You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.

27 June 2004  

Redefining Canada

Paul Martin is right. Stephen Harper's vision of Canada is not Canadian. To be exact, it is not consistent with what Canada has increasingly become over the last few decades. The Stop Harper campaign (I can confirm their proud claim that "Stop Harper" buttons "are sprouting on the tank tops and T-shirts of the twentysomething crowd that populates Toronto's trendy Queen Street West"), pronouncements from the Canadian cultural elite, and the fear and shock currently on display at major newspapers are all evidence of how incongruous the Conservative platform is on the Canadian political landscape. For a large and influential sector of the population — the ones who, in large part get to define what Canada is — their Canada does not include Stephen Harper.

"What Canada is" is a very socialist country, and we are proud of this fact in the same way Americans are proud of their freedom and individual rights. We have allowed a dangerous, unjust, and wrong ideology to not only to win at the polls a few times, but to become the essential component of our national character.

The Conservatives are the only party that demonstrates a glimmer of a vestige of an inkling of an understanding that people, not governments are the productive engine of an economy; that people have a moral right to their earnings; that a smaller government is better than a larger one, that freedom of the individual should trump any demand based on "social justice." The Conservatives are our last hope, not (unfortunately) to get rid of a predominantly left-wing political atmosphere, but to begin rejecting the idea that Canada inherently stands for left-wing ideals.

As I indicate, and as Mark Steyn explains, the Conservatives are hardly radical capitalists:

If you read your morning paper this election season, there are two parallel universes. In the non-“divisive” political world, the permitted parameters of debate on most topics range from throwing more money at it (the Liberal position) to throwing lots more money at it (the NDP position) to admitting the very tentative possibility of a little bit of light tinkering (the Conservative position). In the real world, it’s frighteningly clear that none of these is remotely up to the scale of the problem.

Of course, they have problems beyond their unwillingness to make dramatic changes in socialist policies and programs. The social/religious conservative element of the party is worrisome in its potential threat to individual rights. In this area, the two issues that particularly concern me are abortion and the equal protection of gay people. The concern is not that great, however.

As for abortion, there is no chance the issue will come up for a vote (Harper has stated he will introduce no legislation to restrict abortion rights) and if the impossible happens, there is no chance such legislation would pass a free vote.

I am a bit more troubled by the Conservative stand on gay marriage (the most pressing and only important gay issue likely to be a factor during the next few years). It's not so much the fact that a sizable number of Conservatives oppose it that bothers me; after all, the Liberals have lots of gay marriage opponents, too. It's the fact that they seem willing to use the notwithstanding clause to override a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of a law. I really hope it doesn't come to that, but the real problem is that the clause exists in the first place. And even if it does happen, the legislation would have to be renewed every five years.

The Charter issue aside, I'm not really as strong a gay marriage advocate as might be expected. My thinking is not final on the topic, but my current position is this: having the word "marriage" is not a critical point worth fighting for. In fact, many of those fighting for it seem to be doing so because of the (real or perceived) societal moral sanction it would give to gay relationships. On this, they agree with the social conservatives on the import of and importance of governments making moral judgments. I think the government should be morally neutral, while protecting each citizen's rights regardless of sexual orientation. From this perspective, Stephen Harper's promise to support fully equal civil unions for gay couples satisfies me.

Well, obviously, I'll be voting Conservative tomorrow. I hope, and believe, that lots of others will, too. In fact, I'll predict a Conservative minority government. But regardless of whether they form the next government or not, and short of an unlikely Liberal majority, the definition of Canada as intrinsically leftist will have been dealt a small blow.

08:44 PM |

26 June 2004  

Church-State Unions Are the Bigger Threat

Anti-same-sex marriage crusader, Maggie Gallagher writes:

The change has begun: The needs and desires of a tiny fraction of adults in alternative families are becoming the basis of a new moral norm. Anyone who departs from it risks thundering denunciation from self-righteous elites who are no longer satisfied with tolerance and civility — living with our deepest differences — but wish to impose their vision of morality on the majority.

The one thing that all SSM advocates are asking for is, not the imposition of their morality on anyone, but to have same-sex relationships granted equal protection by the state. Gallagher does not argue that this basic demand is unwarranted. In fact, she appears to admit that it is among the "needs" of gay people. But she still wants to deny equal protection to this minority because she fears it will lead to the "active promotion of a new unisex ideal" and the erosion of important social norms. How so? In the words of Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, whom Gallagher quotes approvingly: "For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same-sex practice."

But even if you grant that a wider acceptance of SSM will cause traditional marriage to be seen as less important (which I don't), a simpler solution to the problem of public schools promoting a particular social agenda is to get the government out of the education business. If there's one group that does not want that, however, it's religious conservatives. They don't, after all, object to moral views, per se, being forced down our throats by the government. They just want to be sure it's their moral code that we're all being inculcated with.

The problem for social and religious conservatives is that they can't have it both ways. Either the government should be, as they say, a moral arbiter (as opposed to a merely political one) or it should not. Under the system they want, losing a political battle logically entails losing moral authority. If they want a political win to mean that their moral code will be promulgated, then logically they have to accept that a loss will mean that ideas they consider immoral will be officially sanctioned and promoted. The only solution to this dilemma is getting the government out of the morality business. Or instituting a theocracy.

01:31 PM |

22 June 2004  

Well, Which is It?

National Post: "Harper widens seat lead: Analysis of polls puts Tories at 126 and Liberals at 95."

Globe & Mail: "Liberals take six-point lead over Conservatives."

It will be an interesting election night.

09:15 AM |

18 June 2004  

Wise Guy

Welcome to the world Nathaniel Frederick Solomon Wickens. What a great set of names my new (and first) nephew has. Congrats Quent & Lisa. Can't wait to greet him in person next month.

03:01 PM |

16 June 2004  

A Poor Start

In my debut post-hiatus entry here, I reproduced an email to the CBC's The Sunday Edition criticizing them for Michael Enright's reported characterization of the Fraser Institute as "droolers and knuckle-draggers." I should have known better than to go on the basis of a report of someone's recollection of what she heard, as opposed to a transcript.

This morning I recived a suitably curt, yet polite, email from Mr. Enright himself setting me straight. Here's what he actually said:

Too often the media, including the CBC, have demonized the Fraser Institute. We have come to treat it as the right wing think tank of the National Droolers and Knuckle Draggers association. In fact much of its research and many of its recommendations are reooted in good old fashioned common sense.

11:15 AM |

15 June 2004  

The Debate

Warning to foreign readers: Canadian election content ahead.

A quickie post-debate analysis:

• No knock-out punches, no surprises; therefore, Harper won. If the Conservatives don't get (at least) a minority, it won't be because of this debate.
• Best performance: Gilles Duceppe. I disagree with just about every position he holds, but he was definitely the most relaxed, the one who most effectively pounded Martin on the sponsorship scandal, and the leader who I felt most believed his own words.
• Airhead award: Jack Layton. Good looking (but not my type), all happy smiley, and not a single idea presented that he can have thought through for more than five minutes.
• One moment that had me tearing my hair out: Paul Martin's shouting that Harper is "unable to discuss the issue" of childcare and that his "policy is nil." To the Liberals (and, I'm sure, the two other non-Conservative leaders) you are unable to discuss an issue and have no policy unless you are proposing massive government action and spending on it. Tax credits and cuts and rebates to families (all of which Harper promises) are no answer. Any solution to any problem proposed from a limited government, individual self-sufficiency perspective is not really a solution because there's no government-run, taxpayer-supported program to point to. Ideological blindness? A cognitive inability to see beyond the surface symptoms through to the fundamental causes of problems? I don't know, but it's very frustrating.

Update: And I agree wholeheartedly with Damian: "Martin shrugged, sighed, sneered his way through the entire debate, and came across as a man who simply cannot believe anyone else would dare to challenge his right to run the nation."

10:38 PM |

Democracy Worship

Colby Cosh, in answering some critics of his recent National Post column on proportional representation (which I haven't yet read) writes:

[A] reader laughs at my "weak arguments" and says simply that "First-past-the-post is sort of limited democracy." Whatever "limited democracy" might mean, it seems as though that is exactly the sort of democracy we live in, and I thank heaven for it. I know of no unlimited one--no perfect, crystalline method of translating collective will to action; if there were one, I think we should rue the results soon enough. Democracy is not a primary principle of our constitutional monarchy. If it were, we should have, at the least, separate elections for each federal ministry; or no Parliament at all, with federal referenda on every federal bill. We should have no fixed constitution, written or otherwise, and perhaps no judiciary (let us vote on whether to set the cute murderer free!). Some of us appear to have attained adulthood without learning that democracy, in Canada, is merely a method of choosing parliamentary representatives and, by extension, ministers. It is the best such method if not promoted to the status of a god.

02:34 PM |

It's Funny Because It's (Kind Of) True

Jon Stewart has a new book out and has some big names commenting on it:

Capitalist philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand, though dead, apparently found time to supply a blurb for Stewart's book. "This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an ***hole for at least a month afterward," Rand reputedly wrote.

09:55 AM |

No, Virginia

You'd hope that even the strongest opponents of gay marriage would want to distance themselves from a law that might take away the right of gay couples to enter into mutual private contracts concerning such things as medical and financial arrangements. You'd hope, but as Andrew Sullivan notes while pointing to a Jonathan Rauch article on the topic of Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, the silence is deafening. Here's Rauch describing the new law:

The act ... was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner's objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia." ....

In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. "Sorry," the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, "your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security."

To be fair, I have heard different interpretations of the law. One lawyer on an Objectivist mailing list has said that Virginia guidelines (known as noscitur a sociis and eiusdem generis) require very narrow interpretation of potentially vague language. If true, this should mean that the law does not prohibit the kinds of specific private arrangements Rauch lists. On the other hand, the estimable Eugene Volokh seems quite disturbed by Virginia's action.

Regardless, such important matters should not be left unclear. Gay couples in Virginia should not have to wonder whether their private contracts will be upheld or not based on the interpretation of a judge. The law needs to be unambiguous. And if it does deny basic rights, it needs to be repealed.

08:47 AM |

13 June 2004  

Back

School's out for the summer and I have some time to blog again. There are a few changes I want to make here, ones should result in fresh content appearing even when things get busy again. If I can work everything out, the changes will appear over the next few months. But for now, I'll just try to post something every day or two. (You're never going to get Instapundit- or Daimnation-level volumes out of me, so just forget that.) The two blogworthy topics at the top of my mind right now are gay marriage and the Canadian election, so I expect they will be the theme of the next few weeks. But you never know what will happen.

Technical note: The site has moved to a different web hosting provider. I think by now just about everyone's DNS has been updated to reflect the change (everyone but my own ISP, Rogers, that is. Grrr.) But if you clicked the link from the old site to get here, be aware that the wickens.hostmatters.com URL is a temporary one that you shouldn't bookmark. It will stop working within a couple of weeks.

07:24 PM |

Mask Slippage at the Ceeb

To: The Sunday Edition
From: Mark Wickens

I have heard that Michael Enright made this comment on today's show:

We are accustomed to thinking of the right-wing Fraser Institute as droolers and knuckle-draggers...

Regards,
Mark Wickens
Toronto

03:28 PM |