abortion

Thursday March 18, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday March 18, 2021

Erin O’Toole’s problems largely his own making

Regardless of your political stripe, it is tempting to feel some empathy for Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole as he heads into this weekend’s party policy convention — virtually, of course.

August 25, 2020

Since his election to lead the Conservative Party of Canada, O’Toole has repeated over and over that his objective is to make the party a bigger tent, to be more relevant to moderate Canadian viewpoints, to focus on the economy and stay away from hot button social issues. He did not make the mistakes his predecessor made by being evasive about his own views. He has repeatedly stated he is pro-choice and has no interest in reopening the abortion debate. O’Toole has been much more candid than Andrew Scheer was, and that should count for something.

And yet, on the eve of the first significant policy convention under his leadership, O’Toole is facing an internal rebellion from the social conservative wing of his party, which wants to reopen the abortion debate by inserting language in the party’s constitution that states life begins at conception.

May 15, 2019

Here is where we should put the brakes on that empathy. O’Toole is in this situation because he courted, strongly, social conservatives including the anti-abortion movement. He is in good company in this regard. Premier Doug Ford would not have won his party’s leadership had he not courted and won over social conservative groups, including the one headed by Charles McVety, now trying to get public accreditation for his religious college. Ford was able to keep his social conservative supporters at bay. O’Toole may have more trouble doing so. 

In the leadership race, Canada’s biggest anti-abortion group, Campaign Life Coalition, claimed it swayed the outcome by recruiting more than 26,000 new Conservative members. It also claimed social conservatives accounted for 35 per cent of all votes cast in the leadership contest.

May 25, 2019

After O’Toole’s victory, Campaign Life said in a statement: “We expect that Erin O’Toole will ensure that social conservatives are respected and their values represented within the party going forward … Everyone knows you can’t win a general election without your base.”

RightNow, another anti-abortion group, claimed it recruited 10,000 party members for the vote, and said O’Toole would be upholding the same policy on abortion as former leader Scheer. O’Toole told the group that “social conservatives” would be repaid for their support with a “seat at the table.”

He also said: “Basically, for the pro-lifers in our party, they will know two fundamental things about me … I value them in our party and I respect their important role in our movement.”

November 5, 2016

So it’s really quite simple. O’Toole, like Ford, needed social conservatives to support him in the leadership race, and now, not surprisingly, they want to see the payback for that support. There is nothing wrong with that — quid pro quo is a staple in politics. 

But O’Toole’s problem is fundamental, perhaps even existential. The more he accommodates the social conservative agenda, which centres largely around less gun control and putting restrictions on abortions, the more he hurts his party’s chances of pulling itself out of the 30 per cent of public support territory it has inhabited since Scheer took over leadership from Stephen Harper. And 30 per cent public support does not win elections. 

Nor do issues like less access to abortion services and less control over guns play well in urban centres, including the 905, Toronto and urban Quebec, where the Conservatives really need to increase their support to challenge the Liberals in the next election. In short, it’s a sticky wicket, but it’s one that O’Toole himself put in place. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday February 14, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 14, 2020

The Conservative Party’s moderate-centres have disappeared

Alone among the senior party elephants who in the past few days have fled the high veldt of the federal Conservative leadership campaign, former Quebec premier Jean Charest left behind disquieting words as he took the exit road. The party, he observed, has changed a lot since he was last active in it in 1998.

March 24, 2018

You wonder why Conservative strategists and the media have not made more of what he said.

They’ve stated that the party is confused; it has lost its identity, needs to find itself—when, for the most part, the party knows exactly where it is and how it got there. It’s the strategists and media who are living in something that looks a lot like a state of denial.

They’re engaging in a surreal debate about what the party needs to do to fix itself and grow its political message—make symbolic or mild policy nods toward the political centre, have its leaders walk in a pride parade, declare it won’t be re-opening the abortion debate, do something to hobble the party’s “extremist wing.”

Yet the Conservative moderate-centre has all but disappeared. Largely, the so-called Red Tories have left the party and gone elsewhere. There is no “extremist wing”—that’s imaginary. Fundamental changes have shaped the base of the party that reflect differences in outlook, preferences and values from the great majority of Canadians and have little to do with what someone thinks about gay pride parades. As in the U.K. and the U.S., authoritarian or ordered populism has polarized Canada into two incommensurable camps.

Animated!

The Conservative Party that most Canadians have known—the political centre that previously had the ability to find centre terrain on the most divisive issues of the day—has disappeared. What contemporary Conservative strategists and the media seem to have significant difficulty recognizing is that Canadian politics has become much more like American politics—it’s become tribal. And just as two Americas have taken root and blossomed, two Canadas are appearing on this side of the border.

EKOS Research found that four years ago, there was a 10-percentage-point gap between Liberals and Conservatives who selected climate change as the top issue of political concern. That gap is now 46 percentage points.

More than 90 per cent of Canadians who identify with the political centre-left, which is 65 per cent of adult citizens, think that Canada now has a climate emergency (they don’t believe that it’s coming, but that it’s here now.) For people who identify as Conservative or People’s Party supporters, the figure is less than 30 per cent. Four years ago, there was a 20-percentage-point gap between Liberals and Conservatives on trust in science. That exploded to a 40 per cent gap following the last election.

Since 2012, the incidence of Conservative voters who think Canada is admitting “too many” visible minorities as immigrants has swollen from 47 per cent to 70 per cent . Meanwhile, the corresponding incidence of Liberals agreeing there are too many has dropped from 35 to 15 per cent. A modest 12 per cent gap has also expanded to a massive 55 per cent gap. (MacLean’s) 

 

Friday December 13, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday December 13, 2019

Conservatives face an awkward question: What if Scheer wasn’t the problem?

On the simplest level, Andrew Scheer was merely a political leader who failed — a politician who made too many mistakes and suffered self-inflicted wounds that cut too deep.

Andrew Scheer Gallery

The larger legacy of his time as Conservative leader may end up being that of a politician who saw the times pass him by  — yesterday’s man, his ideas and positions out of step with a significant majority of voters.

But that depends on where his party and Canadian politics go next.

Scheer’s sudden (but not entirely surprising) exit on Thursday was quickly accompanied by reports that the Conservative Party had somehow been covering part of the cost of his children’s education at a private school. That might not seem like a problem in and of itself, at least not a significant one.

But Scheer had just spent an election campaign pitching himself as a middle-class everyman, a stark contrast to an affluent and privileged Liberal leader — a prime minister Scheer and other Conservatives had ridiculed  for using the budget of his official residence to hire nannies.

The matter of financial assistance also fits a pattern.

Late in this fall’s campaign, Scheer had to admit that he was a dual citizen of Canada and the United States — despite having previously questioned the dual citizenship of former governor general Michaëlle Jean.

That revelation came shortly after Scheer was compelled to admit that he had not been licensed as an insurance broker, despite having claimed to have worked as a broker before entering politics (he also had only worked in an insurance office for six or seven months).

While all of this was going on, the Conservatives were still loudly insisting that Justin Trudeau was “not as advertised.”

Scheer’s struggles were not limited to contradictions. He wouldn’t — or couldn’t — account for his previously stated views on same-sex marriage. He never found a way to explain why he wouldn’t march in a Pride parade. And during the first televised leaders’ debate, he was noticeably reluctant to acknowledge to that he was personally opposed to abortion.

Scheer’s campaign became a personal identity crisis. And then he failed to defeat a vulnerable opponent. (Continued: CBC) 

 

Friday May 31, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday May 31, 2019

Pence tells Canada he’s ‘proud’ to oppose abortion

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau said the two men had a “cordial conversation” about abortion laws in the US despite their difference of views.

May 15, 2019

Mr Trudeau has said he is concerned about the “backsliding” of women’s rights south of the border.

The PM and the VP also discussed issues related to trade and China.

In the US, the contentious issue of abortion has been front-and-centre this year as nearly a dozen states have moved to pass new, stricter laws on abortion.

Critics have pointed at what they see as an orchestrated challenge to a decades-old US Supreme Court ruling that protected a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

Mr Pence is known for his staunch opposition to abortion.

Mr Trudeau, on the other hand, is outspoken in support of reproductive rights.

September 27, 2017

The two were able to diplomatically sidestep any tensions when asked about that discussion by reporters on Thursday.

Mr Pence said the Trump administration “will always stand for the right to life”.

“But those are debates within the United States and I know that Canada will deal with those issues in a manner that the people of Canada have determined most appropriate.”

Amid the political firestorm over state-level anti-abortion bills in the US, in Canada the Liberals have been pressuring their Conservative rivals over their stance on the issue in the run-up to the general election.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer – who has supported pro-life legislation in the past – has vowed that if he were to form government he would not reopen the debate. (BBC)

Spec cartoon could put NAFTA at risk

RE: Hamilton Spectator Editorial cartoon, May 31

This cartoon is offensive, rude, and crude. It is an underhanded way of persecuting a man, the vice-president of the USA, a Christian, for his faith.

As a nation we are trying to build a relationship, a friendship with the USA and you find this mean and vindictive way of putting people down.

I hope that President Trump will not have second thoughts about having a NAFTA treaty with Canada. He is the most pro-life president ever and this kind of sarcasm does not build a nation or friendly relationships.

Did you consider Mr. Pence’s faith or feelings? Yes, we Christians tend to be pro-life, because God created us. I know God loves you too and He has given you have a talent but sometimes you misuse it.

Peter and Eline Homan, Hamilton

Saturday May 25, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 25, 2019

Andrew Scheer really doesn’t want to talk about abortion

“As I’ve said, many, many times before,” Andrew Scheer said on Wednesday, “a Conservative government will not reopen this debate.

May 15, 2019

“I’ve been very clear on this … I’ve made it very clear. We will not reopen this debate.”

A fair bit depends on how broadly Scheer defines the word “we.”

At any rate, the example of Stephen Harper suggests the debate over abortion isn’t one that a Conservative leader can easily avoid.

On Wednesday, Scheer was asked whether he would allow Conservative MPs to introduce legislation related to abortion and, if so, whether he would allow those MPs to vote freely on such proposals.

Such questions have been coming up a lot lately, prompted by a wave of new legislation to restrict access to abortion services in the United States and by comments Scheer himself made when he was seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have leaned into the debate, publicly pressuring Scheer over the fact that a dozen Conservative MPs recently attended an anti-abortion rally on Parliament Hill.

Howdy Doodie Andy Scheer

On Wednesday, Scheer accused the Liberals of “trying to import a divisive issue” from the United States to split Canadians and distract from the government’s recent troubles. But he also stopped short of directly answering the questions he was asked.

Based on what he said during the Conservative leadership race, Scheer’s answer to those specific questions would seem to be “yes.” Those campaign comments suggested that, while a Scheer government would not itself introduce abortion legislation, Conservative backbenchers would be free to do so and Conservatives would be free to vote their “conscience” on those bills or motions.

That roughly corresponds with official Conservative policy on such matters and relies on a legitimate parliamentary distinction between the MPs who are part of the government (cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries) and those who are not (the backbenchers who are members of the governing party, but not part of the executive).

If that’s still Scheer’s position, he might just say so. But he also wouldn’t be the first Conservative leader to have second thoughts about indulging the backbench. (CBC)