[Marcarc]

Who is even talking about same sex marriage, let alone a referendum on it?

[badsector]

On the bright side, if it's brought to a vote and the majority endorses it, it will be a lot of fun to watch Harper with a stupid look on his face, not knowing what to do next.

[Roy_Whyte]

These CONservatives are such mealy-mouthed politicians...<br /> <br /> Now they say they will have 'debate' on Afghanistan but not a free vote. Talk about a double-standard. Remember now, they cite the excuse that the Afghanistan issue was already debated and voted upon in the House - well so was same-sex-marriage. Their fallback talking point is the Rove-styled one of harming the troops moral etc.<br /> <br /> The hypocrisy and double-standards employed by this Conservative government while not a huge surprise to this Canadian, still seem to amaze even the most jaded of observers. I don't want another election, but clearly this gang of ass-backwards panderers needs to go ASAP.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Roy_Whyte]<br /> The hypocrisy and double-standards employed by this Conservative government while not a huge surprise to this Canadian, still seem to amaze even the most jaded of observers. I don't want another election, but clearly this gang of ass-backwards panderers needs to go ASAP.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I gotta agree with you there Roy. The throne speech looks good - on paper. Even if they do exactally what they say they are going to do (they would be the 1st governemnt in the last 20 odd years to actually do that) they still would have to go a long way to earn my trust.<br />

[Reverend Blair]

[QUOTE] Who is even talking about same sex marriage, let alone a referendum on it?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Vic Toews. It's not a referendum, but a free vote in the House and it's likely to be very close. It's also likely to be very divisive and undermine attempts to make parliament work better.<br /> <br /> Toews and Harper don't get to decide if it's a free (unwhipped) vote either. They keep pretending they do, but they have no control over whether the other parties whip their votes. <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]On the bright side, if it's brought to a vote and the majority endorses it, it will be a lot of fun to watch Harper with a stupid look on his face, not knowing what to do next.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Doers anybody know how many Liberal MPs who voted against SSM last time were re-elected? I'd like to see Harper lose on this (and a bevy of other votes), but a lot of Liberals showed they were in the wrong party last time around.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]I gotta agree with you there Roy. The throne speech looks good - on paper. Even if they do exactally what they say they are going to do (they would be the 1st governemnt in the last 20 odd years to actually do that) they still would have to go a long way to earn my trust.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The throne speech contained less substance than the Conservative campaign platform. The promise to be open and accountable was a lie though. Not only is Harper keeping his MPs on choke chains, but he's doing sneaky, underhanded things like cancelling 40% of Kyoto funding without telling anybody.

[Roy_Whyte]

A new poll released today once again shows Canadians are evenly split on Afghanistan. Considering most Canadians get their coverage of events there from the terrible mass-media I am surprised there is that much opposition. For the more Canadians really know about what is going on there, the history and likely outcomes, the more opposition will grow.<br /> <br /> So yes to debate but Harper be a friggin man and have a free vote. If it's good enough for the religious right in your party, it's good enough for Canadians being sent off to war, in our name no less.<br /> <br /> Lloyd Axeworthy of all people nailed the topic perfectly this week when he said that Canada is going about the operation there all wrong. He says by simply picking up where America left off using their failed tactics we are placing our troops into a position of not only dire danger, but into an untenable situation. I agree with his assessment - we should stick to security and infrastructure rebuilding, not to kicking in doors and pissing off a large part of the Afghan countryside. You clearly don't win friends by terrorizing the innocent. You would think Iraq would be a shining example of that, but then when has the Conservative party ever seen a failed operation, law, deal etc that they didn't want to repeat?<br /> <br /> One last thing, I read it this morning but cannot find it now, but it was a quote from a Canadian general - basically he says if we kill enough Taliban they will just give up. I wonder if he read that little line from the Soviet field-guide for Afghanistan...

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Roy_Whyte] A new poll released today once again shows Canadians are evenly split on Afghanistan. Considering most Canadians get their coverage of events there from the terrible mass-media I am surprised there is that much opposition. For the more Canadians really know about what is going on there, the history and likely outcomes, the more opposition will grow.<br /> <br /> So yes to debate but Harper be a friggin man and have a free vote. If it's good enough for the religious right in your party, it's good enough for Canadians being sent off to war, in our name no less.<br /> <br /> Lloyd Axeworthy of all people nailed the topic perfectly this week when he said that Canada is going about the operation there all wrong. He says by simply picking up where America left off using their failed tactics we are placing our troops into a position of not only dire danger, but into an untenable situation. I agree with his assessment - we should stick to security and infrastructure rebuilding, not to kicking in doors and pissing off a large part of the Afghan countryside. You clearly don't win friends by terrorizing the innocent. You would think Iraq would be a shining example of that, but then when has the Conservative party ever seen a failed operation, law, deal etc that they didn't want to repeat?<br /> <br /> One last thing, I read it this morning but cannot find it now, but it was a quote from a Canadian general - basically he says if we kill enough Taliban they will just give up. I wonder if he read that little line from the Soviet field-guide for Afghanistan...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Roy I have a lot of respect for what you have done in politics and I agree the Conservatives can't be trusted but what on earth are you complaining about??? The Conservatives have done absolutely nothing yet to anger people that much, aside from breaking their accountability and elected senate promises which were minor issues anyway.<br /> <br /> You just admitted that Canadians are split in polls on Afghanistan, so how is it automatically wrong we are there? This is a democracy, and Canadians are also even more definitely split on same-sex marriage. <br /> <br /> There are huge numbers of people who think the way Stehpen Harper does on same-sex marriage--probably more than half of the country. It was arounf 51% a few months back. People such as myself support perhaps civil unions perhaps and maybe equal rights under the law in some cases but do not want the defintion of the word "marriage" changed as marriage has worked fine and does not need changing. <br /> <br /> I am not a member of the "religious right" at all but I do agree with Harper on this issue. Why don't you just admit that this government deserves at least a chance as the Liberals had over 13 years to ruin things? Harper was elected fairly unlike Bush and even won seats in Quebec.<br /> <br /> Anyway, why not be a man and have a family and leave the gay agenda to someone else? I don't understand people that assume everything Harper does is automatically wrong by association. Harper helped come up with the Clarity Act and has done some great things in politics for his constituency. You can't be a hypocrit and complain about the Liberals for 4 years and complain they are impossible to deafeat and then flame Harper the moment he gets elected. Good grief.

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] <br /> Harper helped come up with the Clarity Act ...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> You've just pinned Harper with this one. An act that is as clear as mud and judged by many to be undemocratic.

[empson7]

[QUOTE BY= Reverend Blair] <br /> <br /> Vic Toews. It's not a referendum, but a free vote in the House and it's likely to be very close. It's also likely to be very divisive and undermine attempts to make parliament work better.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> If Harper thinks he has the numbers, he will introduce it and probably towards the end of this session...<br /> <br /> 1) Harper has to flip something to the fundie crowd to keep them motiviated<br /> <br /> 2) More of a wedge issue for the other parties than his own<br /> <br /> 3) The issue would be less than helpful for Liberal leadership candidates during the BBQ circuit<br /> <br /> 4) Great camoflague! While people are distracted here, he can get some of the corp's wishlists through the various cttm.<br /> <br /> With the Tories in charge, the resolve of the SSM support might be a lot weaker than it was, when Martin also used the issue to distract from his party's hopeless corruption.

[The Saint]

Recognition of SSM opened a pandora's box. Better close while we still have the chance.<br /> <br /> It was only pursued because a morally weak PM with no leadership qualities whatsoever was in danger of getting booted out of the PMO without any "legacy" to show for it. Paul Martin, as PM, was a pathetic man.<br /> <br /> Interesting how a free vote on Afghanistan is important to some yet a free vote on SSM wasn't an issue with them the first time around. Some people always want it their way but that is to be understood in this Canadian age of the supremacy of the Charter and the "tyranny of the minority over the majority." Selfishness and self indulgence is the rule of the day.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= The Saint] Recognition of SSM opened a pandora's box. Better close while we still have the chance.<br /> <br /> It was only pursued because a morally weak PM with no leadership qualities whatsoever was in danger of getting booted out of the PMO without any "legacy" to show for it. Paul Martin, as PM, was a pathetic man.<br /> <br /> Interesting how a free vote on Afghanistan is important to some yet a free vote on SSM wasn't an issue with them the first time around. Some people always want it their way but that is to be understood in this Canadian age of the supremacy of the Charter and the "tyranny of the minority over the majority." Selfishness and self indulgence is the rule of the day.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> A communist chareter of rights NO ONE wanted is still being worshipped as sacred by culturally liberal politicians who have been living on Mars for over 50 years now.<br /> <br /> This is an era of individualism and instant gratification. The "do your own thing" generatio" is not really tolerant--they are selfish libertarian socialists who have to break down everything that formerly held society together. Morals and ethics don't matter.<br /> <br /> The group doesn't matter--only the right for identifiable minority groups to ply their trade at the expense of everyone else.<br /> <br /> Martin does have his legact--Michaelle Jean. We'll see how that goes over some day long into the future. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Armageddon]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] <br /> A communist chareter of rights NO ONE wanted is still being worshipped as sacred by culturally liberal politicians who have been living on Mars for over 50 years now.[/quote]<br /> Come on, how is it communist? It mentions rights and freedoms you and I should have for protection from any government. Please, do elaborate on how it is communist, or shut it.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Armageddon] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] <br /> A communist chareter of rights NO ONE wanted is still being worshipped as sacred by culturally liberal politicians who have been living on Mars for over 50 years now.[/quote]<br /> Come on, how is it communist? It mentions rights and freedoms you and I should have for protection from any government. Please, do elaborate on how it is communist, or shut it.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> It is comparable to the "rights" given to people in the Soviet Union. Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights. It enshrines impossible equality as our state religion which the Soviet Union did.<br /> <br /> <br /> It also fails to give people the right to own property which communism refused to grant. Of course, the government can (and did) take away these rights at a moments notice anyway so....<br /> <br /> I should also add that it preached freedom of speech but ended up stifling freedom--much as freedom was stifled in the Soviet Union.<br />

[Armageddon]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> It is comparable to the "rights" given to people in the Soviet Union. Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights. It enshrines impossible equality as our state religion which the Soviet Union did.[/quote]<br /> Let's take a look shall we? Ok, zipping along the Charter, but let's just skip to the obvious section of equality rights.<br /> <br /> 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.<br /> <br /> Hmmmm, it just says a person can't be discriminated against because of sex. Is that a bad thing? It's kinda like saying all men are equal under the law. Does that make say, the Declaration of Independence the Communist Manifesto? Nah. It's just being fair, as all citizens should be. Same goes with minorities. They shouldn't be trampled on by the majority whenever the majority feels like it.<br /> <br /> [quote]It also fails to give people the right to own property which communism refused to grant. Of course, the government can (and did) take away these rights at a moments notice anyway so....[/quote]<br /> Now you have to look at the atmosphere of the political air at the time. This wasn't implemented because the NDP wouldn't stand for it. It would have been implemented as such if the NDP had fewer or no MP's at all. It's a lot like why the Americans have the 2nd amendment. At the time, the British were seizing the colonials guns. So, the colonists didn't like that, which is shown with their decision to put in such a freedom.<br /> <br /> [quote]I should also add that it preached freedom of speech but ended up stifling freedom--much as freedom was stifled in the Soviet Union.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> Hell, even the U.S. freedom of speech isn't absolute. It never is in any democracy no matter how free it tries to be. It's just because you get a few pricks who abuse it, like the KKK or even TV programs. <br /> <br /> So thus by reason alone, all free countries aren't free, because they will break the rules at certain time. They're especially not free when they try to treat everyone as equals. Heaven forbid that.