Wednesday mornings seem to be Justin Trudeau’s chosen time to drop his political bombshells. A few months ago, a Wednesday morning announcement signalled the end of Liberal senators remaining part of the party caucus, and May 7 heralded yet another announcement with ramifications for next year’s election. That morning, the Liberal Party leader announced that “future candidates [. . .] will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.”
Up until 2012, the Liberal Party did not have a position on the issue, regarding it as a matter of conscience for the individual. This leaves several party members, including some sitting MPs, in an odd situation. While incumbent MPs will be allowed to continue to run regardless of their stance, Trudeau struggled when asked if he would force them to vote against their conscience if an abortion bill did come up in the House. He would only say that their views “will be respected to a certain extent.”
This declaration bans several former members who only lost their seats in the 2011 decimation of the party from attempting a return. It also has the potential to alienate many voters, as polls show that Canadians are thoroughly divided on the issue, with most polls showing that legal abortion under any circumstances is supported by less than half of the population.
The stance on abortion is only part of a larger issue here. The real problem is the erosion of freedom. In making his pro-choice declaration, Trudeau has shown himself to be anti-choice when it comes to being a Liberal. In addition to the abortion stance, future candidates will be vetted and undergo what essentially amounts to an ideological checklist to ensure that those candidates are “consistent with the Liberal Party [. . .] as it stands under my [Trudeau’s] leadership.”
It sounds to me like the Liberal leader is attempting to set up a party full of clones who will blindly obey the dictums of their “Glorious Leader,” setting up an ideological dictatorship of the sort that both the Liberals and the NDP have accused Prime Minister Harper of enjoying the past several years.
It also seems to be a way for Mr. Trudeau to weasel his way around a promise not to use his power to appoint candidates and to allow open nomination contests in every riding. There is every expectation that the vetting process will be used to weed out candidates considered unsuitable by the party leader.
It would appear that the Conservative Party, contrary to what many would like to believe, is the party of free opinion, and one where MPs can disagree with the party line, including MP James Moore. In 2004, he was one of the few Conservative MPs to vote in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage despite the official party position on the issue. He continues to sit as a Conservative MP today, and has served in many important cabinet positions, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister of Industry.
In addition, the Conservative Party caucus features a wide range of opinion on several important issues, including abortion and the death penalty, but all are still allowed to both run for office and sit in the House as Conservatives.
It would appear that in Canadian politics, freedom of opinion is now a right wing ideal.
“Concerning Justin Trudeau’s decision to screen out new candidates who won’t accept the Liberal party’s pro-choice stance on abortion, Jeff Brock mistakenly sees this as contradicting the Liberals’ “big tent” welcome of diversity.
There is strength in diversity for knowledge and evidence-based policy development. Respect for diverse opinions means they are considered, not summarily dismissed. But some issues cannot be resolved. No consensus agreement is possible, so that continued argument wastes time and energy that should be used more productively.
The Liberal approach is very well represented in the pro-choice position. It accepts the diversity of belief and opinion. People can live their lives according to their belief without coercing others to do the same. If the so-called pro-life position were enacted by a government, it would impose the will of a few on the rest of society, and would deny a woman control over her own body and health, which is definitely not the way Liberals think.
“
While I appreciate the liberals deciding to actually make a policy for once as you do, shutting off the beliefs of any ideology is not diversity. Essentially the liberals are now asking that abortion be accepted in any circumstance, including late term abortions. It is possible to be pro-choice, yet still promote limits on abortion.
The liberal stance as a policy on party action could be argued to fight for diversity, but party action is different from barring candidates. The conservative stance in this case is, and this may be a surprise to some, more welcoming of diversity as it allows freedom of belief on this issue in the caucus while still protecting the rights of Canadians.
Repeat polling shows time and time again on the mean that a strong majority of Canadians support abortion rights. Suggesting anything to the contrary is statistically , and intuitively insincere based on political observation.
Those polls address allowing abortion, however as it stands there are no abortion laws in Canada. The writer here clearly stated that “legal abortion UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE is supported by less than half of the population,” meaning that the majority support limits on abortion even though many may still believe in the right to an abortion.
Personally I believe that treating abortion as Trudeau does, as a shut case, is the bigger political misobservation, as it is neither a shut case politically, socially, or legally.