[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

I'm really offended that you would equate racism with being pro-life Jacob.

I equate racism with being anti-abortion, if anti-abortion means restricting access to abortion by active legislation or softer measures (including rolling back services or introducing onerous hoops to jump through).

If by pro-life you mean "I feel sad when someone has an abortion" and/ or "I want to make sure we have enough sex education and access to birth control to reduce unwanted pregnancies," "I support robust programs for women who want to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the newborn for abortion", or other similar positions that reduce the number of abortions while not restricting access then that's perfectly wonderful from my point of view.

If you consider restricting access to abortion to be on the table as a political topic, and one where there are several legitimate sides, then that speaks volumes of the party you belong to.

Restricting access to abortion, like racism, is a clear line which should not be crossed as far as I'm concerned. You can fret about "ideological purity" all you want, but if your party wants to import the wedge issues of the US culture wars I expect and hope it will be to the detriment of your election results.

[Barrister]

Not surprised, but wow.  You're not just against banning abortion, but against putting any restrictions on it.  And that's not just your position, but is a "clear line which should not be crossed".

Like I said, ideological purity.  Someone with a position different than yours isn't just wrong, but must be shamed and removed from the political arena.

You do realize that while most Canadians do support a woman's right to choose, most Canadians also support some reasonable restrictions on that right (most significantly based on what stage the pregnancy is at)?

[Valmy]

How else are you supposed to respond to positions we think are wrong besides wanting them removed from the political arena? I don't vote against people because I want them to have power. I mean so long that means is legal of course.

[Jacob]

Not surprised, but wow.  You're not just against banning abortion, but against putting any restrictions on it.  And that's not just your position, but is a "clear line which should not be crossed".

Yup.

Like I said, ideological purity.  Someone with a position different than yours isn't just wrong, but must be shamed and removed from the political arena.

No, you can absolutely introduce it to the political arena - as you have - but I will oppose it, and I can hope and work for your introduction of it leading to electoral defeat.

Your "ideological purity" line is nothing but an emotive red herring. I'm not advocating banning pro-life advocacy. I'm saying that we should use the democratic political process to marginalize and defeat an odious position. Much like I imagine you would if someone was to seriously advance an agenda of nationalizing the oil industry - you'd work for that position being seen as a complete non-starter, resulting in the political marginalization of anyone who seriously advocate it. That is not "demanding ideological purity", that's using the democratic process and freedom of speech to oppose a reprehensible point of view.

You do realize that while most Canadians do support a woman's right to choose, most Canadians also support some reasonable restrictions on that right (most significantly based on what stage the pregnancy is at)?

If you think it's a political winner to fight for legally mandated "reasonable restrictions" on abortion in Canada you have the right to do so - and it seems that Scheer agrees that now is the moment for it. I can only hope that it leads to disastrous electoral results for you.

You want to marry the Conservative party to Amercian style social conservative culture war tenets, that's your decision.

[Malthus]

How else are you supposed to respond to positions we think are wrong besides wanting them removed from the political arena? I don't vote against people because I want them to have power. I mean so long that means is legal of course.

There is a lot of space between voting against someone for being wrong, and wanting certain views removed from polite debate as beyond the pale.

In Canada at least, there is a long tradition (maybe more theoretical than real!  ) of the party or position not in power being considered 'the honorable opposition', and not necessarily as 'the enemy'.

Certain views are treated as beyond the pale it is true, and not merely as honorably wrong - for example, overt racism; and nowadays, overt homophobia (though this change occurred in my lifetime).

The debate between BB and Jacob is this: Jacob believes that opposition to maximal abortion rights ought to be in the same category as support for racism or homophobia, that is, as a position held by 'the enemy', and not something that is in the proper realm of something that can be believed by 'wrong, but otherwise honorable folks'; that human progress simply requires this. BB thinks this is an instance of the political Left polarizing the debate - as an instinctive Canadian conservative, he's very much in the tradition that likes the notion of an 'honorable opposition'. 

[Jacob]

The debate between BB and Jacob is this: Jacob believes that opposition to maximal abortion rights ought to be in the same category as support for racism or homophobia, that is, as a position held by 'the enemy', and not something that is in the proper realm of something that can be believed by 'wrong, but otherwise honorable folks'; that human progress simply requires this. BB thinks this is an instance of the political Left polarizing the debate - as an instinctive Canadian conservative, he's very much in the tradition that likes the notion of an 'honorable opposition'.

No, I do not cast them as "the enemy" - that is BB affecting a persecution complex for political advantage. One can still be the honourable opposition while holding beliefs that can be characterized as racist, homophobic, or anti-abortion. I just think those views are wrong, and should be vigorously opposed politically.

[viper37]

I equate racism with being anti-abortion, if anti-abortion means restricting access to abortion by active legislation or softer measures (including rolling back services or introducing onerous hoops to jump through).

that happens a lot in Canada.  Everywhere in Canada, women have troubles getting abortion.
Under the Conservative government, women were reduced to second class citizens, totally dependant on their husband or closest male relative to make decisions like that.

[Barrister]

How else are you supposed to respond to positions we think are wrong besides wanting them removed from the political arena? I don't vote against people because I want them to have power. I mean so long that means is legal of course.

Look, I think a guy like Bernie Sanders has nutbar ideas (as did Niki Ashton who was running for NDP leader), but he's free to take those positions.

Remember where we came from on this.  The Conservatives put forward a person who has a pro-life track record to chair a committee.  By convention, the opposition gets to pick the chair of that particular committee.  The Liberals didn't just complain about the Conservative pick, they violated Parliamentary convention to reject the Conservatives pick.

Or as PRC (I think) pointed out, the Liberals have always been, generally, a pro-choice party.  But there have always been outliers.  I remember a guy named Tom Wappell was a Liberal MP for (quickly checks) 20 years who was a staunch pro-lifer.  He was a backbencher his entire time, but he was considered a valued member of caucus.  But under Trudeau he would not be allowed to run - all candidates must not just vote with the government, but must assert that they are pro-choice.  Ideological purity must be maintained.

It's stupid shit like this that gets you Trump.  From what I can tell there are around 11 million people illegally in the US.  That's a lot, and I can understand people being upset about it.  But after being told for years that being anti-illegal immigration is seen as "racist", people got frustrated until they voted for a guy who was actually racist who said he would be tough on illegal immigration.  You see the same dynamic in Europe - being opposed to immigration (which is a rational policy choice) gets labelled as racist, which then drives the support to far-right parties.

[viper37]

Like I said, ideological purity.  Someone with a position different than yours isn't just wrong, but must be shamed and removed from the political arena.

he's willing to beat innocent people just because he thinks they look like neo nazis.  Does that really surprise you?  He's a scumbag, like all the antifas.

[Malthus]

The debate between BB and Jacob is this: Jacob believes that opposition to maximal abortion rights ought to be in the same category as support for racism or homophobia, that is, as a position held by 'the enemy', and not something that is in the proper realm of something that can be believed by 'wrong, but otherwise honorable folks'; that human progress simply requires this. BB thinks this is an instance of the political Left polarizing the debate - as an instinctive Canadian conservative, he's very much in the tradition that likes the notion of an 'honorable opposition'.

No, I do not cast them as "the enemy" - that is BB affecting a persecution complex for political advantage. One can still be the honourable opposition while holding beliefs that can be characterized as racist, homophobic, or anti-abortion. I just think those views are wrong, and should be vigorously opposed politically.

You see, this is exactly what you and BB are debating: you each think the other is adopting a "US style" polarizing position.

[Malthus]

Like I said, ideological purity.  Someone with a position different than yours isn't just wrong, but must be shamed and removed from the political arena.

he's willing to beat innocent people just because he thinks they look like neo nazis.  Does that really surprise you?  He's a scumbag, like all the antifas.

We are all scumbags, but it isn't polite to single any one of us out like that. 

[Jacob]

Remember where we came from on this.  The Conservatives put forward a person who has a pro-life track record to chair a committee.  By convention, the opposition gets to pick the chair of that particular committee.  The Liberals didn't just complain about the Conservative pick, they violated Parliamentary convention to reject the Conservatives pick.

If you want to complain about the Liberals violating Parliamentary convention that's fair - I'm pretty keen on maintaining our political norms. That said, coming from the party that used prorogation so creatively when they were last in power, this seems relatively small fry as far as parliamentary shenanigans are concerned.

Or as PRC (I think) pointed out, the Liberals have always been, generally, a pro-choice party.  But there have always been outliers.  I remember a guy named Tom Wappell was a Liberal MP for (quickly checks) 20 years who was a staunch pro-lifer.  He was a backbencher his entire time, but he was considered a valued member of caucus.  But under Trudeau he would not be allowed to run - all candidates must not just vote with the government, but must assert that they are pro-choice.  Ideological purity must be maintained.

How many Conservative MPs do you have holding beliefs that taxes should be raised? Some positions are core to a political party. It's not like Harper didn't exert control over MPs' positions on topics considered core to the party.

It's stupid shit like this that gets you Trump.  From what I can tell there are around 11 million people illegally in the US.  That's a lot, and I can understand people being upset about it.  But after being told for years that being anti-illegal immigration is seen as "racist", people got frustrated until they voted for a guy who was actually racist who said he would be tough on illegal immigration.  You see the same dynamic in Europe - being opposed to immigration (which is a rational policy choice) gets labelled as racist, which then drives the support to far-right parties.

Nah, it's stupid shit like what you just wrote that leads to Trump - legitimizing regressive positions and claiming the holders are suffering from persecution. That and a whole host of societal problems being papered over leading to the perception that the system is completely broken.

[Jacob]

You see, this is exactly what you and BB are debating: you each think the other is adopting a "US style" polarizing position.

It's almost like we deserve each other, and you can smugly position yourself as the "reasonable person occupying the middle ground"

[Jacob]

Like I said, ideological purity.  Someone with a position different than yours isn't just wrong, but must be shamed and removed from the political arena.

he's willing to beat innocent people just because he thinks they look like neo nazis.  Does that really surprise you?  He's a scumbag, like all the antifas.

Hey viper, normally I don't read your posts but this one caught my eye. So I just wanted to take a moment to say: fuck you you delusional piece of shit.

[viper37]

How else are you supposed to respond to positions we think are wrong besides wanting them removed from the political arena? I don't vote against people because I want them to have power. I mean so long that means is legal of course.

Do you want the Republican party to be forbidden in the US?  Do you want to censor free speech by disallowing pro-life to express their opinions, even if you don't agree with them?

If you believe Texas should get more immigrants, and your neighbour believes Texas has already too many immigrants, are you willing to pay someone to beat him up?

Because that's the kind of things we're talking about from the left.  There's zero tolerance for anything deviating from the orthodoxy.

I am pro-choice.  I don't mind people expressing pro-life views.  I disagree with them.  I also want to make it clear for new commers that women have rights when they come here and that includes abortion.

If people want to argue the opposite in a peaceful manner, I am ok with it.  I will not tolerate violence, intimidation or death threats from anyone.  That is exactly what the leftists scums are doing here though.

If a political party proposes to forbid abortion, I'm not gonna vote for that party. 

So far, it has not happenned since the days of the Reform Party.

Oex and Jacob ranted to us for 10 years on how the Conservatives were a terrible party with a hidden agenda on abortion.

No Conservative opponent ever got attacked in the streets.
No Conservative opponent was ever forbiddent to express him/herself in public.
No women in Canada ever lost the rigth to an abortion or was threatened too.
No women ever lost any right or any status that would make her inferior in any way to a man under Conservative watch.

What we had though, were honor crimes, in the name of religion, by religious fanatics the left insist to protect.
We had the left assault peaceful citizens and peaceful protesters because they either disagreed with their opinions or with the way they dressed.

Specifically on abortion, I believe there should be a limit, to what is called late-term abortion, when the baby is viable.  It should be forbidden unless the mother's life is in danger.  Just like it's forbidden to kill or abandon a newborn.

I can't see any logical argument why it should be allowed.
I can't any logicial argument against sex ed classes either.
I can't see any argument against counseling teens about what an abortion really is, instead of promoting it as a simple contraception measure.
I can't see any logical argument why abortion should be treated differently than other medical acts with regards to consent.  No major political party in power, in this country, since abortion was made legal, ever tried to restrict abortion or make it outright illegal.

This is just the usual leftist scumbag fearmongering to disguise their hatred of democracy and free speech.