Behind Closet Doors

Via the Dan Report and StageLeft :

What hidden agenda is this?

Seems that some Conservative candidates have been told by their party not to comment publicly about a meeting they attended of clergy opposed to same-sex marriage, clergy they hope will spread the Conservative word.

"We’ve been told by Ottawa that we don’t talk about that," Paula Henderson told The (Halifax) Chronicle Herald on Thursday. "That’s a dropped subject."

Ms. Henderson is a campaign volunteer for Rakesh Khosla, the Tory running against Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan in Halifax West.

Paul Francis, the Conservative candidate for Sackville-Eastern Shore, also attended the meeting and he too refused to comment.

"We’re actually referring all inquiries on that meeting to (Tory spokesman) Rob Batherson," said Jeff Alexander, communications director for Mr. Francis.

The party seems to be afraid of what its candidates will say, Mr. Regan said.

"The fact that they’re telling their candidates not to talk about this is incredible," he said. "The Conservatives are muzzling their candidates. How many others are there with an agenda they don’t want to talk about?"

Nobody is being muzzled here, countered Mr. Batherson.

"Candidates are free and clear to comment on any subject they feel fit to do so," he said.

"There are only so many hours in the day and they seek advice from others as to which media inquiries in the run of the day they can respond to.

So few hours in the day that one of the candidates saw fit to cancel, with only an hour's notice, an appearance at a local high school debate to meet with people who say the same-sex marriage issue is far from dead.

You can find local TV news reports (RealPlayer) here.

As StageLeft puts it:

The party of free and open votes on same sex marriage has told their people not to talk to reporters about what they were talking about when they were talking about same sex marriage… weird ain’t it?

I'd say it was downright queer.

Comments

[NPS]

Before everybody gets wrapped around the driveshaft and the torque settings reach 110% on this SSM issue, step back a bit and look closely. Elsie Wayne et al have one thing in common – lots of gray and in some instances white hair. In ten years, maybe sooner all of these people will be dead or in nursing homes and the slightly younger ones will be put to pasture. The current 14-15 yr olds will be educated by then and will be in charge and try telling them their gay friends will not enjoy the same rights as you do. Need I say more………. Let these old people like Elsie rattle on like she did in the 1950-60’s, it really doesn’t mean anything.

at least some people's agenda's are not hidden on their blog... ahem, ahem...

[Mark Federman]

As I argue in this blog entry (http://whatisthemessage.blogspot.com/2006/01/campaign-scripts-as-medium.html ), what is not being said is probably more revealing, and more important for the future of Canada, than what the leaders ARE saying.

This, of course, makes the so-called debates, and the hype around them, more or less irrelevant.

[Liberals_are_criminals]

Good. They finally telling the so-cons they have no place in our party.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

If the CPC had any type of actual plan, other than throwing OUR money at the problems THEY helped create, then it would require spokepersons who could elucidate the concepts. Nope, that requires intelligence.

Better they stick with mud slinging from their kindergarten mud puddle. Oh yes, and they are all free to say whatever they want, bearing in mind of course Chancellor Harper's wrath should they speak without permission.

Neo-con freedom...what a concept, eh? I bet Rove is emailing ideas like mad from Washington, along with their pet boy-toy Ralphy Reed!

Remember, they have a mission from their god to save us all from ourselves and they, like throughout history, will do whatever is deemed necessary, including killing us, to save us!

Is it Deja vu or just knowing the tactics and history that brings all this to mind?

[Antonia Z.]

To the anonymous commenter at 11:41 ...

I hide it all in plain sight. But in case you're too blind to see ...

I would say that I am your classic left-small-l-liberal-tree-hugging 60s baby boomer who majored in sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll'n'protest march in university (undergrad).

I marched down streets chanting "LBJ! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" and demonstrated against nuclear bomb testing. I saw Jimi Hendrix live. I desperately miss my many gay male friends who were cut down too young by AIDS before we fully understood what AIDS was. I would have loved to have danced at their weddings.

I live in Toronto-Danforth, an urban yuppie-ish NDP riding, both federally and provincially, have written nasty columns about SUVs long before anybody else did, and only use my little car to drive to Montreal, haul groceries or take my dog to the vet.

I can't say I am an earthy crunchy granola Birkenstock type since I wear stiletto-heel boots and lots of black leather but I rarely eat meat. In 1979, my then-husband gave me a stunning full-length mink coat, with a hood, that I now put on for special occasions.

Okay, so I am a bit of a hypocrite.

But I have no hidden agenda.

[David Imrie]

If anything shows the CPC's hidden agenda, this is it.

Voters beware!

[It's a tradition]

Eugene McDermott,the Conservative candidate in my riding of Don Valley East has this to say about marriage:

Definition of Marriage

a.. Supporting traditional marriage as a union of a man and a woman

I just figured out that "traditional" marriage is between a man and a woman, but marriage in general could be between two adults--straight, gay, or lesbian. If Stephen Harper becomes El Primo Ministro after the election, watch him offer the "traditional" sop to his Conservative MPs to vote on. There are "modern" marriages and there are "traditonal" marriages. Perhaps we can go back to the good ole days when a man and his family acquired a wife for possession. Now that's a traditional marriage! I doubt this will happen.

Eugene McDermott's website with traditional marriage comment at the bottom:

http://www.eugenemcdermott.ca/default.asp?id=74&menuID=74

[Dana]

I'm waiting for the rage from the so-cons when they find out Harper and Co. will *not* allow themselves to be written into the Canadian history books as the first federal government to implement the 'notwitstanding' clause. And for a reason that restricts rights at that. Harper has said that he won't use the clause for this, and we have to believe him or suffer the wrath of the batallions of Conservative keyboardists lurking behind every tree, who believe every word that droppeth from his mouth.

Prime Minister Harper. I'm trying to get used to it. Foreign Affairs Minister Stockwell Day. Not much chance of getting used to that is there? Source of national humiliation and shame actually. Minister of Finance Monte Solberg. Well, the press releases will be cogent - can't say about the fiscal policy - oh yes I can, I forgot, cut taxes so the economy will grow and then do it some more and more and then...slash programs and then some more and then...borrow like a frightened rabbit.

That's enough for now. I'm losing my grip.

Gopod save us.

[NPS]

"I marched down streets chanting "LBJ! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" and demonstrated against nuclear bomb testing. I saw Jimi Hendrix live."

Were you at the origional Woodstock August 1969. I was in my last year high school but remember it well... later that year I had the only copy in town of the complete concert on 8-track tapes, me and my trusty 8-track home player were quite popular, I got my tokes for free. There were a couple of guys around, well you know sort of "q----" but most of us didn't mind, their tokes were as good as the rest.

Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance for ever and a day....

[John Stirling]

More alarming still is the free ride Harper has been getting from the media over his fudging of the Iraq issue. In fact, at the time, Harper made it abundantly clear that he supported the war and in fact chastised the Liberals for staying out of it and failing to support "our American allies." It's clear, then, that had Harper been prime minister at the time, Canadians would be coming home today in body bags from that ghastly, destabilizing, illegal and thoroughly pointless war.
With his decision to support Bush on that crucial issue, Stephen Harper demonstrated that he is utterly out of step with mainstream Canadian values and unfit to lead our country.
I have voted NDP my entire life but I live in the 905 area code and this time, the race is too tight and the stakes too crucial: I will plug my nose and vote Liberal for the first time in my life. I could not live with myself if my NDP vote helped the Tories win.
I do encourage my downtown friends to vote NDP, though, as the race there is between the Libs and the NDP.

[Greg]

Antonia. Maybe while these folks are trying to get comments from the CPC, someone will ask Martin how he will handle another free vote, if he is leader of the opposition. Will the Liberals vote as a block (as the NDP and Bloc surely will) or will Martin allow his members to vote freely? If he is truly serious in his support for SSM he will whip his vote. Otherwise, he is just blowing smoke. Same sex marriage is safe in a Conservative minority House, but only if the Liberals vote to preserve it.

As for these guys: http://www.ndp.ca/page/2288
These good Liberals all voted against same-sex marriage. Help vote them out and elect NDP members in their place, if you want to safeguard SSM.

[Dana]

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/01/07/1382512.html is the inestimable Michael Coren's advice to Harper on coming out strongly against abortion and SSM now that Harper's gaining credibility.

I say go for it!

[Flea]

"I wear stiletto-heel boots and lots of black leather"

And yet never post photographic evidence to the effect. Tsk!

[Liam]

We seem to have heard nothing about the fact that Paul Martin has 40% of his MP's against redefining marriage. Further to that we see that the Conservatives are finally stifling the oppressive so-cons who have been hurting the party for years. On top of that Stephen Harper has said that g+l people should have all the benefits of regularly married people, just in respect to the 40+ generation, he would like to call those marriages civil unions. Semantics. 37-29 recent poll suggests that finally we have a leader that can unite Canada and make it strong and free!!!!!!!!

[Dana]

http://www.ccicinc.org/index.html is the website for the Christian Coalition International in Canada. On the front page today we find that SSM is top of mind and that Harper's Conservatives receive a ringing endorsement ending with a cry for divine mercy on Canada. Better than a call for retribution I suppose.

"The January 23rd, 2006 election presents the Christian Community with a stark choice of re-electing a corrupt Liberal Government intent on destroying Canada's foundations of Judaeo-Christian origins in all legal and social institutions, or electing a government which respects the Judaeo-Christian ethos and heritage of a majority of the Canadian people. The undemocratic passage of the homosexual marriage law by the Liberal Paul Martin Government was perhaps the most damaging social policy initiative ever brought forward by any Government in Canadian history. It will do inestimable damage to the fabric of Canadian society if left unchanged. Fortunately the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that this law will be re-opened and subject to a free vote by Parliament if the Conservative Party forms the next Government.

Let the people rise up in defense of freedom. Let freedom ring! May God have mercy on Canada."

On the same site is an article entitled "Semantic Infiltration and How to Combat It". A screed entirely aimed squarely at SSM and abortion.

Harper's speech to the Christian Coalition contains the following paragraph. "we must realize that real gains are inevitably incremental. This, in my experience, is harder for social conservatives than for economic conservatives. The explicitly moral orientation of social conservatives makes it difficult for many to accept the incremental approach. Yet, in democratic politics, any other approach will certainly fail. We should never accept the standard of just being "better than the Liberals" - people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it - but conservatives should be satisfied if the agenda is moving in the right direction, even if slowly."

Slowly, slowly. Carefully, carefully. Stealthily, stealthily. One step at a time. Before you know it our inclusive, secular society of which I personally am very proud will be over.

A grand day...

[Montreal Simon]

Hi Antonia

Happy New Year! We missed you. I truly believe that Harper's stealth campaign, and the free ride he's getting in our convergent, cowed, and increasingly right-wing msm IS the story of this election.
Not only are they failing to challenge the voodoo economics of his many promises, they're all but campaigning for him. In that regard check out what a panelist on CBC News Sunday had to say about a McGill study that is finding a huge discrepancy between the kind of placement in newspapers that Harper is receiving, and the kind of play the other candidates are getting.
And while we're on the subject, isn't it a little peculiar that nobody, as far as I know, has done any stories or reports on how gays and lesbians feel about the prospect of having their hardearned equality rights stripped away from them?
I guess they don't count. They don't fit the thesis.They might remind Canadians of the real face of the so-called New Conservatives. Of the submerged monster that could come out of this Black Lagoon of an election.
Too bad for all of us.

[Mach Stelmacher]

Hello? To be honest, I am not so much even keen on debating the issue till the cows come home. What I am against is using the issue to pander to Canadians' insecurities as ammo,leverage, raison d`etre..whatever
..to make me re-consider who should be leading the country.

Dont care much for a country doing flip
flops...I crave change, yes...but not
so much radical change. The world needs
stability and innovative ideas mixed with wiseness

I have blogged this issue thanks Azerb
and if anyones interested click the link...
had 300 hits this month and think I edited 299 times...ha

Whats this about PC links with the US
National Rifle Association? What next?
Harper having tea with Charlton Heston?

Havent heard..but a writer is Australia apparently has.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17515436%255E2703,00.html

[It's a tradition]

The opponents of same-sex marriage remind me of days when I supply-teach in grade-one classes. There's usually a girl, yes a girl, who says to me, "Teacher, Johnny is colouring the sky green and the water red." I have to remind the little girl what she is supposed to be doing.

"But, teacher, Johnny is not supposed to colour the sky green and the water red!"

"What you supposed to be doing, young lady?"

"But the sky is green and the water is red!"

The little girl is off-task but she just wants my attention.

Imagine the same situation, but with same-sex marriage and swinging (not together related).

"Teacher, Johnny and Billy are getting married over there."

"Yes, young lady. Does it matter to you?"

"They're not supposed to get married."

"Yes, but how does it affect you?"

"They are not supposed to be married!"

"Young lady, it's now recess. Get ready to go outside."

On the playground:

"Teacher! Billy, Johnny, Sally, and Jane are swinging. They are not supposed to be swinging together!"

"Are they hurting you right now?"

"They are not supposed to be swinging together! I don't want Sally and Jane to be with Billy and Johnny. The girls need to be with me!"

"Maybe those girls want to be with the boys. Could you find someone else to be with today?"

"They're not supposed to be swinging! It's not right!"

Are there just too many tattle talers who want the attention for opposing same-sex marriage and swinging?

[20/20]

Thank you Mach Stelmacher for that link into Australian media, above. "...a witness had his car blown up in the course of Gomery's proceedings." This bombing is news to me---did I miss it in Canadian Press?---the rest of the article seemed cogent and well-crafted, and all the more worrisome for that reason. Has there been a decision taken somewhere that Harper should be the next PM? Is the bushie organisation in our right wing? I have noticed that Canada does seem to trend behind the US in many areas; is the Canadian media becoming lockstepped? Are we being led to crown a reptile?

[arthurdecco]

Posted by 20/20: "Are we being led to crown a reptile?"

By our collective wrinkled nose. Smells doesn't it?

So when do we dismantle the media empires in this country? Immediately after the election seems like a good time to start to me.

Let's start with the Asper bunch of scoundrels then move on to the Sun family of papers and then to the Toronto Star/Globe and Mail marriage, then finally let's remove the senior management from the CBC before it takes on even more of the worst aspects of right wing commercial radio/television than it already has. (I've listened to commentary on Radio 1 that wouldn't have been out of place on Fox News. I had to shower after being forced to listen to Marcus Gee on the CBC, or for that matter, Mary Lou Finlay, who never interviewed a neo-con that didn't audibly quicken her breathing and bring spots to her cheeks.)

If we don't reign in these troublesome empires sooner than later we're going to end up in the same soup as our American cousins. Who wants that?

[Dana]

Arthur old sausage, apparently an emerging majority of Canadians want to end up in that soup, although they don't phrase it quite that way.

They seem to think that Stephen Harper's positions on everything under the sun have undergone a significant sea change. Now that he's leading a party composed of red meat western reformers and eastern red tories and religious right activists and talentless opportunists I suppose it's possible that he's a different kind of ideologue than once he was. I wouldn't bet the country on it though.

I have a hunch we're in for a small Conservative majority government. Furthermore I think we're in for some rude shocks once they really get their majority bones unpacked.

There will be some privatization of federal government assets, likely starting with the CBC and other "cultural" assets - the National Art Gallery, Museum of Civiization, National Arts Centre, War Museum and so on. There'll be others too not in the cultural realm.

There will be some very real changes to some of the social safety net programs mandated and paid for at the federal level. EI could well become a shadow of it's already shadowy self.

The wealthy will find themselves able to keep a lot more of their money while the middle classes and below will keep less, mostly through the imposition of fees for services used. There will be a simmering, yet impotent, anger and resentment as the wealthy get more so but contribute less and less.

Citizens will find it a lot harder to get information out of the government under Freedom of Information legislation at the same time as the government trumpets their openness, transparency and accountability (we're finely attuned to that here in BC).

Medical premiums will rise sharply right across the country as the federal mandate to oversee the program is reduced to near zero. Coverage of services will be a province by province hodgepodge. Lots of private insurance schemes will pop up - every one of them offered by US based HMOs or their subsidiaries. Don't get sick.

Abortion will sneak back onto the table disguised as "supporting families" or some such. The free vote on SSM will prove to be less than free on the Conservative side of the House. I have no idea how Harper will deal with it if he wins that vote or if he loses it. The courts will have to be over-ridden in one instance (which he's said he won't do) and the so-con part of the Conservative coalition will howl with outrage in the other. I suspect he'll declare his opposition to using 'notwithstanding' an inoperative strategy and go ahead and use it.

Judicial changes will include putting a stop to the de-crim of THC containing substances and banning medical pot. We'll re-join the pointless "war on drugs". National harm reduction programs will be terminated. We'll build a lot more prisons and jail a lot more people and the DEA and FBI will have an even freer hand that they do now - which isn't saying a lot.

Not one national infrastructure program will survive. Not one. Conservative political thought doesn't permit that. Instead, if a highway, as an example, is needed and it's a federal area of responsibility, the right to build the highway will be sold to a company that will then be granted the right to charge for the use of it. Sound familiar?

We're frog marching blindly into a situation we should have learned to avoid like the plague by simply paying attention to various provincial political experiences over the past couple of decades.

Oh well...it'll be a frabjous day won't it?

[ScottInCgy]

A few points from a social liberal/fiscal conservative:

Going after Harper on his stand on Iraq?? Martin's stand on Iraq is just as flip-floppy as Harper's is. Go after both of them.

SSM - Who cares? It's such a miniscule issue that affects a tiny proportion of the population. I don't care who marries who, as long as they don't steal my tax dollars. :)

[Bill-Muskoka]

Dana,

Precisely why we need to truly understand the thinking behind the neo-con and neo-liberal approach to economics.

John Ralston Saul's book 'The Collapse of Globalism and The Reinvention of the World' details the reality checks we have, as a matter of record, regarding the globalistic markets so loved by people like Harper.

The re-establishment of the nation-state has shown to be the answer. Canada must retain its sovereignty, its public trusts, and its economic independence, and a one tier HEALTH CARE system.

A good example was in today's Globe & Mail on the way the transnationals, and especially the hedge fund lovers are depleting our people of their Canadian right to self-determination. Remember, the gas prices are determined at the Commodities Market, not based on reality!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060109.wxrpaulson09/BNStory/Business/

"Sixteen months after buying into Algoma, with the hope of profiting from a takeover bid for the steel company, Mr. Paulson is frustrated by the lack of a payoff and openly derisive of the current management and board of directors for failing to build shareholder value."

"Today, a judge in Toronto is expected to rule on the hedge fund's bid to move forward by some weeks a special Algoma meeting, at which shareholders will vote on Paulson's proposal to replace most of the board with its own slate, recapitalize the company, and make a $400-million payout to stockholders."

$400 MILLION? SIX MONTHS? No one deserves that level of return in SIX MONTHS or SIX YEARS for a 19% ownership.!

The entire thrust of the neo-cons is to avoid any political regulation against their transnational friends. Malaysia, Bolivia, and many others have simply refused to participate.

The entire thing is a war on people, an invasion of our independence to be creative, own our own corporations, etc.. The daily trade in 'currency' is another area that has little control. That is the reason China has held the line against placing their currency on the world trading system.

The U.S. took a major reduction in their currency value in 1971. They have done it several times since. Why? Because the neo-cons ran the country into a real $57 TRILLION debt, not deficit, DEBT! The last figures I read made it a $480,000 per capita debt for each American.

Anyone got their checkbook handy? Visa, MasterCard, American Express, How's your line of credit with your bank? Do people actually think those interested only in making money will write-off that level of debt? HELL NO!

They will manipulate the economy, by supporting elected officials they can OWN, and then 'buying' (read invading) foreign nations industries and becoming 'absentee landlords' demanding the best of the pie!

Oh yes, how about the 407 fiasco? Ontario Hydro (thankfully that got stymied)?

What's next? Well, we can sure look at what Mulrooney entered us into with NAFTA and selling off our national resources like oil and gas. What? Ralph Klein owns those? No, he does not, did not, and when the Americans SUCK IT DRY, what will have for our supply?

I just hope people get their heads screwed around to the centred position because we are at the crossroads for our future. No, not Quebec. CANADA!

[arthurdecco]

I want to thank you, Ms. Zerbisias, for hosting this blog. In all my months of reading online I've never found a site where the issues get discussed as sensibly as they do here. It's refreshing to listen to intelligent and thoughtful people most times expressing their opinions graciously rather than confrontationally. Great posts Bill and Dana - I agree completely. Thanks for making the effort to lay this all out.