Well, here it is, Day 19 of the campaign, less than three weeks to go before Election Day, as the regressive Conservatives continue to climb in the polls and the bottom drops out of the Liberal and NDP campaigns, and all is not well in the world of Canadian politics. Is there an Anybody-But-Harper coalition forming in Canada? Will the NDP vote almost completely collapse and switch over to the Liberals in the week prior to June 28th? Or, are we on the verge of a Bush-style Americanization of Canadian politics, unprecedented in our lifetime?
We’ll know the answers to the questions posed above in the days to come.
Left-of-Centre Organizations Revise Plans
According to an article written by Simon Tuck and James Rusk, and published in the Globe and Mail …

Left-of-centre groups are now scrambling to overhaul their plans for the federal election campaign, homing in on the possibility of a Conservative win — and warning what a Stephen Harper government may mean for their groups’ issues.
Environmentalists, women’s groups, unions and nationalists say they spent much of the past few months preparing election strategies that revolved largely around trying to influence Liberal policy. With recent public opinion polls showing that the Conservatives may well form the next government, the backlash has included a dramatic shift in these groups’ lobbying efforts.

Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, has said her group’s priority is now making sure voters know that Mr. Harper is the only federal party leader who opposes Canada’s Kyoto Protocol pledge.
In Toronto, a group of constitutional lawyers warned that the Conservatives are planning to override the Canadian Constitution and its protection for minority rights.

“We’re well into this campaign and no one has seen to focus on the content of his policies as it affects the law,” said Clayton Ruby, one of 17 prominent lawyers who signed an open letter last week challenging Mr. Harper’s position on abortion and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “These programmes undermine the Constitution, and people should know that when they are making their choices.”

Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell supports an Anybody-But-Harper drive.

“I mean we’re talking traditional right-wing government. That’s the barbarians at the gate. It’s unthinkable that we would go back. I mean he wants to take us back to the 50s.”

Meanwhile, the Liberals have released an aggressive shock ad that they hope will jolt moderate voters, especially women, away from the Tories.
The startling ad (Windows Media Player required) shows a gun barrel which seems to brush the camera lens before going off. A female narrator’s voice sombrely reminds viewers of the Conservative position on a range of issues, positions that would concern any reasonable voter: Harper would have sent troops to Iraq, would weaken gun control, reopen the abortion debate, and scrap the Kyoto accord on greenhouse gas emissions.
Other jarring images include:

• Soldiers with machine guns running across a desert, surrounded by tanks.
• Pregnant young women weeping against a hospital wall.
• Smokestacks spewing noxious fumes.

The ad closes with a Maple Leaf flag dissolving against a Tory-blue sky and a warning that Canada would become unrecognizable under Harper.
Then there are the Liberals’ more traditional, low-key (and seemingly ineffective), non-attack ads, first on their recently-announced childcare proposal; on Canada’s tax system and the programmes to which our taxes are applied; and, the Liberal Party’s position on the environment.
The Canada that Paul Martin enunciates in the ads directly above is the Canada that VanRamblings chooses, and in coalition with an NDP caucus to ensure that a Martin government would fulfill its promises, VanRamblings hopes that this is the Canada you would choose.
The Editorial Illustration of the Day


Next up, VanRamblings’ Quote of the Day …
“We need to recognize that a government that denies a gay man the right to bridal registry is a fascist regime.” Margaret Cho on gay marriage
Stephen Harper’s justice critic — and probable Justice minister in a Conservative government — suggested in a letter written and distributed shortly before the election campaign began that a Conservative government would move as early as this fall to repeal or substantially alter a law that protects gays and lesbians from hate crimes.

“Your efforts and dedication to stop this bill from becoming law have been appreciated and have helped to prepare the groundwork for the repeal or substantive amendment of this bill in the next session of Parliament after the election,” MP Vic Toews wrote three weeks before the campaign began.

Unbowed by attacks against his party’s socially regressive bent, Harper has vowed to change the law granting homosexuals protection from hate crimes to better protect “freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
In spite of Harper’s declaration above, the Conservatives continue in their so-far-successful attempt to run a saran-wrap campaign, advising the party’s 308 candidates to stick to the election platform and avoid providing fodder for Liberal and NDP broadsides over social policy issues.
Even so, let us hope that the Conservatives cannot continue to keep their social agenda of intolerance from the ears, eyes and hearts of Canadians. There is much at stake in Decision Canada 2004.
For insight into Stephen Harper’s policies, as well as important 2004 federal election news events, click on VanRamblings’ full Decision Canada coverage.

If the polls are correct, Stephen Harper is about to become Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And, as my colleague Jay Currie mentions in his comment below, “It is going to be interesting. 40 pts and Harper gets a majority.”
Of course, as you might well expect VanRamblings will do everything in our (albeit limited) power to see that such an eventuality does not come to pass. Still and all, ‘Bush-Lite’ Harper as PM, huh? Nope, too scary.
Tonight, we’ll begin with our Quote of the Day, courtesy of Josh Gould’s Cognoscente’s Journal …

“This then is politics. That part of our duty which teaches us to study the welfare of our whole country, and not to rest satisfied altho’ our own household is well off when our neighbours are in difficulty and danger. The honest politician is he who gives all he can and means to promote the public good, whose charity begins at home but does not end there. The man who says he is no politician is either ignorant of what he is saying or a contemptible selfish creature, unworthy of the country or community of which he is a part.”
— 1837 rebel leader William Lyon Mackenzie, grandfather of William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s 10th Prime Minister

Do you honestly think that Darwinian Harper will adhere to Mackenzie’s salient instruction should he come to form government? One thinks not.
Harper Unveils Plan To Curtail Power of the Supreme Court
One of the central tenets of a free and democratic society, one of the key checks on the power of the Parliament and politicians to do harm, serving to act always as a leavening agent on the worst excesses of the political process to respond to the baser inclinations of the maddening crowd, the judicial system — and in particular the Supreme Court of Canada — is just one more cherished aspect of our democratic system of governance that Conservative leader Stephen Harper would choose to limit, or abolish.
In an article written by Tonda MacCharles and published in today’s Toronto Star, Mr. Harper is quoted as saying …

“My view is that the role of the court is to apply the Charter to protect the rights laid out in the Charter. The role of the court is not to invent rights that are not in the Charter. The role of the court is not to ignore the rights that are in the Charter.”
“I’m concerned when I see courts that can find voting rights for prisoners, but can’t find a right for ordinary citizens outside of political parties to express their opinions during election campaigns.”
“The idea of adjudicated rights is an important development in our political system. It’s one that I support in principle. But to make it work, we’ve got to make sure that we have courts that apply the law, not courts that apply their own criteria. It doesn’t matter whether it’s my criteria or (Paul) Martin’s or somebody else’s. (A Conservative government will) be looking for judges who have a history of understanding that’s the role of the judiciary.”

In other words, as is the case in the United States, a Conservative-led government will require a reactionary conservative litmus test for prospective appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada. Before long, Canadians will see the same kind of circus we see in the United States each time a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, where the prospective appointee’s positions on issues ranging from women’s access to medical procedures to the Constitution are vetted by a partisan group of politicians.
In an unwelcome, and radical departure, from Canada’s 137-year history of appointing Supreme Court justices from an independent list of qualified applicants submitted by the Law Society of Canada, Stephen Harper would seek to implement an appointment process that would trammel on the independence of the judiciary, or as the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) writes in their March 2004 brief to Parliament on the Supreme Court of Canada appointment process …

Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada must be made as a result of an established, well-known and understood advisory process in order to facilitate the selection of the best candidates.
The CBA supports an open and transparent process for judicial appointments based solely on merit, and ultimately representative of the diversity of society as a whole.
The principles of judicial independence — accessibility, expertise, representativeness, efficiency and fairness — are essential to a well-functioning and highly respected judicial system. The selection process for judges must be objective and should remove any perception of political bias. It is the CBA’s position that a Parliamentary review of candidates should not play a role in the selection of Supreme Court judges. Candidates should not be subjected to a congressional type process of public examination and review. This would politicize the appointment process and detract from the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

The politicization of the judicial appointment process. Just another example of the Conservative-led Americanization of Canada. You’ve got to ask yourself: Is ‘Bush-Lite’ Harper’s vision of Canada your vision of Canada, now and long into our children’s future?
For insight into Stephen Harper’s policies, as well as important 2004 federal election news events, click on VanRamblings’ full Decision Canada coverage.

Arriving early today, VanRamblings’ Decision Canada update provides you with a little insight into the day’s most provocative political events, and points you towards various stories, articles and political foofaraw of interest, available across the Web.
We’ll start off with this dispiriting bit of news: according to the latest SES poll, the Liberals and the NDP continue their freefall in support among Canadians. As my friend and colleague Jay Currie observes on his blog …

“The regional is also interesting: In BC SES has the Liberals at 31, Conservatives at 37 and the NDP at 26. That is 8 points up for the Conservatives from May 30 and down 3 each for the NDP and the Grits.”

Obviously, Canadians want change. But perhaps not the kind of change the Conservatives will bring.
Next up, we’ll post the following cartoon, by John Fewings …

Stephen Harper: affable but lying through his teeth

And lest you think that Stephen Harper is getting a raw deal from the press …

McGill’’s Observatory on Media and Public Policy has studied positive and negative mentions of the major parties and leaders in the news and commentary of seven leading dailies through the first 10 days of the campaign. The results show marked differences among the papers.
The Liberals are getting beaten up everywhere, but especially in the National Post where the average net coverage is —37 per cent. This percentage is based on the per cent of positive mentions minus the per cent of negative mentions — a score of 0 per cent would be perfectly neutral. Le Devoir (-32 per cent), La Presse (-30 per cent), and the Calgary Herald (-25 per cent) were close behind the Post. The Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail were at -21 per cent and —19 per cent respectively. The Vancouver Sun was kindest at —10 per cent.
The Conservatives are getting better press than the Liberals across the board. The Calgary Herald and the National Post led the way with +12 per cent and +6 per cent respectively. The Toronto Star (-12 per cent) and Le Devoir (-11 per cent) were most critical of the party while the Sun, La Presse and the Globe were basically neutral.
As one would expect, coverage of the leaders closely mirrored coverage of the parties. Le Devoir was particularly hard on Liberal leader Paul Martin (-32 per cent) and the Post was both particularly warm to Conservative leader Stephen Harper (+12 per cent) and hard on NDP leader Jack Layton (-32 per cent).

Thanks to James at Hewmon.ca for the item above, and to Jim Elve for his BlogsCanada E-Group posting service.
James’ full posting, with comments, is available here. Have a look.
For insight into Stephen Harper’s policies, as well as important 2004 federal election news events, click on VanRamblings’ full Decision Canada coverage.