• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
112
Points
780
I think someone can be racist,and say racist things nomatter who they are married to.
I think someone who wants to see another person as racist will seek as much confirmation bias as possible in the face of facts to prove their view is correct, regardless of how ridiculous the supposition is.
 

Kilted

Member
Reaction score
33
Points
280
I think someone can be racist,and say racist things nomatter who they are married to.
Different people will give out the racist label for many different reasons, some are legitimate, some are not. You voted for x party, that means you're racist. You are part of x religion, that means you're racist. You're in the military, that means you're racist. I actually got that last one once, but the person did start the conversation by saying that they were a socialist, so I should have expected some odd statements. That being said I don't agree with the things he said about Dr Tam. It's forseeable that some people might have different levels of tolerance for different races, but I doubt that you will find very many true white surpremists married to a non-white women.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
41
Points
530
I think Sloan was the victim of political expediency. I wasn't a fan, he was more right than I. But I think he was sacrificed to save face. The CONs wanted to get out in front of the problem. Fromm was a member of the party.

I cant believe that human could love another intimately; and in marriage; and raise children together and still be considered raciest towards that person. This is the type of mental gymnastics the left loses me on.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
84
Points
530
I think Sloan was the victim of political expediency. I wasn't a fan, he was more right than I. But I think he was sacrificed to save face. The CONs wanted to get out in front of the problem. Fromm was a member of the party.

I cant believe that human could love another intimately; and in marriage; and raise children together and still be considered raciest towards that person. This is the type of mental gymnastics the left loses me on.
That's because (in my opinion) you have a binary view on what is considered racism.

Racism isn't confined to those who join the klu klux klan. There is casual racism, unconscious racism, normal everyday casual racism.

Saying Asians must be great at math, racist.

Black guys must be great at basketball, racist. (I suck at basketball)

And saying the chief medical officer must be in bed with china due to her background, definitely racist.

It doesn't matter who you are married to in that sense, if that's what a person is spouting,it's racist, full stop. He probably loves his wife as a person but is racist to others on a whole, it's not that hard to comprehend.

Long story short, marrying someone of a different race does not give someone carte blanche to say racist things.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
680
I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.

I'm glad that he's out.

🍻
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
41
Points
530
That's because (in my opinion) you have a binary view on what is considered racism.

Racism isn't confined to those who join the klu klux klan. There is casual racism, unconscious racism, normal everyday casual racism.

- I agree

Saying Asians must be great at math, racist.

- I agree

Black guys must be great at basketball, racist. (I suck at basketball)

- I agree

And saying the chief medical officer must be in bed with china due to her background, definitely racist.

- I agree

It doesn't matter who you are married to in that sense, if that's what a person is spouting,it's racist, full stop. He probably loves his wife as a person but is racist to others on a whole, it's not that hard to comprehend.

- I suppose I can see your point if his racism is pointed in another direction. I just can't see how a person who, for example, hated African Canadians could marry and have children with an African Canadian. Seems counterintuitive to me.

Long story short, marrying someone of a different race does not give someone carte blanche to say racist things.

- Ok Agreed. I guess you can be racist towards some and not others.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
84
Points
530
- I suppose I can see your point if his racism is pointed in another direction. I just can't see how a person who, for example, hated African Canadians could marry and have children with an African Canadian. Seems counterintuitive to me.
Not all racism is based in hate.

I love my dog, but I generally view her as inferior to humans. If I held that same view to another group of human beings, racist.

John A. MacDonald, I don't think hated first nations, but he probably held the view at the time that they were inferior to those of European descent. Racism not based in hate.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
326
Points
830
I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.

I'm glad that he's out.

🍻
Indeed. He was a liability to the party's chances of successfully drawing enough swing voters in the next election. Those who will throw their teddy in the corner and not vote CPC because of Sloan getting turfed do not, realistically, have any other viable option and enough of them will know this. Every voter they would have kept by retaining Sloan would have risked potentially several voters from the centre.

Will some of the SoCons maybe get cranky and flirt with the idea of not voting, or, more uselessly, voting PPC if they stick around? Sure, they may. But the calculus on this is likely favourable to being seen to take a very firm stance on the appearance of support from neo-Nazis.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
148
Points
680
I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.

I'm glad that he's out.

🍻
Fully agree with all of that, just wish they had shown the spine to do it for those reasons, and not kicked him out for taking a donation for someone they didn't like, even though they let the same guy join the party and vote in the leadership race.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
680
Fully agree with all of that, just wish they had shown the spine to do it for those reasons, and not kicked him out for taking a donation for someone they didn't like, even though they let the same guy join the party and vote in the leadership race.
Don't know what went on behind closed doors but the news reports tend to describe this as a "the straw that broke the camel's back" sort of situation. So it was more a matter of accumulated ills. I tend to agree though. The way it originally came out sounded pretty picayune.

🍻
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
26
Points
430
I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.

I'm glad that he's out.

🍻
They are running and the CPC is paying a price. Maybe the smart move is for fiscal cons to migrate en mass into the LPC and restore sanity there.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
680
They are running and the CPC is paying a price. Maybe the smart move is for fiscal cons to migrate en mass into the LPC and restore sanity there.
I've actually signed up as a delegate for the CPC virtual convention and am on my EDA's policy committee just to see how true that is. Not been confirmed yet. Couldn't see going to the LPC. They're too wrapped up in spending money on Easterners (I'm talking about you Toronto and Quebec) in order to buy their way to perpetual power. It's a good thing the NDP never gets smart enough to merge with them. That would truly let insanity and proliferation to run rampant.

🍻
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
680
Just spent the entire day writing two resolutions for presentation to my EDA Policy Committee meeting this Tuesday.

The first one was a lengthy series of resolutions reordering and rewriting many aspects of the Part of the Policy Declaration on National Defence and Security. That should get a ho hum interest.

The second was one striking various provision from the Policy Declaration which I think are damaging to the party. That should result in some lively debate.

🍻
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
I have no idea as to whether or not Sloan is a racist. That's never been the issue about him with me. The problem is that he is a Social Conservative with a capital "S". He flouted that during the last leadership race while trying to get the corner on the social conservative element of the party. IMHO, social conservatism, unless it can be controlled, will be the death knell of the party (On the other hand should the SCs flee the party, that won't help either) Sloan was a destabilizing force inside the caucus. It will be easier to manage the party with him on the outside.

I'm glad that he's out.

🍻

Indeed. He was a liability to the party's chances of successfully drawing enough swing voters in the next election. Those who will throw their teddy in the corner and not vote CPC because of Sloan getting turfed do not, realistically, have any other viable option and enough of them will know this. Every voter they would have kept by retaining Sloan would have risked potentially several voters from the centre.

Will some of the SoCons maybe get cranky and flirt with the idea of not voting, or, more uselessly, voting PPC if they stick around? Sure, they may. But the calculus on this is likely favourable to being seen to take a very firm stance on the appearance of support from neo-Nazis.

Interesting takes ... basically, "social conservatives are not welcome" but "we'll take their vote so long as they have no voice". I think this does sum up the difficult relationship between "SoCons" and the CPC. Both dislike each other but both feel that they need the other.

I think that the CPC needs SoCons more than the other way around ... it would probably be healthier for both to part ways, but I believe the CPC would struggle to ever form a government without that demographic, and conversely I doubt a Socially Conservative party could ever win a single seat ... maybe one or two here-and-there but nothing significant.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
680
Interesting takes ... basically, "social conservatives are not welcome" but "we'll take their vote so long as they have no voice". I think this does sum up the difficult relationship between "SoCons" and the CPC. Both dislike each other but both feel that they need the other.

I think that the CPC needs SoCons more than the other way around ... it would probably be healthier for both to part ways, but I believe the CPC would struggle to ever form a government without that demographic, and conversely I doubt a Socially Conservative party could ever win a single seat ... maybe one or two here-and-there but nothing significant.
It's not so much that they are not welcome. It's that there is a concerted movement amongst them to take over the CPC (if they haven't already succeeded with that) and make it a one issue party that revolves around their belief system. IMHO the problem here is that they aren't satisfied with having freedom of religion, what they need is to put forward legislation which imposes their belief system on everyone. Personally I couldn't care less if they never have an abortion; it's that they insist no one have one. Personally I couldn't care less if they don't like gays; so longa as they don't deny them services that they provide to others. What does it matter who marries whom? Why try to deny some folks that status?

As to your second paragraph, I fear you are exactly right. Remember the days of the PCs and the Reform party. And let's face it, as I've said before, if the Libs and NDP could ever resolve their differences they'd be an unbeatable union in this country. Then we'd really be the socialists that the US thinks we already are.

🍻
 

LittleBlackDevil

Full Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
It's not so much that they are not welcome. It's that there is a concerted movement amongst them to take over the CPC (if they haven't already succeeded with that) and make it a one issue party that revolves around their belief system. IMHO the problem here is that they aren't satisfied with having freedom of religion, what they need is to put forward legislation which imposes their belief system on everyone. Personally I couldn't care less if they never have an abortion; it's that they insist no one have one. Personally I couldn't care less if they don't like gays; so longa as they don't deny them services that they provide to others. What does it matter who marries whom? Why try to deny some folks that status?

Re: the highlighted, I do not see any evidence of them having succeeded in any way at taking over the CPC, given that it wasn't a unilateral move by Mr. O'Toole to throw Mr. Sloan out of the party, it was a majority of MPs who voted to do this. Given the very thin pretext (he was removed over receiving a donation -- which was returned as soon as he realized who the donor was -- from a member of the CPC in good standing) for the removal, this does not suggest a lot of support for a fellow social conservative in the CPC caucus.

Now I don't have a great knowledge of the internal workings of the CPC. I'm a member and a donor, but not much more ... I missed the sign-up for the convention plus my riding is over limit for delegates anyway. I don't see the CPC platform as one that's under the control of social conservatives ... everyone is always upset about SoCons making abortion illegal or reinstating certain morality laws -- but I see nothing in the CPC platform about actually implementing any of this nor has the CPC ever done that when it has formed government. So while it's an effective scare tactic employed by the LPC it does not seem to bear much alignment with reality in my view to say the SoCons have much influence let alone control of the CPC.

I don't disagree that SoCons need a different approach. Regardless of whether it's appropriate to force beliefs on others, it's utterly futile. Even IF abortion were outlawed it would be meaningless since no one would pay attention to that law and even if some prosecutor somewhere tried to prosecute juries would nullify/return not guilty verdicts. So while I understand the position (SoCons believe that murder is wrong, and believe that unborn children are human beings, therefore ought to be protected by the law) there is no chance of it succeeding so not worth pursuing since all it does is alienate others. I'd rather see an approach where we try to help create societal conditions where people don't feel the need for an abortion.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
65
Points
530
Re: the highlighted, I do not see any evidence of them having succeeded in any way at taking over the CPC, given that it wasn't a unilateral move by Mr. O'Toole to throw Mr. Sloan out of the party, it was a majority of MPs who voted to do this. Given the very thin pretext (he was removed over receiving a donation -- which was returned as soon as he realized who the donor was -- from a member of the CPC in good standing) for the removal, this does not suggest a lot of support for a fellow social conservative in the CPC caucus.
Unfortunately, I don't see the party had much choice. Can you imagine the mileage that would have been gained should that have come out during an election? Remember, in politics it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be believable. Was the decision unfair? Yes. Was it necessary? Also yes.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
680
Re: the highlighted, I do not see any evidence of them having succeeded in any way at taking over the CPC, given that it wasn't a unilateral move by Mr. O'Toole to throw Mr. Sloan out of the party, it was a majority of MPs who voted to do this. Given the very thin pretext (he was removed over receiving a donation -- which was returned as soon as he realized who the donor was -- from a member of the CPC in good standing) for the removal, this does not suggest a lot of support for a fellow social conservative in the CPC caucus.
You've given me hope.

Now I don't have a great knowledge of the internal workings of the CPC. I'm a member and a donor, but not much more ... I missed the sign-up for the convention plus my riding is over limit for delegates anyway. I don't see the CPC platform as one that's under the control of social conservatives ... everyone is always upset about SoCons making abortion illegal or reinstating certain morality laws -- but I see nothing in the CPC platform about actually implementing any of this nor has the CPC ever done that when it has formed government. So while it's an effective scare tactic employed by the LPC it does not seem to bear much alignment with reality in my view to say the SoCons have much influence let alone control of the CPC.
I'm in the same boat somewhat. I did register but the riding is over so there will be a vote.

The vast majority of the platform is fine with me. There are seven: Articles 7, 62, 69, 73, 87, 104 and 151 which are or have a socon element. Unfortunately these are the ones that stand out to detractors who generalize these elements onto the entire party. Article 104 is a thinly veiled assault on freedom of choice. By increasing punishment for harming a pregnant woman's fetus, you grant status to it which creates the bridge to making it illegal to harm a fetus in any manner.

I don't disagree that SoCons need a different approach. Regardless of whether it's appropriate to force beliefs on others, it's utterly futile. Even IF abortion were outlawed it would be meaningless since no one would pay attention to that law and even if some prosecutor somewhere tried to prosecute juries would nullify/return not guilty verdicts. So while I understand the position (SoCons believe that murder is wrong, and believe that unborn children are human beings, therefore ought to be protected by the law) there is no chance of it succeeding so not worth pursuing since all it does is alienate others. I'd rather see an approach where we try to help create societal conditions where people don't feel the need for an abortion.
I used to think that too until I saw what was happening in Republican States.

It's not that a jury won't convict, (and some might) it's the fact that one puts a woman in jeopardy of the law. Just as significantly once you start prosecuting surgeons and ban clinics and planned parenthood advice you simply make the service unavailable.

See for example Article 62 which purports to protect faith based health care providers from refusing to provide abortions, assisted suicide and euthanasia but also for refusing to refer the patient seeking it (which contradicts the physician's duty to refer when he can't or won't provide a service)

Thin wedges, my friend; thin wedges.

🍻
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
71
Points
630
Personally I couldn't care less if they never have an abortion; it's that they insist no one have one.


I used to think that too until I saw what was happening in Republican States.

It's not that a jury won't convict, (and some might) it's the fact that one puts a woman in jeopardy of the law. Just as significantly once you start prosecuting surgeons and ban clinics and planned parenthood advice you simply make the service unavailable.

See for example Article 62 which purports to protect faith based health care providers from refusing to provide abortions, assisted suicide and euthanasia but also for refusing to refer the patient seeking it (which contradicts the physician's duty to refer when he can't or won't provide a service)


🍻
For readers old enough to remember the late Chief Coroner of Ontario Morton Shulman,

In the Sixties, abortion could be legally performed only to save the life of the woman, so there were practically no legal abortions. He stated that the pregnant daughters of the rich were sent to reliable physicians who did abortions for cash. He estimated that these physicians did twenty to thirty abortions per week. Women who were not rich were left to perform an abortion on themselves or go to what he called a "nurse" abortionist. Their method was commonly pumping Lysol into the woman's womb. The mortality rate was high and the infection rate over 50%. He added, "By the time I became Chief Coroner, I had had the unpleasant experience of seeing the bodies of some dozens of young women who had died as a result of these amateur abortions."

Chief Coroner Morton Shulman decided to publicize deaths from illegal abortions. He instructed his coroners to call a public inquest into each abortion death. He describes one case that he believes was the turning point, that of 34-year-old Lottie Leanne Clarke, a mother of three children, who died of a massive infection in 1964 after an illegal abortion in spite of medical treatment and antibiotics. At the inquest into her death, the jury recommended that the laws about therapeutic abortion be revised. Dr. Shulman added that a federal government committee should review the question of abortion and the law. Newspapers published editorials recommending the reform of the abortion law. In 1965, the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau, wrote to Dr. Shulman that the recommendation would be considered in the program to amend the Criminal Code. The eventual amendment closely followed the recommendations of the coroners' juries.
 
Top