NationStates Jolt Archive

At last the *true heart* of Canada's Conservative party showed itself yesterday with the revealed comments of veteran core member Randy White. His boss Stephen Harper has tried to keep a muzzle on him until after Monday's election. White is no fringe member, he's an influential architect of the CPC and is very representative of the true, hidden core of that party. If they're elected, expect Randy White to be having some say in your life.

An editorial in today's Vancouver Sun (no lefty paper either) summarizes what we need to worry about re the CPC:

*****


"White gives voters reason to distrust Tories"*

(Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, Saturday, June 26, 2004)



Abbotsford Conservative candidate Randy White is the Archie Bunker of Canadian politics.

He would like to see himself as the champion of ultra-conservative values in Parliament, but I think he has turned himself into a fringe, Quixotic figure.

There was a time when the staunch law-and-order incumbent MP could be counted upon to raise in debate the voice of a lot of ordinary people.

No more. I believe he has lost touch even with his own party.

Tory leader Stephen Harper was desperate Friday trying to distance himself from White's comments about invoking the notwithstanding clause if the courts balked at Conservative social policies.

Harper insisted he would not use the clause except in rare instances and did his best to assure voters that he has no hidden agenda in spite of White's comments.

I am not sure whether to believe him but I do empathize with his problem.

White is not a nobody -- he is a man touted as a future justice minister. That's why his ill-considered statements on the eve of the campaign are so worrying.

White comes across as a loose cannon who would like nothing better than to transport Canada back to his own imaginary Happy Days of the 1950s.

Trouble is, the world bears no resemblance to the pictures White paints and Canadian attitudes are nowhere near as narrow as he believes.

Guess what: I am convinced most of us couldn't care less if two men or two women want to declare their love for each other and call their relationship a "marriage."

And, as much as White would like to dismiss our courts as run by a bunch of obscure and stupid judges, he is wrong.

Our courts certainly deliver some head-scratching decisions, I don't disagree with that. But our judges on the whole are thoughtful, caring people who deeply believe the foundation of a democracy is respect -- respect for each other regardless of our colour, our religious beliefs or our behaviour between the sheets.

White clearly doesn't get that.

He suggests the Conservatives would redefine the Charter and use the notwithstanding clause to overrule court decisions they dislike, such as one supporting gay marriage.

It's the kind of comment that reinforces the fear that the Tories plan to run roughshod over minority rights and impose hoary moral values on the country.

Little wonder Liberal leader Paul Martin seized on the statements even though I think they're just plain nonsense.

First of all, constitutional change is next to impossible on contentious issues because the amending formula demands too much consensus from provincial governments.

So that's not going to happen unless White and an incoming Tory administration want to expend all their political capital fighting futile constitutional battles and paying the price, like the old conservative government of Brian Mulroney. Remember Meech Lake?

Secondly, because of the same political dynamic, no Liberal or Conservative government has ever used the notwithstanding clause since it was created 22 years ago.

Politicians do not lead, they follow -- especially on contentious social issues.

White doesn't seem to appreciate that, given his attempt to lead us into his own small-minded ideological cul-de-sac.

This is not 1950. Anal sex in Canada is no longer illegal. Gays and lesbians are full-fledged members of our neighbourhood -- but maybe White hasn't watched Sesame Street.

Martin is right in my opinion: "Canadians care deeply about the protection of individual and minority rights, and I believe that a true national leader recognizes that the use of the notwithstanding clause will take us down a slippery slope toward the erosion of individual and minority rights and freedoms.

"It is a step that we should not take. It is a step that we must not take."

What makes White's comments so incendiary is they are drawing attention in the final days of a campaign in which the Conservatives may be on the brink of victory.

Just when Harper would like us to view the Tories as responsible, sophisticated and capable of running the country, along comes White professing the world view of a television bigot famous for dissing gays and brow-beating his wife.

These statements, more than any criticism by his political opponents, indicate not only that he is unsuited to be justice minister, but also that the party may be harbouring political ambitions it dare not reveal.

Harper said White's comments represent personal views and do not reflect the party's.

"In terms of what Mr. White or somebody else may have said about some controversial issue, frankly, it's unimportant," Harper said. "It is a smokescreen. It is a fear tactic by the Liberal party to divert attention from the way they actually run the country."

Let's hope so.

The tragedy for Conservative supporters, however, is that's not good enough given the palpable incredulity about their agenda.

Harper has left the door open to using the notwithstanding clause to bypass any Supreme Court of Canada judgment legalizing gay marriage.

He says he'll use it to overrule court decisions that allow possession of child pornography on the basis of artistic merit and other defences.

Now, with White's injudicious comments, voters have a reason to be anxious that it will be used more broadly.

More than anything else, I think that could rain on Harper's expected victory parade.

All in the Family was cancelled nearly 30 years ago; voters Monday may cancel White.

******

Anyone caring about Canada must cancel the CPC on Monday. Vote for *anybody* but the Harper creeps!

"What was said"

Vancouver Sun, June 26, 2004


On May 19, Conservative MP Randy White was interviewed by Alexis Mackintosh for a documentary about same-sex marriage called Let No One Put Asunder.

Excerpts:

On courts in some provinces legalizing same-sex marriage:

"Well, the heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days, we in this country are going to stand up and say: The politicians make the laws and the courts do not. The courts interpret the law. And if we don't like that interpretation, there's the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal government has never invoked and said they will not use.

"I believe we'll see that with us in the House of Commons, because enough is enough of this stuff. We are not going to be legislated by judges in this country."

On whether a Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn court decisions it didn't like:

"If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be, for us conservatives out there, a way to put checks and balances in that. So the notwithstanding clause . . . should be used and I would think that not just with the definition of marriage but I think you'll see more uses for the notwithstanding clause in the future. ... I think you'll even see [the Charter] redefined as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Responsibilities."

On how the courts have changed the definition of marriage despite Parliament's wishes:

"This is like the health care debate; it's going to go around in circles for the next three decades and nobody will be any further off than before. And you know, the unfortunate part about this is that this is exactly how abortion came into this country."

On Bill C-250, which added sexual orientation to hate-crime legislation:

"Well many people think that this is going to be an affront on such written testaments as the Bible, which ain't a proponent of homosexuality."

On whether a Conservative government would repeal Bill C-250:

"Well, C-250, I'd repeal it in a minute. . . . The rightful way to do things like this is to go to public referendum, citizens' initiatives, things the Conservative party are looking for. . . . So if you want a short answer to all that--will we repeal it? I would say it would likely be done, but it is not something that our whole party has really taken a position on the law itself. I would say we would likely amend it."

Another newpaper article reveals much about Randy White and the insiders at a Conservative party nomination meeting.

*****


"Woman takes polygraph over White speech"

(Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun, 26 June 2004)


A Conservative Party supporter claims MP Randy White promised at a nomination meeting there would be no abortions or same-sex marriages under a Conservative government.

White has denied it and others at the meeting say they cannot recall him saying it.

But Velma Cole was so determined to tell her story that she took and passed a polygraph test when questioned about her recollection of the meeting on Feb. 28 in Langley.

Cole said she decided to go public with her concerns about White's statement because she is concerned he is expressing the real policy agenda of the Conservative party, one leader Stephen Harper hasn't admitted.

"I knew Randy White's personal opinions, but when he presented it as 'when we form the government of Canada,' it did not sound like a personal opinion to me. He's a senior caucus member," said Cole, a 57-year-old former early childhood educator at Kwantlen University College.

"Randy White is not a neophyte and he's been a high-profile member of the Alliance and potential cabinet. And I thought, holy mackerel, this is what they're really wanting to do."

Her claim follows a Sun story Friday that revealed White promised in a videotaped interview that his party will invoke the notwithstanding clause to skirt court decisions it dislikes on social issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

Harper responded to that story Friday, saying White's comments don't reflect party policy.

Cole claims White made the statements about abortion and same-sex marriage at the nomination meeting for the Langley riding, which he represented until the riding boundaries were redrawn for this election. White is the Conservative candidate in the redistributed Abbotsford riding and Mark Warawa is the party's candidate in Langley.

Cole said the controversial comments were not part of his speech at the beginning of the meeting, but came as he picked up the microphone between the second and third ballots of the nomination vote.

She claims White said: "When we form the government of Canada, there will be no more abortions. When we form the government of Canada, there will be no same-sex marriage."

Cole's allegation has prompted a flurry of controversy in the Fraser Valley media.

The Langley Times printed a letter with her claim. Editor Frank Bucholtz apologized for it in a subsequent edition after White's campaign manager said White had never said it. Bucholtz's apology implied that Velma Cole was a fictitious person and that the letter was planted by the Liberal party. Later, after Cole contacted him, Bucholtz wrote again to let readers know she was a real person, but without commenting on her statements.

In the Aldergrove Star newspaper, editor Kurt Langmann refused to print the letter but waded in with an opinion, saying his notes of the meeting indicated: "White said no such thing and, in fact, not once mentioned abortion in his speech." He did note that White said he supported the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

For Cole, it seemed clear that the meeting was all about electing an anti-abortion candidate.

Cole was there to support Bev Braaten, who had run previously for the Progressive Conservatives. Cole joined the PC party in 2000, mainly because she liked David Orchard and his policies on genetically modified food. Prior to that, she ran for the NDP in the Yukon in the early 1980s. Cole lives on an organic-produce farm she started in 1986 with her former husband, Herb Barbolet. Progressive Conservative members were allowed to vote for candidates in the new Conservative party.

Cole said she was disturbed at the meeting to discover that all the voting members seemed to care about were "family values" - in other words, abortion and same-sex marriage.

After Braaten won the most votes in the first round of voting, Cole says, members came over to ask about Braaten, but the only question they had was about her family values.

Eventually, the group elected Warawa, who identifies himself as anti-abortion, as its Conservative candidate.

DP

Well I jsut want an aircraft carrier.

Hey Garaj, you and I must both live in the same area. I picked up that issue of the Sun today and was truly disgusted by his comments. Override court decisions because we don't like them? Please. I was worried enough about the conservatives and their agenda, but now this?

You don't have a free vote on the Charter. It's just not done. You can't just vote to omit parts of the charter for one particular issue that you disagree with.

Decisions made by Parliament are supposed to reflect policy that's needed at the time. Decisions by courts are intended to be far more permanent - which is why Human Rights issues are more properly decided by courts than by Parliament.

Parliaments reflect majority rule and popular opinion. Human rights laws, which are largely about protecting minorities from mob rule, should not be subject to the fickle whims of an elected parliament.

Most Canadians like and appreciate the Human Rights provisions of The Charter and the Supreme Court's interpretations of them. They also feel grateful to the Court for protecting us from fundamentalist pukes like Randy White and his ilk.

His comments were in poor taste. But some of his ideas were sound.

The courts do not have the right to override the will of the people, the parliament. Never. Ever. Parliament is the creator of the law and the courts are its protectors. Democracy is supposed to be about majority rule, whether the decisions are right or wrong, that's how it works.

I still don't understand how anyone can defend the fact that 9 unelected individuals should be able to rule anyway they wish on sensitive social issues? Individuals chosen by the PM, according to his wishes alone.

Democracy is supposed to be about majority rule, whether the decisions are right or wrong, that's how it works.

The U.S. ended slavery and racial segregation largely through courts over-ruling "Mistaken Majorities". Are you saying that was undemocratic and wrong?

Other cases in our history show where governments, carrying out the wishes of Mistaken Majorities, enacted horrendous leglislation which abrogated basic human rights:

- Trudeau's War Measures Act, which briefly made us a banana republic
- The incarceration of Japanese-Canadians during WWII for no cause
- The various "Asian Exclusion" laws of 80-100 years ago

These are but 3 examples of many. Thankfully, these shameful Parliamentary actions could not happen today because of our Charter and the strength of our courts in protecting human rights over occasionally-irrational mob rule. I strongly believe most Canadians do not wish to go back to a time when discriminatory legislation like the examples above could ever happen again.

We can be assured that the *only* times courts will over-ride the wishes of parliament are when fundamental human rights are threatened.

Democracy is supposed to be about majority rule, whether the decisions are right or wrong, that's how it works.

The U.S. ended slavery and racial segregation largely through courts over-ruling "Mistaken Majorities". Are you saying that was undemocratic and wrong?

Other cases in our history show where governments, carrying out the wishes of Mistaken Majorities, enacted horrendous leglislation which abrogated basic human rights:

- Trudeau's War Measures Act, which briefly made us a banana republic
- The incarceration of Japanese-Canadians during WWII for no cause
- The various "Asian Exclusion" laws of 80-100 years ago

These are but 3 examples of many. Thankfully, these shameful Parliamentary actions could not happen today because of our Charter and the strength of our courts in protecting human rights over occasionally-irrational mob rule. I strongly believe most Canadians do not wish to go back to a time when discriminatory legislation like the example above could ever happen again.

We can be assured that the *only* times courts will over-ride the wishes of parliament are when fundamental human rights are threatened.

The United States is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. :wink:

The United States is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. :wink:

We were using "democratic" as a verb. Even though the U.S. is a Federal Republic, it engages in democracy and its political processes are democratic in nature.

Canada isn't strictly a Democracy either - it's a Constitutional Monarchy. Meaning that our Constitution is primary and the "monarchy" part is very much secondary (almost invisible really). But our policital processes are are those of a democracy and work in democratic ways.

The courts do not have the right to override the will of the people, the parliament. Never. Ever. Parliament is the creator of the law and the courts are its protectors. Democracy is supposed to be about majority rule, whether the decisions are right or wrong, that's how it works.


Actually, they do and it's not. The courts are designed to evaluate and determine the validity of laws as they relate to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the primary purpose for the Supreme Court of Canada. Courts are not just there to enforce laws, despite what you may think. Parliament cannot simply brush a certain section of the charter under the carpet for a particular issue, as is White's implication. The People do not have the right to cross over the boundaries of the Charter of Rights. Never. Ever. If you don't like a particular section, then go the legal route to try and get it changed, but don't count on much support.

Actually, the United States is only really Democratic on the local, city level. Other than, it is entirely a Republic. The Federal just means it has a strong central government on the national level.

I would like to remind all, that there have a variety of more conservative liberals who have all said the same thing. The only things is, the liberals jump and scream about it at every turn, however, the conservatives have not. The difference comes down to party discipline, the liberals don't say anything too stupid during an election campaign while the conservatives/Canadian Alliance/Reform party have a history of saying stupid things like this.

His comments were in poor taste. But some of his ideas were sound.

The courts do not have the right to override the will of the people, the parliament. Never. Ever. Parliament is the creator of the law and the courts are its protectors. Democracy is supposed to be about majority rule, whether the decisions are right or wrong, that's how it works.

I still don't understand how anyone can defend the fact that 9 unelected individuals should be able to rule anyway they wish on sensitive social issues? Individuals chosen by the PM, according to his wishes alone.
The beauty of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it protects “minority rights”.

Your argument suggests “Democracy is supposed to be about majority rule”. Perhaps this is true, but simply stated, a simple majority in a “democracy” ignores that there needs to be protections for those who are not in the majority, otherwise the concept about “equality” before the law is non existent.

To take this argument one step further, I ask you to consider the following:

1. There is no equal representation by population by means of a popular vote in Canada’s legislatures and Parliament.
2. There has never been a political party in Federal Government that has won more than 50% of the popular vote.
3. The smallest “majority” Federal Government was that of the Liberals in 1997 with 38.5% of the popular vote.

When you consider the above, there is never a true “majority”. Therefore, many laws have been enacted by a “minority” of the people in the first place, even though they may have represented a “majority” of Members of Parliament.

The Supreme Court, for the most part, rules on the laws of the land, and make suggestions to changes in the laws, if they violate or infringe upon the Charter of Rights. Canada was given the nod by the UN for 9 of the past 12 years as “The Best Country in the World” in which to live and I think that has everything to do with the politics of inclusion rather than exclusion, as expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let’s keep Canada “strong and free”.

Amen.

The beauty of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it protects “minority rights”.
Actually it only protects the rights of the smallest minority - the individual.