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   » Toews: Free vote on SSM will be 'sooner rather than later'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Toews: Free vote on SSM will be 'sooner rather than later'
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 05 April 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Same-sex debate reopened

quote:

Apr. 5, 2006. 01:04 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA The new Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper says it will follow through on a campaign promise to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on same-sex marriage.

While the issue was not mentioned in Tuesday's throne speech, Justice Minister Vic Toews said today that the vote will be held ``sooner rather than later.

The Tory campaign platform said if MPs vote to overturn same-sex marriage, a bill will be introduced to restrict marriage to unions between men and women.


[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Jimmy Brogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 05 April 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sigh.....
Here we go again

From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 05 April 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
it will be interesting. given Graham's bluster of the other day..." the oppositions' job is to oppose" , will liberal cavemen who voted with the cons against ssm last time, vote for it this time, because they don't want to be seen propping up harper's govt.? if a vote opposing ssm is successful (which i seriously doubt), will harper then have to be the first PM in history to invoke the notwithstanding clause? haha, these fools don't know when to leave well enough alone.

of course, given that harper has decreed that everything his ministers say must be authorised by him, we may be able to interperet this as him knowing the issue will fail, but he can then say to his social con voting base that he tried, but to really succeed , he will need a majority!


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 05 April 2006 02:50 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
if a vote opposing ssm is successful (which i seriously doubt), will harper then have to be the first PM in history to invoke the notwithstanding clause?

What do you mean? Harper said in the campaign that the Conservatives' legal advisors said using the notwithstanding clause would be unnecessary! It must be true if a politician says his lawyer says it's so!


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 05 April 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oops! my mistake!
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 April 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My understanding is thus:

The notwithstanding clause (clause 33(2)) cannot be used to reverse rights granted in clauses 2 nor 7-15 of the charter, anyway. His promise to not invoke the notwithstanding clause means absolutely nothing. He isn't legally able to use it to rescind basic equality issues (once those rights have been granted or upheld) under any circumstance, as equality issues fall under clause 15 of the Charter. His promise not to invoke it is as empty as anything he says, because he wouldn't be permitted to invoke it, in this case.

I'm surprised that Parliament is even going to have a vote on this, as the result of a Conservative victory would be overturned in court at the first challenge. It's lose-lose for the neanderthals. Be humiliated in Parliament, or be humiliated (again) in the courtroom.

Of course, IANAL, so I may be missing something about the Charter.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 05 April 2006 04:03 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:

Of course, IANAL, so I may be missing something about the Charter.



You don't need a lawyer to parse Harper's pronouncements. What you need to do is bring in a stable-hand; they are more experienced at shovelling bullshit.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 05 April 2006 04:21 PM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
GAAAAHHH!!! Yeah, we knew this was propbably coming, but seeing it in the headlines, and seeing the comments pages in the Star ... Feh. The thinly-veiled homophobia is oozing out from under the rocks again.
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
enki
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11560

posted 05 April 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for enki     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
My understanding is thus:

The notwithstanding clause (clause 33(2)) cannot be used to reverse rights granted in clauses 2 nor 7-15 of the charter, anyway.


Your logic is flipped. Section 33 can be used only to nullify sec. 2 or 7-15 of the Charter. Any other right is inalienable.

Harper would be perfectly capable of using the notwithstanding to override SCC on SSM (yay acronyms!)

quote:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

In layman's terms, this roughly translates to "The federal or provincial government can make any law that violates either section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the charter, so long as they say so explicitly."

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: enki ]


From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 05 April 2006 04:35 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
EGALE maintains a searchable database on candidates' voting records on LGBT issues, including ssm:

http://tinyurl.com/rwlhb

it doesn't seem to be updated for the current parliamentarly roster, but with a bit of crossreferencing i'm sure it wouldn't be hard to see how a vote would play out.

i will say again though, i am curious about all those liberals that voted against ssm last time...will they vote for it this time just to embarass the cons?


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 05 April 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
adding the total NDP and Bloc votes gives us 80 in favour, meaning we would need less than 50 liberals to vote with us to kill the whole thing, assuming the entire 125 conservatives voted against it. they didn't though in the last vote, so they look sunk before they even start! why bother?
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 05 April 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
adding the total NDP and Bloc votes gives us 80 in favour, meaning we would need less than 50 liberals to vote with us to kill the whole thing, assuming the entire 125 conservatives voted against it. they didn't though in the last vote, so they look sunk before they even start! why bother?

To satisfy the anti gay con voters


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Okanagan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9269

posted 05 April 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for Okanagan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't the whole point to just replay the Mulroney capital marriage debate? Have a free vote that the social conservatives will hopefully lose, and then say to the social conservatives 'sorry, guys, at least we tried' and then just ignore the issue from then on out?

Sure, it's already been "decided" before, but there was absolutely no way the right's lunatic fringe was going to let it go without at least one more kick at the can. After the free vote, they'll probably be more-or-less ignored when they make noise again by the time some conservative majority government is elected.... The population is still about 50-50 on capital punishment to this very day, I think polls showed in the last couple years, but nobody's really clamouring for it any more.


From: Okanagan | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
JPG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10478

posted 05 April 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for JPG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Absolutely. Harper no intention winning the vote, and hasn't really even presented as an issue that is dear to him or his agenda. He just wants to be able to say he did it.
From: Toronto/Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 05 April 2006 05:09 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hummm... I certainly hope this gets the so-cons talking -- PUBLICLY. That alone might get Canadian voters to take a second look at them. Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief as we say bye-bye to a con majority. *shudder*
From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 05 April 2006 05:18 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
That's the beauty of it, WCT... Harper might be able to shut up his MPs and avoid the media, but he can't shut up the repugnant supporters. The real irony is what stands most between the Harpokons and majority government is the Harpokons themselves, and their own supporters.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Murlev
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4142

posted 05 April 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for Murlev   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
After naming David Emerson to a cabinet post and appointing M. Fortier to the Senate so that he could be in cabinet, to be consistent I expect that Steven Harper will be voting in favour of SSM!
From: Montreal | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 05 April 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like a discussion going on at the Star... Babblers can post their opinions.
From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
JPG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10478

posted 05 April 2006 05:42 PM      Profile for JPG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Way ahead of you.
From: Toronto/Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 05 April 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
That's the beauty of it, WCT... Harper might be able to shut up his MPs and avoid the media, but he can't shut up the repugnant supporters. The real irony is what stands most between the Harpokons and majority government is the Harpokons themselves, and their own supporters.

haha, nice one! i suppose this is the root of my post, but better said.


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 05 April 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JPG:
Absolutely. Harper no intention winning the vote, and hasn't really even presented as an issue that is dear to him or his agenda. He just wants to be able to say he did it.

In all fairness, that's exactly what he's going to do.

At least we can seal the deal and stop this senseless bickering.

It's over with! SSM is in.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 05 April 2006 06:06 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Tiger:
hummm... I certainly hope this gets the so-cons talking -- PUBLICLY. That alone might get Canadian voters to take a second look at them. Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief as we say bye-bye to a con majority. *shudder*

Oh, I can't wait. I really wonder what sort of arguments they're going to come out with that don't easily reduce down to "Gays are icky because God says so."


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 April 2006 06:14 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
They're going to have to have all their speeches in the debate vetted by the PMO, which should piss off the right immensely.

But there may not be much of a debate, since it's just a motion. My prediction is Harper will try to frame it pretty much exclusively as a procedural issue, that it should have been a free vote.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 05 April 2006 06:40 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hate to say it, but they're doing the smart thing. Do it now, get it over with, and hope, probably correctly, that by the time an election comes along the electorate will have forgotten about the whole issue.

What's more likely to nail them is if their supporters start getting restless about, say, abortion.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 April 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Interesting developments. A re-ignited debate about SSM and related rights could spark a resurgence in anti-gay hate crimes, vilification in the media, etc., etc., but it might well have some important postitive benefits as well. Given the prevailing public opinion among the majority of Canadians, I think SSM rights would end up becoming more deeply entrenched legally, and more importantly, in the minds of the large majority of Canadians. I wonder what Harper hopes to get out of this?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 April 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rufus Polson: I hate to say it, but they're doing the smart thing. Do it now, get it over with...

I'd like to turn this sentiment on its head. The smart words are that the Conservatives want to do the hateful thing. C'mon. Think about it.

Conservatives love to generate anger in the electorate. It reflects their backwards looking ideology. I'm saying that they will derive benefits by arousing, once again, incendiary disputes, and allow their supporters to vent their hate. For anyone who thinks that I, too, am venting, kindly look at the debates in our own Parliament from last June. Some of Conservatives seemed to be speaking in tongues. It was quite astoundingly repulsive.

But the expression of hatred is also an opportunity for the expression of more, later on. Maybe the Harper Conservatives consider this as practice, for a more hateful hate later on. Maybe on the abortion issue, as Rufus alludes. They must be thinking, right now, what on earth is the issue with which they can win a majority. They may also be thinking that it will become necessary to invent or create this issue. But to mobilize their minions of hate, whether it is hatred of homosexuals, or hatred of the reproductive freedom of women, or hatred of visible minorities, or hatred of government that is truly at the service of its citizenry, .... whatever the new hate is....to mobilize their minions of hate may make them powerful enough to win a majority. This is something that all Canadians must ponder. Harper must be prevented from obtaining a majority.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 05 April 2006 07:10 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No they are being smart.

They know it won't pass and they know now that they get it out of the way the opposition won't have any ammo come election time.

Harper has to, because he has to please some of his voters and "keep his promises" and on the other hand disarm anyone from using the "scare tactics".


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 April 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
adding the total NDP and Bloc votes gives us 80 in favour, meaning we would need less than 50 liberals to vote with us to kill the whole thing, assuming the entire 125 conservatives voted against it. they didn't though in the last vote, so they look sunk before they even start! why bother?

7 BQ MPs voted against SSM and they are all back.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 April 2006 08:53 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Harper has announced it won't happen before fall.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 05 April 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

7 BQ MPs voted against SSM and they are all back.


ok, good figure, so how many of the liberals that voted against it are back? if there are less, will it offset those BQ bigots?


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 05 April 2006 09:08 PM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I think at least one of the Bloc votes against the Civil Marriage Act was defeated in 2006 (Odina Desrochers, the Lotbiniere-area riding).

ETA: Apparently, Desrochers was a second-reading No, and a third-reading absent. But he was still defeated in 2006.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Threads ]


From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 05 April 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Like Mulroney's capital punishment vote in the mid-1980s, Harper's promise of a free vote on equal marriage does present a historic opportunity, but only if pro-equal marriage advocates make their voices heard.

Egale went to considerable trouble canvassing federal election candidates. Hopefully, they'll soon have a scorecard up.

I feel fairly hopeful about the outcome but it definitely should not be left to chance.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 05 April 2006 11:01 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:

Harper's promise of a free vote on equal marriage does present a historic opportunity, but only if pro-equal marriage advocates make their voices heard.



Since Harper cannot control whether the Liberals, BQ or NDP whip their caucus members or not, this is no more a "free vote" than the last one was. Harper's claims that it is are utter bullshit.

"Pro-equal marriage advocates" should confine themselves to denouncing this entire exercise for what it is: grandstanding, play-acting, and pandering to reactionary bigots.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 05 April 2006 11:14 PM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In fact, since the NDP has a bigger caucus, and Duceppe is (apparently) whipping his caucus to vote against this motion, and NDP + Bloc now > NDP + Liberal Cabinet then, it's even less of a free vote!
From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 April 2006 11:18 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I can't imagine anyone who voted for it before changing their vote, including former cabinet ministers. Tellingly, Judy Sgro, who was a former opponent, continued to support marriage after she was dropped from cabinet.

In the Liberal, NDP and BQ they'd be ending their political career by backtracking. I also expect the leadership candidates (including those outside the Commons) for the Liberal party will be unanimous on this. Graham, of course, doesn't have nearly ability to pressure people as Martin did. He has no cabinet posts to offer or deny now, or in future.

Likewise, I don't expect a single Conservative who opposed it to change their vote, even the so-called moderates. It's possible though, that some will absent themselves.

I do believe a handful of Liberals who voted no may change their votes or, again, absent themselves.

I sincerely hope this ends up destroying both the Conservative's facade of moderation and Harper's ability to silence the lunatic non-fringe.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 05 April 2006 11:22 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
wikipedia has a comprehensive scorecard

their tally is 153 (pro status quo) to 137 (wanting to turn back time) with 18 unknown/undecided.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 05 April 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe the opposition SHOULD let the measure pass, just to get it to the supreme court for a binding ruling, as long as the legislation doesn't contain notwithstanding exemption.

Which it wouldn't, because that automatically gives it a 5 year sunset timeline. No one is going to invoke the NWC until they have to.

~~

This would also scare the fuck out of the public, guarranteeing a future conservative defeat.

Unless, of course, the conservatives back down and ensure that their own bill goes down to defeat.

I can't actually think of a better way to split the conservative base from the centrists they're trying to court.

~~

They should be careful what they ask for...

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 05 April 2006 11:49 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
the fundies didn't stay in the closet for long.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 April 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:
Maybe the opposition SHOULD let the measure pass, just to get it to the supreme court for a binding ruling, as long as the legislation doesn't contain notwithstanding exemption.

This vote won't be on legislation, but on whether or not to legislate. If it passes, and legislation is brought in, and it passes the house and Senate, it will have the effect of taking away fundamental rights for the years it will take to make it up to the Supreme Court - and the gay community is going to have to absorb all the costs.

No thanks.

Harper promised that if the motion is defeated it will be over. Let's hold him to that.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 06 April 2006 12:42 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
Of course there should be same sex marriage. As 22 Minutes points out, why should hetros be the only ones that have to endure the trials and tribulations of being married?
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 06 April 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I imagine the conservatives must be rather comfortable in their new leadership position... otherwise, I doubt they'd bring this subject up this early in the game.

Are they THAT deluded into thinking they can push this through??? Or are they "being smart" as someone mentioned earlier -- getting it all out of the way asap, while conceding a likely loss, for now.

That begs the question, how will the so-con supporters handle a Con failure to take apart SSM?

No matter what, I feel this is a hornet's nest to be playing with. SSM is just the issue to caution the electorate about voting for the Cons. With the Cons going after this, then I think many voters, like me, will be concerned about their intentions on likely future issues such as abortion. Moreover, there will be rifts within the Con party AND their supporters depending on how it's handled... more room for chaos.

The whole attempt will open the public's eyes, I suspect. It spells disaster for the Con party. I just don't see how they can push this issue and walk away politically unscathed unless they are a) very crafty, and b) very lucky.


From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 06 April 2006 12:52 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
...the NDP has a bigger caucus, and Duceppe is (apparently) whipping his caucus...

whew, is it getting hot in here? i think my glasses are fogging up!


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 06 April 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reality. Bites.:

Harper promised that if the motion is defeated it will be over. Let's hold him to that.

Exactly. A motion is tabled, gets smacked down, and life goes on as normal. Nothing worth getting worked up about. It will cause the "Christian" right to make total asses of themselves; again life goes on as normal.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 06 April 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yet another example of conservative waste.

Why are conservatives wasting Canadian's time on this issue when Canadians had already decided this issue?

Why are conservatives wasting my taxpayers money on this issue when most Canadians are strongly in favour of SSM?

Why are conservatives using a divisive issue in order to separate Canadians instead of bringing the country together.

Why aren't conservatives tackling real problems like poverty, education and our health care?

They talked a good talk about the country during election but after they got elected they act like republicans doing whatever they can to divide and separate ordinary Canadians from each other like manipulating this divisive SSM issue.

Conservatives are morally repulsive.

[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 06 April 2006 01:14 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper wants to create tension and a divisive culture much like his hero Mike Harris did in Ontario.

Just stick it to the people they hate and make their lives unbearable.

Hey Harper your tough on crime policy: good one.
The murderer Mike Harris should be your first candidate for jail with no probabtion time.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 06 April 2006 09:58 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why are conservatives wasting Canadian's time on this issue when Canadians had already decided this issue?

I agree and that's the first thing that came to mind. However the more I thought about it, the quicker it's over and done with, the less paper that will be wasted ranting pro-against.

quote:
Why are conservatives wasting my taxpayers money on this issue when most Canadians are strongly in favour of SSM?

Just out of cuiosity is that a fact? I'm not questioning you I just can't recall any major polls. I'd wager they were majority "pro". Although I'm very pro ssm, I can't recall offhand seeing any evidence to suggest a clear cut majority.

(Like I said, I assume there was/is, but would like to confirm )


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 April 2006 10:15 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:
Although I'm very pro ssm, I can't recall offhand seeing any evidence to suggest a clear cut majority.

There's a strong majority in favour of dropping the issue, which is not the same thing as being in favour. It's similar to the way there's a strong majority who don't want an election soon, but not who actually support the Cons.

According to that poll, Conservative supporters are evenly split on whether or not it should be re-opened, while supporters of the three other parties are about 75% against re-opening it, with no significant differences between NDP, BQ and Liberal supporters. This, and statements from a couple of Liberal MPs and Duceppe, lead me to think the Liberals and BQ may be less divided than they were previously.

I think the Liberals and BQ should do exactly what the slimy bastard Harper did - pretend they're having a free vote while whipping the caucus harder than they ever did on any other vote.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 06 April 2006 11:13 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Much ado about nothing here folks. Harper is going to get the vote over with as soon as humanly possible, not to kill SSM, but to shut up the socon base of this party. The house will not support eliminating SSM so I see this vote as nothing more severe than a bad case of menstrual cramps.
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 06 April 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a principle here ... if the neo-bigots were calling for a "free vote" on the right of blacks to be considered full citizens, would we all still be suggesting that we let the thing "run it course"?

"Ah, let the bigots have their vote on the rights of blacks, and then we can get on with letting them run the real business of the country."

Can anyone really imagine taking that attitude if it were any other group under assault by the neo-bigots?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 06 April 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Word, NY.
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 April 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Yes there is a principle here, but we are dealing with a party in power whose only principles are evil ones, and with a leader who has consistently shown he has no principles at all.

I don't like anything about this. I do not accept for a minute the idea of Parliament voting on my rights - one nice thing about the Civil Marriage Act is that it makes it clear it is recognizing rights, not granting them.

I did not at any time consider a Conservative government a morally acceptable outcome of the election, nor do I consider Layton and Duceppe's co-operation in bringing it about to have been morally acceptable. Duceppe got his payback in January, and there's a good chance Jack will get his in the next election.

Indeed, if there's been an action by ANY party on the issue of marriage that was born of principle, rather than political expediency, I sure as hell don't know what it was. A few individual politicans stand out - Joe Clark, Real Menard, Svend Robinson, and a handful of others (mainly in the NDP), but no party as a whole, and no leader.

Notwithstanding all that, and given that we have no choice anyway, I still prefer Harper's underhanded betrayal of the bigoted idiots he used to gain power to the alternative, which is actually giving them what they want.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 06 April 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I did not at any time consider a Conservative government a morally acceptable outcome of the election, nor do I consider Layton and Duceppe's co-operation in bringing it about to have been morally acceptable. Duceppe got his payback in January, and there's a good chance Jack will get his in the next election.

Then the electorate in the country are obviously not morally acceptable either - that or the Liberal Party of Canada is the benchmark for our colective morality.


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 April 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Given the choice of two evils, picking the lesser is the moral choice.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 06 April 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ones that voted for canidates that want to revoke human rights certainly are immoral, or at best, incredibly ignorant and stupid.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 April 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I did not at any time consider a Conservative government a morally acceptable outcome of the election,

It's not a question of being moral or immoral. the Conservatives got the most votes and the most seats. End of story.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 April 2006 01:15 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I'm aware of that. My point was that it's too late to talk about whether their plans are moral or not once they've been elected. Electing them was an immoral choice.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 April 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about people who voted for 40-odd Liberals who swore their undying opposition to SSM??
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 April 2006 01:36 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
They were still voting for a government that would not be trying to change the definition of marriage.

If it was a vote to prevent a Conservative from winning the seat, even a pro-marriage Conservative, then yes, it was a moral choice. I'd vote for a bigoted Liberal or NDPer over a decent Conservative in a heartbeat.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 April 2006 02:49 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Needless to say for about 98% of the voters (if not more) this was not the ONLY decision that determined their vote.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 06 April 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There's a strong majority in favour of dropping the issue, which is not the same thing as being in favour. It's similar to the way there's a strong majority who don't want an election soon, but not who actually support the Cons.


Thanks. I do remember that. Not much sense, *sencelessly* digging something up that's be long burried


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  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