Tory approach to Jewish voters angers Grits

[GenerationW]

First of all, even in Thornhill Peter Kent won with less than 50% of the vote - i.e. less than a majority. Meanwhile ridings like Mount Royal, Westmount-Ville Marie, St. Pauls and Willowdale the Liberals won by very, very wide margins and Outremont and Trinity-Spadina were won by the NDP. It seems to me that the Jewish community is far less monolithic than Harper seems to think.

That sounds about right, but the Jewish vote is approx. 8% in Willowdale and Outremont, and only 4% in Trinity-Spadina, so even a monolithic Jewish vote in those ridings would only go so far. 30 or 40 years ago -- different story.

 

[Disparishun]

edit: I'm certain the pamphlet was dreamed up by some Jewish folks in the conservative party. Who else would touch the topic?

About a year and a half ago, news coverage indicated that the Tories had launched an ethnic outreach program targeting nine ethnic groups in particular: Koreans, Chinese (more often than not Cantonese-speaking émigrés from Hong Kong), Jews, South Asians, Persians, Poles, Jamaicans, Filipinos, and Vietnamese.

This is entirely consistent with that program.

then i hope you're not a member of any abrahamic faith because this is exactly what you believe with original sin, that people are born guilty for actions not of their own.

No. Original sin is a Christian doctrine. However, it has nothing to do with Jewish thought or tradition. In fact, it is likely antithetical to it.

Furthermore you can't use the result in Thornhill as a proxy for the national Jewish vote. It is an affluent 905 riding with a large religious Jewish vote which is much more small-"c" conservative. It has a very specific Jewish demographic very different from say, St. Paul's.

I don't know much about proxies and statistical sampling of voters, but the above statement is incorrect.

If anything, it is the specific Jewish demographic of St. Paul's that is monolithic -- secular Anglo-Ashkenazi non-immigrants from relatively affluent background. Thornhill's Jewish demographic is far more diverse. For instance, Thornhill is the main magnet for Jewish immigration, particularly from Israel, Russia and France. It includes a much broader spectrum of income levels, first languages, national origins, religiosity, family size, and so forth.

As to the so-called "large religious Jewish vote", I suspect demographics would show that the above is certainly a minority of Thornhill's Jewish population -- and, for that matter, even a minority of Thornhill-Vaughan's Jewish population. I don't have access to demographic statistics of this kind and don't even know whether they exist. But I do have pretty good experience with it. Seriously, come up and visit us some time. If the above is truly what you believe to be true, then you will be astonished.

I don't people are all of a sudden going to decide that they were OK with the Liberals last year but will change their mind because the Tories sent out a flyer reminding them of Iggy's comments and how Irwin Cotler "willingly attend the anti-Semitic Durban conference" (so did the CJC, Bnai Brith and Simon Weisenthal Center!)

No attack on Irwin Cotler will ever get anyone in the Jewish community to switch their vote. I think I threw our flyer out -- I usually toss that stuff, and did not pay attention to it -- but it would have to have had more to it than that to work very well.

That sounds about right, but the Jewish vote is approx. 8% in Willowdale and Outremont, and only 4% in Trinity-Spadina, so even a monolithic Jewish vote in those ridings would only go so far. 30 or 40 years ago -- different story.

There were heavily Jewish pockets of Willowdale and, to a much lesser extent, Outremont 30 or 40 years ago (and still are). But overall? No Jew has ever been elected in either Willowdale or Outremont. In fact, I'm not sure any major political party has ever run a Jewish candidate in either of those ridings.

 

[King of Kensington]

I don't know much about proxies and statistical sampling of voters, but the above statement is incorrect.

If anything, it is the specific Jewish demographic of St. Paul's that is monolithic -- secular Anglo-Ashkenazi non-immigrants from relatively affluent background. Thornhill's Jewish demographic is far more diverse. For instance, Thornhill is the main magnet for Jewish immigration, particularly from Israel, Russia and France. It includes a much broader spectrum of income levels, first languages, national origins, religiosity, family size, and so forth.

As to the so-called "large religious Jewish vote", I suspect demographics would show that the above is certainly a minority of Thornhill's Jewish population -- and, for that matter, even a minority of Thornhill-Vaughan's Jewish population. I don't have access to demographic statistics of this kind and don't even know whether they exist. But I do have pretty good experience with it. Seriously, come up and visit us some time. If the above is truly what you believe to be true, then you will be astonished.

I guess I didn't get my point across very well. I'm not suggesting that we should look at St. Paul's and use that as a proxy for the Jewish vote instead. Rather I'm saying that it's ridiculous to make bold generalizations based on the result in one riding - like Thornhill is 1/3 Jewish, the Conservatives won Thornhill, therefore the Jewish vote is majority Conservative. How Jews vote in Thornhill doesn't necessarily tell us much about Jewish voting behavior in St. Paul's (or vice-versa).

There are precious few studies of Jewish voting behavior in Canada though I do know of one sample of about 500 from 2006. The percentage of Jews who voted Tory was quite a bit lower than the percentage of the vote they received in Thornhill that year. Send me a PM if you want the details.

An interesting paradox of the Jewish liberal tradition is that it is the more "Jewish" one is, the less liberal. Thus the Orthodox vote overwhelmingly Republican in the US and Conservative here. And Reform and secular Jews are more politically liberal than the "centrist" Conservative branch (not to be confused with political conservatism of course). Not surprisingly the more religious Jews tend to be more demographically concentrated, with virtually all Orthodox in the GTA in three ridings and Conservative Jews being much more concentrated than Reform and secular. This would result in a riding like Thornhill having above average Orthodox and Conservative populations, and add in the fact that people in 905-type outer suburbs are more conservative than more urban ridings, and this largely explains why the Jewish vote there would be more conservative than elsewhere.

 

[Disparishun]

I guess I didn't get my point across very well. I'm not suggesting that we should look at St. Paul's and use that as a proxy for the Jewish vote instead. Rather I'm saying that it's ridiculous to make bold generalizations based on the result in one riding - like Thornhill is 1/3 Jewish, the Conservatives won Thornhill, therefore the Jewish vote is majority Conservative. How Jews vote in Thornhill doesn't necessarily tell us much about Jewish voting behavior in St. Paul's (or vice-versa).

Right. St. Paul's would no doubt be a poor proxy for Jewish voting behaviour. I was, rather, addressing the incorrect statement that, compared to St. Paul's, Thornhill is an affluent 905 riding that has a very specific Jewish demographic. In fact, it has a very diverse Jewish demographic, both in terms of income levels and all other social indicators -- more so than nearly any other riding in Canada, I would think.

An interesting paradox of the Jewish liberal tradition is that it is the more "Jewish" one is, the less liberal.

On the aggregate this is true, although certainly not a paradox -- traditionalists are almost always less liberal. In fact, it's almost a truism. The stronger one identifies with European secular post-Enlightenment ideas, the stronger one identifies with them. Certainly the Reform movement within Judaism was created as an accommodation with European liberalism, and the Conservative movement created as an attempt to recuperate those who might not otherwise embrace same.

This would result in a riding like Thornhill having above average Orthodox and Conservative populations, and add in the fact that people in 905-type outer suburbs are more conservative than more urban ridings, and this largely explains why the Jewish vote there would be more conservative than elsewhere.

It is clear that, compared to St. Paul's, Jews affiliated with the Orthodox and Conservative movements, and traditional Jews not affiliated with any of these Ashkenazi movements, are' overrepresented in Thornhill. Compared with Outremont, similarly, Jews affiliated with Orthodox-style movements are vastly underrepresented in Thornhill, and with Conservative-style movements overrepresented, etc.

So, I don't know that there is a "norm" anywhere, but I would think that Thornhill's Jewish population is more representative of the various strands of Jewish life than a comparatively monolithic group such as that in, say, Trinity-St. Paul's. Certainly, I would absolutely think that the Jewish vote for the Conservative party in St. Pauls would have been very low indeed.

 

[King of Kensington]

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. My main issue was with making a sweeping generalization based on the result in one riding, even if the riding is diverse.

 

[adma]

There were heavily Jewish pockets of Willowdale and, to a much lesser extent, Outremont 30 or 40 years ago (and still are). But overall? No Jew has ever been elected in either Willowdale or Outremont. In fact, I'm not sure any major political party has ever run a Jewish candidate in either of those ridings.

Off the top of my head, Norm Gardner was the PC candidate in Willowdale in 1997. (Whether the PCs were a "major political party" in 1997 is another question entirely.)

 

[Disparishun]

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. My main issue was with making a sweeping generalization based on the result in one riding, even if the riding is diverse.

I agree. Noone can be in favour of sweeping generalizations.

Off the top of my head, Norm Gardner was the PC candidate in Willowdale in 1997. (Whether the PCs were a "major political party" in 1997 is another question entirely.)

Fair enough -- we have our exception, then!

 

[urbandreamer]

Ultimately, I think Jews, just like anyone, like to pick a winner. The average Canadian, even hardcore Liberals, looked at Dion in the last election as a loser. They voted accordingly.

Every decade or so, a party gets too comfy and blows it. I'm expecting the Liberals will win again someday--with Jews, Muslims, and Presbyterians along for the ride.

 

[King of Kensington]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/731572--speaker-rebukes-tories-for-damaging-flyers

 

[newuser2k9]

I think everyone here has been, to a certain degree, correct. There is no such thing as a fully-fledged Jewish vote any more, as Jews have become less and less religious and more and more splintered/integrated into Canadian society since the Postwar Era. Neither Thornhill or affluent Forest Hill (St. Paul's) offers a complete picture of the Jewish vote in English Canada (and I stress this - Quebec will always be more Left than the surrounding provinces), but that being said they do offer interesting glimpses of the bigger picture, due to the degree of representation.

Not very many people are ever one issue voters, but the Conservative stance on Israel has been a most likely a persuading factor. Israel has come back into the world spotlight with two major conflicts since Harper took office, giving him plenty of chance to flex his muscle and wring out a few more votes. Other factors, such as the positive state of our economy until 2008, and thereafter the positive state of the economy versus the rest of the world, have no doubt increased his popularity among the community.

The times have played into the Conservatives' hands, but they have also proven themselves committed to the Jewish community, whether one agrees with their policies or not. I would bet that the numbers have far improved since the 2006 polling. The past few years have proven Conservative political strategy successful (case in point - we view Dion as a 'loser' politician), and I cannot see why that would not carry to their efforts with the Jewish vote.

 

[Roy G Biv]

ThereThe past few years have proven Conservative political strategy successful (case in point - we view Dion as a 'loser' politician), and I cannot see why that would not carry to their efforts with the Jewish vote.

Exactly, it's the average voter who should be slapped for putting up with this nonsense. It's not like the government will abstain from Rovian politics because of moral or ethical reasons....

 

[King of Kensington]

Junior Foreign Affairs minister Peter Kent is suggesting Canada would rush to Israel's defence in a military confrontation, telling a Toronto publication that “an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada.”

But he later declined to say whether this means that Canada would automatically declare war on an aggressor attacking Israel.

In an interview published Feb. 12 in Shalom Life – discussing the threat from Iran – Mr. Kent said: “Prime Minister Harper has made it quite clear for some time now and has regularly stated that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada.”

Mr. Kent's statement appears to be evidence the Harper government is shifting to an even stronger pro-Israel stance.

His wording – which goes beyond Mr. Harper's previous comments on Israel – evokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty which says “an armed attack against one or more [parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, dismissed the idea he was altering Canadian foreign policy, saying his comments paraphrased what Stephen Harper has said before.

Mr. Kent declined to say whether this means Canada is ready to join a war against a country that attacked Israel.

“You're putting words in my mouth; we don't have to be this absolute,” he said.

At the same time, Mr. Kent sounded a warning note, saying that even though Israel and Canada don't have a military treaty – like the NATO pact – Ottawa is not bluffing.

“There is no military treaty but I think the Prime Minister's … commitment is quite clear: We don't pay lip service to our commitments to friends and allies.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...an-attack-on-canada-kent-says/article1470538/

This is an absolutely reckless and outrageous statement, one of the worst I've heard from this government.

I'm Jewish, and I recognize that Canada and Israel are not one and the same. Apparently Kent does not. Either he is a neocon lunatic, or this is just a pathetic (and hopefully failed) attempt to pander to Jewish voters in his riding.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Peter Kent is a complete moron, but is he wrong?

An attack would lead to a war, instantly polarizing the world, and forcing us to choose a side. We already know what side that is.

 

[urbandreamer]

What would happen if there'd be more Iranians in Canada than Jews? Would Canada suddenly switch sides?

 

[jade_lee]

"the Big Story Of The Day here:
That Junior Minister Of Something, Peter Kent, the former weatherman on Glowball TV, has entered Canada into a Mutual Defence Pact with Israel, under which "an attack on Israel will be viewed as an attack on Canada."

This is ground-breaking news.

The Harper government (or maybe just Junior Minister Peter Kent) is now signing foreign defence treaties without consulting Parliament?

If you are a parent, get used to the idea of your son or daughter dying in the Negev to protect Israel's god-given Right To Suppress Palestinians.

Or did Junior Kent just accidentally let slip one of the When-We-Get-Our-Majority-Secret-Agenda-Planks of the Stephen Harper Reform Party?

Guess who's about to get a mighty blast of wind from the beer belly that killed Parliament?

What's next, non-aggression pacts with Zimbabwe and Myanmar?
They don't have functioning Parliaments either so I can see why Harper might find common cause with Mugabe and the Generals."......left of center, not!