The Wingnut Base Is Still Firmly In Control

According to CBC, the CPC has passed a swath of policy motions which are clearly designed for the ultra-conservative (theocon) base.

Conservative Party members have passed motions at their biannual convention in Calgary, pledging not to support euthanasia or assisted suicide, and to scale back public sector pension plans. 

The policies don't necessarily become government policy, but tell the party's leadership, including the prime minister, what direction members would like to see. 

The party also adopted policies to:

• pledge not to support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.

• move public sector pensions to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefits, essentially scaling them back and bringing them into line with private sector pensions.

• reject the concept of legalizing the purchase of sex and develop a plan to target the buyers and third parties who profit off the sex trade.

• let faith-based organizations refuse the use of their facilities to people holding views contrary to their own.

• separate the CBC's TV and radio funding allocations.

So, let's go take a closer look at these, shall we?

On "sex-selective abortion", it takes a couple of minutes to find the resolution because the far right have learned that Harper won't touch anything with that word in it.  Here's the resolution:

Canada’s Social Fabric – 1-26-157 - EN EDA – Langley
Section K - 70 - Women (MODIFICATION)
Amended:
The Conservative Party supports the full participation of women in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada.
i) The Canadian workforce has evolved to include more women than ever. The Conservative Party believes all Canadians have the right to freedom from discrimination in the workplace and equality of opportunity.
ii) Individuals should be only judged on skills, qualifications and merits. Women must be entitled to equal pay for equal work.
iii) The Conservative Party recognizes the value of the caregiver. We will examine measures within the tax system to help offset economic costs without discrimination.
iv) The Conservative Party condemns discrimination against girls through gender selection 

Make no mistake about it, the faux issue of "sex selection" is nothing more than yet another attempt on the part of the Theocon base to open the abortion debate.  Intriguingly, it contains in it a none-too-subtle bit of racism as well.  It is a handful of cultures in the world who are known to engage in such practices, and trying to regulate this aspect of the discussion either involves calling people of those cultures liars when the pursue an abortion to end a pregnancy or it guarantees that they will lie about their motivations in the first place.  (Practically speaking, the motivations for having any medical procedure are between the patient and their doctor - if they even need to go that far)

On prostitution, they basically reworded an existing policy which meant more or less the same thing:

Canada’s Social Fabric – 1-09-194 - EN EDA – Kildonan-St Paul
Section M - 97 – Sexual Exploitation in Canada (MODIFICATION)
Amended:
i) The Conservative Party rejects the normalization of prostitution and declares that human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought and sold; and
ii) The Conservative Party will develop a comprehensive strategy to address and prevent the legalization of keeping a common bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution, and communication for the purpose of prostitution.
i) The Conservative Party rejects the concept of legalizing the purchase of sex;
ii) The Conservative Party declares that human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought or sold; and
iii) The Conservative Party of Canada shall develop a Canada specific plan to target the purchasers of sex and human trafficking markets through criminalizing the purchase of sex as well as the acts of any third party attempting to profit from the purchase of sex. 

Again, this boils down to nothing more than continuing to criminalize sex work, sex workers and those who engage with them.  Like the "war on drugs", the "war on sex" is a failed strategy.  Prostitution has been around as long as human beings have, possibly longer.  Anybody who thinks that making it illegal (and throwing people in prison) is kidding themselves.

More "red meat" for the base.

Canada’s Social Fabric – 1-21-130 - EN EDA – Saskatoon Humboldt
Section J - Euthanasia (NEW)
63. Euthanasia
The Conservative Party will not support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.  

How effective.  There's a new issue that needs to be addressed constructively.  I know!  Let's bury our collective heads in the sand.

Euthanasia is not a simple subject, nor would I want anyone to believe that it is.  End of life issues are complex for all involved.  The courts have been clear that the current laws do not effectively address the issues involved.

Canadians need to have a constructive discussion about this subject.  Like the abortion debate, I suspect strongly that it is next to impossible to do so.  Those who have seen the suffering of those who live with long term terminal illness are no doubt far more sympathetic to the desire to have some control over when and how someone leaves this world.  The religious argument is no doubt going to continue to pound on the "every life is sacred" line.

Canada’s Social Fabric – 1-15-159 - EN EDA – Mapleque
Section K - Pensions (NEW)
75. Pensions
The Conservative Party of Canada will include in its policy statement a commitment to bring public sector pensions in-line with Canadian norms by switching to a defined contribution pension model, which includes employer contributions comparable to the private sector. 

Role of Government, Taxation and Crime – 2-22-004 - EN EDA – Abbotsford
Section B - 3 – Public Service Excellence (MODIFICATION)
Amended:
The Conservative Party believes that all Canadians deserve an efficient, effective, and independent professional public service. We believe the government should build upon the whistle-blowing protection legislation to ensure that those who expose corruption and wrongdoing are protected from reprisal. We continue to support any measures which enhance public service effectiveness and accountability.
The Conservative Party believes that Public Service benefits and pensions should be comparable to those available to similar employees in the private sector, and to the extent that they are not, they should be made comparable to such private sector benefits and pensions in future contract negotiations. 

When it comes to the public sector, there is no shortage of hostility.  Aligning with "private sector pensions" is a bit of a joke.  Outside of former crown corporations, I haven't seen a private sector company that offers a pension plan of any sort for decades.  For the most part, they leave it to employees to contribute to RRSP plans and that's about it.

The second motion is the more interesting one, in my opinion.  It points to yet another area where the CPC will attack union workers in the civil service.

Canada’s Social Fabric – 1-13-152 - EN EDA – Souris - Moose Mountain
Section K – Faith Based Organizations (NEW)
75. Faith Based Organizations
The Conservative Party supports the right of faith based organizations to refuse the use of their facilities to individuals or groups holding views which are contrary to the beliefs or standards of the faith based organization without fear of sanctions or harassment and that discrimination based on the beliefs of a faith based organization be excluded from the definition of disallowed discrimination under Human Rights. 

Oh yes.  Let's institutionalize the right of certain groups to deny access to others who aren't "holy" enough.  We haven't seen this before have we?  Oh yes ... the Knights of Columbus issue in BC.

In yet another piece of red meat for the base, someone has decided that they want an "explicit" exemption for religious-based discrimination.  Who is this going to affect the most?  GLBT people, no doubt.  Annoyingly, the wording that is being used here is sufficiently broad that it could easily be stretched into the workplace, with business owners declaring their business a "faith-based organization", and presto, we have the same kind of insane crap that we regularly see in the US on matters ranging from discrimination to health insurance.

Make no mistake about it, the wingnut base is firmly in control of the CPC's policy direction.  They never have gone away or actually moderated.  Early on they were happy enough to comply with Harper's desire to gain power.  Now that they have a majority, the hard liners are once again reasserting their positions - albeit their language is a bit more vague than it once was.

Theocracy - It's Not Just A Word

Over at his "Christian Governance" website, we find Tim Bloedow expounding upon what he believes Theocracy means - it would be funny if he wasn't so serious...

1. Theocracy means the rule of God.

Actually, Theocracy means a bit more than just "the rule of god", as a quick look in a dictionary shows us:

1. a form of government in which god or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

I think it is rather important to pay attention to the last part of the first clause of the definition the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.. In short, it boils down to government by a ruling class of clergy. Let's not lose sight of this, since it becomes quite germane to the discussion of what's wrong with the concept of theocracy in the first place.

2. God rules over all of creation, therefore, theocracy is a fact, regardless of who believes in it or accepts it.

3. Theocracy does have implications for civil governance and human society, but it pre-exists as a concept over and larger than civil government.

Really? Unless you have some irrefutable proof of a specific metaphysical being actually existing (and not being just an idea embedded in unprovable legend), I don't think it's reasonable to say that there is a "fact" here. It exists as an accepted common notion among those who accept the idea of a god, but hardly stands up to scrutiny as a rational fact.

Rationally speaking, one can look at Iran as a theocracy, and that is a fact today. However, let's be equally clear about something - Iran may be a theocracy, but it is unproven that the metaphysical being alleged to be at the head of that theocracy actually exists outside of legend. In short, Iran is being ruled by an unelected, unaccountable ruling class of clerics.

4. Most people who say they oppose theocracy do so because the term conjures up images of a totalitarian government and a rigid moral order that reflects the imposition of a minority on the whole society.

5. That is exactly the experience of Canada and other Western nations under the tutelage of the humanist religion. And the majority of our citizens seem content to let it unfold even if they disagree with it. This despite the fact that we know how these humanist/atheist experiments turn out: the former USSR, Hitler’s Germany, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, etc.

Let's go a little further in dissecting Mr. Bloedow's claims here, shall we?

First of all, let's address his claim that Secular Humanism (at least I presume that's what he's referring to when he uses the term 'humanist')

Secular Humanism is a secular philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and the search for human fulfillment, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives.

Secular Humanism is distinguished from various other forms of humanism. Though Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion, or God, that is not to say it assumes humans to be inherently or innately good. Nor does it present humans as "above nature" or superior to it; by contrast, the humanist life stance emphasises the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions.

The term "Secular Humanism" was coined in the 20th century, and was adopted by non-religious humanists in order to make a clear distinction from "religious humanism". Secular Humanism is also called "scientific humanism". Biologist E. O. Wilson called it "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature".[1]

Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology—be it religious or political—must be examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith.[2] Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.

In short, Secular Humanism is not a religion. It is a philosophical perspective used to analyze the world and human experience of it. Religions generally work on the assumption of something being 'divinely inspired/guided/whatever'. To refer to Secular Humanism as a religion is to distort the reality.

Next, what Bloedow refers to as failed secularist states were and are totalitarian regimes. Their official (and whether Nazi Germany was atheist is decidedly murky indeed) atheism is in many respects secondary to the actual success or failure of the state. China, for all of the things it may criticized for, is a state currently undergoing significant change and as the world's second largest economy can hardly be called a failed state.

Similarly, for all that Iran is one of the most brutal regimes in the world - especially if you are female, homosexual or non-muslim, it is not a failed state. It has a robust economy and is a significant political and economic power in the region. We should never lose sight of this.

However, from the perspective of Canadians, Iran represents a great deal of what can go horrendously wrong with the practical implementation of theocracy. Among other things, the very concept that a woman's testimony in court bears only half the weight of a man's is deeply problematic, not to mention the recurring issue of women being stoned to death for adultery - based entirely upon some cleric's interpretation of "God's Law". Let us not lose sight of the impact of this kind of harshness upon the people who live under the thumb of a theocracy.

The issue isn't one so much of whether we are talking about a theocracy or other form of government, rather it is the likelihood of the government descending into totalitarianism. Oppressive government tends to evolve when those in control of the levers of power believe that there is some absolute that must be maintained.

6. Considering how tolerant Canadians are of totalitarianism, Christians shouldn’t feel the need to distance themselves from the language of Christian government and theocracy, despite the myths about these ideas being oppressive.

Let's talk about oppression for a moment, shall we?

Oppression typically happens to minority populations within a larger society. After all, short of military force, it is pretty hard to oppress the majority population in a society. In democracies, for the most part, oppression is result of an interesting phenomenon better known as 'The Tyranny of The Majority'. (which is a key reason for the existence of things like human rights law in the first place - something which Bloedow rails against elsewhere.

The problem is that what Bloedow calls 'totalitarianism' is really just the normal process of rights existing in tension with each other - and in the last fifty years or so, the balance has shifted away from providing unfettered rights to discriminate based on religiously derived proscriptions.

Further, Bloedow's position here ignores the key observation that has been at the core of civil and human rights law since the Civil Rights Movement took hold in the United States. This observation is that the 'will of the majority' can, and does, do great violence to minority groups within that broad fabric of civilization. Much of the civil rights push in the latter half of the 20th century is focused on undoing the harms done by limiting the participation of minorities in the public sphere.

7. Biblical theocracy refers to the rule of God through His law, not the rule of God through any particular person, and God’s law applies to all of life, so we need to understand how God’s law addresses a particular area of life in order to exercise God’s rule – theocracy – there.

Here's where theocracy gets well and truly messed up. Just how is anyone supposed to believe that there is a single, correct, interpretation of scripture? Christianity alone has hundreds, if not thousands, of individual sects, each claiming to know "the real answers".

This means that we come down to theocracy being driven by a bunch of clerics who happen to have a particular understanding of scripture. In short, it is all but guaranteed to degenerate into a form of totalitarianism as the clerics in power become comfortable with having the power without being directly accountable to the people. (one doesn't have to look too far for this kind of unaccountability - take a look at the Vatican)

Offhand, I'd put good odds that there are a lot of Quebecois who might still remember the Duplessis era, and the fallout from that - a good object lesson in how theocracy - in this case indirect - can go very, very awry.

8. Biblical theocracy advocates decentralization, balance of powers and shared leadership in every area of life. Organizational centralization is contrary to God’s law in family, church and state. Biblical theocracy leads to political models that reflect the principles of division of authority and diffusion of power.

Does it really? Or is this just Bloedow's personal interpretation? I'm inclined to believe the latter. If Bloedow's claims were the generally held understanding of scripture, it's extremely hard to imagine how the theological/political entity of the Roman Catholic Church emerged in the first place - with all power devolving ultimately to the Pope. Frankly, I suspect that Bloedow is actually arguing for a more libertarian approach to government because it is convenient to him ... and he doesn't want to be bothered understanding issues such as the 'Tyranny of the Majority' would be amplified in such a situation. (and possibly to his detriment, given that overall levels of religiosity in Canada have been on the decline for decades)

9. God, and God alone, sovereign. Every human authority is exercised under God; all human power is delegated from and by God.

Again, as with the statements made in section 2 of his position statement, Bloedow is assuming the existence and accountability of a metaphysical being. I'd like to point out that English Kings (and other Monarchs as well) used to rule "by divine right" - claiming that their power was derived from God. Those not so familiar with how that turned out are urged to spend a little time studying the history that led up to the creation of the Magna Carta which started the process of unwinding the arbitrary powers that English Monarchs claimed as "divine right".

Thanks, but no thanks. I see no reason to repeat one of the darkest times in human history. The concept of "god's law" is unaccountable to the people who are affected by it, and it is subject to interpretation by an elite class who will be even more unaccountable to the people than our current day polticians. Politicians can be contacted, lobbied and persuaded - and outside of Alberta - voted out of office. Metaphysical beings? Not so much.

Bill C-391 Is A Government Bill

With all of the shenanigans going on around the "Private Member's Bill" C-391 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), I think it's time to examine the government's actions more carefully.

Theoretically, as a Private Member's Bill, C-391 doesn't represent the government's official policy or direction. However, there's an old saying about actions speaking louder than words.

This article is a veritable compendium of how Harper has mobilized his front bench to garner support for this bill. (I'd put good odds that the upcoming vote will be a whipped vote on Conservative benches - and we all know what happens to MPs who defy Dear Leader's orders ...) The amount of money the HarperCon$ are spending on attack ads to slag MPs that they want to bully into voting for C-391 is also telling.

If this is "just a private member's bill", then we might just want to ask Mr. Harper and his goons why they are acting as if it is in fact a government bill?

The point here is not just that this is a government bill, but that Harper is throwing the entire weight of the government front benches behind it. This is not new for Harper. Every time there's an issue that is in the least bit controversial, he has his back bench MPs introduce it through the Private Member's bill. Then, mysteriously, the vast majority of Harper's caucus votes for it ... in particular the front benches. This has happened with other private member's bills, and I'll put money that a careful review of Hansard votes will show that every time a TheoCon "private member's" bill is tabled, the front benches of Harper's team voted for it.

Back bench bills, like prorogation, are part of Harper's bag of tricks - because he knows damn good and well that if he tabled this legislation as government bills, he'd find himself losing a confidence vote rather quickly.

As for the opposition parties - if you haven't figured this out yet, it's time that you got the message and start kicking the HarperCon$ out of Ottawa.

[Update 17/09/10]
Just how much are the HarperCon$ wasting on a supposedly "private members bill"?

Oh yes, as Ms. Taber points out Harper hails from Toronto himself in the first place ... a good point to consider when parsing Baird's asinine comment about "Toronto elites". I wonder what he'd make of the fact that this writer is blogging from the CPoC stronghold of Alberta (and is mysteriously opposed to Bill C-391)?
[/Update]

Theocracy: Bloedow Tries To Mangle The Word

Over at his "Christian Government" blog, we find author Tim Bloedow giving the word Theocracy a rather brutal redefinition.

For some reason, almost everyone who thinks Christian theocracy also thinks stoning of homosexuals as though the two are synonymous. Ms. McDonald pulled this stunt in her book with an unnecessary reference to the late Reconstructionist/theonomic/theocratic leader, Roussas J. Rushdoony. She’s hardly alone in doing so.

Ummm...yes, generally speaking the concept of theocracy is a bad idea in the eyes of those who are traditionally not power holders in society - women, minorities and so on ... we'll come back to this.

And God’s law operates on a foundation of equality before the law, something which today’s humanists claim to do, but really don’t.

Let's talk about that concept of equality for a moment. Last I checked, the Bible - in particular the Old Testament, but the same themes wind their way through the New Testament as well, tends to treat women as chattel rather than as full human beings. Certainly, women are subject to some pretty harsh punishment at the hands of their "husbands" for various infractions - especially adultery, as I recall.

Equality before the law is a much broader concept today than it ever was thought to be in the days that the scripture was being written.

In other words it’s also wrong for politicians to steal. This applies to various forms of taxation as well as confiscation of property, including firearms (let alone without appropriate compensation). But these applications have been pre-determined by the left-wing Establishment as characteristics of the Religious Right, and that trumps the principle of not stealing. You see, messianic state-ism (or humanism/socialism) doesn’t take seriously the principle of equality before the law.

"Messianic state-ism"??? Where the heck did that little gem of idiocy come from? Good grief. Bloedow can't come up with reasoned arguments on anything without inventing terms can he? Since I can't even find a reasonable definition of that term, I'll have to guess that it's an invention of Bloedow's fevered imagination. Perhaps the great irony in that term is the recognition that Bloedow's own professed religion effectively views Christ as its messiah, and he wants to impose his beliefs on the rest of us.

What's really going on here is that Mr. Bloedow doesn't like the fact that there are times when his "freedom of religion" runs up against somebody else's legitimate freedoms. What he wants is to create a hierarchy of freedoms, with his religion at the pinnacle, where he can use it as a club to beat down those that he doesn't like.

Moral relativism is the ethical framework of Humanism. The rule of law historically and logically finds its best expression in the moral absolutism of Christianity. It reflects the spirit of Christian theocracy because it’s fundamental to the Biblical concept of law – God’s law. And, guess what… it’s part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Uh huh. I don't recall seeing anything in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes any particular religion as having significance under Canada's laws. Nor, as Mr. Bloedow seems to be implying, does the Charter speak in the language of absolutes. A reasoned review of the Charter shows that it has in fact created a network of rights and freedoms, none of which is held above the others in any kind of hierarchy.

Yes, the Bible also exposes the fraud of today’s most cherished myth, that sexual sin is victimless behaviour and, yes, the Bible bans many sexual behaviours, declaring some offences to be criminal in nature. (You shall not commit adultery!) Canada only abandoned this vestige of Christian theocracy a few decades ago. And as a result, 10s of thousands of innocent unborn babies are being murdered, hundreds and thousands of our youth are being emotionally scarred and diseased, including with infertility, by STDs because today’s influential adults insist on teaching amoral sex ed. And we have a huge portion of broken homes because no fault divorce laws don’t encourage troubled couples to show some character and work at their relationship a little harder. It’s shocking to see the fear among Christians of confronting the sex cult mentality that drives so much of our public ethics as well as our child-related public policy. But that would be Christian theocracy, and we can’t have that!

Now we come to the crux of Mr. Bloedow's position - and it's the very area that I would have suspected from the start. Mr. Bloedow's idea of theocracy, as well as his cries about how the "secularists are limiting freedom of speech" are rooted in his overweening desire to legislate his moral code and force it upon all.

This is in fact the underlying problem with the Christianist political movements, whether it is the anti-abortion types, the anti-gay zealots or the anti-feminists. They want to use their religion to limit the lives of others. Whether you are a woman, a part of the GLBT sphere or just someone who wants all members of society to contribute to the best of their ability and judgment, you are the people that Bloedow and his allies would limit, imprison or worse - regardless of whether you subscribe to that particular flavour of Christianity.

Yes Mr. Bloedow, women do have the right to control their fertility - and that includes the right to access safe abortion. GLBT people have a right to live their lives in peace so that they might contribute to society as full members of that society, rather than marginalized pariahs as you would them be.

At the end of the day, Mr. Bloedow, your notion of Theocracy is not about improving Canada, it is about imposing your morality upon others - regardless of whether we subscribe to your system of beliefs.

Burning Stupid: Townhall Edition

Via Feministe, I found myself reading Dennis Prager's latest babblings on Townhall.

Ordinarily, I simply dismiss Prager as a basic right-wingnut theocon extremist. But, today, Prager is exceptionally offensive:

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him.

Ummm...I don't even know where to begin with this bunch of ludicrous reasoning. Prager has clearly the sex act with love; and then he's gone one step further by construing the act in terms of possession - specifically the woman's body as her husband's possession.

But, it gets better, and even more illogical:

Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

Okay, I don't doubt for a minute that men and women have very different thinking when it comes to sex. One only has to consider the biological price that a woman stands to have to pay afterwards to figure out that just maybe she's going to be somewhat less enthusiastic at times. However, what Prager derives from this is utterly ridiculous.

In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband.

Uh? Excuse me? Sorry, Prager, but mood is part of the equation. A man who demands sex of his spouse when she is unwilling is committing something we call rape - even when in the confines of marriage. The idea that a woman should be 'willing' anytime her husband demands sex suggests that the man bears no responsibility for being aware of his spouse's emotional needs. Sex is a mutual experience - if one of the parties doesn't want to be there, it becomes rape.

Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband.

What? Since when was the husband's happiness the responsibility of his wife? Last I checked, marriages are a partnership - hopefully one where both partners are in tune with each other's needs.

The utter irresponsibility of these comments suggests Prager's idea of marriage is firmly rooted in the stone age somewhere - you know the same era where an infertile couple was always considered to be the woman's fault. Perhaps this explains why Prager's marriages eventually collapsed in divorce?

Dear Stephane: Show Us You Mean It

Okay, Stephane. You've drawn your line in the sand, now stand by it.

The voters that would naturally back you are now looking for you to show us that you have something resembling a spine to stand up for the rights of Canadian women to control their reproductive destiny and their bodies.

TheoCons: Getting The Facts Wrong

Over at Lifesite, we find the locals getting their knickers in a twist over one of the recipients of an Order of Canada award:

OTTAWA, Ontario, July 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, the same man who flouted Canadian law by illegally "marrying" a homosexual couple in 2001, and who subsequently pushed homosexual "marriage" on Canada through the back-door of the judicial system, has now been awarded the highest honor that can be given to a Canadian civilian.
...The award given under the Conservative Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come as a shock to social conservatives and Catholics since Hawkes, in addition to flouting the law on marriage has attacked the Vatican. In an affidavit before the Supreme Court of Canada Hawkes bashed a Vatican document on homosexual unions and statements by Catholic bishops on the same as "expressions of hatred that should not be tolerated in our society."

Okay, I can get that the people behind Lifesite are TheoCons, and probably don't think too highly of anyone who supports equality rights.

But, you think this bunch of thick-witted fools could actually get their facts straight. First of all, the Order of Canada award is not a "political" award per se - that is to say, the PMO has little or no say in the matter. On the nominations page for the Order of Canada, we find reference to an Advisory Council. While the Governor General's website is somewhat oblique about who is on that council, a bit more digging turns up a rather nice list on Wikipedia:

The task of the Advisory Council is to evaluate the nominations of people to the Order and see if the nominated people are worthy enough to be accepted into the Order. The Governor General of Canada makes the appointments to the Order based on recommendations from the Advisory Council. The Secretary General to the Advisory Council announces the decision of the Advisory Council to the Canada Gazette and to the public about any appointments and dismissals from the Order.

The Advisory Council, which is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, includes the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Chairperson of the Canada Council for the Arts, the President of the Royal Society of Canada, and the Chairperson of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. As well, five members of the Order are part of the Council for a maximum three-year term. If the nomination involves a non-Canadian, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be invited by the Advisory Council to evaluate the nomination.

The current members of the Advisory Council are:

1. The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada (Chair)
2. Dr. Patricia Baird, O.C., O.B.C.
3. Dr. Patricia A. Demers, President, the Royal Society of Canada
4. Mr. Tom Jackson, O.C.
5. Ms. Karen Kain, C.C., Chair, the Canada Council for the Arts
6. Ms. Judith A. LaRocque, C.V.O., FRHSC (hon) Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage
7. Dr. Daurene E. Lewis, C.M.
8. Mr. Kevin G. Lynch, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet
9. M. L. Jacques Ménard, O.C.
10. Mr. J.E. (Ted) Newall, O.C.
11. Ms. Bonnie M. Patterson, Chairman of the Board, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

Looking at this list, one might imagine that although the politicians have some influence in the process, it's fairly limited. It's highly unlikely that Harper's minions had much to do with Rev. Hawkes' nomination in the first place, and by the looks of the structure of the advisory council, would have had a hard time squashing it on the basis of whatever petty partisan arguments they might have.

If there is a fundamental point to be made, it is that the Order of Canada is not, and should not become a vehicle for partisan politics at any time. It is external to the topics of daily political squabbles, and to drag it into the realm of the 'House of Commons' politics is somewhere in the realm of offensive to the very idea of the Order itself.