User:Btrower/ContentiousIssues

Introduction
There are a number of contentious issues that I would like our party to have a crystal clear statement about. In fact, the more contentious, the more I think we should be prepared in advance to articulate a defensible position consistent with our values.

These things are things that I am fairly comfortable to speak upon with respect to my own opinion and how I think the party should best address them.

Principles
First, with respect to all of the really difficult issues the polar extremes shout the loudest and make it look more insoluble than I think it really is. We should avoid engagement with extremes either side. I am personally pro-choice, but I disagree with the disrespectful way that people on the extreme end of that side treat people who are pro-life. Resolution has to begin with genuine mutual respect and understanding. If you disrespect either side of that debate, it is likely you do not understand the other side.

Second, as a rule of thumb, we should push difficult and contentious issues down a level in government. Chances are, the more intensely personal people feel about an issue, the more it does or could impact them personally in a profound way. The more that is true, the more we should try to return to them personally their own sovereign power over their person. The federal government has a role to play in that it has to guarantee people's rights. As long as people's proper rights are protected, many matters become moot from the federal government's point of view. We are not just a nation, we are a collection of communities. As much as possible, the communities that share values should have power over them, in preference to higher levels of government.

Third, common sense should prevail. With respect to abortion, for instance, it makes no sense to abort a human fetus weeks before birth. It equally makes no sense to say that a newly fertilized ovum demands the rights we would accord an adult mother with children to care for. The extreme parts of society demand control they are not entitled to have. When those extreme communities begin to seize power they have no right to and threaten the rights of others, it is then that the government serves a role and the federal government has a right and a duty to provide the last line of defense.

Abortion
A stance on abortion in particular is not up to the federal government. Private matter between a woman and her physician. That is effectively pro-choice, but we need to address the genuine worries of pro-life constituents. I can write up a blurb for that but it essentially boils down to the truth: very tough call by the second trimester and although I don't think the federal state should interfere (or even can legitimately) there is some argument to be made for some type of intervention in the third trimester. Aborting a fetus a week before parturition would be a monstrous act and only a monster would allow it. There is another wrinkle to this: a non-secular god that gives us our rights is a political necessity. Too much to go into here, but the rights of the state must absolutely end at some point and I can think of no other way to essentially ensure that the state has boundaries.

Euthanasia
-- Extremely tough, personal, local, cultural. As above, I don't think the federal state has a right to interfere beyond the protection of fundamental rights. In this instance, those rights are murky so they need clarification. It is out of scope for this, but I think that like privacy this should be under multiple independent loci of control and it should be private.

Drugs
-- Also difficult and contentious. For the most part, I think this should not be a federal matter except for legitimate aspects of protecting fundamental human rights. Like many things that I would change, I would essentially eliminate federal state prohibitions -- take it out of the government's hands and make this a matter between a person, physician and community. However, I would make some sort of transition plan so that we don't hurt people, monitor changes closely and be prepared to retrench. I would also like to, as a matter of policy, address why things are being used, why they are problematic and how to tackle root causes in a sane and humane fashion. Nobody wakes up with a feeling of comfort and empowerment and says to themselves 'today I want to be reckless and hurt myself and others'. People take drugs to make them feel better. We need to address why they have the need and help them with it. As with other things with medicinal effects, sometimes drugs are the answer. The state does not prescribe blood pressure medicine to everyone or bar everyone from using it. The state puts this under the control of the medical community -- people and their physicians -- and people have a right to change doctors, get a second opinion and refuse medication if they wish. We should no more second-guess a doctor about Marijuana than we would with blood pressure medication. This should be well beyond the federal government's control.

Aboriginal Rights
-- The history is pretty plain to anyone who cares to look it up. Aboriginals were completely ripped off. Their land was stolen from them under false pretenses in violation of any agreement they ever made. It is shameful. We should recognize this up front. It is a genuine problem, a difficult one and one that continues to plague various communities. It cries out for a solution. What might that solution be? I could not say in detail. It is a research issue and a matter of negotiation with native peoples. I was born in Canada and it is my country now too. There is an element of racism in saying my racial background somehow precludes me from a share in my own country. However, this directly affects aboriginal communities as I write this and it is time that we acknowledged this great wrong, made a pledge to make it right and formed a real plan in partnership with aboriginals. It is not about attempting to go back in time and fix what is already broken. However, aboriginal communities are poorly treated, disrespected and poverty stricken when at the very least their standard of living should equal that of us relative newcomers. Step one is to honestly admit that there is a real problem and unlike the other governments, we intend to step in and make it right.

Quebec Separatism
-- Still entirely unresolved. If I were a francophone I would probably be pretty pissed about it. It is constantly being swept under the carpet, with separatists being demonized. In my opinion, the federal government and the other provinces have never sat down at the table honestly and attempted to work this out. They want their way or nothing. They won't talk until separation is essentially off the table. They disrespect the people and their grievances. If it were up to me, I would pledge that the federal government understands it is a genuine unresolved problem and is serious about resolution. One way to demonstrate this is to open an honest dialog about seriously separating. I am a federalist and then some. It would be appalling if Quebec were to entirely separate from the rest of the country. However, I do not think that a true resolution is possible without putting everything on the table. Quebec must feel that they are an equal partner at the table. When we are done, it should be with a firm resolution, embraced by the people of Quebec as to how we will keep our family of provinces together. If the Canadian Confederation of Provinces remains a viable idea, then let's sell it, rather than forcing it on people clearly unhappy with it.

Global Warming
-- OMG. The last 20 or so years of science education is a total disaster. How we managed to get to a point where we are talking about destroying the world economy, thereby literally condemning people in the third world to death is beyond me. They teach the Catastrophic Global Warming narrative in school like religious gospel. Real facts are woven into a fictional narrative that must have the real scientists of yesteryear spinning in their graves. It appears to be finally turning around, but it has turned into an enormous ship involving billions of dollars of funding that is now very difficult to move. I will say more about this below because I am on the hook for developing our statement on what I call 'Environmental Stewardship'. Let me just state categorically that I have taken a look at the case for political action on Global Warming and it is dismally lacking. From a federal government point of view, whether true or not, no legitimate case has been made for action. At the very least, our position should be that we need to see the evidence and the opinion of experts is not evidence