Stories

So-cons to Harper: You owe us

Tim Anderson
June 23, 2011
Canada’s social conservatives contributed a lot to the recent Conservative party majority. It’s payback time argues Tim Anderson…
Stories

So-cons to Harper: You owe us

Tim Anderson
June 23, 2011
Canada’s social conservatives contributed a lot to the recent Conservative party majority. It’s payback time argues Tim Anderson…
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The recent Conservative election win is, for social conservatives, excitement that must be tempered with facts. The Conservatives dismissed the possibility that a majority government would restrict abortion or re-visit same-sex marriage, and since election night, the Prime Minister has not wavered. This is so and despite how social conservatives assisted the Conservatives, whether through riding-level volunteering, private donations or support at the polls.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The relationship between social conservatives and the Conservative party brings to mind a thought from Søren Kierkegaard, who wrote that the only affliction that causes complete death is despair.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>For example, Lazarus rose from the dead because his disease was not “unto death”; although he physically died, his death failed to end his existence. Had it, he could not have been raised. Kierkegaard writes: “If you have lived in despair then whatever else you won or lost, for you everything is lost.” Those consumed with despair are lost death because they saw nothing else to hope for.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Social conservatives may experience this now. It is easy enough to believe that if a Conservative majority will not promote pro-life policies or traditional marriage, then no one will. This logical thought process is actually despair.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Thus, one can imagine social conservatives retreating from partisan political life, and in so doing, softening Conservative support to the benefit of “progressive” parties. But in their dejection, social conservatives risk ceding their place on the political stage. If so, others will move into that space to deleteriously influence Canadian politics, at least from the socially conservative perspective.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>However, this sickness is not unto death. While the new government intends to push aside older issues, this does not mean that all socially-conservative policies are dead. The soul of social conservatism stretches beyond the traditional ones.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>But on at least two issues, social conservatives can and should expect a majority Conservative government to repel creeping liberalization. Due to recent court cases, the government faces challenges to the criminality of narcotics and polygamy. Social conservatives support keeping these issues illegal since their restriction promotes traditions that benefit society.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Narcotic addiction may impel one into violent crime in order to satisfy that addiction. Polygamy undercuts the biblical tenet that marriage is an exclusive union where two flesh become one in order to create and nurture children. Instead, multiple women “wed” one man; often the women are abused and children exposed to unhealthy socialization. If social conservatives rest their hopes on these issues, they can expect to have their support for the Conservatives validated.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Regarding narcotics, in Vancouver, the federal government is currently fighting to close Insite. That’s a drug-injection centre where heroin addicts, assisted by medical professionals, freely shoot up. Many conservatives – large C and small c – oppose Insite because they argue the centre harms society. Also, the party has promoted mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, including cannabis. Given the Conservative party’s consistency here, social conservatives can justifiably anticipate that the country will not be transformed into a grow-op.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Moreover, a British Columbia Court will soon rule on whether the current prohibitions to polygamy offend the Charter rights of Canadians. Should the Court rule that polygamy ought not be outlawed, it would be reasonable to expect the Conservative government to fight back.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The government has sufficient power and political capital to pursue the case to the Supreme Court. Moreover, because a strong majority of Canadians support the current ban of polygamy (an Abacus Data poll in April 2011 showed that 68% of Canadians agree with the current law), it is plausible that the government could invoke Section 33 of the Charter (i.e., the Notwithstanding Clause), if necessary. The Conservatives supported traditional forms marriage in the past; one can suspect that this trend will continue vis-à-vis polygamy.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The Conservative government has received considerable help from social conservatives in the past. However, the Conservative party is less than anxious to act on policies that most social conservatives consider essential. That should change on at least two matters: narcotics laws and any openness towards polygamy.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Ottawa is Playing a Game of Charter Chicken with the Provinces

The federal government has long objected to provinces using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ “notwithstanding” clause, arguing it lets them trample over the rights of Canadians. But that view, flawed as it is, is nothing compared to Ottawa’s latest gambit on this issue, writes Andrew Roman. Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser’s recent intervention in the case of Quebec’s Bill 21 asks the Supreme Court of Canada to declare limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. This would amount to a backdoor amendment of the Constitution by the court, one that would give judges even more power and leave elected representatives even less scope to avoid or undo their harmful decisions. More than just an attack on provincial autonomy, writes Roman, it threatens to upset the balance at the heart of Canada’s federal democracy.

What if October 7 Had Happened Not in Israel but in Canada?

It is probably beyond the imagination of most Canadians that they would ever face the kind of evil atrocity Israelis suffered on October 7, 2023. Or that we would find ourselves living next door to savage terrorists bent on our annihilation. But as Gwyn Morgan points out, it is critical to understand that reality as Israel’s struggle for existence carries on. The history of Israel is nothing short of miraculous. As Morgan personally observed on a tour of the world’s only Jewish state, Israelis have with determination and heart built a free, tolerant, prosperous and technologically-advanced democracy while surrounded by enemies. In the face of ruthless attacks by Hamas and the craven behaviour of supposed friends and allies who now lean in favour of the terrorists, Israel has reminded the rest of the world what real courage is.

One Country, Two Markets: The Shaky Promise and Unfair Burden of “Decarbonized” Oil

“Decarbonized” oil is being touted as a way to bridge the policy chasm separating energy-rich Alberta and the climate-change-obsessed Mark Carney government. Take the carbon dioxide normally emitted during the production and processing of crude oil and store it underground, the thinking goes, and Canada can have it all: plentiful jobs, a thriving industry, burgeoning exports and falling greenhouse gas emissions. But is “decarbonized” oil really a potential panacea – or an oxymoron that makes no more sense than “dehydrated” water? In this original analysis, former National Energy Board member Ron Wallace evaluates whether a massive push for carbon capture and storage can transform Alberta into a “clean energy superpower” – or will merely saddle its industry and government with a technical boondoggle and unbearable costs while Eastern Canada’s refiners remain free to import dirty oil from abroad.

More from this author

Liberal losers

When political leaders lose elections, most of them slink off to lick their wounds in private. Not Hillary Clinton and Michael Ignatieff. Both of them wrote books about how and why they lost. Tim Anderson reviews What Happened and Fire and Ashes and concludes that Clinton is the greater self-deluding narcissist.

Another Clinton, for Better or Worse

Now that the FBI has decided Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for mishandling classified documents on her private email server, nothing stands in her way winning the U.S. presidency except Donald Trump, and he seems to be doing his best to blow it. So we better get used to the idea of President Clinton II. Tim Anderson and Paul Bunner suffered whiplash charting all the policy and philosophy zigs and zags she’s taken on her path to the White House. They suggest Canadians buckle up; her presidency is going to be a rough ride for us.

Founded not floundered

Ridiculing the Senate has become all too easy in recent time, but as Tim Anderson explains, critics would do well to understand why the Fathers of Confederation made heavy weather of installing it.