Author: Stephen Taylor

News today out of British Columbia describes Paul Martin’s plea to NDP supporters in that province to vote Liberal because an NDP vote will essentially be a vote for Stephen Harper.

“There are two parties that could form the next government, and if you are thinking of voting NDP, I would ask you to think about the implications of that vote … In a race as close as this, you may well help Stephen Harper become prime minister.” — Paul Martin, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

The NDP front is yet another battle for Paul Martin in his battle against Stephen Harper. One the Quebec front, the Liberals issued this release today on the Liberal website which states,

“A vote for the Bloc is a vote to stop Canada�s momentum. It is a vote to allow Stephen Harper to form a government that, simply for ideological reasons, will increase military spending and lower taxes to levels well beyond what our economy can afford” — Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew, former and current Liberal cabinet ministers

Meanwhile, the current Liberal attack ad in Ontario draws parallels between former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and former Ontario Premier Mike Harris with Stephen Harper.

Paul Martin’s team is trying desperately to convince voters to vote against the Conservatives by not voting for the NDP or for the Bloc. What they may not realize is that voters are voting for these parties to, in fact, prevent the Liberals from retaining power rather than to prevent the Conservatives from attaining power. Everyone knows how close this horse race is now and a majority of Canadians believe that this Liberal government needs to be removed. Those that are voting NDP and especially those that are voting Bloc are well aware that this would mean a Conservative government, whether minority or majority.

There isn’t another candidate whom has become more a victim of protest politics this election than Dennis Mills, the Liberal incumbent from Toronto-Danforth. Everytime Dennis turns around it seems like it’s either Olivia Chow yelling at him from across the street, or Jack Layton’s horde of protesters (er, campaigners) dogging Mills on the campaign trail.

The latest attack on Mills? Advocates of same-sex marriage picketed his campaign office protesting the incumbent’s view supporting traditional marriage and taking a stance which is familiar to Stephen Harper: to allow Parliament decide the issue rather than the Supreme Court. Previously, Layton covertly organized a protest of a Mills announcement concerning Liberal contributions to the Toronto waterfront.

Mills is a backbench Liberal MP that is now in the fight of his life in his own riding versus the leader of the NDP. Perhaps his most publicized contribution to his constituents was the organization of SARSfest in Toronto, drawing about 500,000 fans to the largest outdoor concert in world history, featuring the Rolling Stones and AC/DC.

First and foremost, child pornography is indefensible. The issue falls under the realm of social conservatism yet it is non-partisan and virtually all Canadians will find themselves on one side of the issue.

Therefore, did Stephen Harper gaffe when his war-room sent out the email “Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?” and was this gaffe underscored by Harper’s refusal to apologize for it?

Many may rush to the conclusion that the answer is “yes”. Many in the media are drawing parallels with Jack Layton’s assertion that Paul Martin is personally responsible for homeless deaths in Toronto.

While one might criticize Harper for politicizing the recent guilty plea of the murderer of Holly Jones, Harper did raise the issue earlier in the English-language debate concerning the use of the not-withstanding clause. Stephen Harper said that he would use the not-withstanding clause to protect children from the societal ills of child pornography.

If Paul Martin seeks to attack the Conservative Party on social issues such as a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage (issues that not all but many conservatives support), here is an issue put into play by Stephen Harper; it’s an issue which he can win. There is no logical argument that supports child pornography whether for “artistic merit” or for “public good”.

Did Stephen Harper gaffe? The deeper answer is no. Now the issue is under debate in the media and within the campaign. Stephen Harper has directed the final week of the campaign towards an issue that he wants to talk about rather than the issues that have dogged him. How can Paul Martin or Jack Layton differentiate themselves from Stephen Harper on this issue? While the media will initially report it as a gaffe (on a Saturday by the way), the rest of the week will examine the issue in-depth. In fact, Global and CBC are already reporting Paul Martin’s voting record on the issue.

Paul Martin voted against a motion prohibiting creation or use of child pornography (House of Commons, April 23, 2002)

Paul Martin voted against a motion calling for legislation to protect children from sexual predators (House of Commons, April 23, 2002)

Paul Martin voted against making the age of sexual consent higher than 14 (House of Commons, April 23, 2002)

Paul Martin voted against establishing a national sex offender registry (House of Commons, Feb. 5, 2002)

At the end of the week, who gets more exposure? Stephen Harper for being personal or Paul Martin’s personal voting record on child pornography?

The only direction of attack that the Liberals can take is the method by which the message was delivered. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have opened the issue for discussion (and have distracted the media from the other issues such as the Klein miscommunication) and many Canadians will examine Paul Martin’s voting record defending something viewed as indefensible by most Canadians.

With that being said, as a voter I am appauled by the negative tone of this campaign set by the Liberals and now reciprocated by the Conservatives. I’d like to vote for a party instead of against one.