“In an analysis on Canadian Alliance leadership candidates penned for the
organization’s Web site, their organization (Campaign Life Coalition)
launches a startling attack on several members of Tom Long’s campaign team.
Not based on policy differences, or even political style, but on sexual
preferences.”
Sheldon Alberts, in a National Post column, Friday May 26, 2000.
The above statement is simply not true. Sheldon Alberts assessment of the Campaign Life Coalition
analysis of the Canadian Alliance Leadership race is wildly inaccurate and is typical of much of
the media sensationalism in its coverage of this complicated issue.
Did Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) launch a “startling attack on several members of Tom Long’s
campaign team.” No, it did not. CLC did provide an analysis of Tom Long’s public statements on
life issues. It also presented a possible explanation for Long’s flip-flop on social issues:
Long, who was once pro-life, and is no longer, has surrounded himself with well-known and
outspoken social liberals who are now running his campaign for leader of the Canadian Alliance.
Is it true that the CLC analysis was “Not based on policy differences, or even political style,
but on sexual preferences,” as Sheldon Alberts suggests? No, this is not true. Of the five
social liberals mentioned, the “sexual preferences” of only two were noted. One was a former
key advisor to Premier Harris, who is now the business partner of the other, Jaime Watt, a
nationally known homosexual-rights activist and lobbyist. Neither was “outed” by CLC. Both
proudly proclaim their orientation. None of the social liberals on the Long campaign were
personally “attacked”, including Watt.
Is it relevant to reveal that the Long campaign is being directed by activists like Watt, who
successfully lobbied governments in Ottawa and Toronto on behalf of the homosexual-rights
movement, with the resulting sweeping legislative changes to dozens of laws and regulations?
Of course it’s relevant. Particularly since the Long campaign has an excellent chance of seizing
control of the Canadian Alliance, the only political party in the House of Commons that provided
substantial opposition to Bill C-23, the Liberal bill enthusiastically supported by the
homosexual-rights movement and many of Long’s key advisors.
And is it relevant that Long’s campaign manager, Leslie Noble, is an outspoken social liberal who
has told social conservatives that they “have no place in a modern conservative party”?
This is not only relevant, but very important. Particularly since Long’s two main rivals for the
leadership, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day, are both pro-life and pro-family, as are many of
their supporters, as are many Canadian Alliance MPs.
What will be the future role of Manning, Day and dozens of Canadian Alliance MPs in a party
directed by Leslie Noble, who believes that there is no place for them in her party?
There is already broad agreement in the Canadian Alliance on many issues of importance to social
conservatives, including opposition to Bill C-23. There will of course be some differences.
Everyone is entitled to lobby for issues important to them; including the homosexual-rights
movement; including people who are pro-life and pro-family; including Preston Manning,
Stockwell Day and Tom Long.
In the National Post of May 26, Tom Long is quoted as saying: “I don’t believe for a minute
that this country needs another party that is going to divide us. I think we need leadership
that is going to pull us together.”
The truth is that Long’s campaign is dominated by people who plan to quit the Canadian Alliance
if he does not win. Is this not divisive? On the other hand, if he does win, we can expect
that these same people will not only stay, but will run the party as they see fit. How will
Long’s people treat MPs and ordinary party members who are social conservatives, considering
the view that there is “no place for them in a modern conservative party?” Will this pull
the party together?
Preston Manning, when asked about this controversy on May 25, expressed his view that “personal
attacks in campaigns generally are not wise and particularly when you are endeavouring to build
a bigger, broader alliance.”
Campaign Life Coalition agrees. CLC would not launch a personal attack on someone because of
their chosen lifestyle, or for any other reason. The May 8th LifeSite analysis did not
constitute a personal attack. What it did do was provide an analysis of where the various
candidates stood on issues of importance to social conservatives. The controversy surrounding
the May 8 CLC analysis and the misleading coverage by a few columnists and reporters provides
another illustration of how important it is for socially conservative organizations to put
forward their own case and not rely on politicians or supposedly “objective” journalists to be
fair and truthful.
See May Interim analysis of the Candidates
http://www.lifesite.net/interim/2000/may/01alliance.html
The May 8th CLC analysis
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/may/000508a.html
Michael Coren’s article on this issue
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/may/000504a.html
Hear Michael Coren’s broadcast today on The National Post
http://www.lifesite.net/coren/ra/052600.rm
The media coverage involving Campaign Life Coalition/LifeSite was coast to coast. Here are some
of the articles.
National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000526/300186&s2=national&s3=politics
http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000526/300190&s2=national&s3=politics
http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000526/300189&s2=nati
Globe and Mail
http://www.globeandmail.ca/gam/National/20000526/ULONGN.html
Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/000526/4165769.html
Calgary Sun
http://www.canoe.ca/CalgaryNews/cs.cs-05-26-0021.html
Edmonton Sun
http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-05-26-0037.html
Both the Vancouver Province and Vancouver Sun carried the CP piece
http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Alliance-Long.html