babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Was Alliance hate literature distributed at taxpayer expense?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Was Alliance hate literature distributed at taxpayer expense?
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 12 November 2003 07:29 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm interested in knowing how widely the Alliance has sent their mailing on "The Future of Marriage in Canada". They seem to have hit every household in Kitchener-Waterloo based on my random check with people in this area. Please let me know whether you got it mailed to you in your area.

The premise of the mailing is set out in pretty much the same manner as this brochure, with some wedding cake figures added for visual impact.

I made a couple of phone calls to find out whether this was a party initiative or a leader's office initiative. It turns out that it was the latter. I'm now waiting for a reply to this e-mail:

quote:
Having first called Canadian Alliance headquarters, then the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition, I now understand that you are the person primarily responsible for the recent mailing on "The future of marriage in
Canada".

I have some questions regarding the mailing:

1) Was this publication mailed across Canada, or to specific areas of the country? If only to specific areas, which areas were they? How many pieces were mailed?
2) Was the cost of designing, printing and mailing this publication born by taxpayers or by the Canadian Alliance?
3) If it was the former, what was the total cost to taxpayers of the design of this document, including any staff time? What was the total cost to taxpayers of printing the document? What was the total cost to taxpayers of mailing it?
4) Regardless of who paid for printing and mailing, the cost of the mailback will clearly be born by taxpayers (since mailbacks will be postage free to the House of Commons). What is the anticipated cost to taxpayers of the
mailback (per unit)? What percentage of the mailings do you anticipate getting back?

Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to a timely reply. Depending on your answers to these questions, I may have further questions.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 12 November 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How is that hate literature? It doesn't say "Gays are bad" or any other crap.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 12 November 2003 07:37 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like a ten percenter to me. Completely legal. Though not necessarily in good taste.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 12 November 2003 07:46 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Utterly tasteless, bound to alienate people who don't already support the Alliance. They haven't yet figured out that they won't win anything by appealing to their current supporters.

Fine by me.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 12 November 2003 07:56 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heywood, remember that any and all literature produced by the eeevil Alliance is hateful.

But there are people who are against SSM who are not yet in the Alliance. For example, how about all those people who elected all those Liberal backbenchers who are against SSM?

I don't agree with the party on this one, but at least I acknowledge that there are thousands who do agree.

Hopefully elements of the former PC party will influence the CPC to not have a hardline stance on social conservatism.

Regardless, don't even get started on taxpayer funded hate literature. That is Lieberal speciality.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 12 November 2003 08:03 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's no doubt the cost of the printing and mailing of this brochure was borne by the House of Commons. As swirly said, it's commonly called a ten-percenter and all parties can send such material to any voter in Canada. There are rules regarding content (no party logo, no colour, no request for money etc...) but anything goes policy wise.

Was there any other text than what you've linked to in the copy you received? As much as I don't agree with their position on the issue, there is nothing offensive about the few sentences they've written.

But I know where your coming from Scott, yesterday in the Hamilton Spectator there was a big red and black Liberal Party brochure (full of pap like "At this important crossroad, particiapte in your country") that almost made me puke. But nothing is what you linked to is homophobic. The Canadian Alliance has said much worse stuff in their press releases, and their caucus communications people are all paid by tax payers.

The thing to do when you get one of these is to check of NO and send it back. Get all your friends as well to let Harper know he is on the wrong track.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 November 2003 08:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hopefully elements of the former PC party will influence the CPC to not have a hardline stance on social conservatism.

Some hope.

quote:
Regardless, don't even get started on taxpayer funded hate literature. That is Lieberal speciality.

Examples?

I wouldn't call this hate literature. But neither will it appeal to many outside the core Reform constituency.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 12 November 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you are going to reply, just be cautious of including your real name, address, etc - these things are used to build the party mailout lists. Oh, and they have a computer program to weed out fake names, etc. (a friend in the OLO says there's more than a few who reply with "Stockwell Day" as the responder), but there's nothing to stop us from trying anyways!
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 12 November 2003 08:42 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
...it's commonly called a ten-percenter and all parties can send such material to any voter in Canada

But 10 percenters don't convey the right to send a mailing to every household in a riding... especially not a Liberal-held riding like K-W.

quote:
There are rules regarding content (no party logo...

It does have a party logo on it.

quote:
Was there any other text than what you've linked to in the copy you received?

Here's the actual text (I just linked to something similar on their site rather than retyping it)

quote:
LIBERALS REFUSE TO STAND BY THEIR WORD

On June 8, 1999, the Chretien-Martin Liberals made a vow to Canadians. They promised that they would take "all necessary steps" to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In the 2000 Federal election, they campaigned on this pledge.

Four years later, the Liberals betrayed Canadian voters.

On September 16, one by one, a majority of Liberals solemnly stood up in the House of Commons and broke their promise to defend marriage.

The Canadian Alliance, led by Stephen Harper, is the only federal party that supports the traditional definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Unlike the Liberals, we intend to keep our promise.

Want to help? Tell the Liberals you want them to keep their promise.

1. Do you agree that the Federal government should maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes/No

2. Is Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance on the right track? Yes/No


quote:
But nothing is what you linked to is homophobic.

It certainly seems designed to "promote hatred against an identifiable group". And, the suggestion that two men or two women threatens marriage (that marriage needs to be "defended" against those people who wish to be married) is hateful in the extreme.

[ 12 November 2003: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 12 November 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But 10 percenters don't convey the right to send a mailing to every household in a riding... especially not a Liberal-held riding like K-W.

Yes they do,. And the NDP has used this priviledge many times. In fact, you can bet the party has been sending lots of 10% to voters in Liberal-held Ottawa centre. Parties don't own ridings. Any party can send mail to whomever they like.

Scott, you don't understand ten percenters (admitedly, neither do I 100% but I can clarify a few things). 10% refers to the 10% of the constituents of an MPs riding. That number (usually aroung 6,000) is the maximum amount of letters an MP can send with any one same piece of literature inside. So any Alliance MP can send his anti same-sex marriage piece to 6000 people in Canada. Very important to note that these people can be any voter in any riding. The riding can be Liberal or NDP, or Alliace, it doesn't matter. (From what I undestand, the list of addresses comes from the Elections Canada voters list.)

Although one MP can send one piece to only 6000 Canadians, many MPs can pool their individual 6000 person limit to send this same piece to thousands of Canadians. In general, parties often choose to blanket certain ridings by using the mailing privleges of 10 MPs.

quote:
It does have a party logo on it.

Like I said, my knowledge of 10%ers is fuzzy at times, so it is possible I made a mistake and that logos are allowed.

quote:
It certainly seems designed to "promote hatred against an identifiable group". And, the suggestion that two men or two women threatens marriage (that marriage needs to be "defended" against those people who wish to be married) is hateful in the extreme.

I would be very interested to hear Svend Robinson's position on this issue. Svend has been one of the biggest defenders of the ten percenter system in the House over the last 25 years, so I doubt he would attack the Alliance's right to send partisan material to voters using this sytems as he has done it countless times himself.

At the same time, it was Svend's private member's bill that ammended the Hate Propaganda legislation to include gays and lesbians as an "identifiable" group in that law. From what I know of Svend though, he would not want this law to be used to gag the Canadian Alliance from telling Canadians that they oppose the same-sex marriage bill.

In all respect and sincerity, Scott, saying what the Canadian Alliace wrote is "hateful in the extreme" is ridiculous.

That Fred Phelps wants to erect a monument in a public park to attack Matthew Sheppard's memory is hateful in the extreme.

Saying that Liberals "broke their promise to defend marriage" does not promote hatred towards gays and lesbians. It is discriminatory though, no question.

What do you want to be done with this issue Scott? Do you really want EGALE or the NDP to demand that the Alliance be charged with distributing hate propaganda? Do you want us to demand that the Alliance loose their ten percenter privileges? If you think about it for a few minutes, you can think of the thosusands of ways that would backfire and make us seem like the petty, vindictive, censuring ones in this battle.

As aborman said, this material will only furhter allianate the Alliance from mainstream Canadians. Let the Alliance distribute it far and wide so all Canadians can see what a self-centered, small-minded party they are. In K-W, why don't you use this to drive a wedge between the Conservatives and the Alliance riding associations?


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 12 November 2003 10:24 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
I'm with Sara on this one. In my mind something doesn't add up when a majority of Canadians support equal marriage and every single one of the Alliance's 60 something MPs opposes it. And this from the party that has championed free votes in the past.

If I got one of these 10 percenters in the mail, I would definitely answer 'no' to both questions, sign my name to it, and send it to Harper. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. Like an 'x' in an election campaign, bet you're more likely to be taken off the list for future mailings, than to be put on one.

[ 12 November 2003: Message edited by: John K ]


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 13 November 2003 03:50 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It certainly seems designed to "promote hatred against an identifiable group". And, the suggestion that two men or two women threatens marriage (that marriage needs to be "defended" against those people who wish to be married) is hateful in the extreme.

No matter how wrong it is, it is still not hateful to the extreme. And Sara Mayo beat me to the punch on this one- Fred Phelps came to my mind before I ever read her post.

And if more Canadians show their support for SSM, the CA/CPC may still come around and stand for freedom.

Although I do support the attacks on the Liberals over this, because ONLY FOUR YEARS AGO they promised to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

If the Liberals were truly interested in equality, they would have been pushing for SSM a long time ago, BEFORE THE COURTS KICKED THEIR ASSES INTO DOING IT.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 November 2003 09:57 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Suppose we make a few minor changes to this flyer, and apply this to a different protected group under the Charter.

CONSERVATIVES REFUSE TO STAND BY THEIR WORD

On June 8, 1868, the McDonald Conservatives made a vow to Canadians. They promised that they would take "all necessary steps" to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In the 1867 Federal election, they campaigned on this pledge.

One hundred and thirty six years later, the consrvatives betrayed Canadian voters.

On September 16, one by one, a majority of Conservatives solemnly stood up in the House of Commons and broke their promise to defend marriage.

The Canadian Alliance, led by Stephen Harper, is the only federal party that supports the traditional definition of marriage: the union of one white Christian man and one white Christian woman to the exclusion of all others.

Unlike the Conservatives we intend to keep our promise.

Want to help? Tell the Conseratives you want them to keep their promise.

1. Do you agree that the Federal government should maintain the definition of marriage as between one white Christian man and one White Christian woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes/No

2. Is Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance on the right track? Yes/No

---------

Still convinced there is not intentent of hate??

That being said, I don't agree with closing down free speech, but rather we should exercise the right of free speech to speak out forcefully against this kind of CCRAP to the point of forcing these types of hate mongers under their bed in tears . . . BUT, the law is the law, and maybe it should be applied in this case??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 13 November 2003 10:51 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yep, I can say that we've used 10 percenters just as much as any other party, and we've caught heck for it in the House, too. The ALliance is particularly fond of questioning our mailings to Ottawa Centre voters....Libby Davies sent one out promoting the Ottawa Outaouais Social Forum last year, and Bill Blaikie sent out a leaflet about Mac Harb's appointment recently that was basically All About Jack.
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 13 November 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
yep, I can say that we've used 10 percenters just as much as any other party, and we've caught heck for it in the House, too. The ALliance is particularly fond of questioning our mailings to Ottawa Centre voters.

You wouldn't have any Hansard links for that bit of hyposcrisy, would you?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 13 November 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
can't find the recent stuff. Here's the Social Forum one:

quote:
Postal Privileges

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reference to your letter of April 26, 2002, to all members of the House of Commons regarding the use of postal privileges and franked envelopes.

Your letter of April 26, 2002, referred to an earlier communication of November 29, 2001, reminding members of the principles governing the use of mailing and particularly with reference to their use on behalf of various groups.

You also stated in your letter of April 26, 2002:

Pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act and the By-laws, if a misuse of the House resources is involved, the board [Board of Internal Economy] has all the powers necessary to seek a refund or to withhold funds from any payments due to the Member.


Your letter of November 29, 2001, concluded with the following statement:

Members are reminded, therefore, that the intent behind franking privileges and the use of the House of Commons goods and services is to facilitate communication between constituents and their Member and vice versa, and not to facilitate communications between other groups and constituents via the Member.


It has been brought to my attention that the member for Vancouver East and the NDP House leader used her free mailing privileges to advertise a weekend seminar event in Ottawa featuring classes such as “Anarchism 101” and “Cuban anti-terrorism and the U.S”.

The weekend seminar also featured “confronting U.S. imperialism”, “class monopoly”, “radical cheerleading and street theatre” and “tools to energize and deal with burnout for social activists”. The agenda also advertised “Kick-Ass T's--Make your own protest shirts” and, in anticipation of president George W. Bush's visit to Canada, which unfortunately was cancelled, there was a workshop called “Revolutionary knitting: plan to prepare and organize for Bush's visit on Monday”.

The mailing by the member for Vancouver East to promote this seminar was reported in an article in the Ottawa Citizen on page A5 on May 12, 2003.

We all know that members of Parliament use their franking privileges to communicate with Canadians about their work and the work of the party right across Canada. This is a well accepted principle, but not to advertise somebody else's seminar.

You have specifically stated in your letters to members that facilitating communications between other groups and constituents via the member cannot be tolerated using taxpayer funds.

It is an affront to this House that a member would abuse her privileges, but to use these privileges provided by a parliamentary democracy to attack the very principles of parliamentary democracy through the promotion of anarchy and violence to the point of training people in anarchy and street violence and the destruction of our society is an absolute and intolerable affront to this House


the link

From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 13 November 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Heywood, remember that any and all literature produced by the eeevil Alliance is hateful.

Any statement ever made by ANY alliance MP about gay people has been full of hate.


The two of you can whine all you want about how you personally aren't homophobic creeps. So what? You're both quite willing to see their disgusting agenda implemented.

I'm sure there were Nazis who weren't anti-Semites either, I just don't imagine that was very much comfort to Jews as they were being herded into the gas ovens.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 13 November 2003 12:02 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bing bing bing bing.... hey folks, we have another single issue voter.

"If it ain't gay, I don't play"


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 November 2003 12:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if this is a rabble record for the fastest that a thread has degenerated into suggestions that the "other guy" is the moral equivalent of a Nazi?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 13 November 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, so I see Goodwin's law has been envoked on this thread.

Newbie, would it be possible to criticize the Alliance on this issue without comparing tem to Nazis? The Holocaust survivors I know would appreciate their suffering not being trivialised. Thanks.

[ 13 November 2003: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 November 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Sara.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 November 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's "Godwin", not "Goodwin".
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 November 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, Nazi's aside, why isn't this brochure hate speech as defined by Canadian law??

If you change the target of the message to blacks, or Jews, or any other protected group, would anyone still argue it wasn't trying to spread hate towards that group??

Can anyone say that if the CCRAP was calling for the exclusion of blacks from the institution of marriage that this owuldn't be hateful speech??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 November 2003 04:39 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah it would. And they aren't. I think there is a distinction between bigoted and offensive actions, and hate speech. This Alliance leaflet is the former, which means its legal.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 13 November 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bigoted speech encompasses "I don't like blacks"

Hate speech emcompasses "I don't like blacks so kill them"

quote:
Any statement ever made by ANY alliance MP about gay people has been full of hate.


The two of you can whine all you want about how you personally aren't homophobic creeps. So what? You're both quite willing to see their disgusting agenda implemented.

I'm sure there were Nazis who weren't anti-Semites either, I just don't imagine that was very much comfort to Jews as they were being herded into the gas ovens.


This is a far better example of hate speech than the flyer and even Newbie in all his glory doesn't stray into hate that much. Just because what someone say makes you mad or feel icky doesn't make it hate speech.

[ 13 November 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 November 2003 08:28 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The CC says hate speech is that which promotes hate, not speech which advises murder (although that would no doubt qualify.)

Advising the exclusion of a protected group from the full rights of any other citizen seems to me to be a promotion of hate towards that group.

Now, Harper may be able to make an argument basedon the acceptable defences under the criminal code, but I think he should be brought up in front of a court and made to make hios defence.

But, I can certaily live with having Harper just accept the biggot label . . . suits him just perfect!!

Oh, and since Newbie never promoted any action again the Alliance (unlike Harper and his den of slime) and the Alliance is not a protected group, his "rant" certainly does not come as close to hate speech as the Alliance hate propoganda!!

[ 13 November 2003: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 November 2003 08:34 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
Yeah it would. And they aren't. I think there is a distinction between bigoted and offensive actions, and hate speech. This Alliance leaflet is the former, which means its legal.

Come again??

Yeah it would be hateful speech if they were targeting blacks, but not hateful speech because it is targeting gays??


Yes there is a distinction, are you saying this literature has nothing to do with actual actions against gays?? Sounds to me like he's asking for our support to take more action against an identifiable group!!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 13 November 2003 11:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No matter how wrong it is, it is still not hateful to the extreme. And Sara Mayo beat me to the punch on this one- Fred Phelps came to my mind before I ever read her post.

I agree, Gir, I don't think this qualifies as hate literature.

Now, earlier you accused the "Lieberals" of specializing in "taxpayer-funded hate literature." With the major proviso that by no manner of means am I a Liberal supporter, I asked you to provide examples. I'm still most interested in hearing about some.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 14 November 2003 12:26 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
Yeah it would. And they aren't. I think there is a distinction between bigoted and offensive actions, and hate speech. This Alliance leaflet is the former, which means its legal.

A protected group is a protected group, and what is hateful to one is should be considered hateful to another.

Is the hesitance in considering this to be hate speech based in feelings that there are differences in hetrosexual and homosexual marriage?


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 14 November 2003 12:51 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No matter how you want to spin this, there is no hate content in this mailing. It doesn't say one word about homosexuals, same sex marriage, or anything that could be construed as hateful towards any group.

All it says is that your mp changed their mind on the definition of marriage and is he on the right track in defending it.

Spin all you want. You'll just end up dizzy.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 14 November 2003 04:58 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

But there are people who are against SSM who are not yet in the Alliance. For example, how about all those people who elected all those Liberal backbenchers who are against SSM?

Yes, and considering that at least half of Ontario Liberal MP's are against same-sex marriage, and pro same-sex marriages MP's do not have a majority in the House of Commons, they can continue to vote for Liberals or even the NDP with MP's like Bev Desjarlais or the many anti-same sex marriage Bloc MP's.

Furthermore, if and when there is a merger, there will still be pro-same sex MP's among the CPC with the likes of Scott Brison, Rick Borotsik, and Andre Bachand (if he is still in the party?).

In sum, once the amalgamation of the CA/Tories into the CPC has taken place, no party will be able to claim to have a monopoly on one side of the same-sex marriage debate. However given the substantive media attention tagging the NDP as the major advocate, and the CA as the major anti-marriage force, people with strong views on the matter (which are few) will probably gravitate to once of these two parties.

As for the issue of hate literature: although I do not necessary think of the pamphlet as hate literature, I do believe that the pamphlet like many efforts undertaken by the CA do incite violence and discrimination against gays. If this pamphlet was mailed to my house, I would certainly give my local CA MP an earful, to say the least. I do however hope that the CA continues to push this issue aggressively and with full force. Why? Stephen Harper doesn't understand the Canadian public like Layton and Martin do.

The guy is clueless. The more he pushes the issue, the more he alienates Canadians - progressive and those with ambivalent attitudes towards same-sex marriage - simply because his tactic is rightly seen as bullying, mean spirited, and uncompromising. The more the CA/Conservatives push the issue of same-sex marriage, the more they will dive in opinion polls and the fewer seats they will win in BC in 2004. So by all means, please continue to push the SSM issue.

[ 14 November 2003: Message edited by: LukeVanc ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 November 2003 10:22 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
No matter how you want to spin this, there is no hate content in this mailing. It doesn't say one word about homosexuals, same sex marriage, or anything that could be construed as hateful towards any group.

All it says is that your mp changed their mind on the definition of marriage and is he on the right track in defending it.

Spin all you want. You'll just end up dizzy.


Talk about spin!!?? So you are saying that SSM is not at issue at all for the Alliance, it's just a political attack on those Liberal MPs that have changed their opinion over the last 4 years??

If this is not about SSM, then why is the question: "1. Do you agree that the Federal government should maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes/No"?????

Why not instead ask: "Do you agree that MPs who change their minds on social issues over a four year period are not fit to sit in the house? Yes/No?" !

Face it Heywood, the issue here is about SSM, and the Alliance is promoting the hateful notion that gays, a protect group, should not have the same rights as anybother citizens when it comes to marriage . . . if they were promoting the notion that blacks should not enjoy the same rights as whites this would be clearly hateful speech, and spinning the issue to try and argue that the discussion was about the Liberals from the 1800's having a different opinion on blacks than they do today would not be a very strong defence.

Harper needs to be put on the carpet and made to defend his hateful speech . . . he needs to either stand there and say that he sincerly believes that discrimination against gays is for the good of society (and have a reasonable argument to defend that position,) or that he is arguing from a religious perspective and essentially admit that he is pandering to the religious right of his party . . . (I believe these are the two premissable defenses for hate speech according to the criminal code.)


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 14 November 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If this is not about SSM, then why is the question: "1. Do you agree that the Federal government should maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes/No"?????

Because that IS the traditional definition of marriage.

Both sides of the argument use spin and language management to control the argument. The left has done this brilliantly for the years. Harper and his team are learning from the left on how to take back control of the argument.

You gotta admit, it is a brilliant piece. For anyone who considers it hate literature, file a complaint. See where it goes.

quote:
Harper needs to be put on the carpet and made to defend his hateful speech . .

So call him on it. Don't scream here about it. File a complaint.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 November 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slavery was a "tradition" as well, but promoting a policy of slavery would not fly these days!

As for filing a complaint, I have considered doing so, but there is little likelihood that the CHRC would accept such a compaint from me as the requirements to file are: "Usually the person who has suffered from the discrimination files the complaint but, in certain cases, it may be filed by a third party, such as a relative or a collective bargaining agent."

So, my only other option is to voice my opinion on this disgracefuly hate mongering by Harper and his Klan in the forums available to me . . . including this board . . . or are you now suggesting that opinions that don't following your notion of what is politically acceptable be discourged from being presented here??

Should I now demand that you run for office rather than spread your wierd political opinions to political forums?? Or is this tactic only acceptable to people on the right wing side of the political spectrum?

Maybe Newbie can file the complaint? I certainly encourage him to do so, as it would make a lot of people happy to see the biggot put in the position of having to admit he was discriminating against gays because of is strong belief if "Christian" values!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 14 November 2003 01:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think it's hate speech.

If you check the "Defences" section of s. 318 of the Criminal Code, you will see that it does not include statements "relevant to any subject of public interest" "the discussion of which was for the public benefit" and which, on reasonable grounds, was believed to be true.

It seems pretty obvious that the defence would succeed.

Further, in political, not legal, terms, I think that when a court rules that a "traditional" definition is discriminatory, it would be undemocratic to rush to shut down discussion of that...especially among those who disagree, are taken aback, etc.

It is one thing to say that people who favour traditional marriage are wrong. It is quite another to say that they are criminal and should be punished by the state.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 14 November 2003 01:42 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...this disgracefuly hate mongering by Harper and his Klan...

Perfect example of spin. Nicely done.

quote:
or are you now suggesting that opinions that don't following your notion of what is politically acceptable be discourged from being presented here??

Should I now demand that you run for office rather than spread your wierd political opinions to political forums?? Or is this tactic only acceptable to people on the right wing side of the political spectrum?


I am not an electable person. I can and do get people elected though as a manager so that is my role in politics. Wierd opinions;I like that. My point was that here you are preaching to the converted. Head on over to FD and try to convince them of that position. As to Newbie filing a complaint, I would love to see that.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 November 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I don't think it's hate speech.

If you check the "Defences" section of s. 318 of the Criminal Code, you will see that it does not include statements "relevant to any subject of public interest" "the discussion of which was for the public benefit" and which, on reasonable grounds, was believed to be true.

It seems pretty obvious that the defence would succeed.

Further, in political, not legal, terms, I think that when a court rules that a "traditional" definition is discriminatory, it would be undemocratic to rush to shut down discussion of that...especially among those who disagree, are taken aback, etc.



I think Harper would have several defenses, and I really do not like the hate speech laws very much, but I also believe that the law exists and should be applied to political leaders who speak hatefully against gays as it is applied to minority women speaking "hatefully" against the US government . . . if Thobani's speech was sufficient to have her investigated, then Harper should be just as open for an investigation.

You are correct that any investigation will probably result in no charges being filed, but that is not the point . . . they (right wingers of the Alliance stripe) use this kind of coercion to shut down legitimate discussion, and they should be taught a lesson as to exactly what fire they are playing with and that it can burn them as easily as anyone else.

I'm not saying they shouldn't discuss the issue, but if the game, started by these same people, is that the hate speech laws are to be used as a tool to shut down left of centre voices, then we need to use the same set of tools against these people . . . we can't be shackled by "political correctness" while fighting people who do not believe in "political correctness", but demand it from their opponents!!

I for one am tired of trying to fight against facists with one hand tied behind my pack, while they use every dirty trick possible to shut down the other side of the debate.

I'm not saying that this is the "high road", because it isn't, but then again the Alliance doesn't deserve that level of respect.

quote:
It is one thing to say that people who favour traditional marriage are wrong. It is quite another to say that they are criminal and should be punished by the state.

Yes it is, but it is also one thing to say that I don't like homosexuality, and quite another to say that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as other human beings!!

I'm not looking to have them locked up, but they at least deserve to be exposed for what they are, and people running around trying to "play fair" with these biggots who refuse to consider fairness when dealing with others is only asking to be laughed at . . . Harper is probably sitting back saying "those politically correct do-gooders will be too worried about being fair to ever find the guts to actually call me on this"!! And it would seem he might have a point!!

When you defend the OCAP people, do you not go down some paths that are obvious "dead ends", but will serve to bring an issue out in the open?? To expose something that which may well be "legal", but is not "moral"? I doubt that you say to your defendants that the police are within their rights to use force, so we might as well not explore the possibility that they used too much force??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 November 2003 08:02 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

I am not an electable person. I can and do get people elected though as a manager so that is my role in politics. Wierd opinions;I like that. My point was that here you are preaching to the converted. Head on over to FD and try to convince them of that position. As to Newbie filing a complaint, I would love to see that.


Well, not to swell your head, but aside from your spinning to try and exonerate Harper from the wrath of Canadian hate laws, from what I can tell based on how you would handle the issue of SSM, you're much more "electable" than Harper!!

Oh, and your opinion that I should be heading on over to the FD to ask for support on charging Harper under the hate laws . . . is an example of one of your wierd opinions


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 18 November 2003 07:01 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Today, I received the following e-mail from Stephen Harper's office:

quote:
Morning Mr. Piatkowski,

I received your questions yesterday from Stephen Brooks and have tried to answer most of them. There are some (mainly the specific dollar figures) that unfortunately I am unable to answer.

The mailing you referred to - "The Future of Marriage in Canada" - is part of what we call "a pooled 10%er". Under the current rules, Members of Parliament can send out unlimited mailings to 10% of their riding on virtually any public policy issue. The only proviso being that each mailing must be at least 50% different in terms of content than the last. MPs are also allowed to "pool" a 10%er with other Members of Parliament twelve times a year and send them across the country. Again, the 50% different content rule also applies to "pooled 10%ers".

This program is overseen by the "Board of Internal Economy" at the House of Commons which includes representatives of all five political parties. The printing and mailing is handled by the House of Commons Printing and Mail Services. Their budgets, I believe, are part of the public record.

So ... with that bit of scene-setting, on to your specific questions:

1) Was this publication mailed across Canada, or to specific areas of the country? If only to specific areas, which areas were they? How many pieces were mailed?

"The Future of Marriage in Canada" was mailed to the federal ridings of London-West, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Kitchener-Centre, Hamilton Mountain and Kitchener-Waterloo. 249,290 pieces were mailed in total.

2) Was the cost of designing, printing and mailing this publication born by taxpayers or by the Canadian Alliance?

As mentioned above, this mailing was part of the "pooled 10%er" program authorized by the rules of the House of Commons and representatives of all five political parties.

3) If it was the former, what was the total cost to taxpayers of the design of this document, including any staff time? What was the total cost to taxpayers of printing the document? What was the total cost to taxpayers of mailing it?

The document was produced and designed by employees of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition (OLO), in concordance with fairly detailed House of Commons guidelines (size, colours, use of logo, etc.) The document is a fairly simple one and wouldn't have taken more than a couple of staff hours. I don't have a specific rate for that cost, but it would be minimal. Employees of the OLO are funded through a budget established by the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, I don't have specific printing and mailing numbers. The Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons might know since the Speaker is responsible for the House of Commons budget.

4) Regardless of who paid for printing and mailing, the cost of the mailback will clearly be born by taxpayers (since mailbacks will be postage free to the House of Commons). What is the anticipated cost to taxpayers of the mailback (per unit)? What percentage of the mailings do you anticipate getting back?

Again, I don't have the cost to taxpayers of the postage-free program, so I am unable to give you the cost per unit. We do expect, however, a return rate of between 8% and 10%.

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the numbers below.

Best,

Jim Armour

Jim Armour
Director of Communications
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Room 145 West, Wellington Building
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6
613.947.5747 (office)
613.947.8902 (fax)
armouj@parl.gc.ca
armourj@mobile.rogers.com


[ 18 November 2003: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 18 November 2003 07:07 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
... and I responded as follows

quote:
Thank you for your response to my questions.

A few more questions, this time of the strategic variety:

1) Given that a majority of PC supporters (57%, which represents a larger
majority than Canadians as a whole) support the right of same sex couples to
marry *, why would you want to drive a wedge between the parties at the very
time that you are trying to convince them to merge with your party?

2) Given that supporters of your party are overwhelmingly opposed to
same-sex marriage*, whereas supporters of every other party are in favour
(albeit by a smaller margin, with the exception of the NDP), why do you
believe that highlighting this issue will lead people to switch their
allegiance to the Alliance?

3) Given that the Alliance has an image of being "social rednecks" (and you
can argue whether this image is deserved, but I would hope that you'd agree
that it is somewhat of a reality), why would you want to highlight this
issue at this time?

4) Even if the issues raised in my first three questions were not a factor,
do you really want to gain votes at the expense of a persecuted minority?

5) Why London-West, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Kitchener-Centre, Hamilton Mountain
and Kitchener-Waterloo?

* Polling reference: Environics Research

Thank you for your continuing attention to my inquisitiveness.

Scott Piatkowski



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca