Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4367
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:32 pm    Post subject: Politics and social conservatism in Ontario Reply with quote

This is my attempt to deal with social conservatism as it exists in the Conservative Party.

While a lot of Conservatives are uncomprehending about why these issues keep coming up, in what other party should these people find a political home?

I am not a social conservative (small 'c'), so you can relax. Nor do I have a deep religious faith. I am merely surprised by the looks of stunned amazement amongst the urban conservatives ... you know, those folks who feel comfortable with what the Human Rights Commissions and courts are inflicting on this country. Or at least they ignore it as 'noise'.

I prevail upon you to hold your anti-religious feelings in check for just long enough to hear me out.

Right now, in Ottawa, there is Bill C-16 in committee, ready to be enacted into law. It mirrors one that has already passed in Ontaro.

Quote:
Transgender rights bill passes key Commons vote, heads to committee

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
Last updated Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016 11:03AM EDT

A bill meant to enshrine the rights of transgender people by adding gender identity and expression to human rights and hate crime laws is heading to the justice committee.

The House of Commons voted by a margin of 248 to 40 to pass the legislation, known as Bill C-16, at second reading.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen – political rivals who have found common ground on the issue of trans rights – hugged each other on the floor of the House after the vote.

The legislation would, if passed, make it illegal under the Canadian Human Rights Act to deny someone a job – or otherwise discriminate against them in the workplace – on the basis of the gender they identify with or outwardly express.

It would also amend the Criminal Code so that gender identity and expression would be included in hate speech laws.

The bill will ultimately have to get through the Senate, where an earlier private member’s bill put forward by NDP MP Randall Garrison was gutted and died when the 2015 election was called.
[/size]

It also allows up to four people to be registered as 'parents' of a child, and there is no recognition for biological categories like 'father' and 'mother'. Why? There is less than 1% of the population that is truly 'transgendered' in the way the propaganda suggests. And those people know what sex they are, they just dont have the equipment to act that out sexually. They're tragic.

But those aren't the people they're building the new washrooms for. Those, they are literally creating. They are offering a little bit of the spotlight to marginal adolescents who are confused, and who would normally grow out of it. This will screw up a lot of kids. It already has.

Just so you know, if it's in the criminal code as a hate crime, you can go to jail. It means, in practice, you'll need to prove the person you hired was a better choice in a courtroom, or face serious consequences, including incarceration.

But it goes way beyond that, into language. You see, as the law contrives it, it's an assault on a transgendered person to refer to them with pronouns like "he" or "she". As a result, you could soon face charges if you use those terms, which presumably would be equivalent to an assault.

The point is to take gender out of the pronouns we use. They have lists of pronouns they want people, under threat of a Human Rights charge, or even a criminal one, to substitute. If you don't use these pronouns you will be punished.

These new pronouns hide the fact that we will soon be legally compelled to call our associates 'it', which, up until now, would have been insulting.

These are some of the pronoun suggestions. For 'he' and 'she', use zie, for 'him' and 'her' use zim, and so on ... there are competing systems of pronouns, none of which are common words. Transgendered bathrooms are being built in virtually every high school in the country, even where there are no kids even pretending to be trans-gendered. Even the word 'gender' has lost its meaning, now anybody can be any gender the want!

Add to that the sex education curriculum that they are implementing, but which is still a secret. And which was designed in part by an associate of our lesbian Premiere who is presently serving time for sex crimes.

http://news.nationalpost.com/n.....rn-charges

Of course, this was like the Michael Bryant thing -- fixed from the top, and justice in Ontario so often is. He was originally charged with seven counts and his other violations are long and include counseling incest. Not your normal mom or pop.

This isn't even the whole story. These most recent laws are only the most recent. They only top off a whole set of programs and initiatives to make the social world easier for homosexuals for years.

The point is the government is doing things that a lot of reasonable people might object to, and which they have received no mandate from the public.

That's the kind of thing social conservatives are resisting. Their mistake is to bring faith into it. The mainline churches are already supportive of all this stuff (40% of their clergy are homosexual or bisexual or something other than heterosexual). So they can be easily betrayed.

OK, accepting that all of this is going on, why is it OK for the Ontario PCs -- who I don't consider either 'progressive' or 'conservative' -- to tell their members not to vote against these bills?

The struggle of social conservatives are most of our struggles, whether we realize it or not. It's the best example of the overreach of the state. For them, it's an issue of who 'owns' the children, who is fundamentally responsible for them. Put differently, is education a resource that parents use, or is it an institution charged with the supervision of families? Is it up to the state to determine the future social attitudes of these people's children, or do the parents and communities get a veto?

In fact, you can't push back against the welfare state without getting into those issues we think of as socially conservative issues.

So, for all you 'sophisticates' out there ... think again. These issues may have to be re-cast so they involve the non-religious, but they are universal issues for people who love their children. A lot of us think religious people are ignorant and bigoted because they oppose these 'advances' ... but they are only the canary in the coal mine.

And that's why this happens: https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/11/17/results-come-in-for-ontario-byelections.html

The social conservatives ought to keep the Bible out of it, but they should be given some leadership on these issues. You don't have to believe in a God to think that the state has no role in bedrooms of the nation. If it's cast in the right light -- that of a seemingly endless growth of the state, interfering in good lives to their detriment, for the so-called advancement of ... who, exactly? The point is that the social conservatives are the first people to come to grips with true horrors of the welfare state, and they are well placed to lead.

So tell me why I'm wrong.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6684
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the problem with these bills is there pushed in such a way , anyone who opposes them is labeled as racist / homophobic etc , the people who bring them forward aren't open to any sort of criticism even actual concerns about the bill .


as for Sam Oosterhoff I'm really not sure why people raised such a fuss about him or his personal views , it used to be widely accepted that many mp's were pro life or catholic/Christian and no one was concerned about that . I'm not sure why some would try and turn his personal religious views into a possible threat to our society , which is just about what some in the media and liberals were claiming when he was elected , he is just 1 mpp out of a large legislature and his 1 vote isn't going to change anything


its also be published that its going to be Kathleen Wynne's survival strategy to try and push social issues and stir up anti social conservative feelings in Ontario , she is an extremely desperate leader and see's this as her only hope for survival even in Toronto ridings , these bills are just a way for her to do that , there not needed and just a way for her to make the opposition look bad If they don't back he radical liberal social agenda
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4367
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With respect, let me suggest that this is because the population is so propagandised.

Why do we associate racism with Christianity? Hmmm?

There's more reason with 'homophobia', which itself is a propagandistic term making the revulsion men (in particular) feel about sucking another man's dick into a mental condition that should be treated. The Bible does have negative things to say about homosexuality, but why is that a problem in what is certainly one of the most tolerant social environments for homosexuals on the planet?

Real Christians do the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach. For real.

Look what they did to Stockwell Day because he had a religious faith! How much did watching that experience affect Harper, and his relationship with the press, then operating out of Warren Kinsella's office?

We have to recognise that when you give 'identity' to every bit of adolescent weirdness, (including legislation that compels the public to refer to the transgendered by different pronouns that do not now exist) you might get push-back from those of the public who still love their children.

The point is that they are the only ones with the guts to stand up to this overweening extension of state power. Apparently.

The worry I have is that this is splitting the Ontario PCs. I wish they'd smarten up. Brown is playing the short-term electoral game here, and I don't doubt he's a bit of a social conservative himself. But I think he's wrong. There must be a way, a rhetoric to use, to challenge these advances of state power without stirring the anti-religious sensibities of the post-moderns.

You don't oppose this stuff because it hurts the ability of homosexuals to find more and more young men to have sex with. You oppose it because nobody but homosexuals want it. Where is the line of 'reasonable accomodation' here?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4367
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Patrick Brown aiming to shed 'social conservative' label
PC leader vows to keep out any candidate whose chief goal is to push a 'divisive social issue'
By Mike Crawley, CBC News Posted: Dec 12, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 12, 2016 7:46 AM ET

Mike Crawley is provincial affairs reporter in Ontario for CBC News. He has won awards for his reporting on the eHealth spending scandal and flaws in Ontario's welfare-payment computer system. Before joining the CBC in 2005, Mike filed stories from 19 countries in Africa as a freelance journalist and worked as a newspaper reporter in B.C.

By next summer, a year ahead of the 2018 election, the Progressive Conservative Party aims to have candidates nominated in every single riding in Ontario. To all those thinking of running, PC leader Patrick Brown is sending a message: social conservatives, keep out.

Despite winning the party leadership with significant backing from social conservatives, Brown has vowed to make his party more socially progressive.

He is struggling to make that a reality, as people with strong views against same-sex marriage, abortion and the province's new sex-ed curriculum seek nominations.

"If your reason for going to Queen's Park would be to push a divisive social issue, then that would be unwelcome," he said. "People can have their private religious views, but just know where I stand and what the focus of our party is."

That focus includes jobs, hydro rates, and cutting government waste, said Brown. He said many potential candidates are expressing interest in running for the PCs and "the vast, vast, vast majority have no interest in revisiting social issues."

It's essential for Brown, if he wants to become premier of Ontario, to keep his party away from politically toxic causes like de-funding abortion or questioning same-sex marriage. Pollsters suggest too few Ontarians hold conservative views on social issues to make it a path to electoral victory.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....-1.3888170


Why? Does Patrick Brown think he's going to get a lot of votes from the 'socially advanced'?

It isn''t necessary to give this issue top priority. It isn't. But the weird uses that education is being put to', these days, are well worth limiting when they go overboard. And if compelling people, under threat of severe penalties, to use pronouns not yet devised so that the small fraction of transsexuals who don't want to be called 'he' or 'she' but also think ít' doesnt recognize their humanity -- maybe they've gone too far?

The point is not to roll back the abortion ruling. The point is simply to stop the advances of gender engineering going on in our schools. Liberalism is easy if you don't care about your kids.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4367
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ontario PCs can't win without so-cons, Trost warns

Divisions within Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives over social issues have at least one federal Conservative leadership hopeful worried.

“This is bad,” Brad Trost said Tuesday. “The Ontario PCs are heading for a split here if they try to push out the social conservatives.”

Ontario PC Leader Patrick Brown has taken heat from the party’s social conservative wing over efforts to move the PCs down a more socially progressive path. Some political observers have warned it could cause problems for the party as they edge closer to the next provincial election.

Although not all of his MPs appear on-board with the party’s new direction. Télévision francaise de l’Ontario (TFO) reported Tuesday that PC MPP Rick Nicholls told members of the Canadian Multicultural Care Group and the Canadian Christian Association that “social issues are very, very important, but we need to form government. Then watch us go, watch us go.”

As far as Trost’s concerned, Brown needs to find a way to way to draw social conservatives back into the party fold or risk losing the election to the Liberals or NDP.

Conservative parties are “coalitions” of people who are conservative for different reasons, said Trost, a social conservative himself.

“At least 30 per cent of Ontarians are social conservative on a wide range of issues. That 30 per cent of the population overwhelmingly votes PC. If you tell them to stay home, not vote, or only vote and then have their issues completely ignored, you’re going to end up splitting your party,” he warned.

“I’m from Saskatchewan, when the NDP faced a divided opposition they ran roughshod over them. Alberta’s next door to us. You never thought the NDP could win in Alberta.

“Have we forgotten why the federal Conservative party was formed from the PCs and the Canadian Alliance Reform party?”

But Trost’s concerns may be overblown.

Rick Anderson, a former senior aide to Reform Party founder Preston Manning and the president of i2 Ideas and Issues Advertising, doesn’t see the Ontario PCs splitting into two parties.

“Not today,” he said. “I think the provincial Conservative party is pretty healthy.”

Most conservatives in Ontario want to see the PCs defeat the Liberals in 2018 and Anderson said he doesn’t see arguments over particular policies derailing that.

As for concerns that Brown is showing social conservatives the door, Anderson said disagreeing with those views isn’t the same as pushing so-cons out.

“I think Patrick Brown is doing the right kinds of things to make sure the party is broadly based,” he said.

During a year-end press conference Brown told reporters that candidates who aim to “push divisive social issues” aren’t welcome in the party, CBC reported.

“People can have their private religious views, but just know where I stand and what the focus of our party is,” he said. [....]
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/13.....ost-warns/


My first point is all these people want, in most cases, is for the government to stop its social engineering, particularly about gender. Nobody wants to victimise girls -- because now it's the boys that are the victims, for one thing, but secondly, whatever nefarious thing they are doing with these new "trans' washrooms in schools, parent don;t like it. Sp they try to keep it all secret. You could call it Wynne's idea of democracy.

How stupid is this? First of all, transsexuals are less than 1% of the population, and secondly, almost all Trans folk want to be known by their new sex. Why would you get surgically altered, and hormonally changed, if it isn't be be a 'he' or a 'she'? So we are talking about 1% of 1% of the population. Probably less.

If you can make a promise to stop tolls on the Gardiner, why can't you make a promise to stop installation of these washrooms?
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1184
Reputation: 112.3
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:19 am    Post subject: Re: Politics and social conservatism in Ontario Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

Just so you know, if it's in the criminal code as a hate crime, you can go to jail. It means, in practice, you'll need to prove the person you hired was a better choice in a courtroom, or face serious consequences, including incarceration.


The same would apply would apply if someone was a certain race, age or had a disability.

While I haven't read up much on everything that's going on with this topic, I do think it's important to make sure someone isn't be discriminated against because they're transgendered.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6684
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the problem is social issues are largely toxic in Ontario especially in urban Ontario , I really have no idea what this mpp was talking about , the pc caucus is more moderate than its been in years and talk of a secret plan , is pure craziness as it doesn't exist and his apology seems to make that clear the party has no plan to revisit divisive social issues )


Social conservative MPP chastised after saying Tory party has secret plan


Chatham-area politician, who has said evolution does not exist, later backs away from comments.


Tory MPP Rick Nicholls, seen here in 2015, apologized for comments he made to Ontario's French-language television network on Tuesday.



By Rob FergusonQueen's Park Bureau

Tues., Dec. 13, 2016



A Progressive Conservative MPP who once said it’s “not a bad idea” to stop teaching evolution in schools has been taken to the woodshed by PC leader Patrick Brown for promoting a socially conservative agenda.

The dressing down came after Ontario’s French-language television network, TFO, reported that MPP Rick Nicholls promised supporters the Tories have a secret plan if they win the 2018 election.

Brown has been trying to put a more modern face on the party, saying it supports Premier Kathleen Wynne’s updated sex education curriculum, gay marriage and won’t change access to abortion — all measures opposed by social conservatives.

“Social issues are really, really important. We need to form government. Then . . . watch us go!” Nicholls said to applause captured by TFO cameras Dec. 7 at Queen’s Park in a meeting with the Canadian Multicultural Care Group and the Canadian Christian Association.

“That will happen. That will happen.”


Brown, who has recently had to quell concerns about the party’s direction after the recent byelection victory of 19-year-old social conservative Sam Oosterhoff in Niagara West-Glanbrook, said he was not aware of the “full extent” of Nicholls’ comments until Tuesday.

“As leader, and as premier, I will lead an Ontario PC party focused on reversing the economic damage of the Wynne Liberals . . . I will lead an inclusive government where intolerance will have no place,” Brown added.

“Any statement or implication to the contrary, including the comment made by MPP Nicholls, is false and needs to be immediately retracted.”

Nicholls (Chatham-Kent-Essex), who was co-chair of Brown’s leadership campaign two years ago, issued a statement Tuesday saying he “fully supports” the party’s direction under Brown and reversed course on his remarks of last week.

“I retract and apologize for my comments. Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown has made it clear that he is committed to leading a modern, inclusive and pragmatic Progressive Conservative Party,” Nicholls said.

“The party will not be revisiting divisive social issues, either as an opposition party or if we are fortunate enough to form government.”

Brown has been in the hot seat over social conservative issues since his flip-flop on sex education during the Scarborough-Rouge River byelection in late summer, with Liberals saying it’s hard to know where he truly stands.

Several Conservative MPPs, including Nicholls, were absent for last week’s vote on legislation to make it easier for gay couples to become parents.

Nicholls shouted the remark about evolution at then-education minister Liz Sandals in February 2015 during a debate in the legislature over the new sex education curriculum, which some Conservatives opposed.

“I don’t believe in evolution,” Nicholls later told reporters as his off-the-cuff comment about striking it from school curriculums prompted rebukes from several colleagues.

“It obviously did not help our position,” said veteran Tory MPP Jim Wilson, who was interim party leader at the time and frequently blamed his party for poor decisions that led to four successive election losses to the scandal-plagued Liberals.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/12/13/social-conservative-mpp-chastised-after-saying-tory-party-has-secret-plan.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4367
Reputation: 245
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason this guy is being quoted is that he makes social conservatism seem reactionary and stupid and there is, to be honest, that wing of the religious community. It's more-or-less restricted to Baptist fundamentalists and evangelicals.

There's no doubt the churches have failed to meet the challenge of scientific thinking very effectively. Evolution should be taught, but it should not be used to make points against the "Truth" of the Bible. Scientific truth is an attempt to arrive at the truth of the material world, and works through scepticism. Religious truth has to do with how to live in a socially successful way, and works through faith.

Religious people may or may not believe in Heaven as a reward, but the point is the Golden Rule can't be refuted by the existence of dinosaurs.

One side is as bad as the other.

But I am talking about politics. I would wonder, in all seriousness, if TC doesn't agree that the gender-bending promoted in our schools isn't just a bit of 'overreach' on the part of government.

I don't even believe it's about accommodating that minority of a minority of students who actually see themselves as 'transgendered' in grade seven. Something else is the goal.

Go onto the campus of any urban university, and you will soon see the signs of the craziness. There are seriously malfunctioning people, students, who look for opportunities to mount crusades against any symbols of sexual normality. If you are a "cis-gendered" you are privileged and deserve to be stigmatized as a result. (It's particularly crazy right now in California because of the election of Trump.)

At the UofT, the craziness of the moment involves the use of pronouns and the law that has given transsexuals the right to demand the public develop a new set of pronouns that denote their mixed up gender identity. It's a human right to force people to refer to you by the pronoun that make them feel most accepted!

Brown is making a big mistake. He ought to be cutting a line of 'reasonable accommodation' on some of these issues, but he shouldn't stifle and discipline what most people see as common sense.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6684
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
The reason this guy is being quoted is that he makes social conservatism seem reactionary and stupid and there is, to be honest, that wing of the religious community. It's more-or-less restricted to Baptist fundamentalists and evangelicals.

There's no doubt the churches have failed to meet the challenge of scientific thinking very effectively. Evolution should be taught, but it should not be used to make points against the "Truth" of the Bible. Scientific truth is an attempt to arrive at the truth of the material world, and works through scepticism. Religious truth has to do with how to live in a socially successful way, and works through faith.

Religious people may or may not believe in Heaven as a reward, but the point is the Golden Rule can't be refuted by the existence of dinosaurs.

One side is as bad as the other.

But I am talking about politics. I would wonder, in all seriousness, if TC doesn't agree that the gender-bending promoted in our schools isn't just a bit of 'overreach' on the part of government.

I don't even believe it's about accommodating that minority of a minority of students who actually see themselves as 'transgendered' in grade seven. Something else is the goal.

Go onto the campus of any urban university, and you will soon see the signs of the craziness. There are seriously malfunctioning people, students, who look for opportunities to mount crusades against any symbols of sexual normality. If you are a "cis-gendered" you are privileged and deserve to be stigmatized as a result. (It's particularly crazy right now in California because of the election of Trump.)

At the UofT, the craziness of the moment involves the use of pronouns and the law that has given transsexuals the right to demand the public develop a new set of pronouns that denote their mixed up gender identity. It's a human right to force people to refer to you by the pronoun that make them feel most accepted!

Brown is making a big mistake. He ought to be cutting a line of 'reasonable accommodation' on some of these issues, but he shouldn't stifle and discipline what most people see as common sense.


the problem for Brown as the mpp's comments were similar to the kind of accusations that dogged the reform and alliance parties for years , there had been endless claims they had a "hidden agenda " although no one seemed to know what that agenda was , but the label stuck and dragged them down for years

I don't think most average voters outside of the hardcore lefty activists would have any issue with an mpp or candidate coming out publicly and stating they were " pro life " as an example if they were catholic . but its when policy and ideas are seen as hidden from the public its starts to bother people

I don't think there would of been anything wrong with the pc's campaigning against the new sex ed curriculum as long is they were open and clear which areas they felt needed to be changed and why . as long as its all in the open and public for everyone to view .

but I think overall these "social issues " are just a distraction from the real issues that are bringing down Kathleen wynne's popularity , Hydro prices , high taxes , provincial debt etc . there isn't really a reason for the party to focus on social issues when there is an endless list of other reasons to go after this government
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6684
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PC Leader Patrick Brown says he "will not tolerate" MPPs revisiting social issues


December 14, 2016 05:17 pm
PC Leader Patrick Brown says he "will not tolerate" MPPs revisiting social issues

Hours after a Progressive Conservative MPP apologized for comments about his party’s willingness to advance social issues, PC leader Patrick Brown has said that he “will not tolerate” socially conservative sentiments from members of his caucus.

In a year-end interview with AM980’s Andrew Lawton Wednesday afternoon, Brown was asked whether social conservatives have a place in his party–and whether MPPs in his caucus would be allowed to vote freely on conscience issues.



Brown said that he welcomes candidates and votes from all backgrounds, but drew a line in the sand on the issues that he’ll allow to be raised under the PC Party banner.

“I don’t mind what people’s private religious views are,” Brown said, referencing his Catholic background, “But, you know, what you do on Sunday–whether you go to a mosque, a synagogue, a church–(is) none of my business, it’s none of the government’s business. What I’m saying, though, is my focus is going to be on the fiscal incompetence of this government.”

Brown referred to social issues as “divisive” and restated his belief in gay rights and equal marriage, not specifically addressing abortion and sex education.

The PC Party has found itself on the defensive with social issues in the past, such as when anti-sex ed messaging was used in a Scarborough by-election, and most recently when 19-year old social conservative Sam Oosteroff won a Niagara-area by-election.

This week, Chatham-Kent-Essex MPP Rick Nicholls came under fire after audio was posted of him telling a group of Christian supporters that “social issues are very, very important. We need to form government, then watch us go…watch us go.”

Nicholls apologized Wednesday morning, after Brown demanded a retraction.

“I retract and apologize for my comments of last week,” Nicholls said. “I fully support the direction the leader is taking our party.”

Brown disputed that appealing to social conservatives was central to Oosterhoff’s nomination and election, and also denied courting social conservatives in his own pursuit of the PC Party leadership, calling it “a narrative that maybe some of the left wing media have presented.”

In the interview, Lawton asked Brown whether MPPs in his caucus could vote their conscience on any legislation put forth by the Liberal or New Democratic parties, which Brown said would be little more than “bait.”

“If the Liberals are trying to bait us, if the Liberals are trying to bring in diversion tactics to take the attention off their own record…that’s not that Ontario wants to talk about,” he said. “And we as conservatives have to be smarter than being baited.”

Brown later doubled down, intimating that PC MPPs would not be allowed free votes on these issues.

“I have encouraged more free votes. I’ve had more free votes than the two other parties at Queen’s Park, but what I will not tolerate is–we’re going to have a very strict focus on fiscal issues,” Brown said. “And if someone’s trying to push a specific social issue, it will not be welcome. If someone’s trying to revisit a divisive social issue, it will not be welcome and it will not be condoned by me.”

Listen to the section of Patrick Brown’s appearance on the Andrew Lawton Show here:

http://www.640toronto.com/syn/.....ial-issues
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Politics and social conservatism in Ontario

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB