Not in the case of abortion, sorry. One thing that is true is that the political realignment that’s currently taking place all over the Western world, where the previous left vs. right paradigm is being replaced with the elitist or technocratic vs. populist paradigm, will also affect Canada. I’m really disappointed that the People’s Party is doubling down on conspiracism instead of trying to establish itself as a palatable populist alternative to (especially) the Liberals, the Laurentian Elites party par excellence. I can see two reasons for this: first, the US influence, where populism became associated with Trump and therefore to the “far right” (however you define it), despite the fact that populism really isn’t left or right, it’s a different dimension. And second, the fact that the People’s Party is essentially a vehicle for Maxime Bernier, a guy whose whole political career is a series of unforced blunders. But I still find it disappointing.
In the case of abortion, the association of the anti-abortion position with the “right” in the US isn’t anything new. It started with Roe v. Wade, and as I understand it became prevalent in the 1990s with the conservative revolution. For my whole politically aware life, the American right has been associated with anti-abortion (and also with opposition to same-sex marriage, but that seems to have changed). I’m guessing that part of the reason for this is that Roe v. Wade is objectively a strange court decision (didn’t it establish that the right to abortion stems from the right to privacy?) and also that it applied to the whole country, disregarding federalism and the different values of the different regions and states. So since then a goal of the conservative movement has been to allow states that wish it to restrict abortion, which it did with a long-term strategy of forming a generation of conservative lawyers and hence judges who would interpret the law in a conservative direction. And most importantly, this has been done within the federal framework. Amy Coney Barrett isn’t going to wake up tomorrow and declare abortion illegal in Massachusetts. She can’t, and wouldn’t even if she could.
Canada is different in this regard. First, while I do think federal judges have a particular ideology, you don’t have the “liberal” vs. “conservative” judicial divide that you have in the US. Second, criminal law is entirely federal in Canada, so formal legal restrictions to abortion would affect the whole country. Abortion became legal in Canada through the courts declaring the previous laws unconstitutional back in the 1980s, and I think at the time the Mulroney government wanted to pass a new law that would comply with the court decisions but activists construed this as wanting to overturn the legalization of abortion so the government backed down and since then nobody’s touched the question because of how toxic it is. The Liberals want you to vote for them by making you believe that the Conservatives might do something to abortion if they ever get in power, but of course they won’t: they’ve been in power from 2006 to 2015, had a bunch of social conservatives in their cabinet, some of which are personally opposed to abortion, and still they didn’t. And they wouldn’t, since as I’ve said the only thing they could do would be to force restrictions on parts of the country that don’t want them and whose votes they need. Meanwhile, the main issue with abortion in Canada is the sheer fact that many parts of the country have very little access to abortion providers, but nobody cares about this because it doesn’t lend itself to easy outrage.
But that Conservative government was a minority government for a lot of that period. Harper, as much as some dislike him, was not an idiot, and he knew that letting the anti-abortion faction in his party run wild would cost them any chance at getting and keeping a majority. So he made a point of keeping a lid on those members.
There’s no telling what might happen in a few years time, but we can make some guesses based on what has already happened, and a big part of that is that the social conservatives that Harper largely kept in check have only expanded their influence on the party, and there’s little reason to suppose that won’t continue. And if they win a majority, they might figure that gives them a mandate to act, that they didn’t have before. And a weaker party leader (which O’Toole appears to be) won’t be as able to control that as Harper did.
And there’s no point in going back as far as the Mulroney Era looking for clues as to what might happen in ten years. The conservatives of today are a very different crowd than those of Mulroney’s time.
It may come to pass that this never happens due to changing circumstances, but I think it’s pie in the sky thinking to think there’s no chance it will ever happen, because there are people in politics right now who would love it if it were to happen. There’s no telling what those people might do if they think they have a shot.
While conservatives will urge readers to “consider the source!” as all Dopers do as a matter of course, this article is an interesting look at O’Toole and the Conservatives, suggesting he delivers “trinkets” like musing about workers on corporate boards to divert attention from actual policy decisions made at conventions and his insistence on increased military spending and oil extraction.
Even if the conservatives decided to try for overturning abortion rights, the very first effect would absolutely be to divide their own party!
While most might be happy to see such a change, close to half will correctly recognize, no matter how they feel personally, it IS politically toxic and will want to distance themselves from that.
A minister who knows they know nothing of the matter will let the ministry’s apparatus do the actual work, and accept talking points they can use to explain what the ministry does. Freeland has had several goes at being a minister and, before that, a deputy minister. She knows the truth of it: Let the ADM do their work, and get out of the way. If you want to discuss specifics about her role, I’ll be pleased to read them.
A person with no knowledge is one thing. A person with wrong knowledge is another. That wrong knowledge may encourage them to make incorrect decisions. Or, in the specific case of Gary Goodyear, actively dismantle our science spending and turn the ministry into a “toolbox for industry”.
Apples and crabapples. They’re mostly the same, but the differences are significant.
In 2020, another leadership race was called, and O’Toole ran a very different campaign. He hired an Ontario Proud co-founder to lead his communications team and actively courted the social conservative wing.
And this right here is the problem I have with O’Toole. It doesn’t matter how often he says things that sound good, because, based on his actions to date, I’m 99% sure it’s all a lie. He knows he has to try to project an image of moderation if he’s to win the election, but when the chips are down, he hires those “Ontario Proud” assholes. No one who willing associates themselves with those lying propagandists can be trusted as Prime Minister.
I’ve debated various responses to this because it is just such a frustrating post in several ways, but I’ll restrict myself to two points.
An analogy to putting a creationist in charge of science policy would be more like putting the guy convicted of financial fraud for a giant ponzi scheme in charge of finance. Creationists are ipso facto entirely ignorant of science.
If conservatives think that attacking Chrystia Freeland by pointing at her history as a journalist is a good idea, then if by chance they win this election and Freeland wins the LPC leadership race to replace Trudeau (both reasonably plausible), then congratulations on providing with Liberals with a majority government in the next election.
Conservatives didn’t seem to mind when they were putting journalists into the senate-for life! Into the senate! Having NEVER held been elected by Canadians to any office. A much greater sin in my eyes, and most Canadians, I believe.
Conservatives are obsessed with people’s former jobs, Trudeau was a bouncer, Freeland was a journalist. Ignoring that Canadians were straight up, impressed with her performance, especially during the new NAFTA nonsense Donny pulled. While Trudeau is being swept into power by a majority the conservatives can only dream of, they just want to rail on about he was once a bouncer and look at his hair!
Thanks for the reminder. With all the COVID business, I had honestly forgotten about how comprehensively they’d manhandled Trump’s ego during the New NAFTA talks.
Maybe I won’t vote NDP after all…not that it really matters in my riding.
I appreciate both your and @Acierocolotl’s reply to @Sam_Stone. I would just like to add that turning science research into an industry tool is an old story with the Conservatives. During the early 90’s (that is during Mulroney’s last years, I spent three years on a Grant Selection Committee that gave out (strictly speaking, made recommendations, but they were always followed) research grants. From time to time, a bureaucrat would sidle into the room to observe. Most of the GSC members were facing the wrong way and would not notice. One year, the secretary taking notes on our discussions arranged to sit facing the door and arranged a signal so that we would know we were being observed and modify our discussions accordingly. As if we could guess which research might be applicable. And we were also asked to weight an applicant’s ability to churn out students, when the truth is that the ones coming out couldn’t get jobs anyway.
Jebus, O’Toole flip flops. Can we call him Captain Flip Flop?
Seriously, I don’t get how anybody regardless of political bias can trust him. There’s no telling what he might or might not do when in office. He says he’s going to be X and Y, even if X and Y are mutually exclusive.
This is why politicians in this system may be called “vulgar Hegelians”: they are happy to move from thesis to antithesis and back, but never reach a synthesis or move ahead.
This message brought to you by the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolamaloo.
A political candidate had stones thrown at him today. I don’t care what side you favour, or how much you loathe the ‘other’, that is truly reprehensible.
There is a certain subset of voters who feel that this kind of behaviour is just fine. They are also the types who chant “lock her up” about our public health officer, protest in front of hospitals against healthcare workers (sometimes spitting on them), and are generally following the Trumpist way of behaving.
I simply take a look at which side of the political spectrum they are on, and will cast my vote accordingly. I imagine those who feel this group are doing great things will eagerly vote for that.
Sadly, it does not surprise me in the least. Right-wing media is poison for the mind and soul. And some people on the right here just eat up the U.S. right-wing media and parrot it. What can you expect when you the deputy minister of the CPoC wearing a MAGA hat? It is really disgusting. I have to give O’Toole some credit for trying, seemingly in vain, to clean up the party at least a little. I know that real politick, there’s limits to what he can do while still being a viable candidate or heck party leader. But this far-right crap needs to go.
