Erin O'Toole is selling a plan he seems to understand back to front. And that is distressingly rare in Canadian politics: http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...trail-crystal-clear-answers-from-a-politician
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole used an interesting word this week, at least twice, while answering questions from reporters. The word was “yes.” It’s a simple word, but Canadian politicians will often turn rhetorical cartwheels to avoid using it (or its cousin, “no”). When a reporter concludes a question with “yes or no?” it’s a near-guarantee the response won’t contain either, let alone begin with it.
O’Toole has been asked repeatedly this week whether his support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion conflicts with his platform pledge to “protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.” His reasonable response: a “balanced approach” can accommodate both at the same time. Canadian society balances all kinds of competing rights every day.
On Friday in a very wet Winnipeg, though, he was asked directly whether a doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion would have to refer a woman to someone else willing to consult or perform it. “Yes,” O’Toole said, “they will have to refer, because the right to those services exists across the country.” Crystal clear.
Twice earlier in the week, O’Toole was asked if he would be willing as prime minister to accept more than the 20,000 Afghan refugees the government has committed to resettling. Twice O’Toole said he really didn’t care about the number, but rather the people and their plights. It was a good answer. If Canada were as generous and welcoming to refugees as it likes to claim, it might not set quotas in the first place. But journalists like to nail down numbers, and on the third try O’Toole obliged: “Yes,” he would admit more than the 20,000....The rest at the above LINK...
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole used an interesting word this week, at least twice, while answering questions from reporters. The word was “yes.” It’s a simple word, but Canadian politicians will often turn rhetorical cartwheels to avoid using it (or its cousin, “no”). When a reporter concludes a question with “yes or no?” it’s a near-guarantee the response won’t contain either, let alone begin with it.
O’Toole has been asked repeatedly this week whether his support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion conflicts with his platform pledge to “protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.” His reasonable response: a “balanced approach” can accommodate both at the same time. Canadian society balances all kinds of competing rights every day.
On Friday in a very wet Winnipeg, though, he was asked directly whether a doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion would have to refer a woman to someone else willing to consult or perform it. “Yes,” O’Toole said, “they will have to refer, because the right to those services exists across the country.” Crystal clear.
Twice earlier in the week, O’Toole was asked if he would be willing as prime minister to accept more than the 20,000 Afghan refugees the government has committed to resettling. Twice O’Toole said he really didn’t care about the number, but rather the people and their plights. It was a good answer. If Canada were as generous and welcoming to refugees as it likes to claim, it might not set quotas in the first place. But journalists like to nail down numbers, and on the third try O’Toole obliged: “Yes,” he would admit more than the 20,000....The rest at the above LINK...
