Categories: Inside the Queensway

CPC ConventionWatch 2008: Now this is more like it!

Term limits for Supreme Court justices? Defanging the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Throwing in…

by kadyomalley on Thursday, November 6, 2008 9:53pm - 42 Comments

Term limits for Supreme Court justices? Defanging the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Throwing in the towel on same-sex marriage? It’s all up for debate at next week’s Conservative Party convention according to National Newswatch, which has obtained the very latest package of proposed policy resolutions. ITQ will have a full cheat sheet available just as soon as we’ve gone through the complete set.

Housekeeping note: No, you’re not imagining things – there is a bit of a relaunch going on, as far as the format/style/etc. Don’t panic. It’ll all be okay. Our miracle worker web manager is on the job, and will make sure that the transition is as painless as possible for all.

Tags: brandon souris has a lot of ideas, conservative party, conventionwatch 2008, policy r them, winnipeg comes alive!

More by kadyomalley

Ben Hicks

Bazzo, as a card carrying right wing ideologue who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage, I can guarantee you that Harper is not interested in reopening that debate in any form – let alone calling a referendum on the matter.

Harper knows he can take social conservative votes for granted while moving the party to center, for the simple reason that those votes have nowhere else to go (other party opions range from centre left to looney left). He knows his “base” (33-35% of the country, give or take) will support him more or less no matter what – even as he panders to Quebec, betrays supporters of the Afghanistan mission and, yes, promises to “respect the will of parliament” after his half-hearted (and failed) attempt to reinstate the proper definition of marriage after he took office.

Harper is splendidly Liberal where it counts: he doesn’t let his principles get in the way of politcal success. His goal is to not to consoldate his base, but make it bigger.
Bazoo

Ben Hicks: I see your points there, but I wonder when expanding the base begins to become indistinguishable from becoming a different, more centrist, party. In a sense one could say broadening the base risks weakening the party identity. In which case, it seems to me the occasional gesture might be in order, to reaffirm basic party identity. I think where we disagree is in our assessment of how effective this issue might be with regards to these efforts.
Sean S.

Harper has been very overt about his intentions to move the country a bit to the right, and the party a bit to the left.
Geiseric the Lame

“Harper has been very overt about his intentions to move the country a bit to the right, and the party a bit to the left”

Now if only that lined up with how he sold himself coming up half the country wouldn’t think it was plan B. Personally, I think its funny as hell.
Geiseric the Lame

btw

looking forward to exactly what it is Harper plans to move to “the right”. If “the right” want to claim a larger public sector and increased spending and tax-to-GDP for their own they can have at it but someone please let me know so I can update my bookshelf.
Geiseric the Lame

“Harper knows he can take social conservative votes for granted while moving the party to center, for the simple reason that those votes have nowhere else to go”

Sure they do. They just don’t know it. Not that it will happen but they can start minding their own damn business and voting for matters of the pubic weal for a change instead of trying to legislate morality.
Ben Hicks

“…instead of trying to legislate morality.”

Brilliant point! It’s particularlly poinient since it was social conservatives who created the Human Rights Commissions to prosecute Chrisian pastors for opposing homosexuality and right wing collumnists for codemning radical Islamists. Oh wait!
Ben Hicks

Dang it.

“poinient” = poignant

How about an edit feature Macleans crew?
Geiseric the Lame

Harper’s bread and butter on moral issues has precious little to do with the Human Rights Commission.
Ben Hicks

Point being: both the Libs and Dippers support maintaining and even expanding the powers of the HRCs. Which limits my choices if I want to take your advice and vote for parties that “mind their own damn business” instead of “trying to legislate morality.” Just saying.
Geiseric the Lame

everyone else does it?

I’m impressed.
Geiseric the Lame

and it would really help if you took the time to distinguish policies convcieved from the desire to achieve equality from policies concieved by the desire to please God.
Ben Hicks

Interesting. So it’s not legislating morality that you have a particular problem with, it’s when the desire to do so is motivated by all that icky God stuff. Well, to each their own I guess.
Geiseric the Lame

If you’re going to nitpick then let me rephrase it to read “legislating personal morality”. No one is forcing churches to marry gay couples or forcing anyone to have abortions. That should be good enough.
Ben Hicks

Presonally, I’d say forcing someone to renounce their personal religious beliefs qualifies as “legislating personal morality.” So no, I frankly don’t think the status quo is “good enough.”

http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/what-could-mark-steyns-punishm.html
Geiseric the Lame

That’s a separate issue from what I’m talking about.
Geiseric the Lame

But since you’re so insistent, why don’t you work on getting the law changed instead of blaming the judicial wing? Striking down a quasi-judiciary will only serve to prompt some other vehicle to ensure jurisprudence. It wouldn’t be because you can’t, is it?