Thursday, October 23, 2008

Stephen Harper And Opposing Gay Rights

In an opinion column of March 21 1995 Stephen Harper defined his Reform Party as being based on three issues, to be more specific, he defined it as being based on three "g-issues"- guns, gays, and government grants.

The purpose of the article was to attempt to provide an explanation for the Reform Party's difficulties in expanding as well as to provide solutions to overcome those problems.

What is of interest is in the beginning of Stephen Harper's article, where he defines his Party's core constituencies as the "g-issues"- guns, gays, and government grants; of particular note is the second issue, that of gays.

It is often cited it was only the more radical wing of the Reform Party that staunchly opposed recognition of gay rights, yet here Stephen Harper, the eminent policy adviser of the Reform Party and at this time seen as the heir apparent to Preston Manning, who wrote in fact opposing gay rights was one of his Party's key tenets.

This article penned by Harper himself would strongly suggest Stephen Harper not only shared the ideology of opposing gay rights but he believed strongly in it.

Together with more recent evidence, such as Harper openly speaking against same-sex marriage as recently as of April 2005 (video here) and his vote opposing it, it is clear Stephen Harper still passionately believes in his Reform Party's core "g-issues" and still opposes gay rights.

20 comments:

Gina said...

Scott,

There is nothing new here.
I hope you are not letting the Iggy supporters get to you. Do not let them bully you.
Keep posting the good and the bad on any candidate that wants the Liberal Leadership.
The article you found on Iggy was very important.

Anonymous said...

I disagree. Try finding anything that first shows the Reform Party had its foundations in opposing gay rights. Then try to find something other then Harpers 2005 vote that really shows Harper is against Gay rights.

This article shows Harper has always believed strongly in opposing gay rights.

Lastly, it's an opinion piece written by our current PM, that's sorta important in its own right.
-scott

Gina said...

Harper opposing gay rights is not shocking. It is something many Canadians expect, they know he will and say and do things to be politically expedient (softening these stands at the mike).
In the Liberal Party, we expect a higher standard and politicians have to live by their word.
Your Harper post: reaction is "not surprised"
Your Iggy post: reaction is "disturbing"

Anonymous said...

Again, I disagree. I've had many arguments with Conservatives, granted they are more left leaning then the typical con, but they don't believe Harper is really anti-gay rights. This article not only supports that he is, but I think clearly shows it, as he described that was one of his Party's tenets.

I agree though to you and me this is not that shocking, but I think that is more or less because we know the rhetoric we've heard insinuated Harper is anti-gay rights was true. This post merely serves to concrete in that belief with more solid evidence.

-scott

Anonymous said...

Scott, I know you got pummeled by the Iggy supporters yesterday, but trying to make amends by coming up with old news about Harper seems rather feeble. You should have just taken the day off to heal.

Robert McClelland said...

What Harper says about the Reform agenda is rather ambiguous. He doesn't say this is what defines the Reform Party, he says you can define the Reform Party as...

What is more interesting is the picture he paints of the Liberal Party; a picture that now applies to his own Conservative Party.

Anonymous said...

What, are you trying to make up for the 1998 piece on Iggy with a 1995 one on Harper?

Isn't it already common knowledge that Harper opposes gay marriage? Why is this news?

And not to nitpick, but in the article, Harper doesn't actually say the "3 gs" are the Reform party's core constituency. He says others might perhaps define it that way. It's also implicit that there's more than the core constituency.

Oh, and Reform doesn't exist anymore in case you've been under a rock for the last eight years. I know you want to pretend it does, but that doesn't make it so.

Anonymous said...

McClelland - agreed. If anything, Harper's sold out his base to make a play for the Liberal centre. So I can see why conservatives would be upset, but I don't really get why Liberals are.

Anonymous said...

Robert and Anon:
Harper says "You can define them as narrowly as you want, perhaps as little more then the g issues." That means you can define them however you want but they must still contain guns, gays and government grants. He doesn't say someone else is defining the core constituencies, he is saying that the core constituencies can be broken down to those three points.

-scott

Anonymous said...

As for the comments I'm playing it safe, please read my comments.

I don't care what anyone says or thinks of me. I'm writing what I want.

As for me just talking about old news I challenge anyone to find evidence of Harper opposing gay rights prior to his vote in 2005.
-scott

Anonymous said...

Is there a time limit on when people say or do certain things? This was Harpers view in 1995. About the same time as Bob Rae was trying to bankrupt Ontario. Have his views changed? How about Dion? He was a separatist in the 70's. Have his views changed? And Iggy supported torturing of prisoners. Have his views changed? Please define a time limit so we can all dig through a bunch of crap and see what dirt we can find on people running for public office. He who lives in glass houses . . .

Anonymous said...

Harper has shown a history from 1995 to 2005 of holding this same opposition to gay rights. He was an elected MP when he wrote that article. Any elected official should be held to the highest scrutiny. I'm not asking for his resignation, I'm merely offering it as something to take into consideration. Be my guest to inform others of other MPs etc.

-scott

Anonymous said...

I am not for gay marriage. I never have been and never will be. I have a couple of friends who are gay but we don't talk about any of this when we get together. I believe I am a decent human being. I don't see what the difference is if I was in public office. Do I need to change my views on things just because I'm Prime Minister? That's the knock you seem to put on elected officials. Well they said this and that . . . Don't you want a person who has certain views and holds them? I respect someone who has certain views but still manages to keep those views to himself and doesn't shove them down our throats. Not like trying to have Canadians move to the Green Shift when the economy is going down. Not like trying to shove Kyoto down our throats when emissions still went up 35%. That's being two-faced. Harper is not two-faced. He can still govern without his personal views taking precedence.

Anonymous said...

You do realize Stephen Harper attempted to get rid of same-sex marriage right? So by your own argument he would be two-faced.

Just pointing that out there.

-scott

Anonymous said...

Yawn!

olaf said...

Scott,

You seem to be having a bit of a comprehension problem here. He's referring explicitly to the Reform party's "core constituency", not to his personal opinion. It would be accurate to say, based on the stellar detective work you've done here, that "Stephen Harper was once a member of a party whose core constituency could potentially be reduced to those who care about guns, gays and government grants." But that's not exactly news, is it?

And since you seem to be referring to gay marriage here, I'll remind you that at the time this article was printed, the Liberal party "opposed" gay rights too.

Anonymous said...

Olaf:
Stephen Harper said explicitly the Reform Party's issues can be understood as those three g issues.

Stephen Harper wrote the Reform Party's policy book in 94 and Stephen Harper was seen as heir apparent to Manning.

In looking at those considerations it certainly implies Stephen Harper held those views.

Yes back then the Liberals did oppose gay rights. The difference however the Liberals don't now, whereas the Conservatives a Leader with a ten year history of opposing gay rights.

-scott

Anonymous said...

And Olaf I think should not take my post personally as your sarcasm is not helping your argument.
-scott

Anonymous said...

Oh and one more thing Olaf, if you read the article, Harper himself admits the Reform Party has a monopoly of the anti-gay issue. Thus he says the Liberals will never encroach on it.

-scott

Anonymous said...

Scott, Antonio and Tarek are 2 examples of why Iggy lost the last leadership and will more than likely lose this one. They are vile human beings who have poisoned the youth of the Lib Party Canada Quebec. Thankfully a new group will soon be in charge so bye losers!