So Prime Minister Harper (it hurts to say that) has seen fit to pander to his constituency by reopening the same sex marriage debate and open the door to revisit Bill C-38. While I'm sure he secretly hopes that the vote fails and the issue fades into the political ether, there is the possibility that it won't. And won't that serve him right. If it does, I for one think we should start a petition to make Mr. Harper, Mr. Nicholson and anyone else onside with this ridiculous effort to attend question period wearing nothing but chaps and a cowboy hat. They are, after all, from the west and we've all seen Brokeback Mountain.
Mr. Dion has it exactly right. You can't pick and choose who will have the benefit of rights. If marriage is a civil right then it must be made available to all equally. That said, it would be unfortunate if Mr. Dion forces the Liberal caucus to vote against the motion. Right now, Mr. Dion has the opportunity to build from the convention and Canadians' positive perception of him as an intelligent, honest and ethical leader. Right now even the press are helping him -- James Travers characterized him as a Canadian Tintin. Adding dogmatic to that might not be so helpful, as it would only validate the perception of him emanating from Quebec. And make it much more difficult to differentiate himself from the "control freak", Mr. Harper.
As discouraging as Mr. Harper's and Mr. Nicholson's motion is, Mr. Dion must allow Liberal caucus members to vote based on the wishes of their constituents and their beliefs. That, after all is democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So Prime Minister Harper (it hurts to say that) has seen fit to pander to his constituency...
What is the difference between 'pandering to his constituency' and 'keeping an election promise'?
Mr. Dion has it exactly right.
About denying cabinet members their Charter rights by penalizing their careers if they vote their conscience on a matter of freedom of belief and expression as guaranteed in the Charter?
Suspending charter rights for a group definable not only by their beliefs but their job?
"Exactly right" you say?
You can't pick and choose who will have the benefit of rights.
Here, here. And intellectual midget Paul Martin's UN chest-beating episode notwitstanding, there still is a difference between a human right (oxygen, air, food, clothing... that sort of thing) and a social value. There are even Canadians who understand enough to call him on this transparent attempt to play the entire world for a fool using the UN as his stage. Nobody is going to die in a jail cell as a result of gaining all the same sex benefits they could prior to the Parliamentary chicanery, not to mention an end-run around democratic principles, that the Martin Liberals employed to pass the Civil Marriage Act.
Oh, and as he was leaving he passed a law sending you and me the bill for cleaning up his company's tanker dumping in the great lakes forever. Quel visionaire.
If marriage is a civil right
How can an institution that pre-dates all civilizations be called a "civil right?" How big will government get for its britches. What next? Water rations based on how much first nations blood runs in your veins?
Canadians' positive perception of him as an intelligent, honest and ethical leader.
If he whips his cabinet to threaten them with career destruction unless they vote the party line, then he's a morals-free despot like any other ruler at any level, employing personal intimidation to bend consciences to conform to a party line -- indefiance of their rights as a Canadian citizen, mind you -- in order to repress citizens' freedoms to gain the favor of another demographically microscopic special-interest group with no jobs and grants to buy megaphones. How's that for "Canadians perception?"
There was a Caesar who forced the wealthy to commit suicide and will all their goods to him or he would have his army kill them all--because he was broke.
Mr. Dion must allow Liberal caucus members to vote based on the wishes of their constituents and their beliefs. That, after all is democracy.
And the CBC is pedaling hard to vilify anyone who knows the difference between a social value and a human right. Ssshhh! Don't let anybody else know--the silent majority may get the idea that they don't have to eat and praise whatever offal they're told to by the oligarchy.
There is such a thing as a bad or flawed law. If this CMA isn't reprobated, you probably can't begin to imagine what will happen next. Let's start with an entire class of children denied any chance, let alone right, to be raised by a father and a mother. Have you seen the latest research from the oh-so-tolerant-laissez-faire French on the vast oceans of life-long trouble that lies ahead in the life of every child raised in a same-sex union? Do you even care? Does anybody ask them if they prefer a Mom and a Dad?
Do they have that human right?
How would you feel getting an invitation to attend the wedding of a relative and his 14 year-old daughter? Or your next-door-neighbor and his 14-year old 'boy?'
The law says marriage is between "any two persons."
You should stop drinking the MSM confusion soup and apply a little critical reasoning, otherwise, like millions of people in this country who have been led to believe that you can define relativism WITHOUT telling a lie about relativism, you will passively accept the role of being part of the problem, all the while viewing yourself as 'enlightened' and 'fair-minded.'
Tolerance is the virtue of man without convictions.
Tolerance means accepting a degree of what opposes the goal.
Make sure you understand what you're asking for when you join the crowd's hypnotic mooing: "Can't we all just get along?"
You need to wake up and realize the important battle isn't for "power" between left and right it's between voters and non-voters--over ANARCHY (see Iraq).
Post a Comment