Stephen Taylor

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.

Ipsos released a post-debate poll today indicating that the Conservative Party of Canada is on the favourable side of a statistical tie as the numbers indicate that that party has 32% compared to 29% for the Liberals and 16% for the NDP.

The Conservatives seems to be stalled, however, as Liberals continue to fall. Perhaps the Conservative momentum after the debates has been balanced by false negative Liberal attack ads.

The Liberals are at their lowest level of support as they have dropped from 41% from when the election began to the current low at 29%.

It’s still aparent that it’s anyone’s election, however, Paul Martin seems to be riding a downward trend as Stephen Harper needs to present reasons to vote for a Conservative government rather than why one shouldn’t vote Liberal.

Stephen Harper won the debate. Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Harper used Paul Martin as a punching-bag tonight and often times the two on the left did the dirty work for Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister-in-waiting attacked Martin when he needed to and Jack and Gilles backed him up. Stephen Harper won the debate because Paul Martin lost.

Paul Martin looked ill and stumbled around and looked defeated in his post-debate interview. The man looked exhausted.

Harper played the boring and non-threatening man again and Paul Martin’s false attacks on the Conservative leader were effectively rebuffed by Stephen Harper and I believe that the public believed him.

Defining moments of the debate:

Paul Martin was weak when he responded to Layton continuous attacks by saying “Did your advisors tell you to talk all the time?”

Jack Layton kept talking and talking and Paul Martin turned to Harper and asked “Didn’t you have a question for me, Mr. Harper?” Harper ignored Martin’s plea for a lifeline from Jack Layton and let Layton ravage him some more.

Layton accused Paul Martin of arrogance for saying that only two parties can form the government.

Harper slammed Layton for blurring the lines between private delivery and privatization calling them one and same. Maybe he read my post.

Jack Layton co-opted the Green Party policy (taking advantage of the absence of Jim Harris) on investigating the causes of disease instead of just investing more in healthcare.

Stephen Harper said that he and his government will not table legislation that will change a woman’s right to choose.

Martin looked like he desperately wanted to take on Stephen Harper but Jack Layton wouldn’t let him often times in the debate.

Harper to Martin: “our troops had to hitch a ride to Afghanistan, they had to hitch a ride!”