My friends, this is probably the toughest leadership campaign I have followed.
All four candidates have some quality that makes them each deserving of the Ontario PC Party top job.
For Christine Elliott, the flat tax idea could be the single most important platform plank in a provincial election. For Randy Hillier, his focus on democracy, freedom and justice could be the clarion call of a renewed PC Party. For Tim Hudak, his reliance on simple conservative messages for the middle class are reminiscent of the five simple priorities that put the federal conservatives in office. And for Frank Klees, his experience and easy demeanour along with his 'reduce red tape' focus is also a winning combination.
However, one issue is separating the leaders from the followers in this campaign. The issue is the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
I empathize with Elliott's belief that the abolishing the HRC is a loser policy that will cost us the election. She has made this assertion over and over again.
But in empathizing with her, I am reminded of the damage that has been done by the Barbara Halls of the world to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of action.
In agreeing with Christine Elliott, are we saying that we aren't willing to take up the cause of freedom because it might be hard, or tough? Do we have the courage to stand up for what's right "not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
Are we saying that it's OK for the government to allow an unaccountable panel of bureaucrats to destroy the lives of citizens because someone else was offended by words?
We teach our children that 'sticks and stones may break our bones, but names can never hurt us', but in adulthood, are we so frail that we require protection from government because of mere words?
Are we saying that in Ontario its OK for someone to lay the accusatory finger of blame at another and not bear the responsibility for doing so?
Christine Elliott talks about compassion. Where is her compassion for the members of society whose lives have been upended by capricious persons bent on imposing their own morality on others? Where is her compassion when the process of being investigated is sometimes worse than the punishment? Where is her compassion when the accused is force to prove innocence, instead of the accuser forced to prove guilt?
That Elliott feels this is a no-win scenario speaks a lot about the value she places on freedom and democracy.
We cannot allow our freedoms to remain under 'the tyranny of nice'.
There are only two candidates with the courage to deal with this. The first out of the gate with a pledge to abolish the HRC and replace them with real courts and judges was Randy Hillier. The second was Tim Hudak. Frank Klees has vowed to tinker with the process, but that is inadequate.
Either Hudak or Hillier is deserving of our support on this issue. Elliott and Klees are not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
The Ontario PC Party just went through a losing experience with John Tory, who seemed overly concerned with trying to please everybody.
I see the same characteristics in the two candidates that promise to only 'tinker' with the OHRC.
Regarding the other two, Hillier seems to be the more believable and forthright about his convictions.
Hudak has too many temporary and boutique policies that favour one demographic of taxpayer over another. His is more of a populist than a conservative platform.
One example is Hudak's $1,000 taxpayer funded investment account for each new baby. I like babies, but why should I pay for my neighbour's baby's savings account?
AEK,
I also expressed those thoughts in a previous post.
Like I said, it's a tough race. I haven't yet made my ballot choices.
While I distain the Human Rights Commission as much as the next person, i do not understand how somebody could base their leadership on this vote. Most people dont know it exists and it doesnt effect our lives.
Scrapping the HRC will not lower taxes, create jobs, turn Ont back into a have or in general make anybodies life better or worse. In fact it will do the opposite; it will prevent the PC Party from replacing Dalton McGuinty.
As conservatives we waste all this time worrying about little symbolic things and it ends up hurting us in the end.
Why not use our political capital doing something that helps everyone and actually helps the economy?? Broad based personal and corporate tax cuts (both which create jobs) seem like something worth using political capital on.
Look what happened to the federal conservatives with their "symbolic" cut to political subsidies?
The other point is that Hudak is not, scrapping the human rights commission. He is also reforming it. His position is much closer to Elliott and Klees than Hilliers.
Anon,
I think you are wrong.
This is not a symbolic thing. Freedom of speech is arguably the most fundamental right a person can enjoy. It trumps virtually everything. The punishment a human rights tribunal can exact upon a citizen is certainly not 'symbolic'.
Is it the most important issue of this leadership? Of course not, I will base my decision on a number of other factors.
But Elliott refuses to acknowledge what has clearly become a threat to our freedom through runaway 'convictions' from both the tribunal and certain unmentionable lawyers who know how to exploit them. They thrust their world view upon those who often lack the resources to combat the bottomless pit of money (and sometimes unscrupulous methods) assayed against them.
Let's not make the mistake of focusing on hot button issues to the exclusion all others. Yes, jobs and the economy are important, but there are other equally important things that we must deal with as well, and by not addressing them and getting candidates on the record, we risk not having all the information available to us when voting time comes around.
As I have said many times, my goal is to get behind the spin and look at the issues from angles not often realized in official messaging.
It is true that many Ontarians are not aware of the gross injustices being committed by the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. However, it is also true that as Ontarians do learn more about these injustices, they take the side of Randy Hillier and Tim Hudak. No one reads about a Kangaroo Court and says, "Hmm... we should tinker with them," or "Why don't we repeal one part of them."
On the contrary. An injustice ANYWHERE is a threat to justice EVERYWHERE. These tribunals are unCanadian. They are huge bureaucracies. And they need to be ABOLISHED.
Congratulations to you Kirk West for not being afraid of the thought police and publishing this article.
Bert,
Couldn't agree with you more.
And thanks for the compliment.
To Anonymous:
"Look what happened to the federal conservatives with their "symbolic" cut to political subsidies?"
That was an immensly popular idea when it came out, despite the opposition's insane reaction to the risk of losing their entitlements. But regular Canadians with no specific political affiliation looked at the idea and liked it.
I think the issue of scrapping the HRT is the same. Most people don't think about it, but when they will, it will be clear that they are a serious waste of taxpayers dollars and a burden on the freedom of speech of regular Canadians like them.
Very impressive post, Kirk.
First, I must agree with Anon on the following point:
The other point is that Hudak is not, scrapping the human rights commission.
That is true, but this is exactly where Tim Hudak stands on the issue:
…Tim is not proposing to eliminate the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the organization tasked with raising awareness about discrimination. Tim’s position has remained the same as when he announced it on May 12th.
Tim would reform this institution and refocus it toward its original mandate. Tim is proposing that we scrap the Human Rights Tribunal, the quasi-judicial, parallel system of justice that does not operate according to due process of the law. Tim would move these cases to real courts with real judges operating in accordance with real laws, in a construct similar to Domestic Violence and Family Law courts.
It is a distinction not often clearly made by the mainstream media, but an important one…
The problem will be educating the electorate first of all on the point that the HRC and the tribunal are two different things.
The second challenge will be to help the public realize just how much their freedom of speech is in jeopardy in this province.
Joanne,
Thank you for the compliment. It is especially nice to receive it from someone of your stature.
You're right to point out there is a subtle but important difference in the two candidate's proposals to deal with the HRC as well as the challenge this presents.
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment