The Conservative Party of Canada caucus decreed in a Feb. 3 vote that former Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer will not be allowed back into the new party. Last November, Spencer was fired as Alliance family-issues critic and suspended from caucus after publication of a Vancouver Sun interview that Spencer says was reported wildly out of context.
Following the new party caucus’s rejection of his request for reinstatement as a member in good standing, Spencer, MP for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, explained that he only temporarily withdrew from the Canadian Alliance caucus on the understanding that he would be allowed back in after he was provided sufficient time to clarify his comments to the Sun.
Spencer further declares that the comments in question were “extremely misrepresented by Peter O’Neil of the Vancouver Sun, resulting from my informal conversation with him on Nov. 25, 2003.
“Every form of media put their own exaggerated spin on what they thought were my comments,” says Spencer. “The media and the talk shows went to every extreme to paint me as a bigot and a fool. Many headlines were highly sensationalized and were in fact directly opposite to some of my quotes actually contained in the articles. The few factual points I intended to make were completely lost in the media feeding frenzy.”
Spencer says he was coerced by the Alliance Party to sign an apology, “which was not one of clarity,” and ordered to accept a communications strategy that silenced both him and his staff.
“In short,” says Spencer, “I was muzzled and unable to make any comments to refute the media headlines and talk shows that had begun to take on a life of their own without fair consideration of the facts … I was allowed no defence … Free speech, freedom of religion and the right of an elected member of Parliament to freely express his views, and the views of many of his constituents, have lost out to political correctness.”
The motion requesting reinstatement in the Conservative Party clarifies that the Sun’s O’Neil somehow secured a copy of a private Nov. 5, 2003 e-mail sent by Spencer to a colleague’s constituent. The e-mail also contained an attachment of an email that had been sent to all Alliance members, being a copy of a letter sent to a senator by Stephen Gray, expressing his opposition to Bill C-250, wherein Gray quoted a Feb. 15, 1987 op-ed that had appeared in the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News and was reprinted in the February 15-21 1987 U.S. Congressional Record.
Spencer contends that the core of his discussion with O’Neil was based on that attachment, and that he never said homosexuality should be placed back in the Criminal Code. He acknowledges that under severe badgering from “a predatory member of the media,” he emphatically denied that he would ever bring forth legislation to re-criminalize homosexuality, but on the fourth repetition of the same question, says he conceded that given his personal moral convictions, he would hypothetically support legislation introduced by his caucus or a colleague that would have the effect of reverting back to the pre 1969 Criminal Code. However, as the Victoria Times-Colonist reported, “Spencer said he wouldn’t want homosexuals to ever go to jail as a result of their choice to engage in homosexual acts. I wouldn’t even suggest that there be a penalty.”
Spencer acknowledges that he made a serious error of judgment in assuming that his discussions with O’Neil were private communication, notwithstanding that O’Neil gave no indication that Spencer was being interviewed for a story – only that he was seeking clarification regarding the information referred to in the constituent’s email.
Larry Spencer’s timing was certainly terrible, which he freely conceded in his application for reinstatement, and some of his statements were ill-considered and-or naive, which he also admits, but there is a sizable constituency of Canadians who believe he wasn’t entirely mistaken. Spencer notes that his office has received hundreds of letters on the subject, a majority of which are strongly supportive of his views and extremely upset with former Alliance leader Stephen Harper’s harsh and hasty judgement of Spencer, which has undermined the trust that many social conservatives had in him as party leader.
Unhappily, Spencer’s reasonable and believable explanation of what really happened in this affair was stonewalled by a majority of the Conservative caucus, thus compounding the injustice he has suffered by many magnitudes. If the new Conservative Party is so afraid of appearing “intolerant” that it is prepared to remain complicit in covering up facts, and sacrifice one of its own at the altar of political correctness, it calls into question both the party’s courage and integrity, both as individuals and as a political party seeking a mandate to govern the country.
Charles Moore, a former Interim columnist, is a political and cultural affairs commentator in Sherbrooke, N.S.
