Prime Minister Stephen Harper responds during question period in the House of Commons March 28, 2013, in Ottawa.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Critics say Stephen Harper is either doing exactly what he should and delivering on a promise not to reopen the abortion issue, or he is the silencer-in-chief, muzzling MPs so they can't speak their mind. Readers, print and digital, speak theirs:
Like Margaret Wente, I, too, am amazed at the number of left-wing papers and pundits who, prior to Stephen Harper's coming to power, kept on about his need to muzzle his MPs, yet now complain about his control (Advice To Mr. Harper: Muzzle Them! – April 5). They should be cheering him on instead of complaining.
David Neal, Toronto
.........
MPs absolutely should not be muzzled on issues such as abortion. Allowing them to voice their personal and political position lets their constituents gain a clear understanding of what the MP representing them stands for – and whether they will vote for that MP in the next election.
Faith Mills, Winnipeg
.........
I urge the aggrieved MPs to quit the Conservative Party, form a new one and run in the next election under that banner. That will afford them ample opportunity to speak to issues dear to them and their constituents.
William Blackburn, Halifax
.........
Whatever happened to: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend at all costs your right to say it?
Henry Slofstra, Waterloo, Ont.
.........
If the Conservative Party fringe gets to speak its mind, the party will lose a critical slice of voters.
The difference between winning and losing an election in our system is a shift by a relatively small number of voters. Just look at the shifting percentage of the "conservative" popular vote in the past five elections, and the effect on which party got to govern. The numbers don't suggest a political sea change toward conservatism, but a minimal voting shift:
2011: Conservative popular vote, 39.6 per cent. Result: Conservative majority;
2008: Conservative popular vote, 37.7 per cent. Result: Conservative minority;
2006: Conservative popular vote, 36.3 per cent. Result: Conservative minority;
2004: Conservative popular vote, 29.6 per cent. Result: Liberal minority;
2000: Reform/Alliance/Conservative popular vote, 25.5 per cent. Result: Liberal majority.
I think we know what Mr. Harper told his caucus in that closed door meeting a little while ago. I say, "For the sake of democracy, let them speak!"
Robin Collins, Ottawa
.........
Let them speak and let the majority vote them down.
Grant Bowen, New Westminster, B.C.
.........
I was very active as a private member during my terms in Parliament. Every MP has the right (and the responsibility) to press his/her personal views, or the views of his/her constituents, in private members' business for discussion. The private member does not, of course, have the right to ensure that any such proposal is voted upon in the House.
While some outside the House would prefer that some topics never be debated in the House, doing so risks the rights and responsibilities that underlie our parliamentary democracy.
W. Paul McCrossan, Toronto
.........
Most of us don't agree with Mark Warawa's views on abortion, but when the right to express them is removed, we are one step closer to extinguishing free speech in favour of one-man rule.
Anthony Burgess, Campbellton, N.B.
.........
Lawrence Martin repeats the current Press Gallery mantra that Stephen Harper doesn't tolerate dissent (Harper's Image Could Tolerate A Little Dissent – April 2).
Really? In February, The Globe ran a review of parliamentary voting records during the first Harper majority government. The NDP voted the party line 100 per cent of the time, the Liberals 90 per cent – the Tories, just 76 per cent of the time.
Indeed, under Thomas Mulcair's leadership, three NDP MPs have left the party over disagreements with their leader. So just who, exactly, doesn't tolerate dissent?
Claire Hoy, Toronto
.........
Pierre Trudeau remarked that backbenchers were nobody once they left the Hill. It appears, in the Harper government, backbenchers are nobody – even on the Hill.
Chris Phillips, Ancaster, Ont.
.........
Stephen Harper shouldn't have to muzzle his MPs, and he most certainly should not do so when the issue is as compelling as sex selection. He should lead his MPs and Canadians into constructive dialogue and consensual resolution, objectives that are close at hand when 92 per cent of us are already in fundamental agreement that sex selection is wrong.
Mr. Harper must distinguish between abortion and sex selection, and create policy directed at the latter, without unnecessarily curtailing the former. If science has not already devised methods other than abortion by which parents can tip the odds in favour of one sex or the other, it certainly will.
Patrick Cowan, Toronto
.........
These men are fixated on controlling women's bodies. To suggest that their constituents want them to do so is disingenuous.
It would be refreshing to hear a backbencher complain that they are being prevented from speaking about issues that are truly important to Canadians – the silencing of scientists, ill-considered "tough on crime" bills, slighting the Parliamentary Budget Office, or any number of anti-democratic measures.
Ruth Miller, Toronto
.........
Is it so terrible for an MP to stand up and state his opposition to abortion once a year? I don't oppose abortion but this is a democracy, so why deny this MP his opportunity to have his bark at the moon?
Joel Duncan, Calgary
.........
MORE LETTERS
New Labour?
Will Thomas Mulcair be the NDP's Tony Blair, recasting it as New Labour (Farewell To Arms, Comrades – editorial, April 5)?
The party may find its attempt at a constitutional aggiornamento unnecessarily divisive. It should consider the case of René Lévesque's Parti Québécois. When he backed off on sovereignty, the PQ's raison d'être, the undertow swept away six cabinet ministers, who tendered resignations.
The NDP shouldn't spend political capital engaging in hoary debates about capitalism. It is not time profitably spent
Howard Greenfield, Montreal
.........
Just wondering
Re Tory Cuts To Hit Key Programs (April 5): The Globe's analysis of government spending reports quotes a warning about the budget's impact on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: "There is a threat that agency will lack the … inspection effectiveness to … prevent, detect and respond to threats to food safety, animals and plants."
I wonder, do the Conservatives think food safety is of no concern to their constituents – or are hockey dads and soccer moms suddenly immune to food borne illness?
Karin Bjornson, Montreal
.........
Behind Bars: Take 1
Re More Jail Won't Solve Canada's Native Incarceration Problem (April 5): We Canadians like to get on our moral high horse, especially in comparison to the U.S. We haven't listened to the dire warnings from Texas prison officials not to repeat their mistakes. We usually think that racism and the legacy of historical injustices are American domains, but Canada has yet to reconcile its colonial history and its continuing effect on First Nations. Until we truly know their history, we won't be able to solve these modern problems.
Melissa Gismondi, Davis, Calif.
.........
Behind Bars: Take 2
Re More Jail Won't Solve Canada's Native Incarceration Problem (April 5):An apologist attitude for the unnaturally high incarceration rate of aboriginal peoples will not help their plight. Fixing the problem starts with First Nations leaders, and with the next generation of natives saying, "Enough! We will rise above the self-pity, we will become self-sufficient, we will teach our children our traditions and show them how to be a productive member of society," whether it's on or off the reserve. We and the natives are equal in blame, but only native communities can take charge and heal the wounds of time.
James Ness, Kanata, Ont.
.........
ON TOPIC The endless struggle to define class
Any discussion of the class system can get heated, as was the case yet again this week when British sociologists produced a study that identifies no fewer than seven distinct social classes.
The researchers used information from two massive public surveys to come up with the groupings, which ranged from "elites" at the top to "precariats" – or "precarious proletariat" – way down at the bottom.
The distinctions were based not just on wealth, but also took into account a person's social contacts and participation in cultural activities, including such highbrow pursuits as enjoying classical music and "emerging cultural" entertainment (video games and sports events).
The study concluded (among other things) that the gap between the top and bottom classes is growing and that new middle classes are emerging based largely on the rise of technology.
How did our readers respond? Some took issue with the basic premise, saying Canada does not have Britain's class culture.
"We have no middle class, and we should do away with that class thing," Alicyn Herman commented. "The sooner we stop ranking families and individuals based on socio-economic status, the better off society will be."
"Leave it to the Brits to waste time wondering what class you fit in," another reader added.
Perhaps, but Michael Savage, a sociologist at the London School of Economics and a co-author of the study, said the new groupings reflect many of the changes in most Western economies in recent years, thanks largely to the growth of the Internet and computers.
For example, one of the new categories is the "technical middle class," a relatively small group of people working mainly in technology-related fields who earn a decent income but have few social contacts and are disengaged culturally.
The researchers also identified a new class of "affluent workers," who also earn a moderate income, but own expensive houses and engage largely in "emerging cultural activities."
Such findings sparked more philosophical responses from some readers, including this one from Brent Galste: "Class in another sense is irrespective of income – some poor people have lots, some rich people have little or none."
This latest study also follows a trend among sociologists and economists who, after generations of studying social classes largely based on income or occupation, have begun to take other measures into account.
Its inclusion of social and cultural "capital" prompted readers to come up with their own ideas of what constitutes a class.
"The reading classes – those who choose to pass time reading, studying, evaluating, research and similar activities over shopping," Nancy E. Watt offered.
"Screwed, screwed more, totally screwed and then the new oligarchs: the politicians," Bill Kelley said.
And then there was this simple, if cutting, description of classes from Melva Reid: "rich … struggling … poor."
– Paul Waldie