in Ottawa.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

There was no way George W. Bush could claim to have a mandate after the 2000 election. He did not even have a plurality of the vote. He did not have the necessary electoral votes either, but was put into office by a partisan court decision that never should have been rendered. Yet, a few weeks later he claimed to have a "clear mandate from the American people". Politicians run on gas and vapors, not reality.

The fact that 71% of the voters said it doesn't make a big difference only shows that Canadians are just as jaded and disenchanted with the political process as US voters are. But it still does matter which party is in power, as we have learned much to our chagrin down here. If Harper starts throwing Canadian forces into Bush's petty oil wars, actively seeking to repeal basic human rights, and dismantle the Canadian health system, I'm afraid Canadians will find out that it really does matter.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Luckily, the Conservatives will have to run a minority government, and that entails continuous horse-trading. Hopefully the Liberals will have an opportunity to throw their weight around and stop the Conservatives from doing too much harm. The gay marriage repeal is an issue of concern, though. I don't know if it's a critical issue for the Libs or not. If the prime minister absolutely insists on making it a priority, there's always chance the Libs will shrug and let him have his way in exchange for moderation or inaction in some other issue.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That's precisely my concern. The Liberals were divided on the issue but many voted with Martin in order to show party unity. The NDP and BQ are pretty much in support, I understand, but another vote soon could be very close and might fail. The real question is would they approve a "notwithstanding" to make a ban on gay marriages stand? If not, then even the vote would be pointless as the courts have already set a precedent in favor.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

The Liberals are neck-deep in corruption scandals while the Conservatives are not. I belive that to have been a key factor. Since the campaign has largely been ideology-free, with only a part of the customary 'far right American neoliberalism' and 'left-wing socialist nannystate' nonsense, I'm not surprised the Conservatives have staged a clear but lukewarm comeback. In one way it wasn't about the economy or security or foreign policy or even about values, but about whether the Canadian voters still trusted the Liberals after all the bad headlines.

Sadly, it appears they didn't, and given current the Liberal record I can't really blame them. I'm not entirely happy with the Conservatives in power in Canada, having really rooted for a Liberal defensive victory. They're still more preferable as a next choice than the New Democrats who, despite their far more rational social platform, could probably wreck Canadian finances in less than ten minutes.