The kaleidoscope of blind spots

I am still somewhat embroiled in the Battle of Tipping Point, but I would like to preserve on my own blog this particular exchange between me and The Monarchist on his blog, in fact on Walsingham's post.  (It should be noted, carefully, that the eponymous Monarchist and Walsingham are two different people.  Some people, including myself, originally failed to notice this.  Walsingham continues to proclaim loudly his desire not to read my writing even as he has responded to me.)

UPDATE: Walsingham has changed his mind, and he is responding to me, and I will <i>try</i> to get an answer to him tomorrow.

In this response, I use the issue of same-sex marriage as a a case in point to show the weakness of the Reformatories in their failure to grasp the true nature of the difficulties that they are in.  They have a long series of blind spots including that one, ones that are quite obvious to me and probably most of my readership, prevent them from addressing the roots of their failure to obtain any long-term traction.  Or perhaps these aren't blind spots: they are a result of being rooted in the Reform Party's Alberta base, ultimately, and being unable to extend outward from there, as evidenced by such things as Belinda Stronach's departure. 

In any case, it is unfortunate for Canada that it is not up to the task.  As I noted before, it impedes the growth of the party I favour as well.

The Monarchist: The Tipping Point - Part II: The most galling presumption in politics today is the attitude that other parties have to "prove" their ability to be a "national alternative", while the Liberals, regardless of their appalling lack of morality, regardless of the extent of their corruption and misconduct, regardless of their own mediocrity, regardless of their regional dependency on Ontario; don't have to prove a bloody thing."

The "proof" demanded is simply a set of policies that a majority of voters in a majority of ridings can accept, AND the belief that the adoption of these policies is halfway genuine and not a mask for ideologies that people reject.

Let me give you a case in point: SSM. Like it or not, there are people in this country who view it as a matter of civil rights, not a matter to be thrown to the whim of the majority. The CPC position has been even until now, somewhat, um, negative on the issue. So what are these people supposed to do: choose a party that allegedly promises purity but does not accept their position on their civil rights? Or live with a corrupt party that gives a half-way decent chance of recognizing their rights and passing the SSM bill?

Of course, you can say, "vote for the NDP!" But it isn't so easy: if a vote for the NDP means that (assuming the SSM bill is pushed until after an election) a CPC government will come to power, then it would be that much harder to pass the SSM bill.

This is but a single case. There are many other slices. That you aren't willing to address these questions is precisely why the Liberals are easily able to peel away sections of the electorate. That you believe that corruption is the worst possible fate betrays a lack of imagination. You cannot dismiss such "special interest groups". Special interest groups, all together, are the electorate. And they will keep defeating the CPC.

Comments

[Andrew]

SSM is a bad example precisely because the country is so split down the middle on it. Going by the polls, there is not "good" position to take on SSM.... you stand to piss off ~50% of Canadians no matter which course you follow.

Interestingly enough, the CPC compromise position (civil unions) enjoys roughly 60% support. Unfortunately, the Canadian media enjoys pillorying the CPC on that (and other) social issues, which leads to a perception that their views are unpopular. Poll after poll has shown this not to be the case. (Side note: urban centers are more likely to support full SSM, and that's where the CPC has the hardest time making headway.... )

[The Monarchist]

Let me give you a case in point: SSM. Like it or not, there are people in this country who view it as a matter of civil rights, not a matter to be thrown to the whim of the majority. The CPC position has been even until now, somewhat, um, negative on the issue. So what are these people supposed to do: choose a party that allegedly promises purity but does not accept their position on their civil rights? Or live with a corrupt party that gives a half-way decent chance of recognizing their rights and passing the SSM bill?

Well let me flip that one around on you, Mandos. Every party currently supports SSM except one: the CPC. So I ask you: If as Andrew has pointed out the majority of people do not support full SSM, just who are they supposed to vote for, presuming of course that you believe they equally count here? Are they not permitted to have a voice on the matter? Though the universe is not static, your contention that homosexual marriage is a civil right, is not supported by any human rights tribunal or any other country in the world. Or are we just supposed to take your word for it? I think it's pretty safe to assume that the minority's agenda on SSM will be followed by SSA (same sex adoption), which begs the question: do children have civil rights? Or are they just pawns in all of this?

[Mandos]

You misconstrue what I was saying: I wasn't defending SSM as a civil right here. I was using it as an example of wedge issues that make it IMPOSSIBLE for some groups to consider voting CPC. That's another debate.

However, the problem for the CPC, as I see it, is that the number of people for whom opposition to SSM will make them vote CPC is not very large. I know quite a few people who oppose SSM (even in Alberta, though admittedly in Edmonton), but they aren't passionate enough about it to vote CPC (unlike, say, in large parts of the US). For them SSM is basically a fait accompli, anyway. Almost everyone I know, however, who supports SSM will not vote CPC, some for that very reason---the CPC is unthinkable. In that way, that slice of the electorate is peeled away from the CPC. You can find a host of other issues, some of them with perhaps an even greater effect.

[verbatim]

...your contention that homosexual marriage is a civil right, is not supported by any human rights tribunal or any other country in the world.

See: Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002), European Court of Human Rights; also, Karner v. Austria (2003), European Court of Human Rights --- both cases affirm that the right to marry in article 12 of the European Declaration of Human Rights, which is a restatement of article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, must be construed as applying equally to same-sex marriages. These decisions underscore that the right to marry is a universal right, and cannot be limited to religious or traditional proscriptions of marriage by the state.

In any event, Mandos is not arguing that "homosexual marriage" is a civil right. Marriage is a Human Right. And it is a right guaranteed to persons of all sexual orientation.

The fact that the CPC absolutely refuses to recognize the rule of law on this matter is entirely the point. They are rejecting constitutionalism. I would never trust any party that thumbed its nose at the rule of law in this way. This goes beyond mere money scandals. It shows a lack of commitment to democracy. It also shows that the CPC is essentially a party of bigots and essentialists that cannot be taken seriously.

[Derrell]

Marrige is not a right, it is a responsability. It is a religious institution not a goverment issued civil union. SSM is just a way to force acceptance on a group of people that don't agree with a life style choice.

[Walsingham]

Pedophilia is a "sexual orientation". So if:

"Marriage is a Human Right. And it is a right guaranteed to persons of all sexual orientation."

is true, then presumably pedophiles have the right to marry their "partners"?

[Mandos]

We have problems of consent.

[Walsingham]

Says your assumption. After all, the age of consent to sexual activity is what - 14, in most provinces, or less? And what says that it couldn't be less, and extend consent of juveniles to partners over 18? After all, isn't it a "human right" to see any "real love" sanctified by the state?

How about another case. What about someone whose "sexual orientation" is based on sexual variety. Should "open relationships" be legitimized by marriage - i.e., polygamy? Or would we just sanction "adultery" If so, why the arbirariness of saying any combination of two can make a marriage, but only two? And in the mix, let's layer on bisexuals. Why not be able to marry a man AND a woman?

[Walsingham]

"The fact that the CPC absolutely refuses to recognize the rule of law on this matter is entirely the point. They are rejecting constitutionalism. I would never trust any party that thumbed its nose at the rule of law in this way."

Same-sex marriage has never been and is not even yet the law of the land, so to say that the CPC "refuses to recognize the rule of law" with respect to it is absurd. What they are doing is fighting to preserve existing law, and the majority of Canadians support their so doing. Constitutionality is a separate question. As far as I know, the SCC has not ruled that continuing to prohibit SSM would be unconstitutional, only that starting to allow it would not be. Some lower-level courts have made other rulings, I believe. In any case, the Constitution does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or marriage, so any judicial attempt to "read in" either or both - and further, to connect the two - is objectively a stretch and legitimately subject to question. Except in matters where the Constitution is crystal clear, it is Parliament, as the (theoretical) representatives of the people, that decides what constitutes law in Canada. That is called democracy.

[verbatim]

Yes, well, Rule of Law necessarily requires a recognition that the Constitution and Charter are the laws by which other laws are measured. I think it would be a safe bet that, were Parliament to specifically act to not allow SSM, a revisit to the SCC would clarify that excluding gays and lesbians from equal benefit from and treatment under the law violates section 15 of the Charter. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an analogous ground to sex discrimination, and therefore the government is prohibited from passing laws that discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

"Reading in" is a legal norm. Legislation is drafted every day with this specifically in mind. Legislatures would be paralyzed by the need for constant revision and amendment of legislation otherwise. Try working in the Legislative Policy branch of a ministry or department if you doubt this.

Canadians are not affected one iota by the granting of SSM rights. It is simply paranoia, bigotry, and a sense of diminishing entitlement among traditional elites that is motivating the CPC in this instance. It has little to do with democracy.