党魁之争白热化，保守党元老扔了一篇扒皮文

ittop · 发表于 2017-4-5 22:58

本帖最后由值班超版于 2017-4-7 12:58 编辑

Maurice Vellacott这位保守派元老是来自萨省的前保守党国会议员，国会无党派尊重生命核心党团的领袖，她的文章清晰地指出Andrew并不是像他声称的那样是个真正的社会保守派。

Andrew不是真保守派，就竞选而言有些人认为不算是个缺点，因为有人就喜欢他模棱两可的立场。但忽悠不明真相的吃瓜群众说他自己是真正的坚定的保守派，这就有点不厚道了。当下很多支持他的人里，有相当一部分是道听途说，把他当成real conservative的代言人，以为他的立场和Brad与Pierre是基本一样的。昨天在群聊里发现，有些大张旗鼓支持Andrew的人，竟然不知道他保守党讨论认可同性婚姻的议题上站在支持的一方。其实真相何至于此，他不仅高调支持，还利用主持人的身份偏袒支持方，减少反对方的发言机会。

我们有支持任何一位候选人的自由，但前提是我们对所支持的人，得有个大致准确的判断。当年投票给土豆的那批人，如今的感受大不相同：有些人是得偿所愿正中下怀，有些人悔不当初肠子都悔青。为什么？咱都得好好想想。

当然，即便认清了Andrew的真实立场和品性，我如果决定在选票上不止填两个人，恐怕也还是得给他放在相当靠前的位置，谁让其他那11个候选人更不靠谱呢。但至少我清楚地知道这是在除了Brad和Pierre之外的12个矮子里拔将军，对他不会有不切实际的期待。同时，Andrew最近的竞选文宣里表现出的对中国的不友善态度，也让我开始考虑只填Brad和Pierre两个人的可能性。

以下是保守党元老信函原文：

An important message from Maurice Vellacott
Former Chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus

Dear ###,

My name is Maurice Vellacott, the former (retired 2015) Member of Parliament for the Saskatchewan riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin and long-time leader of Canada’s non-partisan Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.

Words have consequences, which is why I will NOT be voting for Andrew Scheer in our party's upcoming leadership election.

Last May, at the Conservative Party Policy Convention in Vancouver, Andrew defended the decision to remove support of marriage as a union between one man and one woman from our party's policy declaration, calling the policy "anachronistic" (old fashioned). According to Campaign Life, Andrew "caved under pressure from homosexual activists and their media allies, to abandon his principles on marriage and the natural family."

In September, at a press conference to announce his candidacy for the CPC Leadership, Andrew made other disturbing comments. He told reporters that his government would follow the Harper policy of not reopening the abortion debate, stating that his objective as leader would be to "unify the party." When pressed to explain, Andrew repeated that as party leader or Prime Minister he would not reopen questions of abortion or same-sex marriage, stating "the caucus and party have already agreed those are settled."

But this is simply untrue. Delegates at the Vancouver Convention may have voted to remove support for traditional marriage from our party’s policy declaration, but those very same delegates voted in favour of a ban on gender-selection abortions which target baby girls just because they're girls, as well as legislation to punish those who injure or kill an unborn child during a violent attack on his or her mother.

Contrary to Andrew's assertion, rank and file members of our party clearly do not consider all issues that touch on abortion are "settled."

What about allowing backbench Conservative MPs to bring forward private member motions and bills that touch on abortion or marriage? After reminding reporters of his own ruling as Speaker that MPs have a right to speak in the House regardless of whether their leader gives them permission, Andrew went on to say that "it's not good for the team to do things like that. It doesn't advance the cause of the things that we believe in. It doesn't advance the cause of the party to be focusing on those things that even conservatives can't agree on."

Andrew's statements that pro-life legislation may be unconstitutional are also wrong. The Supreme Court itself found that there was no Constitutional right to abortion in its landmark 1988 ruling in R. v. Morgentaler. On the contrary, the Court upheld the right of Parliament to legislate limits on abortion and explicitly invited it to do so.

I fear that too many activists are being "too clever by a half" in this campaign. In political life, we call it "drinking the Kool-Aid." These activists are close enough to the political scene to convince themselves and others of their political savvy, but in reality, they are not close enough to know of, let alone understand, many of the more intricate workings of caucus and Parliament, and the subtle ways by which they are manipulated and MPs controlled.

It's all very nice to talk - as activists like Alissa Golob and her friends do - of getting a majority of Conservative pro-life and social conservative MPs elected to Parliament. Initiatives like hers are commendable. But even if pro-life and social conservative Members represent a majority within the Conservative Caucus, pro-life bills and motions would still not pass given that most Liberal and NDP MPs will vote against them.

To be successful, bills need to be initiated by Government or, in the case of private Member's bills, supported by the Government. That takes leadership from the top, something Andrew has repeatedly said he will not provide. Anything less will be a green light for advisors, staff and even some self-described pro-life MPs to pressure other caucus members into opposing pro-life initiatives. I know. As leader of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus I saw this happen again and again.

As to those "social conservative" MPs endorsing Andrew, my candid assessment based on personal experience is that many of them are "fair weather" social conservatives, worried more about their own promotion than they are about defending traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn. They rarely, if ever, fly their so-con" flag very high having discovered that the way to advance in the Party is by staying under the radar on crucial social conservative issues.

I believe Andrew Scheer has already drunk the "Kool-Aid." His repeated characterization of the pro-life cause as "divisive" undermines social conservatives while strengthening our opponents, particularly because people believe that he himself is a committed social conservative.

Social Conservatives who believe Andrew Scheer will "deliver the goods" once elected should think again. We've all heard that line before, including from Stephen Harper and, most recently, Patrick Brown in Ontario. In reality, there is no secret plan. Andrew's public pronouncements today will govern his conduct later.

That is why I am urging all social conservatives who support life to mark Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, in whatever order they prefer, as their first and second choices, on the mail-in ballot for our Conservative Party leadership selection.

Sincerely,

Maurice Vellacott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtZEivIUyLY （The Real Andrew）

qingyuan · 发表于 2017-4-6 10:46

只选这俩个人Brad和Pierre，其他人不选。

壮男子 · 发表于 2017-4-6 12:15

狗咬狗

账号		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

[时事热评] 党魁之争白热化，保守党元老扔了一篇扒皮文