As you may have noticed, I am in God’s crosshairs. After being critical here of the motives and tactics of a Christian coalition group led by Dr. Charles McVety – who I met in a TV debate just days ago – the prime minister is now being urged to punish me for my “grossly ignorant and bigoted†views. Just what I need, eh? At least two weeks without getting into trouble, and now this…
Actually Reverend McVety and I had a long chat tonight. He says he doesn’t mind me calling him a sanctimonious blowhard, but he definitely does not think kindly of my references to the Taliban. He also, as I learned, used to live in my sweet garden riding of Halton, and actually worked against me a year ago when I won the Conservative nomination there. That was interesting.
Now his group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient. I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking.
Here’s what McVety told me: “The whole process of nomination is for people to get out and vote, and support people who reflect themselves. Garth Turner was not apolitical when he ran for the nomination. He was not a sponge that just soaked up people’s views. You stood for something.
“The messaging from your article was that we, on the other hand, represent just a tiny amount of people and that we should be compared as a result to some kind of evil. It is very evident from your bloggers that this is how they read it.â€
McVety also took exception to some of my more colourful language. And when I referred to special-interest candidates as “single-issue monochromatic militantsâ€, he read that as code for people with skins of a different colour than mine. Of course, it was not. Low blow, Rev.
In any case, I did agree with the guy on one thing: Political debate is best when it does not involve name-calling. “This is not a fight Iwish to engage in,†he said. “I will debate you, but I do not want to fight you.â€
So, in that spirit, I will turn the other cheek (although I am running out of them). Charles McVety is naturally free to exert influence over the political system – like he did a year ago organizing for my opponent. He can exort his flock to get out and vote. He can support a candidate. Better yet, he can be a candidate. He can go on Mike Duffy and whip up the winds of vengeance against “legalized prostitution and drug use and changing the definition of marriage.†He can form and lead institutes and coalitions and movements. And he can preach against politicians who follow reason rather than faith. He can attempt to lobby, cajole, influence, counsel and guide any elected official he wants. He can use every tool available to any of us to promote an opinion or point of view, to use the media as effectively as he does and to issue Garth-bashing press releases.
But he cannot, in conscience or the spirit of democracy, work to dump an MP with busloads of insta-Tories at a nomination meeting, overturning the will of the broader spectrum of voters in a riding. Nine times out of ten, that begets a one-trick Conservative candidate, and we end up electing one of those godless fornicating Liberals.
He calls it direct democracy. I call it theft.
But, let me say, Charles McVety was a model of gentlemanly decorum when we chatted tonight. Witty, reasonable, personable, convincing and engaging.
Just hope you never meet him in the cloakroom at your nomination meeting.
31 comments ↓
Garth, well said.
You are very deserving of this “Oldsta-Tory’s” (not Insta) support!
Insta-members have long been a part of nomination meetings. Even without them, it’s also debatable that the will of a broader spectrum of voters in a riding is represented by oldsta-tories. If the insta camp can round up more supporters than the entire well-established oldtimers camp, maybe they’ve got something going for them after all. I think you just don’t like McVety and how well organized he can be.
You are still one of my fav MPs.
Garth I only wish you would address the core issue, which is not McVety, but rather the behaviour and policies of the Liberal government over the last ten or so years.
It is that behaviour, and those policies, that has made McVety and many others feel compelled to become more politically active.
It was commented by many after C38 was passed that the Liberals had stirred a sleeping giant, and they did. Canada couldn’t have civil unions for homosexuals like most other countries (including the UK where it was good enough for Elton John), no sir. We had to get marriage itself redefined to suit the philosophy of the Liberal Party.
Organizations like CFAC and FOTF (fotf.ca) are not going to go away, they are run by some very smart people, and their political savvy is growing. They are quite a bit more passionate than the average voter.
When is the last time you saw a “McVety” on the television passionately defending the middle class and middle class values (who wasn’t an MP named Turner!)? Such people don’t exist, and so I’m quite happy for the McVety’s to run with the ball even if I don’t agree with every last thing they stand for. I agree with more of what they stand for than anything the Liberals ever stood for.
Ironically, if you are looking for support for a family tax return you will find heaps of it within groups such as FOTF.
I agree with you that we don’t want a bunch of right wing bible thumpers highjacking nomination meetings,because the majority of the electors are not aligned with this thinking.
However highjacking is not new.I seem to remember the Great Communicator from Baie Comeau using those tactics to defeat Joe Who,then to nominate his own slate in 1984.
Hmmm
Shucks, two horrible errors in my last post.
“…that HAVE made McVety and many others feel compelled …”
“When WAS the last time you saw…”
Hey Garth, I knew you were a nice guy and bigger than some of them
So, Garth, your message is that what has been called “direct democracy” is theft…and that the act of drumming up support among people to attend nomination meetings to effect democratic change on issues that they believe in should violate their “conscience” and violates the “spirit of democracy”. What if these so-called insta-Tories voted Conservative in the past (which is very likely)? I guess our democratic process is good when it gets you elected, but not good when it threatens you. Not an inspiring view of democracy coming from an MP.
That’s one opinion, sure. An equally valid one is this: Why select a candidate for a major party whose beliefs are not reflective of the majority of the population in the riding he or she will contest? Either that candidate will lose (hence the party is shut out) or the candidate wins and voters wake up to the fact they’ve got a one-trick politician who may refuse, on moral grounds, to represent constituents in favour of replacing them. This is not democracy’s best moment. — Garth
Hi Garth – Thanks for your reply. I would just question the assumption that the beliefs of your opponent do not reflect the majority of the population. I’m not sure if this is true. Certainly, if your opponent reflects a minority view, it should be possible for you to defeat him in the nomination meeting since you should be able to issue a “call to arms” in your weblog and garner support for your opposing views. If in fact, McVety holds the same fiscal views as yourself, but differs in his moral views, I think you are on shaky ground.
The reason s/s marriage is such a thorny issue is that it cuts to the core of many people’s beliefs. The re-definition of marriage was unnecessary and did not reflect the views of the majority of the population. This was undemocratic.
Please do not misinterprete my comments . I am now worrying about my own nomination process, or facing McVety’s gang in the corridor. Instead it is the theory of having a few hundred insta-memers show up who have no party history and are there only to support a candidate who has a single-issue focus. That’s when a party’s rep can end up having basically nothing in common with the majority of voters. — Garth
Garth, on a serious note, is Peter Milliken a guest on MP TV (7:00 PM). Can someone please ask him about the decorum in the House of Commons during Question Period? From where I sit (watching CPAC), it appears that Mr. Milliken has lost control. It appears that it is now worse than last year’s spectacles – cat calls and the constant anti-american and anti-bush rhetoric.
Thank you.
So, was that it? “Taliban†and “single-issue monochromatic militants� This was all they could come up with? These are the “bigoted comments†and “attacks on so-called ethnics†referred to in Ben-Ami’s so called news release?
Don’t look now but their level of desperation is showing. If they are prepared to go public with this sort of silliness rather than address the issues then you’ve got them worried. Turn the other cheek if you like but keep your powder dry.
Witty, reasonable, personable, convincing and engaging, my pew.
Garth – Thanks again for your reply and I did not wish to misinterpret your comments. Personally, I think you are the best MP in the House of Commons. I agree with you that it is not a good thing for a party rep to have nothing in common with the majority of the candidates. On contentious and divisive issues like s/s marriage, I certainly would not want to see you lose your seat since you are acting on your convictions.However, somewhere there should be a mechanism in the democratic process that should, however, reflect the views of the majority of Canadians on certain issues. I’m not sure what the best answer to this is, but your digital democracy is certainly a step in this direction.
Paul:
There is a mechanism. It’s called a referendum. If there was ever an issue that cried out for one it was same sex marriage.
Thanks for fighting the good fight Garth. I appreciate anyone that battles highly organized groups using their power to back single issue candidates. We need more Conservatives “who follow reason rather than faith”.
I also like how you put your constituents before your party. It is far too rare a thing for politicians to evaluate ideas on their merits rather than just backing the home team (or party). Good for you.
How do you feel about human cloning Garth? Cuz, we could use a guy just like you in my riding.
I repeat:
This hypothetical situation actually took place in Ajax-Pickering.
McVety’s able(?)lieutenant,Rondo Thomas, secured the Conservative nomination and proceeded to make an utter fool of himself in handing the riding to the Liberals.
Won’t it be wonderful when this happens in 20 or 30 ridings next time?
alw – you fail to recognize that a referendum isn’t always the right answer. the opinion of the majority isn’t necessarily the right way to do things. in darfur, there’s referendum of sorts going on. in bosnia there was a referendum going on. in hitler’s germany there was a referendum going on. a majority of people in a certain region decided what was best for all, and imposed their will. now this is an extreme example, but it translates. if the anti-gay religious groups can muster 50% + 1 support to ban gay marriage, that doesn’t make it the act of discrimination the right thing to do.
And just because religious groups are a part of the conservative base doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to hijack the conservative agenda. this religion needs to keep clear of politics. we’ve seen what can happen without the separation of church and state (ie: iran), and it’s not pretty.
It’s called a referendum. If there was ever an issue that cried out for one it was same sex marriage.
I’ll put my cards on the table…
I don’t think abortion is a good idea. I am uncomfortable with homosexuality and was somewhat against the ‘re-definition’ of marriage, prefering the idea of a civil union. But, really, that is all just semantics.
I have now come to the conclusion, that when it comes right down to it, society and the government have no business interfering in what are really the private affairs of people trying to live their lives in a way that makes them happy.
Abortion is a horribly difficult issue that needs to be resolved by the three people involved, the woman who is pregnant, the man who impregnated her, and the doctor they are consulting. The ultimate decision belongs to the woman.
If gays want to get married, there is no harm, no foul to me or anyone else. It is none of our business.
That said, I am trying to encourage a left wing friend of mine to convince his wife and daughter to marry each other. That way we could get just about everything out of the way with one supreme court challenge and then be done with the issue permanently.
I figure this would resolve two problems:
We will know once and for all if Gay, Polygamous, Incestous marriages are legal.
The heads of the Christian Fundamentalists would all explode, when the Supreme Court rules (inevitably) in favour.
“Instead it is the theory of having a few hundred insta-memers show up who have no party history and are there only to support a candidate who has a single-issue focus”.
Then do something about it!
Your directing Tabliban references at McVety et. al. is no better than some bigot directing Taliban references at a group of Sikh’s taking over a riding.
Cadman acted after his riding was stolen and submitted a private member’s bill.
Why don’t you pick that up and fight for it?
Show some principle and do with fairly. Your rhetoric is also counterproductive.
ALW: I’m sure that’s exactly what white supremecists would have said 50 years ago (i.e. If ever there was issue crying out for a referendum it’s coloured voting rights).
You’re not going to make those two mounties go straight and the illusion that marriage is a sacred union has been so thoroughly shattered that even a fool wouldn’t try to defend it (although funny enough I imagine you could get a divorce lawyer to take the case).
What goes on between a pair or greater number of (non-related)adults (gotta protect that genepool) over the age of majority is entirely up to them. Personally I don’t think Treos work as well as pairs but I do know one that’s been together for enough years to qualify as a success story, but they’re more the exception that proves the rule.
If people put half as much energy into their own relationships as they do poking into their neighbors they be too busy to bother adam & steve or bambi & candi or dave, maeve and leiv are doing with each other. The courts should get together as quickly as possible and define spousal benefit, divorce laws and tax guideliness for pairs and treos and greater and be done with it.
Then finally the cons could talk about something other than the 13 years the liberals were in power and they might even talk about what they’re going to do for the environment.
Prog C:
“you fail to recognize that a referendum isn’t always the right answer. the opinion of the majority isn’t necessarily the right way to do thingsâ€
You are of course correct. The majority is not always correct. But the majority is THE MAJORITY. There are some political systems where the decision of the majority is considered to be final. The will of the people (if you will). I believe this system of government is referred to as democracy. You could look it up.
“in darfur, there’s referendum of sorts going on. in bosnia there was a referendum going on. in hitler’s germany there was a referendum going on. a majority of people in a certain region decided what was best for all, and imposed their will. now this is an extreme example, but it translates.â€
It translates?? You are seriously equating genocide with a democratic referendum?? You’ve eaten way too much of the left side of the mushroom. Nibble a bit of the right side and go see the nice man in the funny hat. He’ll give you a lovely cup of tea to wash it down.
Ed:
Damned fine post. Wish I’d written it. Will you marry me?
“the majority” and “democracy” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. You can read up on republic vs democracy here:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
and yes, i am equating genocide with a referendum. it may be shocking, but what you propose (that the majority rules in all situations) is just as shocking. you want a referendum to endorse discrimination. discrimination is the first of many steps along the road to genocide. first you marginalize a group, then dehumanize them, and eventually, you’re not killing people, you’re ridding yourself of “cockroaches”. it’s a slippery slope. do i think we’ll exterminate gays in canada? no. do i think that the minority groups that were/are being exterminated were first discriminated against in a “legal” manner? ask someone with a tattoo on their wrist. ask an “internally displaced person”.
Well done, Garth. You make me proud to be a Conservative. Our party needs more independent thinkers. Thank you for standing up to these fanatics!
ProgC:
You’re talking about a Republic (yes I actually followed the link.) Like the one to the south that had legalized slavery and Japanese internment camps? No system of government can guarantee freedom from this sort of thing.
True freedom, whether from oppressive government or hostile minority takeovers such as the ones being discussed here, can only be obtained when a majority (there’s that word again) of the general population are sophisticated enough to recognize when they are being lied to or manipulated. They also have to give a damn. This country comes up short on both counts.
This website is a (small) step in the right direction. It demonstrates that it is possible for one private citizen to communicate directly with their MP and actually be listened to. When people recognize that someone will actually listen, that just maybe they can make a difference, then maybe they will start caring enough about what’s going on around them to become informed and become involved. *I don’t believe I just wrote that. I gotta check my cynicism level. I think I’m down a quart.*
The enemy isn’t Democracy PC ol’ boy. The enemy is apathy and ignorance.
I am listening! — Garth
Garth, you said, “And he can preach against politicians who follow reason rather than faith.”
What you don’t realize is that everyone has faith in something. And McVety, while he may be a blowhard, at least has put his faith cards on the table and professes to be a Christian.
Meanwhile, you, with your faith in secular humanism, pretend to have no faith at all.
I can’t claim to know much about Garth beyond what I’ve gleaned from a few newspaper columns and this website.
I suppose he may have declared himself to be a secular humanist but if so I am unaware of it.
What I believe he has indicated is a preference for logical, reasoned thought as opposed to faith in the supernatural where matters of politics and social policy are concerned.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
for once i agree with ALW.
“he definitely does not think kindly of my references to the Taliban”
That’s it? No apologies for your reference? It’s all his fault, eh? You’re all sweetness and roses, and he’s the evil one-issue demon?
On the other hand, I’m glad to see that you plan to subject yourself to a series of preliminary “runoff” elections at the next election (presumably at your own expense) to ensure that the selected candidate has the support of the majority of electors and not just the “activist” party members.
Hi Garth,
It seems that good has become evil, and evil has become good. God loves you Garth.
Your Taliban remark was pretty extreme but was made in the heat of the debate, I’ll excuse it.
However, there’s nothing hateful about promoting decency and family values. Fortunately there are people like McVety who have the courage to get in the way of the ‘pornification’ of Canada.
Sooner or later the activists will have to come all the way out of the closet and admit their “lifestyle” is just plain unhealthy, rather than encouraging kids to embrace it.
B.T.W. your illustration of bus-loads of “instas” arriving to dump an MP resembles how the Liberals (et al) dumped Traditional Marriage.
Rob:
“there’s nothing hateful about promoting decency and family values.â€
Of course there isn’t. When radical cultural changes are rammed down your throat by the social engineering department of the liberal party (or any other group) it is only natural to be offended and want to fight back. Your righteous (and to a degree rightful) indignation seems to have blinded you to the fact that your methods are subversive and that this plays into the hands of the people whose values you so strongly oppose.
If you were to succeed in replacing sitting Conservative Mps with your own extremist candidates then you would simply be handing those ridings back to the liberals in the next election. Don’t you get it? Your methods and your candidates will drive the voters right back into the arms of the Liberals! You will be personally responsible for handing this country back to the very heathens that you so violently oppose!
If you want to do something positive for the Conservative party and family values then target the Liberal riding associations. Maybe you can frighten some moderate Liberals into voting PC.
If you want to do something positive for the Conservative party and family values then target the Liberal riding associations. Maybe you can frighten some moderate Liberals into voting PC.
As I keep saying, the Liberals are in disarray, why hasn’t McVety, et al, targeted the Liberal leadership: Tom Wappel for Leader! I’ll contribute…
Garth says: “But he cannot, in conscience or the spirit of democracy, work to dump an MP with busloads of insta-Tories at a nomination meeting, overturning the will of the broader spectrum of voters in a riding.” Really, he (McVety) can’t do this? Why not? This is still a democracy Garth. Whether you like it or not.