I’d like to take a moment and give credit to the Conservative Party of Canada for having the sense to ditch resolution P-90 as it stood from their upcoming policy convention.
Andrew at Bound by Gravity explains the mechanics behind P-90 and the possible consequences.
Basically, resolution P-90 would have committed the Conservative Party to more free votes. Nothing wrong with that. But a little piece of wording in the motion would have nullified the five resolutions following, all of which dealt with controversial social issues such as euthinasia, the definition of marriage and abortion. Andrew’s thesis, and I agree with him, is that by throwing these resolutions away, the Conservatives would leave themselves open to criticism of a hidden agenda, whenever one of their less diplomatic social conservative MPs spoke out of turn.
Now that P-90 is amended, proposals P-91 through 95 now have to be voted upon. This won’t be an easy thing for the Conservatives, whose libertarian and social conservative wings disagree strongly on these points, but it’s a debate they have to have. And, yes, I am on the libertarian side of this particular debate, but that doesn’t make the need for the debate any less pressing.
The next election will be some time in coming. The Conservatives have a chance to eliminate a major opening for criticism, or to take the time they need to argue on behalf of their explicitly adopted socially conservative agenda.
Erin had a great time this past Tuesday as she participated in the Literary Saloon in uptown Waterloo. Six poets read before a full house that paid $5 to get in. It was a very successful night.
So, how do I feel that Erin read domestic/erotic poetry about our marriage in front of an audience that included my mother? Well, I wasn’t there, and I’ll not think much more about this, thankyouverymuch.