Saturday, January 4, 2014

Striking a nerve about not voting Conservative

Today's National Post published three letters in response to a letter I wrote. All the letters are below.

(Note that my original letter actually had another line that never made it to print. It addressed two of these letters objections, about who we could vote for instead of the Conservatives? The deleted sentence read: "I would vote for the Christian Heritage party since I couldn't vote NDP or Liberal." One letter writer thought that "I should do what's best for Canada". I fully intend to do this, and as it currently stands, that means I won't be voting Conservative. Not unless I see some big changes with their leadership and/or their "pro-choice" stance. There is a lot more meat in these letters to argue with, and I'll leave it to others to do that.)

My letter as published in the NP:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.
I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject.
As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.
I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
And the three responses in today's NP

‘The moral facts of abortion are not the purview of the state’

Re: I Used To Be A Hard-Core Conservative, letter to the editor, Jan.2.
A sure path to election defeat would be a decision by the Conservative party to take an anti-abortion position. I am also a staunch supporter of the party and the idea that government would be able to make decisions regarding a woman’s right to choose sends us back to the dark ages. Religious dogma has no place in political party policy.
Carol Joseph, Burlington, Ont.
Letter-writer Patricia Maloney is critical of the Prime Minister’s policy on abortion. I am also a hard-core conservative, but I support Stephen Harper for several reasons. First, he made a commitment to eschew the subject and has stuck by his word. He has not stated what his true stand on abortion is, but we all know that all opposition parties favour the matter; a dangerous, if not destructive political situation. In addition, legally prohibiting abortion would no more to stop it than prohibiting alcohol or drugs — those laws, in fact, made drug and alcohol use many times more destructive.
The moral facts of abortion are not the purview of the state, but are the responsibility of religion and Ms. Maloney should look to her religion to rectify this tragic situation. Finally, if I don’t vote Conservative, I have nowhere to go.
Hugh Buckley, Vancouver.
Patricia Maloney said that as a conservative, she would have a hard time supporting the federal Conservatives in the next election because of inaction on creating abortion law. Has she considered the alternatives? Justin Trudeau, who is Catholic, espouses many beliefs that are contrary to Catholic doctrine. So did Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chr├ętien and Paul Martin, all Catholics. I doubt if Thomas Mulcair could be counted on to defend the unborn, either.
Stephen Harper is not a Catholic but his government is focusing foreign aid on developing countries that work to save the lives of new mothers and their children. With men like Jason Kenny and John Baird in his cabinet, I have no doubt which party is the best for this country.
I sincerely hope that Ms. Maloney will rethink her position and do what is best for Canada.
Sybil Fretz, Pickering, Ont.


  1. Patricia, as a staunch pro-lifer I would tend to agree with the three letter writers, as taking a pro-life stanch would be political suicide and leave us with the disaster we had under the former Liberal government. We are all frustrated with the conservative government, but they are our best choice right now.

    Living part time in the U.S., one sees the political success achieved down here and we wish we could emulate that success. But there is a complicated reason for these victories, and all one has to do down here is walk into a local parish and see why they are successful, because prayer and action are a daily part of Christian life in the U.S., whereas in Canada, (at least in the West) one could wear out three pairs of shoes looking for anything resembling a pro-life message not to mention any concrete action by local parishioners.


  2. Cliff, I cannot with good conscience vote Conservative next time around. I voted them last time and nothing changes with them it seems. Although we do have some strong pro-life MPs, the party as a whole refuses to take on life issues. Obviously I can't vote Liberal or NDP, strong pro-abortion parties, so the only option I see is Christian Heritage. And I feel it is my duty to vote, so not voting is not an option.

    I need to see some very big changes happen in the Conservatives before the next election to change my mind. A change in leadership could also do it. Otherwise, someone is going to have give me some super human arguments to convince me to vote Conservative.

    1. I can see you are hard-core, but we in the West do not have the CHP, so that is not an option for us. The Liberals and the NDP have ruined our country, so I hope and pray they never return to power, and for me that means voting conservative.

  3. While I understand the desire to vote for the "lesser of three evils" as it were, at some point one has to ask themselves, are we just perpetuating the "evil" by doing so? I really don't know, but it does concern me. If Stephen Harper knows pro-lifers will continue to vote for him and his party because they have no one else to vote for, then he has no incentive to soften his hard-line "keep the abortion debate out of Parliament at all costs" stance. Then when pro-lifers continue to vote for the Conservatives, and Harper is re-elected as Prime Minister, he is rewarded for his pro-abortion stance. At some point, (unless the Conservative candidate one is voting for is pro-life) are pro-lifers not complicit in maintaining the status quo of zero protection for preborn children in Canada by voting Conservative? I've been asking myself these questions, and I'm troubled. Even if we like some of Harper's other policies, I have to ask myself, are those policies--no matter how good they are--worth giving up on 100,000 preborn children per year for? If Harper knows he can get pro-lifers' vote that way (i.e. by trading off the preborn children against some other great policy), then the preborn children will never stand a chance. Because there will always be something he can use to turn our heads and hearts away from the children. And this troubles me a lot.