Free votes - Coercion or Tolerance?
Regarding an assertion of a party member that " I believe that a very real and present danger is a growing tide of trying to legislate around "moral" issues that arise out of religious faith" and “if I were an MP, I would have to abstain, be it pro or con, because I can't legislate what someone else's morals should be”. I too do not want to legislate morality, either. That is why I want to make it a free vote issue, so you do not have to abstain to avoid the moral dilemma of going against the party or against your moral values, and so all sides can be respected and accommodated. For many, that seems to be just too much to ask.
Some in this party seem to think morals are fine, as long as it is their morality. Abortion would probably be a free vote in the house anyway, if not a national referendum issue, if it ever came up again. I think many candidates face party moral issues quietly, and if the ethical climate of the party is such that reaction to moral voice will be swift, coercive and often verbally abusive, then moral silence rather than moral voice becomes the norm. This is extremely dangerous for parties or any organization. Many probably just feel the likelihood of these issues ever becoming a vote in parliament are extremely remote, so why rock the boat. If issues and debates become fear based and not values based in an organization, this is not healthy. Look at the PWGSC sponsorship scandal. We had a fear based climate in a government department where people would not speak up when asked to violate procurement rules under the coercive pressure of elected officials and a real fear of reprisals. Go down that road and public censure is not far behind. We all know what happened.
I also think that how we deal with justice in western societies is far from perfect. When we ban substances, I agree the question of enforcing such bans or laws often leaves much to be desired. What we choose to criminalize in this respect and how we deal with criminalization is an important debate. Perhaps notions of "punishment" are outdated, but the responsibility of government is to protect society from harm is an expected function of government, as is the rehabilitation of offenders. Jail is perhaps better reserved for violent offenders. I think alternative forms of justice need to be more formalized in our society.
I have avoided bringing religion into this, but we are a country of diverse religions and whether some like it or not, candidates and most people do hold and vote on religious convictions, and many party members have religious affiliations. If we wish to challenge rights to hold religious moral convictions (i.e., to dictate only "your" morals) then we should be prepared to be satisfied with our results in the polls. We can all have an opinion as to what they would be, but I suggest, be ready for a future of very few MPs. People who criticize mainstream religions do so at their political peril. Go down that road and you only campaign against yourself.
I think we have a real opportunity to move politics to a new level that is more enlightened, than what we all dislike about traditional politics. Before we become saddled with undesirable baggage and narrow views, and entrenched as a power based and enforcement based party , where real debate and differences are discouraged, we should think a little. If we view candidates and MPs, as just powerless backbenchers to be rigidly controlled by the party and party doctrine, then we are no better that the other parties. I think free votes as an expression of how we are unique, should be very common. A free vote list could be quite extensive. We do not need to legislate everything. We have a strong value structure and if the public knows that their green MPs can exercise these values perhaps this is a future that is hopeful. The detractors will say we then stand for nothing, but perhaps we stand for values.
regards
Paul
Ps If you agree I still need a few sponsors to put forth a free vote resolution at the BGM in Toronto this summer. Just email me at pmaillet@magma.ca
- Paul Maillet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
Free votes..
Hi Paul,
The problem as I see it with "free votes" relates to how an MP decides to vote in a particular way. If you are elected to the legislature, why are people voting for you? Technically, an MP's job would be to represent his/her constituents' wishes. However, if all MP's actually did that, then it wouldn't matter who people voted for.
As a practical matter, people vote for the party first and the candidate second. You can argue that the GPC is different or special, but if we go that route, we run the risk that no one can really figure out what they are voting for if they vote GPC. I fully appreciate that a candidate can hold a handful of principled positions. However, if that is the case, it is helpful if people can understand them in a scalar context. For example, a simple quantification of how left-or right-wing you generally are in a specific area like fiscality or religiosness, etc.
What you are proposing though is that the GPC simply becomes the party of unaligned candidates. Where do we draw the line? We could have some candidates that are strong socialists and put unions ahead of the environment (like an NDPer.) Or we could have a social conservative environmentalist. Or we could have an extremely fiscally conservative environmentalist.
I don't know how a free vote policy on an "extensive" set of questions would make us look like a mature party. I think a candidate needs to adhere mainly to the party policy with only a small to moderate deviation from that policy. If you want to be anti-choice, so be it. But that's using up all of your "non-conformance" brownie points, so to speak.
Free Votes - New politics?
I think we would be mostly aligned, except for some identified issues. I think the people would find this honest and refreshing, and a change from all that we dislike about power politics and backroom dealing in this country.
I think some may misunderstand our democratic system a bit. Democracy in this country is the election of over 300 MPs to govern the country. In our system, people vote for candidates, not parties (although that may motivate many voters, as you say). Parties are an artificial accommodation to exercise power and interests in our government. They need not be so dogmatic and maybe a little flexibility might be helpful. Maybe with a future of minority governments now a strong possibility, that some new thinking might be helpful. Maybe this is an opportunity and not a threat.
Free votes
Follow the Member-Approved Policy
Where we have member-approved policy, our MP's should be using that policy as guidance on their votes in parliament. In fact, they should be doing so on all issues, however we need to recognize that situations will crop up for which current policy can offer little direction for voting. MP's caucusing with each other can assist in those circumstances. Failing that, an MPP's conscience can be a good guide, or their perception of their local electorate's desires.
Policy, though, needs to be paramount. I understand that if we were to adopt a policy on Free Votes, as has been suggested, the effect would be to water down just about all of our policies, or just some, placed on a schedule (decided by whom?) or something like that.
We members go through a lot of effort to shape our policy at the grass-roots. We are offering a lot of support in terms of resources to assist in electing MP's. There is an expectation that our elected MP's will represent the interests of the Party in the House, and vote according to the stated policy direction. If that makes any of our potential MP's uncomfortable, why do they want to represent their would-be constituents as an MP from the Green Party?
Nix this idea about Free Votes now, lest we get bogged down with it at the BGM. Funny how these sorts of things seem to come up every two years or so, eh?
"Sudbury" Steve May