Curtailing basic civil liberties is radioactive across the political spectrum — and that’s a good thing
In an interview with CBC News on Wednesday evening, Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath put an end — briefly — to weeks of waffling and unambiguously opposed mandatory vaccination for education workers: “Unlike (Liberal Leader Steven) Del Duca, I don’t take lightly people’s charter rights,” she said — Del Duca having recently come out in favour of mandatory vaccination for frontline health-care and education workers, and vaccine passports for “non-essential” activities.
Howls of protest ensued, not least from Northern Ontario NDP MP Charlie Angus, who called her comments “idiocy.” The howlers won. Not only did Horwath apologize on Thursday (“I regret the comment. I was wrong”), and about-face (“I fully support mandatory vaccination in health care and education”), she apologized for not changing her mind earlier.
Judging by comments on social media, many are sure they know how Horwath came a cropper: She was pandering to the teachers’ and nurses’ unions, which generally oppose imposing just about anything on their members. That could be part of it. The Canadian Teachers Federation has explicitly opposed mandatory vaccination, for example. But the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has actually come out in favour, as did the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association this week.
Many detractors of premiers Doug Ford, Jason Kenney and Scott Moe are equally sure they know exactly why they oppose mandatory vaccinations for key workers and domestic vaccine passports: They’re trying to appease the anti-vaxxers and extremist libertarians inhabiting their parties’ base.
Again, there might be something to that. There’s no question public opinion is sharply divided. Léger’s latest poll for the Association for Canadian Studies found 72 per cent of Ontarians and British Columbians supported requiring “vaccine passports” to board an airplane, and 75 per cent of Atlantic Canadians, but just 50 per cent of Albertans.
From a higher-level view, however, it’s not nearly so simple. B.C.’s NDP government “hasn’t ruled out” mandatory vaccination for health-care workers, but nor has it ruled it in. You need proof of vaccination to travel to Tory-governed Prince Edward Island and Manitoba, or to Liberal-governed Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. But none of those provinces yet requires it in restaurants, for example. With an election forthcoming on Aug. 17, all three parties in Nova Scotia have ruled out mandatory vaccinations for any workers, Global News reported this week.
On Thursday, Quebec Premier François Legault announced the province’s vaccine passport system would soon be activated. But vaccination still isn’t mandatory for health-care workers, despite the opposition Liberals’ demands.
“There has to be an ethical consideration with this. People have the right to get vaccinated or not,” Nova Scotia Liberal Leader Iain Rankin told Global News, echoing Horwath.
“The idea of certificates of vaccination for domestic use to decide who can go to a concert or who can go to a particular restaurant … does bring in questions of equity, questions of fairness,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said way back in March.
Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley deplores just about everything about Kenney’s performance, but she hasn’t proposed mandatory vaccination or vaccine passports as an alternative.
It’s almost like something is going on here that transcends partisan affiliation and bog-standard pandering, and I think I know what it is: Like it or not — some refuse even to believe it — English Canada’s conception of the most basic civil liberties has more in common with the United States than with Europe, and even with our anglospheric cousins.
Among the provinces, only Quebec implemented a blanket curfew. Even the U.S. can beat that: statewide curfews of varying severity existed in Ohio, North Carolina, California and Arizona. Most if not all countries in Western and Eastern Europe had nationwide lockdowns, the Scandinavian countries, Finland and Britain being rare exceptions.
Last week, the Australian army mobilized in Sydney’s poorer, immigrant-rich western suburbs — enforcing quarantine orders door-to-door and demanding people out and about prove they’re no further than five kilometres from home. That’s literally inconceivable in Canada. At a guess, 95 per cent of Canadians who breezily suggested “doing what Australia did” would have been outraged had it happened.
Police in Britain announced this week they had arrested 11 people in connection with the vile racist abuse aimed at England soccer players Bukayo Saka and Marcus Rashford after they missed penalty kicks in the European Cup final. It’s not clear what the accused are alleged to have said, but the law under which they are charged bans “grossly offensive” messages. The bar for criminal speech in Canada is so much higher, the Brits would need binoculars to see it.
I would choose vaccine passports over further blanket restrictions in a heartbeat. But for at least 98 years out of every hundred, this default to individual liberty is a very healthy instinct. If it hampered Canada’s pandemic response, we can nevertheless say we suffered fewer cases than any comparable non-island nation save Norway and Finland, and fewer deaths than the same countries plus Denmark.
In terms of government, it has been far from a parade-worthy performance. Parts of the country (hello from Ontario!) have been locked down longer than just about anywhere in the world. But it could have been so, so much worse: at least we could go for a walk after 6 p.m. We should recognize why it wasn’t worse, and be at least somewhat thankful for it.
• Email: cselley@nationalpost.com | Twitter:
CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.
The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.
The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”
“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”
Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”
He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.
Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.
About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.
Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.
Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.
Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.
Flip-flopping on Florida
On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”
But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”
Trump on vetoing a national ban
Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.
During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”
This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.
Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”
‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban
Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.
He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.
In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.
At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.
Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women
In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.
“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”
Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.
Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.
Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.
IVF and contraception
In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.
In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”
“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.
Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.
Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.
During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.
Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.
As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.
Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.
___
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)
REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.
Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.
Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.
During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.
Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.
Election day is Oct. 28.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Defying Convention to Deepen Connections: Booking.com’s 8 Travel Predictions for 2025
In The Rings: Curling Canada still looking for Canadian Curling Trials title sponsor
After hurricane, with no running water, residents organize to meet a basic need
N.B. election debate: Tory leader forced to defend record on gender policy, housing
Alberta government shifts continuing care from Health to Seniors Ministry
Buhai, Green and Shin lead in South Korea after 8-under 64s in first round
Manitoba government halts school building plan, says other methods will be found
‘Significant overreach’: Ontario municipalities slam province over bike lane rules
