How do we interpret the vote of December?

In the February edition we set aside twelve pages of reflections and factual information on the December 7 parliamentary vote on same-sex 'marriage' (pp. 17-28) under the title Elections, Part I. The main subtitle was, "Whom not to vote for." We concluded this section with the article by Richard Bastien, "What will this election be about?" (p. 29). We nova carry these reflections forward under the title Elections, Part II.

The purpose of these pages of reflections on coming elections is to help us understand that we are facing a new political situation, which requires serious thinking. We now face a war between cultures, a war between hedonistic secularism on the one hand and the survival of Christianity and Christian witness in a free society on the other. This is not new, except that with the bestowal of equal rights for homosexuals, the clash between these opposing cultures has intensified considerably.

In April we hope to continue this enterprise. Readers who would like to contribute to this section, please mark your contribution: "Elections"--Editor

The Media

Before the parliamentary vote on December 7, 2006, on whether to re-open the marriage question, most Canadian media agitated that it be set aside. After the vote, the media, in tandem with homosexual activists, declared the issue settled and closed.

"Same-sex debate put to rest," read the headline for a CanWest News Service article (Canada.com, Dec. 8, 2006). "'Time to move on'--'Decisive' vote puts end to wrangling over definition of marriage," claimed the Ottawa Citizen (Dec. 8, 2006).

After December 7, 2006, former prime minister Paul Martin attended at a mini-gala to celebrate victory thrown by three of the Liberal Party's pro-homosexual activists, Scott Brison and Bill Graham, both homosexual MPs, and MP Belinda Stronach. Also in attendance were like-minded MPs Ken Dryden and Hedy Fry, and Conservative then-Treasury Board president John Baird, now Minister of the Environment.

But are the media right?

Lost in the wrangling was the fact that among parliamentarians and rank-and-file Canadians, support for same-sex 'marriage' was tenuous at best. Among MPs who were free to vote their consciences on December 7 (that is, excluding Bloc Quebecois and NDP members who were coerced by their leaders into opposing a review), 56 per cent supported re-opening the debate. Only 40 per cent did not (Nat. Post, Dec. 11, 2006).

Among Canadians at large, an Angus Reid poll just prior to the vote showed that only a slim majority (58 per cent) wanted to keep the 2005 same-sex 'marriage' law--hardly a ringing endorsement. But one suspects that the outcome may have had more to do with how the questions were asked in the poll than with the actual convictions of Canadians.

SSM's opponents

Opponents of SSM (same-sex 'marriage') see it differently. First, they do not believe there is a majority for SSM. As Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, who leads the Defend Marriage Canada coalition, put it: "I think there is a very large proportion of this country, perhaps even a majority of the country, that does not endorse same-sex 'marriage'" (Tor. Star, Dec. 8, 2006).

Secondly, they scoff at the idea that there has been an honest and open debate. Wrote David Warren:

"The devil has control of the media, the courts, the bureaucracy and the education system. Same-sex 'marriage' was foisted on Canada in a revolutionary way and was part of a systemic attack on common law, which in turn was in service of a larger attack on all norms of public decency. Canadians have been browbeaten into shutting up about 'gay issues' and now dread having to confront same-sex 'marriage' while trembling at the charge of 'homophobia'" (Western Standard, Oct. 23, 2006).

As has been their traditional practice, the media and the homosexuals played into the agenda Warren identified, effectively casting those opposed to SSM as extremists, backward, bigoted, intolerant, or a combination of each.

What about Stephen Harper?

There are those who take the view that Prime Minister Harper was keeping the marriage issue alive simply to snare the social conservative vote, and not out of any personal opposition to same-sex 'marriage.' They now claim to have been vindicated by the events.

Other observers go even further and suggest that conservatism itself now has "sold its soul" and is effectively dead. National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, for example, writing mainly about economic matters such as spending increases and the expansion of tax credits and avoiding moral questions, wrote: "The more the party has chased the middle, the faster it has seemed to recede." The further abandonment of its principles, he added, means the opposition and the media--"those arbiters of the status quo"--move the goalposts "a little further down field ... It's very hard to tell what the Conservative position is anymore" (Jan. 20, 2007).

The Toronto Star's Richard Gwyn concurred, observing that--with the possible exception of its position on military involvement in Afghanistan--Stephen Harper's regime is "now rapidly morphing into a Liberal government" (Jan. 23, 2007).

So who is Stephen Harper really, and for what does the Conservative party truly stand?

What else do we know about Harper?

Harper, of course, is known, first, as an economic conservative. Secondly, he has strong convictions about reining in the powers of Ottawa vis a vis the provinces. But what about his social conservatism?

Baptist pastor, former Alliance MP (Regina) and opponent of abortion, Larry Spencer, paints an unflattering portrait of Harper in his recently published book, Sacrificed: Truth or Politics? (Kayteebella Productions, Regina, SK). Especially during the ultimately successful effort to dismiss Spencer from the party, Harper revealed himself to be no true friend to social conservatives.

"He had openly criticized [Stockwell Day] for appealing to the evangelical Christian vote and proceeded to do the same thing himself," Spencer wrote. "One would have to wonder just where he really stood. What was the real truth?"

Harper proceeded to play an instrumental role in bringing about Spencer's expulsion from the then-new Conservative party, because of comments Spencer made to a newspaper reporter who twisted them in order to have him cast as an intolerant, homophobic bigot. Spencer was not even allowed to make a reasonable defence--it amounted to a measly five-minute address to the party caucus--before an unrecorded, unscrutinized vote was taken to expel him, with all ballots destroyed afterward. Harper oversaw the entire episode.

Subsequently, Spencer was defeated and has since gone on to serve as president of the Christian Heritage Party.

Other observers

In a lengthy analysis in the January 2007 issue of The Interim newspaper, editor and political observer Paul Tuns wrote, "It now seems Harper somewhat cynically promised to revisit the SSM issue during the last federal campaign. He knew it would energize the social conservative grassroots supporters of the party. And it appears he was only doing the minimum--bringing forth a problematic motion that asked Parliament to reopen the marriage issue--without expending any energy on it." ("Did Harper really want to win it or was he playing politics?", pp. 10-11).

Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Evangelical Canada Family Action Coalition, said he was "bitterly disappointed" that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives failed to restore the traditional definition of marriage. He added that the party has too many members who are not really conservative. He expects that this fact will probably cost Harper in the coming elections. Why? Because, he said, "True conservatives are going to be very disgusted, and it's not that they will go vote elsewhere, because there is nowhere else to vote." What conservative Canadians are likely to do. he suggested, is what many Americans did during the recent U.S. national elections--stay home: Canadians "won't support a party that's not going to represent their values." He continued:

"Progressive Conservatives--[who] are liberals, in essence--have basically, in our estimation, taken control of that party now. And the tone that we saw in the debate, and 10 or 11 of them [Editor. actually 13] voting against marriage, has set the tone perhaps for a defeat for the Conservative party in the next election" (Agape Press, Dec. 8, 2006).

Harper's comment not encouraging

One should note that after the vote, Harper himself exhibited an aura of indifference. "The result was decisive and obviously we will accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," he told the press. "I don't see re-opening this question in the future."

He went further when he declared that he also had no plans for a new Defence of Religions Act. This was in contradiction to his stance during the debates over Bill C-38, when he called current legal protections for religion "laughable," and vowed to attempt to amend that bill to include religious protection. In a memorable speech in the House of Commons in response to the introduction of C-38, he had added, "It is totally dishonest to suggest that it provides real protection" (LiFeSiteNews, Dec. 8, 2006).

Conclusion

We conclude this section with the views of an observer who sees the vote of December 7 in a slightly different light.

Link Byfield, chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy and an Alberta senator-elect, in a feature entitled "Just between us," published a column entitled "Canada's official faith" (Dec. 12, 2006). The faith that "most Canadians" have accepted, he argues, is the "progressive ideology" of secularism.

But about Harper he writes: "It's to Stephen Harper's credit that he does not. He rejects 'progressivism,' and has said all along that religious believers must remain a vital and welcome part of the conservative coalition.

"This doesn't mean he will commit political suicide fighting their battles for them. It does mean, however, that he will not assist and support their enemies. He will give social conservatives a fighting chance.

"But winning these battles is up to them, not him. And it remains far from clear how they can do it."

Who is right about Harper, Brian Rushfeldt et al. or Link Byfield, remains to be seen. One thing is certain. For Christians to stay home instead of voting is as foolish as it is unproductive. It is the opposite of what should be done. The political acumen of the Christian community should be sharpened, not put in the closet.