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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » Bev Desjarlais (Continued...)

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bev Desjarlais (Continued...)
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 12 December 2004 01:01 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This time Bev Desjarlais says she will actually show up and vote AGAINST the same-sex marriage legalization. Stoffer believes she should be allowed to do so. And another NDPer, Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie), is apparently “undecided” on the issue.

This is a test of Layton's leadership. So far I'm not impressed. He can't even say whether Desjarlais will be fired if she votes against the legislation.


From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 12 December 2004 01:05 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maxx:
This is a test of Layton's leadership. So far I'm not impressed. He can't even say whether Desjarlais will be fired if she votes against the legislation.

You just said a mouthful. And there are a lot of people watching what he does (or does not do).


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 12 December 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maxx:
This is a test of Layton's leadership. So far I'm not impressed. He can't even say whether Desjarlais will be fired if she votes against the legislation.

Gee, you don't think that might be because he actually wants to get her to vote in favour of it? Or at least to not vote against it? And because making threats to satisfy you would have at best the opposite effect?


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 12 December 2004 01:16 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has she shared her reasons?
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 12 December 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by andrewtgsadler:

Gee, you don't think that might be because he actually wants to get her to vote in favour of it? Or at least to not vote against it? And because making threats to satisfy you would have at best the opposite effect?



I see your point.... but why on Earth did he sign her nomination papers in the first place?

From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 12 December 2004 01:34 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
Has she shared her reasons?

Why? Does that make a difference?

[ 12 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 12 December 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't think of a reason that would impress me but I'd just like to understand her decision making points. I'm perplexed.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was understood that the NDP would tolerate her abstaining in any vote on same sex marriage. When there was a vote last year on the Reform Party's motion to define marriage as being between a man and a woman - she kept up her end of the bargain and absented herself.

Bev Desjarlais won the NDP nomination fair and square in her riding and she has been elected to three terms as an MP. Expelling someone like that from caucus is not a decision to be taken lightly. I'm sure that Jack signed her nomination papers in June because he had every reason to believe that they had a deal whereby she would abstain.

If she now renegs on that compromise and insists on voting NO, then I think she will have to be disciplined by being expelled or suspended or whatever. I don't blame Jack for not making instant pronouncements. Party leaders and MPs don't negotiate through the media through hear-say. Let him read her the riot act in private and if she doesn't backdown - THEN it is time to expel.

In the meantime, if the bill passes by a wide margin and equal marriage becomes the law of the land - don't we have better things to obsess over than whether or not to expel one MP whose vote was on the losing side anyways?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 12 December 2004 02:04 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Last year, the Reform motion was defeated only by 5 votes. We need every vote we can get.

But it's not only about the outcome of the vote, it's about NDP's supposedly "principled stand" on same-sex marriage, as well as Layton's ability to lead the caucus.

If Bev Desjarlais votes against SSM, Layton will come off as a lame duck leader.


From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, the more votes in favour of SSM, the better. My point is that there was a deal whereby people like Desjarlais could stay in the NDP caucus if they abstained.

If Desjarlais had been booted out of caucus a year ago, in all likelihood she would have been a martyr and either she would have been reelected as an Independent who would happily vote NO to SSM or her riding would have elected a social conservative Tory or Liberal who would have voted NO. I'd rather have an NDP MP who will probably abstain than a non-NDP MP who will be a hardcore NO vote.

If Desjarlais breaks the deal and votes NO, then boot her out. But let's be careful about how this gets spun. The NDP cannot let this turn into a debate over whether or not she has the right to vote "according to her conscience". She has the right as an MP to vote anyway she wants on any issue she wants, BUT if she wants to be part of the NDP caucus, she has to accept certain rules. Other parties may regard this issue as a so-called free vote. The NDP does not. For an NDP MP to vote against equal marriage is treated the same way as an NDP MP voting against an NDP budget or voting with the opposition on a non-confidence vote.

All that being said. It is 99.99999999% certain that this bill will pass with flying colours. Why do we have to be such sore winners? Can't we rejoice about the major advance that is being made in Canada without getting sidetracked into an ugly debate over whether the NDP is 95% pro SSM or 100% pro-SSM?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 12 December 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maxx, could you or someone else here please post a link to the latest comments you are reporting?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 12 December 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That an issue of human rights is put to a vote is a travesty in the first place.

If there is a time when an order in council is warranted, this is it.


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 December 2004 03:17 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The NDP cannot let this turn into a debate over whether or not she has the right to vote "according to her conscience".

So, are there any "matters of conscience" at all? I remember a time when free votes were allowed on matters of conscience -- and someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong -- I think these included capital punishment and abortion.

I believe the old saw: the personal is political. I don't think there are any matters of conscience that would come up in federal politics.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 December 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since I think it may be relevant how her constituents view the issue, I think it is a reasonable compromise for her to simply abstain.

As I understand it, hers is a reliable voice for working people, native rights, women, and for generally progressive social policy.

So, she is wrong about same sex marriage. If that were the only issue, she should be removed from caucus. But it isn't.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2004 03:45 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not about the wishes of her constituents. its about her personal opinions. There are Liberal and NDP MPs from rural and northern ridings across canada who are enthusiastically in favour of equal marriage and none of them had any trouble getting reelected in June.

If she abstains - fine. But she is making noises about not abstaining but actually voting no. That cannot be allowed in the NDP. parties exist because they stand for something and total support for gay rights is a core policy of the NDP.

How do you think the Bloc Quebecois would treat an MP who voted YES to a resolution stating "Quebec is a province in canada with powers equal to the other provinces". They would be booted out in a flash.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 12 December 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
she is making noises about not abstaining but actually voting no.

Where? What noises? I'm not trying to challenge you. I know what Desjarlais said a year ago. But I would really like to know what she's said lately (i.e. since the Supreme Court handed down its decision).


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 12 December 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right-on Robbie. This debate is intense enough without tossing unsourced hearsay into the mix.

Here's a story:

quote:
"If there is a vote, I will be there and I will not support changing the definition," she said.
If she really disagreed with the party on this she should have ran as an Independent. She didn't and the party's position of "no free votes on human rights" is pretty straight-forward and very fair. She can believe what she wants but she either votes the party-line or abstains or she leaves the party.

I, actually, have some sympathy for people (like Tony Martin) who have deep-seated personal beliefs on these issues (Tony was very nearly ordained as a Catholic Priest) but the party policy on this is very clear and it provides an excellent exit strategy: if you simply can't bring yourself to vote for something you oppose then STAY AWAY.

[ 12 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 12 December 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, thanks Burns. I agree that those sort of comments are inappropriate and Jack better be having a talk with her. This is pretty ironclad party policy and she can't be voting against it.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 12 December 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On second thought, maybe Bev does need to worry about the response of her constituents. A pro-SSM MP couldn't possibly be relected in a northern area, could they?

Well, except for Larry Bagnell, Liberal MP for the Yukon.
Or Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal MP for Western Arctic.
Or Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal MP for Nunavut.
What about Diane Marleau, Liberal MP for Sudbury?
Or Andy Mitchell, Liberal MP for Parry Sound-Muskoka?


But, an MP from a traditional, small town or rural area couldn't possibly survive voting for SSM, could they?

Well, except for Scott Brison, Liberal MP for Kings-Hants.
Or Gerry Byrne, Liberal MP for Humber-St.Barbe-Baie Verte.
Or Paul Crête, BQ MP for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
Or Rodger Cuzner, Liberal MP for Cape Breton-Canso.
Or Paul DeVilliers, Liberal MP for Simcoe North.
What about Claude Drouin, Liberal MP for Beauce?
Then there's Wayne Easter, Liberal MP for Malpeque in that most metropolitan and big-city of provinces, PEI.
Or Marcel Gagnon, BQ MP for Saint Maurice-Champlain.
Or Michel Gauthier, BQ MP for Roberval - Lac Saint-Jean.
And then one of my favourites, Yvon Godin, NDP MP for Acadie-Bathurst.
Or then there's Dominic Leblanc, Liberal MP for Beauséjour.
Or Paul Harold Macklin, Liberal MP for Northumberland-Quinte West.
Or Brent St. Denis, Liberal MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Or Robert Thibault, Liberal MP for West Nova.


And I did this quickly, so I'm sure I missed a couple. Which makes Bev either a coward or a bigot. Neither makes for a good NDP MP, I'd say.


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 12 December 2004 06:47 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Fer chrissakes, who cares!!!?
From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 12 December 2004 06:48 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would hardly say Ethel Blondin or Brent St Denis' inability to vote against the Liberal party leadership is a mark of courage. If anything, the opposite. Let's stay within sight of reality. Liberal MPs win because they're Liberals and they get ahead by kissing ass. If Paul Martin suddenly re-discovered his homophobia you can bet your rainbow flag that this same crew would be pushing through whatever hate-filled garbage their political masters demanded of them.

By contrast, NDP MPs (by and large) win in spite of their affiliation - which makes them much harder to whip. Getting shrill and pointing to backbench Liberal stumps won't help much. Desjerlais clearly feels strongly about this. That's her right. She can sit out the vote. But she can't show up and vote against this - the party policy is crystal clear.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 12 December 2004 06:52 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Fer chrissakes, who cares!!!?
Well, a lot of gays and lesbians obviously. I frankly don't know why ANYONE would want to get married but I'll support their right to do it.

To be politically crass, the sooner this issue is resolved the sooner we can all get on with the rest of our lives.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 12 December 2004 07:00 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Well, where were people protesting when Jack personally recruited Monia Mazigh to run? And, where were the people yelling and screaming when she got hired by the party. Clearly, the NDP already has bigots in the midst. So why complain now?
From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 12 December 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, where were people protesting when Jack personally recruited Monia Mazigh to run?

I don't know -- or care -- about NDP circles, but for what it's worth, many people -- including many stalwart NDP members and supporters -- were protesting here on babble.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there is a vote, I will be there and I will not support changing the definition," she said.

Maybe she is leaving herself and the party some wiggle room. Being absent means you were not "present" at all. If you "abstain" it means you are present in the House but you choose to have your vote recorded as an abstention...and that is not "not supporting changing the definition" its just that its not opposing changing the definition either!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lacabombi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7014

posted 12 December 2004 09:23 PM      Profile for lacabombi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dagmar wrote:

quote:

Clearly, the NDP already has bigots in the midst. So why complain now?

I cannot argue with this. For students, historians, and others familiar with issues of human rights in Ontario, the Bob Rae administration has shown to be of a level of racism that one has to go back at least a half a century to find its equal in Canada. Maybe not by design but certainly by outcome.


From: Ontario | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 12 December 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't agree with the poster that says that it's 99.99% plus likely to pass. I am not sure what their basis is - I am not well informed on this issue so I could be out to lunch. My sense is it is a bit more vulnerable than that.

I do agree with the poster that says that if it is that certain - focus on something else. This is one person.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2004 10:09 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I cannot argue with this. For students, historians, and others familiar with issues of human rights in Ontario, the Bob Rae administration has shown to be of a level of racism that one has to go back at least a half a century to find its equal in Canada. Maybe not by design but certainly by outcome.


I'm not sure what you are talking about? The Rae government made extraordinary efforts to level the playing field in Ontario with very far reaching employment equity programs etc... all of which got trashed by Harris as soon as he got the chance.

The bill will pass easily. Do the math about 50 BQ MP, plus about 18 NDP MPs (68 already), plus 3 or so Conservatives, then you have the 38 member cabinet (now we are up to 109) and then the remainder of the Liberal caucus which is about 2/3 gay positive. I predict the bill will pass by about a 170-140 margin. Of courses if it was defeated all it woudl mean would be that same sex marriage continues to be legal in 6 provinces (soon to be 7 after Newfoundland rules this week) and we wait a year or two for courts in New Brunswick and finally Alberta to rule the same way.

The only way that same sex marriage can be derailed at all is if the Martin gov't introduced a government bill to invoke the notwithstanding clause - something they would never do and then that bill would have to pass the HY of C and get passed by the overwhelmingly small "l" liberal Senate and then who knows if Adrienne Clarkson would even sign it! I give you a million to 1 odds it will never transpire.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 12 December 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But it's not only about the outcome of the vote, it's about NDP's supposedly "principled stand" on same-sex marriage, as well as Layton's ability to lead the caucus.

If Bev Desjarlais votes against SSM, Layton will come off as a lame duck leader.


Jack would only be a lame-duck leader if Desjarlais votes against SSM and is allowed to remain in caucus. If she votes against it and is removed from the caucus, I would argue Jack's leadership will be reinforced. It takes a strong leader to expel an MP on principle when we have 19 MPs in our caucus and this reduction in numbers will impact the NDP's parliamentary staffing and budgetary resources.

I am as horrifed by Bev's SSM stance as any of you, but let's take a breath here and give Jack time to address the situation. I have read in the Atlantic Canadian media recently (sorry, I don't have time to find the URL now ) that Peter Stoffer has now changed his position and will vote in favour of SSM, so that's already an improvement from Alexa's time as leader.

Hopefully, Jack will be able to work with Bev along the same lines (Joe Cromartin was on TV last week on the day of the SC ruling and said he still hopes Bev will change her mind). Let's give Bev time to (hopefully) reflect on the court ruling and Jack and others time to convince Bev to support the SSM legislation, before accusing Jack of being a weak leader.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a vote, I will be there and I will not support changing the definition," she said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe she is leaving herself and the party some wiggle room. Being absent means you were not "present" at all. If you "abstain" it means you are present in the House but you choose to have your vote recorded as an abstention...and that is not "not supporting changing the definition" its just that its not opposing changing the definition either!


You could be right, Stockholm, but to me, this would be the worse possible outcome. To have Bev go to the trouble of attending the House vote and abstaining on a key Charter issue would be totally embarassing to her, the NDP Caucus and the party as a whole. It's a much more damaging visual than simply skipping the vote, and even that is still dishonouring Bev's responsibilities as an elected MP.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 12 December 2004 11:36 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Its not about the wishes of her constituents. its about her personal opinions. There are Liberal and NDP MPs from rural and northern ridings across canada who are enthusiastically in favour of equal marriage and none of them had any trouble getting reelected in June.


There you go again Stockholm. What do I mean by this? Simple it's in regards to your claim to know the political landscape of areas far from where you are both literally and figurativley (read the all seeing eye from Toronto). You seem to have this fetish with regards to telling us all about the politics of the hinterlands.

Anyways -- I think she could get re-elected if she was for it, after all she's pretty progressive in other ways and gets re-elected. The point is that she has to take that stand and in doing so she could probably bring alot of the people of Churchill to at least tolerate her decision and thus (somewhat) tolerate SSM.

[ 12 December 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 December 2004 11:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
So, she is wrong about same sex marriage. If that were the only issue, she should be removed from caucus. But it isn't.

How about saying that again, but replacing the phrase "same sex marriage" with "holocaust denial" or "anti-miscegenation". See how that sounds to you.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2004 11:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There you go again Stockholm. What do I mean by this? Simple it's in regards to your claim to know the political landscape of areas far from where you are both literally and figurativley (read the all seeing eye from Toronto). You seem to have this fetish with regards to telling us all about the politics of the hinterlands.


This is not my opinion. This is a FACT. Just of a few of the literally dozens of examples:

Larry Bagnell Liberal MP for Yukon - enthusiastic supporter of SSM - easily reelected in June with the equally pro-SSM NDP candidate second.

Ethel Blondin Liberal MP for Western Arctic - enthusiastic supporter of SSM - easily reelected in June with the equally pro-SSM NDP candidate second (by just 40 votes).

Brent St. Denis Liberal MP for Algoma - enthusiastic supporter of SSM - easily reelected in June with the equally pro-SSM NDP candidate second.

Nancy Karetak-Lindall Liberal MP for NUnavut - enthusiastic supporter of SSM - easily reelected in June crushing an anti-SSM independent.

Nathan Cullen - NDP MP for Skeena, enthusiastically supports SSM and defeats a social conservative homophobic Conservative MP.

Paul DeVilliers - Liberal MP for Simcoe North. One of the most outspoken and visible and proud supporters of SSM running in a very socially conservative riding that votes Tory provincially. His Conservative opponent tried to target him for his backing of SSM - he was reelected by 7,000 votes.

There is not one SCINTILLA of evidence that being pro-SSM has defeated anyone.

There is one MP who may well have lost his seat due to his position on SSM Homophobic Liberal Dennis Mills who lost narrowly to Jack Layton after thousands of Liberals deserted him due to his position (remember Liberals for Layton).

The fact that I live in Toronto is irrelevent. These are incontrovertible facts!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 December 2004 12:34 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Facts -- Where? I'm talking about a specific riding not sorta similarish ridings. And I said she could probably bring them over cause its not that important to the average person (even though it can be a vote determining issue for some) -- but that it hasn't happened yet. As such it's mostly Bev who needs to come to a position -- and I think unfortunatley in this case she really believes it's the right thing to do.

Anyways the Toronto thing is just a dig cause you do it all the time in the Western forum -- I mean that in the sense of commenting on local politics like you are/were a local (everywhere!). It's hard to take you seriously at times. (Seriously!)

[edited a few times]

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
NP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 226

posted 13 December 2004 12:40 AM      Profile for NP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Stockholm has missed the point. I do think some New Democrats lost in part due the SSM issue. In Regina Qu'Appelle Andrew Scheer was able to scare enough people in places like Fort Qu'Appelle, Balgonie and Ituna about SSM that he was able to sneak in by 800 or so votes. That's just one example.

But the important thing is that sometimes we have to stand up for, and lose if necessary, on our principles. I don't think Lorne Nystrom would disagree that his longtime pro-SSM stance was the right thing to do.

I honestly think it means more in the long run to have NDP MPs standing up for equality rights in ridings that are socially conservative. For instance, it's easy for Jack to stand up for SSM in Danforth, but it's far more meaningful and necessary for the NDP to challenge the thought patterns of those in ridings where support for SSM is not strong.

If Bev is too chickenshit to engage her constituency on this issue, then she doesn't belong in the NDP caucus. Imagine where we'd be if MPs like Tommy (and Nystrom too btw) didn't stand up against the War Measures Act during the October crisis...


From: The city that rhymes with fun | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 December 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since rightly or wrongly a large number of anglo-Canadians probably think that the WMA was a good idea (or that's been my impression), I wouldn't ask that question: the answer might actually be "better than where the NDP is now!"
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 13 December 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Noah, what was the impact in Regina Qu'Appelle of the consolidation of the PC and the Alliance vote?
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 01:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Keep in mind that Regina Qu'Appelle, Regina Lumsden-Lake Centre and Palliser were all pretty tight three way races and as far as i know the Liberal candidates in all those seats were very pro-SSM as well, so you could argue that 2/3 of the voters supported candidates who were pro- same sex marriage.

The riding of Churchill is an NDP stronghold since time immemorial and has a very large native population. It will take a lot more than one vote in favour of SSM for it to elect a Conservative.

Regarding the WMA, the NDP plunged in the polls in the immediate aftermath of the the October Crisis of 1970 due to the NDP's then unpopular stand in opposing the War Measures Act. Within a year that was forgotten as the NDP won a couple of Liberal seats in byelections in 1971 and the NDP had one of its best ever showings in the 1972 election.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 13 December 2004 01:19 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:
I cannot argue with this. For students, historians, and others familiar with issues of human rights in Ontario, the Bob Rae administration has shown to be of a level of racism that one has to go back at least a half a century to find its equal in Canada. Maybe not by design but certainly by outcome.[/QB]

Ultimately,though, Bob Rae is not a bigot himself. In fact, he left the NDP because of bigotry toward Jews. Can't say as I blame him.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 13 December 2004 01:21 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

How about saying that again, but replacing the phrase "same sex marriage" with "holocaust denial" or "anti-miscegenation". See how that sounds to you.


Holocaust denial? Surely you're not suggesting that being against same-sex marriage is on the same moral plane as being a Holocaust denier.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 01:25 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In any case, any MP who is afraid of the political consequences of supporting SSM, shoudl keep this in mind:

If you are a wavering Liberal (or NDPer) who is concerned about your political future, the best thing that can happen is for the issue of SSM to GO AWAY.

If the bill allowing SSM passes then equal marriage becomes a fait accompli and this issue will be done with once and for all. I sincerely doubt that Stephen Harper wants to fight the next federal election saying "Elect a CPC gov't so that we can introduce a bill to invoke the notwithstanding clause and override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and disallow same sex marriage and force all those already married to be instantly divorced!" This would as suicidal as campaigning on a promise to totally recriminalize abortion!

If the bill passes SSM is here to stay and there will be no point electing an anti-SSM MP in any future election becayse it will be moot and within a few months the public will be used to it.

If the vote fails - same sex marriages will continue to happen in 6 provinces and you can be certain that this issue will continue to be a hot topic with the potential to damage MPs in the next election.

Btter to get it over with.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 December 2004 01:40 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
what was the impact in Regina Qu'Appelle of the consolidation of the PC and the Alliance vote?

The transposition of votes page on the Elections Canada website says the 2000 votes transposed to the new boundaries and with the PC and CA consolidated was:

NDP 11,613
Conservative 11,459
Liberal 5,024

Whereas the result last June was:

NDP 9,151
Conservative 10,012
Liberal 7,793
Green 639
Christian Heritage 293
Lorne Edward Widger 106

quote:
Originally posted by Noah Evanchuk:
I do think some New Democrats lost in part due the SSM issue. In Regina Qu'Appelle Andrew Scheer was able to scare enough people in places like Fort Qu'Appelle, Balgonie and Ituna about SSM that he was able to sneak in by 800 or so votes.

Scheer lost votes.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 13 December 2004 02:40 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for that research, Wilfred. Only the Liberals went up, and as Stockholm pointed out, their candidate was also pro-SSM.

How do people feel the provincial government's standing affect the federal results?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 07:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Holocaust denial? Surely you're not suggesting that being against same-sex marriage is on the same moral plane as being a Holocaust denier.

Yes. I am.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 09:19 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lacabombi:
I cannot argue with this. For students, historians, and others familiar with issues of human rights in Ontario, the Bob Rae administration has shown to be of a level of racism that one has to go back at least a half a century to find its equal in Canada. Maybe not by design but certainly by outcome.
This is probably the most idiotic thing I've ever seen posted here. Lacombi you're smarter than this - one of the only things Rae did right was anti-racism. From the anti-racist secretariat to perhaps the most wide-ranging employment equity programs ever attempted.

Calling Rae's government racist is spectacularly innaccurate and totally spits on all of the NDP MPPs who stuck their necks out and got their heads cut off standing up on these important issues.

ADDING: If you want to know why some New Democrat politicians want to walk away from queer and other identity-politics issues look no further than these comments. Basically, no matter what New Democrats do (and under Rae the NDP did just about everthing asked of them on these fronts) people will not only not give you credit - they'll label you a racist or a Nazi.

Sorry, Michelle, I'm normally with you, but labelling someone like Tony Martin (who is probably the most kind and progressive soul to ever enter into Canadian politics) the equivalent of Ernst Zundel just turns my stomach. People have to accept the fact that SSM is a major leap for a lot of people. They have to unlearn years and years of education about gender roles. It's not always easy. Bev has hit upon a splitting issue - if she votes against SSM she's gone - but for a lot of people that are on the fence and willing to be talked down hearing this sort of rhetoric will just turn them off.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 13 December 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
People have to accept the fact that SSM is a major leap for a lot of people. They have to unlearn years and years of education about gender roles. It's not always easy. Bev has hit upon a splitting issue - if she votes against SSM she's gone - but for a lot of people that are on the fence and willing to be talked down hearing this sort of rhetoric will just turn them off.

This is very well said. I've been trying to figure out a way to say something like this on babble for a while now.

We are still well within living memory of homosexuality being illegal. Trudeau's "the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation" quote is remembered vivedly by many many people. Even my father who has been trying to change his understanding (although its more cause a close family came out then anything else) on homosexuality for years still struggles with the issue. Now that said, I know he went to school with Pat O'Brien - so he wasnt exactly coming from even a relatively progressive point to start with either.

But he's come leaps and bounds from his orignal position. And when the topic comes up around him, as long as you keep the logic up and the rehtoric down. He will at least fancy a listen, and sometimes even asks alot of questions. He doesnt say much on the issue but tolerance comes before acceptance.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
People have to accept the fact that SSM is a major leap for a lot of people.

Even if I can accept this, how could I expect a gay friend to? And how long are they/we supposed to be patient whilst all these bigots come to their own special, private understanding of SSM? And how do we know when the last holdovers just aren't budging, and there's no point waiting anymore?

I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to find citizens who don't believe women are or should be full citizens. Should we all just wait? Ask woment to endure obvious and blatant sexism in the meantime? What about those who think immigrants are second-class citizens? Should we just be patient and keep giving them the soft-soap in the hope they'll change?

Or should we, at some point, point out that either you believe in the same full set of rights for every Canadian or you don't? I'm not sure what all the namby-pambying around is intended to accomplish. We sure as fuck don't have that level of patience for racists (even though racism used to be quite a normal attitude) nor sexism (even though it's still somewhat of a normal attitude) but whenever SSM comes up there's always someone urging everyone to go slow so as not to "spook" the bigots. I'm starting to care less and less about the bigots. In fact I really don't give a tinker's damn about the bigots. They can grow up — and fast — or they should really consider joining the CPC.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 13 December 2004 11:10 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
What a lot of foot-draggers and critics of so-called "judge-made law" do not want to acknowledge is that the only reason we have reached this point is due to the courts. These people are only grudgingly willing to accept "civil unions" as a last-ditch effort to avoid gay marriage.

Ten years ago, we might have settled for civil unions. Now it's too little, too late. SSM is coming whether they are ready for it or not. It is already the law of the land in over half of the country.

Virtually every step of progress LGBTs have made, from the right not to be fired from our jobs or kicked out of our houses to the right to make health care decisions for our partners has been the result of us pushing; if we waited for straight society to "get around to tolerating us", we would be waiting a lot more decades yet.

Yes, Trudeau took a brave step to decriminalize gay relationships in 1969; few recall that it was part of an omnibus bill that also loosened the restrictions around divorce, and that it was fought bitterly by the Conservatives of the day.

Every small step, we have been forced to use the law and the courts, and it has been met with resistance and (to be kind) "intolerance" from the regressives. Do I apologize for pushing, for wanting more? Not one little bit. Do you blame me for wanting LGBTs to have a semblance of a "normal" life within my lifetime?!

To the people who "aren't ready for it yet," I say TOUGH LUCK. You don't have to like it. Your kind never has before, so why would you suddenly start now?

Sorry for getting so "uppity"...

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 December 2004 11:28 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:
Now that said, I know he went to school with Pat O'Brien - so he wasnt exactly coming from even a relatively progressive point to start with either.

But he's come leaps and bounds from his orignal position.


Oh bullshit. The bar has simply moved so they pretend they accept the resaults of battles they alrady lost. It would be a lot easier to accept the sincerity of these people who "just can't take that last step" if they'd have the guts and human decency to apologize for oppozing gay rights every step of the way. But the truth is they are no different from Larry Spenser, except that he was honest and they are not. Am I REALLY expected to believe that scum like Jason Kenny and Tom Wappell would vote to include sexual orientation in the human rights code if they had to do it all over again? Am I REALLY expected to believe that scum like Vic Toews and Stephen Harper would vote to include same-sex spouses in the Canada Pension Plan if they had to do it all over again?

Yesterday on Question Period John Reynolds said how of course they want gay couple to have equal pension rights, etc. So why did every single Canadian Alliance MP, including Reynolds and Harper, vote against them?

Do they really think we're so stupid that we don't remember who have been our hate-mongering enemies for the past 20 years?

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I fully agree that without the militant action of the LGBT rights movement we'd still be living in 1956 in terms of LGBT rights. I don't think anyone should stop pushing. Pushing is the only thing that works.

However, comparing, for example, one of the most impassioned advocates for social justice in Ontario with a hate criminal just strikes me as counterproductive. Within the NDP there are splitting issues - voting AGAINST ssm - but you can advocate for change (even radical change) without demonizing everyone who has lingering doubts.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 11:35 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ultimately,though, Bob Rae is not a bigot himself. In fact, he left the NDP because of bigotry toward Jews. Can't say as I blame him.


This is so absurd, it barely dignifies a response. FYI, I'm told that the Rae house had a lawn sign for the NDP candidate in York-South-Weston in the June election!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 11:44 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Lingering doubts"? LOL! If apologism were an Olympic sport, there's a good few dozen babblers who'd be vying for a spot on the Wheaties box here.

I'm sorry to say this, but I honestly, no matter how hard I try, cannot imagine any babblers urging slow naive patience if the battle were over rights for brown people, rights for women, rights for the disabled, rights for Jews, etc. The only thing that seems to make this something we're all supposed to either overlook or be "patient" about and not "scare" anyone with our over-the-top rhetoric about "equality" is that it's fags.

Seriously. That's all that's left to explain this attitude. If Father Des helped a bunch of dockworkers but didn't think "negros" should marry, nobody would defend him. He'd be the "racist labour organizer from the Maritimes". But it's fags, not blacks, so we all need to cut him some slack, apparently.

If Monia put up an inspirational fight for her husbands and her rights, but deep down didn't think that people with mental health issues should be allowed to marry, nobody would defend that. She'd be the misguided muslim woman with the very damaging sound bite. But it's not mental health survivors, it's fags, so we need to back off! Don't frighten some bigot away, into the arms of the CPC! That would be crazy!

And finally, if Bev really didn't believe that Jews should have the right to marry in Canada, I cannot imagine anyone stepping up to defend her, or deflect the issue, or put their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalaLaLaLaLALALA!" in the hope that this criticism will all just go away and the vote will pass and everyone will live happily ever after. But they are, on about 6 different threads. But hey, apparently since plenty of people are still bigots with regard to homosexuals having rights, we have to tolerate them in the NDP. Nevermind that we'd never, ever, ever accept such blatant discrimination on any other grounds, remember it's only fags.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 13 December 2004 11:46 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
That's what I'm trying to do, Burns. But like you, I think if Bev crosses that line she should be gone. I am being as patient as I can be, even with people like Ron and "Bubbles". And I'm willing to reserve judgement on Bev for a bit. A BIT...

As for Tony Martin, I don't know enough about him to make a judgement, but I grew up around people like Bev Desjarlais, who would have screamed blue murder over anti-Francophone bigotry (or anti-native bigotry, etc.) but who had no problems blithely using a "morals" argument to keep discriminating against gays.

Rather like these people are doing.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I'm sorry to say this, but I honestly, no matter how hard I try, cannot imagine any babblers urging slow naive patience if the battle were over rights for brown people, rights for women, rights for the disabled, rights for Jews, etc.
Actually it happens all the time. Try convincing Ontario New Dem candidates to run on bringing back employment equity "quotas" - see how much of a response you get. Fact is, being on the vanguard of social issues is always tough and overcoming racism and sexism was very difficult too. There were people in the CCF who supported the internment of the Japanese - what was important was that when the chips were down the CCF as a party (and a movement) was there in support.

I think the party has drawn a clear line. I think Bev is in danger of crossing it. I don't think it's helpful to shit all over people who are, thus far, respectful of the line.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 13 December 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Yes. I am.


Then that is quite insane.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 12:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By your reckoning, Dagmar, what exactly is the meaningful difference between believing that Jews are second class citizens, and believing homosexuals are second class citizens?

And do you think it's sheer coincidence that, while we're on the subject of the Holocaust, one of the biggest groups exterminated by the Nazis was homosexuals? Where do you think the pink triangle came from?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 13 December 2004 12:42 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh bullshit. The bar has simply moved so they pretend they accept the resaults of battles they alrady lost. It would be a lot easier to accept the sincerity of these people who "just can't take that last step" if they'd have the guts and human decency to apologize for oppozing gay rights every step of the way.

I don’t know if that dignifies a response. But it will anyway.

Maybe you’re so high up on your moral high horse that you can’t see the vast differences between those on the ground.

There’s a big difference between someone who was ready to disown a family member and someone who now bends over backwards to make sure everyone attends.

This wasn’t always the case.

There’s a big difference between someone who used to get enraged and leave the room when the topic of same-sex couples comes up. And now listens and is curious and thinks about a lot of issues.

There is a huge difference between those things. Maybe you don’t see the difference. Maybe you compare my dad to scum. But I’d say you’re just like Bush – you only want to surround yourself with people who think exactly like you do, without exception.

The reality is the world we live in is diverse and has enormous amounts of intolerance. And the only way to change that is to push the boundaries and work with people who are intolerant. You know sure things would have been easier if this exercise were unnecessary. But it is, I see and feel a difference in my life and the life of my family here. And yeah its taken years – but changes have come. And I’m sure there are other people in those situations.

I wouldn’t expect the Larry Spencer’s, Pat O’Brien’s, and Tom Wappel’s of the world to change. But there are a lot of people who have gays and lesbians close to them and if we are patient their attitudes and views can and do change.

Then again, maybe progressives are to much a part of the now society to be able to see the difference.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 December 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ultimately,though, Bob Rae is not a bigot himself. In fact, he left the NDP because of bigotry toward Jews.

Proof? Support of ANY kind?

And I'd love to hear the answer to Magoo's question.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 12:47 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
By your reckoning, Dagmar, what exactly is the meaningful difference between believing that Jews are second class citizens, and believing homosexuals are second class citizens?
Believing that the single greatest crime against humanity simply never happened is a little more significant than believing Jews are "second class citizens".

And I think it's (at best) melodramatic to say put gaining marriage rights for same sex couples (or for that matter gaining enfranchisment for African Americans, or any other civil rights gain) on a par with the complete evil of the German Holocaust.

It trivializes the argument, antagonizes potential allies and makes you very very very easy to marginalize.`

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 December 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually in some ways many of these anti SSM bigots are worst and more dangerious than holocaust deniers ... as a matter of fact, the vast majority of anti SSM bigots would in all likelihood *be* holocaust deniers except like other equal rights battles they have lost, they now pretend that they are part of the mainstream to try and give themselves some sembalance of legitimacy.

What do you want to bet that if the battle against racism, holocaust denial, sexism, etc. had not already been "won" in the legal and legislative areas, that these same anti SSM bigots would also be against giving legal rights to people of colour, Jews, women, etc.?

I too am tired of being "tolerant" of the intolerant.

Any one that defends bigotry, be it sexual orientation, colour, creed, race, religion, gender, deserves no tollerance ... intolerance is a lifestyle choice, not a unchanagable characteristic that needs protection from descrimination.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 13 December 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:

Proof? Support of ANY kind?

And I'd love to hear the answer to Magoo's question.


Swirrlygrrl Bob Rae's fights with the NDP in recent years have surrounded issues relating to Israel and Judaism. All when i read this I immediatly thought of the fight between Marcel Hatch and Rae in 2002.

If this fight was the basis then. This quote from the CBC website would be the ammunition required.

quote:
Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Caucus of the NDP, Marcel Hatch, who lost the leadership race to Alexa to the tune of 648 votes to 120, told the National Post that he and his 120 socialist stalwarts are "diametrically opposed to everything that Bob Rae stands for. Good riddance. I consider the exit of Bob Rae to be a victory for working people in this party."

On television, Mr. Hatch looks so fierce he makes Svend Robinson look like a benign Vienna choir boy in contrast. Mr. Hatch seemed to be unaware of the slew of labour legislation that the Rae government had passed and Harris rescinded. Mr. Hatch was quick to add that he was fully behind "Svend Robinson's support for the Palestinian struggle."



From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You've gone a step too far there Burns.

Nobody, including Michelle, was saying that the Holocaust and believing that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else is "equal", or anything like it.

What Michelle did was ask another babbler to consider their words, namely:

quote:
So, she is wrong about same sex marriage.

and replace a few of them:

quote:
So, she is wrong about holocaust denial.

quote:
So, she is wrong about anti-miscegenation.

And she's right! It does look very, very odious when you substitute another bigotry, no? I think her point was merely that we wouldn't so casually accept an NDP MP to "be wrong" about holocaust denial and then sweep that under the carpet, nor about anti-miscegenation laws, so why are we being so totally relaxed about those who oppose full and equal rights for homosexuals?

For the record, I don't believe that denying gay Canadians the same right we all take for granted is "the same as", or "as bad as" denying the holocaust either. But I am curious as to why one of these is completely, 101% unacceptable, no exceptions, while the other is, apparently, so tolerable, at least for so long as it takes to "woo" everyone over to agreeing on basic human rights.

What, exactly, makes this issue one on which everyone has to be patient and not rock the boat too much? The fact that some people don't approve of SSM yet? Who gives a fuck? Some people don't approve of immigration either. So? Do we woo them? Do we tiptoe around and remind each other not to be too aggressive in our defense of immigration? Do we suggest that maybe we should just wait a while, and if we do then maybe opponents of immigration will knock the scales from their eyes? Would we be tolerant for even a moment of an NDP MP speaking out against the influx of brown people? Would we say "Oh, but maybe his/her constituents want them to stem the tide of brown people, and besides, not everyone's on board with the whole brown people thing and if we push too hard we'll scare them away!!!"?

Would we? I don't think we would.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 December 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jpj -

while I appreciate what I can only interpret as an attempt to provide info to answer my question, I'm not sure how the rantings of Marcel Hatch (none of the quoted of which at least are anti-Seminic or refer to Judiasm or Jews - a critique of Isreal's actions can be, but is not necessarily, based on anti-Semitism, and of course keeping in mind that Marcel is hardly representative of the power structures of the NDP) are any evidence of Rae:

1) leaving the party (he's recently been associating himself with the NDP, in order to sheild himself from criticism regarding the review of post-secondary education. May I just state I also would say good riddance if I had confirmation he is no longer a member?)
2) doing so because of "bigotry towards Jews".

I've only been in Ontario for a few years, so I can't claim to have a long historical grasp of the party history (read two books, went to a few provincial councils and sat for a year on a riding executive), but the CBC link doesn't give me any reason to put stock in Dagmar's assertion.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 December 2004 01:42 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:

I don’t know if that dignifies a response. But it will anyway.


Ditto. I couldn't give a flying fuck how he treats his family. That's none of my business. In PUBLIC life he has vociferously fought against my rights in every way he possibly could, going far above and beyond merely voting against them. He's worse than most in the Conservative Party.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
It does look very, very odious when you substitute another bigotry, no?
Holocaust denial isn't "another bigotry". It's denigrating the deaths (not civil rights violations but murders) of millions of people -including gays and lesbians.

Civil rights come in starts and stops, society has these starts and stops all the time. Mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust is unique - and attempts to cheapen that uniqueness are simply wrong.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then let's ignore that one, and let the critics focus on anti-miscegenation, which is almost exactly the same issue as SSM, minus the fags.

Would we accept an NDP MP who didn't believe that people of different races should be allowed to marry? If not, why do we accept an MP against SSM? Simple question. Anyone?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 13 December 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have yet to see any news story where Bev Desjarlais has said anything about her intentions. The link above was / is broken.

However, in the case that Desjarlais does vote against party policy, she should be out, fini, done for, kicked out and wished good riddance.

However, I willagain raise some objections to some of the more zealous comparisons being made here. being opposed to same sex marriage is not the same as denying that the holocaust ever happened.

Repugnant, yes, equivalent to denying the holocaust? No. Claiming otherwise is simply fundamentalist, dogmatic and hysterical. Not to mention difficult to sustain

The case of ssm involves - at worst - the denial of important civil liberties and fundamental rights to a part of our community. Denying that the holocaust ever happened lends moral support to the orchestrated genocide of an entire people.

And while we're on the topic of Bob Rae, are we 100% sure that he actually left the party? I recall the letter he wrote to the NP where he stated his opposition to how Svend Robinson acted while he was on a trip to Israel. But I'm not entirely sure that Rae actually stated he had left the party.

And the quote above from Marcel Hatch, well, was a quote from Marcel Hatch about Bob Rae. Not a quote from Bob Rae about Bob Rae.

Maybe I'll take a few minutes to try to dig up that letter to the post and see what he actually said.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 13 December 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe this is irrelevant, maybe I'm just satisfying my own curiosity, whatever. Here it is.
Read into this quote what you will.

From the National Post April 16th, 2002, p. A 18
by Bob Rae under the headline
"Parting Company With the NDP"

If Svend Robinson's foray had been a solitary event, it might have been possible to brush it off as yet another escapade from a histrionic crank. But he is the foreign affairs critic of the New Democratic Party. The NDP criticizes the Third Way, opposes the World Trade Organization, sits on its hands when Tony Blair praises the advantages of markets, and denounces any military action against terrorism whether by the United States, Canada or Israel. This is not a vision of social democracy worthy of support.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said it before and I'll say it again. Bob Rae planted an NDP sign in front of his house during the 2004 election campaign and i'm told he was also quite generous in making a donation to the local candidate.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 13 December 2004 02:51 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a little gem I came across recently. I'll give a full shout out to anybody who can guess who made this statement:

"If ever we needed in the country to adopt a new attitude to homosexuality, this is the time. Instead of treating it like crime and driving it underground, we ought to recognize it for what it, it's a mental illenss, it's a psychiatric condition which out to be treated sympathetically,which ought to be treated by psychiatrists and social workers, we're not going to do this by throwing people into jail."

Now, is the person who said that equivalent to a holocaust denier?

Things that make you go "Hmmm...."


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 02:56 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Best premier Ontario ever had. Introduced mucho progressive legislation (and some less progressive). But overall, Rae was not bad in the middle of the worst recession in the capitalistic West since the Depression. He was destroyed by a pincer movement of the Bay Street crowd together with the purity obsessed activists in the NDP - he looks good now in retrospect, doesn't he after a decade of Harris? Saw him in a downtown diner last week - looking good, looking good. Wished him well.

As for the Bev question, I don't know how these policies are set in the NDP, but did she know the party expected her to vote for SSM when she ran?

I don't like it in general when conditions or obligations are changed on people after the fact. If she knew she had to vote for SSM (as opposed to just abstaining or staying away), that would clarify a lot.

Of course, if she goes ahead and votes no, and the caucus (or whoever is in charge in the NDP) dictates this as being a core policy position, she has no choice but to go, no matter how productive her contributions on other issues have been.

Still begs the question of how the NDP handles the situation concerning an anti-gay bigot like Mazigh. I am not sure anymore what action to take against her. Maybe just let her work contract lapse and not invite her back. But if being anti-SSM is wrong for the NDP, someone who is openly opposed to a core value of the NDP should never have been openly hired by the leader. Kind of hard to reconcile with the tone of this discussion.

Maybe this would help: when people apply for a membership card, they should have to sign a statement of principles. I don't know what the contents would be - it can't be too long or no one will read it but supporting the Charter could be something everyone has to sign up for. That way, Mazigh would never have joined and we would not have to deal with this little contradiction (which will soon be forgotten after her contract expires)

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 03:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, is the person who said that equivalent to a holocaust denier?

"Equivalent" sets the bar too high. They're no better though, not in any real or meaningful way. They're better the way cancer is better than full blown AIDS.

If they made this comment in the last 10 years then they should be ashamed. If it's from, like, 30 years ago then I'm not sure how relevant it is right now. And if they're someone decent, then I'm sure they're ashamed anyway.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 December 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust is unique - and attempts to cheapen that uniqueness are simply wrong.

While the mechanism was unique (Fordism applied to mass murder), its actually a relatively small body count in historical context. As Remy says in The Barbarian Invasions, "the history of mankind is a history of horrors," in comparison to which those of recent memory often pale. The lack of awareness of the actual scale of the deaths in the Americas, for example, well outlined in David Stannard's American Holocaust.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 December 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Tommy's dead now, Mr Magoo.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 13 December 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ditto. I couldn't give a flying fuck how he treats his family. That's none of my business. In PUBLIC life he has vociferously fought against my rights in every way he possibly could, going far above and beyond merely voting against them. He's worse than most in the Conservative Party.

I was reffering to my father, who never has never served public office or fought on this issue at all.

I said he went to school with O'Brien...i didnt say he was pat o'brien.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, Tommy's dead now, Mr Magoo.

Ya, I had a hunch it would be a canon of democracy who said that, and that it was probably said back when I was an infant.

Would he stand by it now? I've no doubt Bev would stand by her beliefs, even now in 2004, even though they belong back in the days when I was an infant.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 December 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
it was probably said back when I was an infant.

Hey! Watch the agism, will ya?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 03:28 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for the Bev question, I don't know how these policies are set in the NDP, but did she know the party expected her to vote for SSM when she ran?


Bev first ran in 1997 when SSM was not even on the radar screen. So it was a non-issue ditto for when she ran for reelection in 2000. She was obliged to absent (as opposed to voting in favour of) herself in 2003 when that Canadian Alliance motion came up for a vote that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

So I think that it is fair to say that when Bev ran for reelection this past June, she knew full well that as a member of the NDP caucus - actively voting against SSM would not be an option.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 December 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Considering there was a motion put forward by the NDYC at a federal council to have the official party people actively seek and support another candidate in the riding if Bev abstained from or voted in favour of the CA motion, I don't think she can claim ignorance that people would be upset, and that severe penalities would be discussed.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 13 December 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Definitely. Jack obviously talked to her about it directly and he was also quoted in the media saying those words almost exactly. Bev knows the consequences of a No vote.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe that people are getting so oversensitive about my comparison of Holocaust DENIAL with the oppression of gays and lesbians.

Holocaust denial is really terrible. It's disrespectful to the memories of those who died horrible deaths due to a horrific regime. But not allowing gays and lesbians to get married is really terrible, too.

And I would argue that not allowing gays and lesbians to get married is just as bad as Holocaust DENIAL (please note, I'm not saying it's as bad as the Holocaust ITSELF). When someone denies that the Holocaust happened, the harm that falls out from that is...well, let's see. It makes people, particularly those who were touched personally by the Holocaust, very angry. It is disrespectful towards the memory of people who died. It may possibly foster anti-semitic sentiment among those who are susceptible to that sort of thing. It can lead to anti-semitic violence.

Now, let's look at what the fallout from the systemic denial of the marriage rights to gays and lesbians. It makes people, particularly those whose lives are touched personally by this discrimination, very angry. It is disrespectful towards those who have dealt with discrimination and gaybashing all their lives. It fosters anti-gay sentiments among those who are susceptible to that sort of thing. It can lead to physical gay-bashing.

And then there are other tangible ways in which this minority group would be affected: it creates a situation where gays and lesbians are BY LAW second-class citizens without the same rights as heterosexuals. It gives them less family and partnership rights if they can only be common-law instead of married.

So yeah, you're damn right that being anti-SSM is on the same level as being a Holocaust denier, at least in our society during this time and space. Both create hostile environments towards the minority group in question. But you know what? Right now, with the political situation being what it is, those who are anti-SSM are MORE dangerous to gays and lesbians than those who are Holocaust deniers are to Jews. Because Jews do not have their civil rights at stake legally at this point. Holocaust deniers are seen as marginalized nutcases, and Jews are not at risk of having their basic civil rights curtailed by law because of anti-semitic sentiment. Gays and lesbians, on the other hand, ARE facing that very risk.

Obviously, not being able to get married is in no way comparable to being put in a concentration camp. But I wasn't comparing being anti-SSM with the Holocaust itself. I was comparing it to Holocaust DENIAL, and I think it's a reasonable comparison considering that the negative results of each are of a comparable nature in our society.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 13 December 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to Bev here.

First, like a few others, I think this is all a bit presumptuous at this point. If Bev actually votes AGAINST SSM, fine, kick her out of caucus, If she abstains, then let her stay.

Second, I think we need to be a little careful here. I understand the anger over opposition to SSM, but I have never heard Bev say anything that suggests she is anti-gay or anything like that. The equivocation of opposition to SSM with human rights abuses is somewhat disconcerting to me. Now, to be sure, I personally support SSM, wholeheartedly and vehemently. But, I am also aware that progressives, socialists, etc. occassionally do not support SSM. Does this mean they are not doing anything to contribute to the cause? I am not so sure. Someone mentioned in a thread earlier Father Des's tireless efforts helping fisherman in Newfoundland. It makes me think about the social/economic divide that is clear for all to see in many parts of a party like the NDP. I know from personal experience as well as that of others' that many people who are quite progressive on social issues (e.g., SSM) but lack any serious commitment to the plight of the working poor and redressing the negative/adverse effects of capitalism in our society. Does this mean we should be trying to undermine the position of these kind of people in (a social democratic) party too?

Now, I am meandering quite a bit here. But this needs to be addressed. It was brought up in the previous incarnation of this thread and largely papered-over.

The main point is that taking the step to kick out any person who opposes SSM (and, on this point, we better be consistent, ANYONE who opposes SSM) has ramifications for the party that extend further than many here seem to recognize. I am not saying I don't think Bev should not perhaps be kicked out if she opposes it in a vote, but I am saying this better be applied fairly and consistently then (this means everyone who works for the party). And, if we want to open up these kinds of doors, let's put it all out on the table.


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 December 2004 03:57 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good stuff, Michelle.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robert James:
I understand the anger over opposition to SSM, but I have never heard Bev say anything that suggests she is anti-gay or anything like that.

Yes you have. You've heard her say she's against SSM. Which, in effect, is being for second-class citizen rights for gays. Which is anti-gay.

P.S. Thanks swirrly.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 13 December 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The main point is that taking the step to kick out any person who opposes SSM (and, on this point, we better be consistent, ANYONE who opposes SSM) has ramifications for the party that extend further than many here seem to recognize. I am not saying I don't think Bev should not perhaps be kicked out if she opposes it in a vote, but I am saying this better be applied fairly and consistently then (this means everyone who works for the party). And, if we want to open up these kinds of doors, let's put it all out on the table.

Any takers on that? Its a good point.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. We've taken it on repeatedly in many other threads. Being an ordinary member or even an employee of the party is not the same thing as representing the party, and party policy, publicly.

Never mind, I'm too tired to write it all out again. I've written it too many times.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 13 December 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I can't believe that people are getting so oversensitive about my comparison of Holocaust DENIAL with the oppression of gays and lesbians.

Obviously, not being able to get married is in no way comparable to being put in a concentration camp. But I wasn't comparing being anti-SSM with the Holocaust itself. I was comparing it to Holocaust DENIAL, and I think it's a reasonable comparison considering that the negative results of each are of a comparable nature in our society.



Instead of getting angry at people for being 'oversensitive' (is your angry rebuttal not a prime example of oversensitivity?), have you ever stopped to think that the reason people have reacted the way they have is because your comments were EXTREME.

Even comparing Holocaust deniers (as opposed to the Holocause itself, which you you painstakingly went to great lengths to insist you were doing)to those against same-sex marriage is extreme. There are many reasons why people may be against same-sex marriage including religious ones. Many people against same-sex marriage favour civil unions. Holocaust denyers, on the other hand, deny the Holocause as a way of historical rehabilitation of fascism and Adolph Hitler. To suggest that people who don't support same-sex marriage are like Holocaust deniers is ridiculous. There are many otherwise good people who can't get past same-sex marriage at this point. There are not any otherwise good people who deny the Holocaust.

I'm pleased that so many people reacted the way they did to your comments, given the fact that the left-wing is rather lukewarm on its condemnation of anti-Semitism. Instead of justifying your comments and blaming others, maybe think about what you have said.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 13 December 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah. We've taken it on repeatedly in many other threads. Being an ordinary member or even an employee of the party is not the same thing as representing the party, and party policy, publicly.

Never mind, I'm too tired to write it all out again. I've written it too many times.


No offense, but I think this is a cop-out. I have read you say this in the other threads and that is why I said I do not think this point is being addressed adequately. Anyone who works for the party represents the party. I can't see how you can think otherwise. Doing research work, soliciting donations, attending party functions, etc. each involve representing the party and articulating its policies/vision for others. Strangely enough, the average person probably has more contact with these people than MPs. If you want to start expelling members from caucus because they do not support SSM, then you better be fair and consistent about it. And, this means, quite simply, expelling anyone who opposes it and is a paid employee of the party and making it a litmus test for potential employees. You can't have it both ways.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Robert James ]


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, first of all, Dagmar, regarding my supposed "lukewarm" response to anti-semitism - how be you go fuck yourself.

As for this argument:

quote:
There are many reasons why people may be against same-sex marriage including religious ones.

There are many reasons why some people may hate Jews, including religious ones. Doesn't excuse it. Doesn't excuse people who discriminate against gays and lesbians either.

There are lots of "otherwise good" people who are against Jews and Christians marrying each other, for religious reasons. If they tried to make it law, though, you'd be up in arms. And rightfully so.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are many otherwise good people who can't get past same-sex marriage at this point. There are not any otherwise good people who deny the Holocaust.

You don't know this. Maybe lots of otherwise swell people just haven't gotten around to believing that the Holocaust happened! Maybe they just come from a different time! Maybe we just have to wait and give them space and they'll come around! Insert empty apologetics here!

Seriously though Dagmar, you just made a circular argument. You believe holocaust denial to be so vile and odious that you basically declared it to invalidate all of a denier's possible good traits. Then, since you don't consider being against human rights to be vile or odious, you declare that many people against human rights are actually good folk deep down.

That all just happened in your head. In the real world, if you don't believe in basic human rights, I don't really care what else you've done. All it can do is make me wonder why the hell you'd hold out on one obvious double standard like SSM.

Oh, and I really don't care if Jesus told you to, or Allah told you to, or any other old book told you to. Religion doesn't excuse any other form of bigotry, so why should it excuse this one?

quote:
Anyone who works for the party represents the party.

Then you won't mind naming them? Can you? Since they're apparently out there representing the party and all?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 13 December 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Next time the receptionist at federal office, or the member at large for my local riding association, or the person who gives $50 to a phone bacnk gets to be one of the 308 people who vote on laws in this country, I'll start to take that argument seriously.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 December 2004 05:12 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are not any otherwise good people who deny the Holocaust.

How do you know that? I'm sure even Holocaust deniers have friends who consider them "good people" ... hell I'm even willing to consider the possibility that Zundel treats his friends pretty good, and that they consider him a "good person"!

Do you figure that all Holocause deniers are easily spotted because they are those "pure evil" people you see in the movies that go around killing everyone they run into?

Yes, Holocause deniers, like anti SSMers are "real people", with some good qualities, for sure, but also with at least one "horrible quality" that cannot be overlooked.

Comparing The Hololcaust to anti SSM is of course not a fair comparison ... if we are to make any such comparisons it would be closer to reality to compare The Holocaust to the murder and persecution of gays, and Holocaust denial to Anti SSM bigots.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Robert James wrote:

quote:
I am not saying I don't think Bev should not perhaps be kicked out if she opposes it in a vote, but I am saying this better be applied fairly and consistently then (this means everyone who works for the party). And, if we want to open up these kinds of doors, let's put it all out on the table.

I think I am going to have to back this idea.

In the last few weeks, I have received a few phone calls and letters asking for donations to the NDP. Given the importance of the SSM issue for the NDP, I think I have to be consistent myself and I can't feel confident giving money to a party that will expel Bev Desjarlais from caucus but allow other homophobic people to get a salary (and does my donation help pay for the salary of these people who would deny friends of mine the rights we are all entitled to?)

Consistency is uppermost in my mind. Having carefully followed the argument in these recent threads about SSM, I can't send money to the NDP until they clarify this issue.

If Bev goes, they all have to go. Either human rights are crucial or they're not.

I'm usually a very forgiving ("cowardly") kind of guy, but maybe it's time straight people took a stand on this. Yesterday afternoon, my wife and I took a taxi to go to a play and the driver started talking about "queers" and lisping. We got out a a red light and refused to pay.

So Bev goes, Mazigh goes, the priest goes. The caucus or national office of whatever they call it should ask each and every one of the employees if they are ready to publicly endorse human rights for all or they quit.

Just be consistent. Thanks Robert James for helping me clarify this. I tink comparing anti-SSM folk to Holocaust deniers is very extreme but I think I understand the argument is about how they both inflict damaging emotional anguish on people. So Bev, Monia, the priest et al. either agree with the NDP publicly or they can take their bigoted ideas elsewhere.

The cheque is going to Amnesty International instead.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 13 December 2004 05:51 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
Next time the receptionist at federal office, or the member at large for my local riding association, or the person who gives $50 to a phone bacnk gets to be one of the 308 people who vote on laws in this country, I'll start to take that argument seriously.

I don't want to single you out, but since you want to denigrate my point out-of-hand, so be it.

Consider this. You elect a person to go to convention from your local constituency association. This person gets to vote on party resolutions and party policy. Now, if there is a vote on SSM at the party convention (this is a hypothetical example mind) and the chosen delegate opposes, then what? Let's even start at the beginning, if a person signals their intention to oppose should they be blocked from being the delegate, even if the constituency, for some reason, chooses to send them?

Consider this also. If the party wants people like Monia Mazigh and Father Des to run (they actually SOLICITED these candidates - remember?), then how does it turn around and expel someone like Bev who opposes SSM? Now, as I have already said, if she actually votes against it in the House, fine, kick her out. But then why does the party actively recruit candidates who are on record as being opposed to SSM? Not only that, why does the party give Ms. Mazigh a plumb research job if it is going to be so firm and unwavering in its expulsion of those who oppose SSM? These people that work for the party often do represent the main public 'face' of the party to many people. So, are you telling me their opposition to SSM should not be of concern - especially if you think opposition to SSM is grounds for expulsion for those who 'publicly' represent the party?

Look, I am on record and am unequivocal in my support of SSM. I tend to be a little less black and white than some of you in your condemnation of Bev in particular, but that's another story. My main concern here is: if we really want to take this kind of step, let's be consistent about it.


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 06:01 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Exactly, they were actively recruited by the party leadership which should have known better.

What was making me uncomfortable was the contradiction between being harsh on Desjarlais and letting other people with anti-SSM opinions (which many equate with anti-gay positions - I agree) get away scot free. if she has to go, they all have to go. If they get to stay, she gets to stay.

If this is a matter of principle, it should be consistent. Right now, after much thought and in light of yesterday's taxicab homophobia incident I described, I have to fall on the side of taking a hardline against foes of SSM.

But if the NDP does not take a hardline, they have to be fair to all those involved. I'm sure many people can live with either solution

And yes, Mazigh does "represent" the NDP - she was good enough to represent the NDP as a candidate, she would be good enough to represent the NDP as an MP in caucus, she is good enough to be hired to a top research job. She also represents what the NDP is about. If one goes, they all have to go.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is absolutely ridiculous!! I am 100% in favour of taking a hard line on NDP MPs who will cast votes that affect the whole country. I am NOT in favour of having a party thought police to ensure mental conformity on the part of every single person who earns one red cent from the party pay roll! What about the cleaning staff and custodians at NDP HQ? Do we need to have them psychologically examined to ensure that they are free of any bigoted attitudes, otherwise they will not be allowed to empty wastepaper baskets???

What about people who volunteer to work on NDP campaigns? Do we have some paragon of political correctness there like a watchdog at the door of the committee room with a clipboard in hand to grill every potential volunteer on whether they enthusiastically support same sex marriage? What about donors? Should the NDP send out a mass mailing telling all donors that unless they enthusiastically and openly support same sex marriage - the NDP doesn't want their grubby money?

Come on, let's get real.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 06:09 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Donors are not public representatives. Mazigh and the priest fellow are/were. There is a substantial difference.

If being pro-gay is that impotant a value to the NDP, it is wise that there be NO EXCEPTIONS allowed. In recruitment, in hiring, in who gets to be known publicly.

Tough.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robert James:
The main point is that taking the step to kick out any person who opposes SSM (and, on this point, we better be consistent, ANYONE who opposes SSM) has ramifications for the party that extend further than many here seem to recognize. I am not saying I don't think Bev should not perhaps be kicked out if she opposes it in a vote, but I am saying this better be applied fairly and consistently then (this means everyone who works for the party). And, if we want to open up these kinds of doors, let's put it all out on the table.
I don't think we have to be melodramatic. The rules on this are straightforward - a member of the NDP Caucus will not vote contrary to party policy. There's no need to go on a gigantic purge of all impure thinkers (though that seems to be where some people are heading) simply enforce that general principle. We should enforce it all the time, actually, (and I hope that if an MP votes in favour of, say, missile defense they get disciplined too.) I really don't see the need to go on a witchhunt against staff unless they're undermining the party in some way.

As to all the rest of this I'll just say this -calling a person names or comparing them to skinheads and white supremacists isn't a good way to win them over. And since you're dealing with roughly half of the population of Canada you may want to think about more intelligent ways to change their minds. However, if we want the NDP to be the party that lumps Catholic social workers in with white supremacists then I guess we should just keep this "zero tolerance" crap flying.

Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Right?

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 06:11 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am NOT in favour of having a party thought police to ensure mental conformity on the part of every single person who earns one red cent from the party pay roll!

Strictly speaking, nobody's looking for a thought police brigade for the MPs either. Bev is certainly free to enjoy whatever thoughts she might think about SSM or homosexuality in general, so long as she sucks it up and votes for SSM.

There's no such thing as thought police. You can only police someone's actions or inactions. Their thoughts are, necessarily, sovereign.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Bev is certainly free to enjoy whatever thoughts she might think about SSM or homosexuality in general, so long as she sucks it up and votes for SSM.

Or abstains.

From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Exactly as Mr.Magoo said. There is no thought police here. I - and others - simply are trying to be a bit logical and consistent.

People who represent the NDP should be subject to more scrutiny that some anonymous donor or volunteer envelope stuffer.

And if the NDP thinks being anti-SSM is a bad horrible form of bigotry towards gay people, well, you don't recruit people with ideas like that to run, be prominent spokespeople or well-known officials or researchers or whatever.

It's not a purge, it's not thought police. It's logic and consistency. Otherwise, it's a "principle" but only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 13 December 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robert James:
Not only that, why does the party give Ms. Mazigh a plumb research job if it is going to be so firm and unwavering in its expulsion of those who oppose SSM? These people that work for the party often do represent the main public 'face' of the party to many people.

I'm just trying to remember the last party researcher who was the main public face of the party.

Annnnnnd... still trying...


From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want to do that then bring forward a resolution at convention. I, for one, would vote down anything that forbid party employees (or MPs for that matter) to privately disagree with any aspect of party policy.
From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 06:22 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Strictly speaking, nobody's looking for a thought police brigade for the MPs either. Bev is certainly free to enjoy whatever thoughts she might think about SSM or homosexuality in general, so long as she sucks it up and votes for SSM.


EXACTLY! We cannot control peoples inner thoughts - nor should we. There are plenty of politicians who think abortion is a horrible thing but they will still support other peoples right to choose. As long as they vote the right way i don't care what their personal views are. Monia Mazigh has her personal views on SSM, but as far as I know she is not taking any action on those views and her job at the NDP has nothing to do with developing policy on equity issues. If Mazigh was actively leading a campaign in the community to try to stop SSM - that would be a different story. But she isn't.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
You wrote "privately" Burns. Of course.

The issue here is te NDP openly recruiting individuals openly known to be opposed to what everybody is all of sudden arguing is a "core principle".

Hey I'm the relatively new guy in the NDP - maybe a year and a half or 2. If many of you NDP veterans can't figure out what the hell is the right consistent position on this, I can't be expected to have any more insight on this.

The smart thing for a newbie like me to do is to hold off on any donations until they clear this mess up.

It's kind of odd - it's a principle, it's principle, this is so much part of our core, this is something on which the NDP will never compromise, etc... and then the NDP turns around and recruits people who go against those "rock solid" principles.

It's bound to be a little confusing.

I'm human and I know everyone else is human and imperfect and I'm willing to take a little hypocrisy in politics and in political parties (it's even necessary at times) ... but not too much. And hopefully not too often.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 December 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
As to all the rest of this I'll just say this -calling a person names or comparing them to skinheads and white supremacists isn't a good way to win them over. And since you're dealing with roughly half of the population of Canada you may want to think about more intelligent ways to change their minds.

I have no interest in changing anyone's mind about same-sex marriage. This is an issue that has been discussed to death for the last decade, ever since the Human Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation.

I'm utterly sick of the debate and of my opponents. I know the hatred they've spewed. It was and is appalling. I do not seek the approval, friendship or support of people like Stephen Harper, Monia Mazigh and Bev Desjarlais. They are not fit to associate with me.

I have spent my entire adult life waiting for equality -- and despite what Bev, the Conservatives and the media are all pretending, I've had it since June 2003 and no one is about to take it away from me -- no one can anymore, despite what they are pretending.

These people who are in opposition to me have had years to change their minds. Years of patient lobbying by Egale and other organizations, including churches. Years of listening to heart-rending stories of discrimination.

And they don't care. Not only are their minds closed, so are their hearts. They are utterly indifferent to the suffering they cause to others. So be it. Fuck Bev Desjarlais. Fuck Stephen Harper. Fuck Pat O'Brien. Fuck Monia Mazigh.

They all had plenty of chances to prove they were decent human beings. And they've always freely chosen to demonstrate they aren't. Let's not pretend they're going to change. The only thing to be done with people such as them is to make sure they can't hurt anyone. They can't be reformed or reasoned with. It's been tried over and over and over again.

No one is going to convince Bev Desjarlais to vote for same-sex marriage. At BEST she can be threatened into staying away. Regardless of what she ends up doing, she's a nauseating excuse for a human being and deserving of nothing but our contempt.


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

posted 13 December 2004 07:03 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh puh-leeze. Let's curb the rhetoric already. Canada is on the verge of being the first country on the face of the earth to give same sex couples the right to marry with IDENTICAL rights to opposite sex couples. The NDP has led this fight every step of the way and it is an official party policy plank. The NDP caucus will vote Yes to SSM by a margin of between 95% and 100%. Jack layton has actively campaigned on this issue (unlike any other party leader) and yet still all this anger and bitching. No matter what the NDP does the bar just keeps getting raised higher. First the NDP has to make sure that no one in caucus votes NO. Then when that is accomplished its not good enough, every single MP has to vote and Yes and they better love every minute of it. Then that's not good enough, the NDP also has to draw and quarter every individual who works for the party in any way shape or form who isn't actively supporting SSM....what will it be next.

In about a month's time, Parliament will pass SSM and instead of celebrating, people will post hundreds of messages on babble about how Bev Desjarlais should be tarred and feathered for not showing up to vote. Martin and Cotler will bathe in adulation from people for putting firth the bill - no one will rake them over the coals for letting Liberal backbenchers vote as they wish. But some of us will condemn Jack Layton for not firing so-and-so who licks enevelopes at party HQ who has slight reservations about SSM.

Can the NDP ever be pure enough for some people?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
The issue here is te NDP openly recruiting individuals openly known to be opposed to what everybody is all of sudden arguing is a "core principle".

At the risk of getting my head bitten off I'll argue that this is not a "core principle". The sisters and brothers who founded the NDP did not put "We will ensure same-sex marriage rights" in the party's constitution.

It's an important human rights position and I agree that any MP who votes against it has to be disciplined - but I think most of this witch-hunt stuff verges on ridiculous. We didn't kick anyone out of the party for supporting the War Measures Act and that saw people thrown in jail and held without cause.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 13 December 2004 07:34 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP passed a resolution that supports same sex marriage, any NDP mp who doesn’t support the resolution should be punished or kick out of the caucus.

I don’t think we should be complacent about the same sex marriage bill. Anything could change between now to the time of actual voting on such a bill in the House of Common. We could VERY WELL LOSE. We need every vote we can get, and we should try to convince Bev to change her mind. If she voted against the bill, than she should be kicked out.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 13 December 2004 07:46 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
The issue here is te NDP openly recruiting individuals openly known to be opposed to what everybody is all of sudden arguing is a "core principle".

Everybody is a bit of a stretch. It's a huge stretch. Support for same-sex marriage is not a "core principle" of the NDP. It isn't even a principle. It is a policy.

"principle: a fundamental truth or law as the basis of reasoning or action (arguing from first principles)" (Canadian Oxford Dictionary).

Opposition to discrimination is a principle of the party. All the rest is application of that principle. The party has numerous policies that derive from that principle -- and many people in the party disagree with some of those policies.

One application of that principle is a policy in favour of same-sex marriage, and that policy says a vote on that issue will not be a "free vote". But the policy doesn't say what the consequence for voting against it would be.

I think it is generally possible to have honest and reasonable but mistaken beliefs on the wisdom of NDP policies. Others here disagree, and think that any MP voting against party policy must be expunged.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 07:48 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Can the NDP ever be pure enough for some people?
Evidently not. Unless we're willing to chase away Monia Mazigh and any other women of colour with the gall to hold any reservations about party policy.

For the record, what exactly did Monia Mazigh do to deserve the "fuck" you propose RealityBites? Everyone seems to "know" she's a homophobe but here's what I found when I looked for some evidence:

"It is very dangerous to endorse or oppose a candidate just because he supports or opposes same sex marriage,” Mazigh said. “We should not mix religion and politics.”

Here's another article where she stated that she has personal beliefs but clearly states that the NDP has a clear policy that she will not violate.

So we're supposed to chase out (to "fuck" in fact) a principled, intelligent woman of colour who's willing to walk into a room of profoundly homophobic people and say "I'm with a party that supports gay marriage" because of her personal beliefs which she openly admits she will not act on politically?

Sorry, but I find that offensive and dumb.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 13 December 2004 08:11 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
For the record, what exactly did Monia Mazigh do to deserve the "fuck" you propose RealityBites?
I know we're not big on spelling or punctuation flames, but in this case i think you might wanna edit the placement of one of those quotation marks, lest Babble be subject to some defamation or libel suits

From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't turn this into a "woman of colour" thing. I am just as critical of the priest and Desjarlais as I am of Mazigh. I don't think any of them should have been allowed to run for election.

Furthermore, it's not like Monia Mazigh is the only woman of colour who could have run for the party. There are lots of women of colour who AREN'T bigots towards gays and lesbians. I'm sure there are lots of women of Muslim background who are not bigoted against gays and lesbians.

It would be racist of me NOT to criticize Mazigh for her abhorrent views towards gays and lesbians out of deference to her visible minority status if I would criticize anyone else for the same thing.

And yes, equality and fairness ARE core principles of the NDP. Applying those principles to SSM may be something that doesn't stretch back to the beginning of the party's founding. But the principles of fairness and equity have always been there. And anyone who can, after being exposed to all the arguments for and against same sex marriage over the past decade, be against it, is simply a bigot with no business representing publicly a party that stands for fairness and equity.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I'm normally with you but I'm lost now.

Which of Mazigh's comments is abhorent? "We should not mix religion and politics"? Or "I'm going to remain neutral"? Cuz I don't get it.

And, frankly, this is about "women of colour". New Democrats sit around wondering why certain communities don't vote NDP but when a leader from that community steps up and says she wants to work with us, and says she'll put aside her personal beliefs on a personal issue, and goes to mosques and tells homophobes straight-up that she's with the NDP and they support same-sex marriage what's our response? "That's not good enough! Either denounce your beliefs or get out." Then we tell her to go fuck herself on websites.

I think that's bullshit.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 13 December 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I'm too new at this game to know if support for SSM is a "core principle" or not. I assumed it was.

If it isn't, I can "live with that". The Bloc is not ripping itself apart over the abstention of a few of its MPs because it never pretended this was the alpha and omega of human rights politics in Canada. The Bloc supports SSM as the right thing to do, but it's not a "religion"

I had the impression from the threads on the topic and from the contributions from the many NDP veterans here that it is a "core principle" of the NDP and that the NDP is claiming this issue is something fundamental.

If it is, I would assume some degree of coherence.

If opposition to SSM is homophobia (mild or so extreme to be like Holocaust denial according to some people who go much further than I ever would), then someone high up in the NDP has to explain why people considered homophobic were invited to stand for election in the name of a "party of principle" or were knowingly hired.

As someone put it - was it Mr. Magoo? - would it be OK to let someone run who was OK on other issues but thought Asians should not be allowed to emigrate here or that interracial marriage was not right? No. If it's that crucial to the vision or identity of the NDP, then act like it.

I'm not biting anyone's head off, everyone here more or less supports the idea of SSM, I'm just trying to understand how one is supposed to reconcile the NDP saying this principle is so fundamental but then the leaders of the NDP turn round and let homophobes run for office or hire known homophobes like Mazigh.

It is confusing.

Most of the world is grey, not black and white, but this confusion is a bit too much for me.

Maybe the solution is for the NDP leaders to say that there were different attitudes in the past but that FROM NOW ON, officials, candidates and MPs are expected to support gay rights which include SSM. So the confusion of the past is the past, end of the problem. Mazigh's contract is allowed to lapse quietly and the officials who hire staff develop better screening mechanisms to prevent homophobes - or people with other discriminatory attitudes - from being hired. There are some very good psychometric evaluation tools available that are commonly used inn industry to screen prospective hires.

But it is a bit much to have a party like the NDP denounce homophobia and then go out and blatantly recruit homophobic candidates or employees.

Sorry, sometimes the situation does call for clarity, at least in the future. Things evolve - things that were OK or tolerable in the past, even the recent past, may become less acceptable today or in the future. The NDP should be more clear.

And yes, at the end of January, Canada will have joined that very small vanguard of nations that recognize the rights of gay people to marry and that is worth celebrating.

But if you're going to claim to be "for principle" and ask for support on that basis from individuals like me, don't treat me like a fool who is incapable of seeing through some fairly obvious contradictions. So, fix the contradictions, at least "from now on".

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 09:24 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First off, I think we have to draw a distinction between homophobia and oppostion to SSM. I'd hesitate to call someone who felt that marriage was divinely defined a homophobe, just as I'd hesitate to call someone who opposed, say, employment equity a racist or a sexist.

Second, the NDP has tolerated a pretty wide range of views on a number of issues and I think the zero-tolerance approach smacks of zealotry. I'll note that no one has seen fir to challenge my comparison to the War Measures Act which was (in my opinion) a far more serious breach of human rights that led to people being locked away without cause. If we tolerated dissent on that we can tolerate dissent on this.

We have a policy. Anyone who votes against policy will be shown the door. That makes sense. Banning party members and employees from having personal opinions is loopy.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 09:26 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not biting anyone's head off, everyone here more or less supports the idea of SSM, I'm just trying to understand how one is supposed to reconcile the NDP saying this principle is so fundamental but then the leaders of the NDP turn round and let homophobes run for office or hire known homophobes like Mazigh.


Oh come on, now its "known homophobes like Mazigh". You make it sound like she is some Rev. Fred Phelps-like character waving placards that say "fags deserve to die of AIDS"!! She obviously comes from a religious community where the very notion of gays and lesbians being spared beheading - let alone be allowed to marry - is alien. She has clearly come a long, long, long way in her views and they are probably still evolving. She has chosen to join the most gay-positive party in Canada and she has never publicly advocated her personal feelings about SSM. She accepted the NDP's offer which can be summarized as "unless you have something good to say about SSM, don't say anything on the issue at all". I know for a fact that Jack Layton had long talks with Monia Mazigh and Des McGrath on this issue and they arrived at a compromise whereby they would abstain on this issue and not play any active role in opposing SSM. I think that's fair.

You could do a lot worse in the world of politics than to have a party where 95% of elected officials support same sex marriage and the other 5% say nothing about the issue and abstain from the vote.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 13 December 2004 09:26 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Furthermore, it's not like Monia Mazigh is the only woman of colour who could have run for the party. There are lots of women of colour who AREN'T bigots towards gays and lesbians.

Michelle, compared to Monia Mazigh, you are the bigot. Look the word up some time.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 09:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it's bigoted to not compromise on human rights, then I'm guilty.

I'm sorry, but Burns, it's not the way you have framed it. Mazigh said that she will abstain from voting for SSM because she thinks homosexuality is wrong due to her religion.

And this is NOT a personal issue. It's a political issue, and an important one! Nobody would think it was just a "personal issue" if we had a person wanting to publicly represent the NDP who said publicly that she thought that, say, people of Chinese descent shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, but that she would magnanimously ABSTAIN should it ever come to a vote.

If it were just a "personal issue" then I wouldn't give a damn about it since it doesn't affect me directly. It's a human rights issue.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 December 2004 09:32 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The NDP has led this fight every step of the way and it is an official party policy plank.

Bullshit. No politicians deserve the credit for this. This fight was fought by gays and lesbians across Canada, the MCC and Egale. Roy McMurtry deserves more credit than any elected politician.

The NDP were cheerleaders in this fight, not players.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 December 2004 09:37 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, Magoo and whomever else are wrong-wrong-wrong to even equate an anti-SSM position to holocaust denial. Dagmar was spewing total bullshit with regards to the left being "luke warm" on fighting anti-Semitism claim, but he was at least somewhat right saying that the comparison is an extreme position. I think it's more of a misrepresentation of the metaphor in the extreme.

It's rather pointless to play which group has been more persecuted. But that's at least part of the reason why that metaphor should never have been used. It's just creates misunderstandings all around. And I think people have every right to be "over sensative" (saying that is rather un-sensitive btw) with regards to invoking the holocaust and all that it entails.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 09:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just trying to come up with an example that was similar in scope, but that would be completely unacceptable, no matter how "progressive" a person was otherwise. And I wasn't "invoking the Holocaust" (it's capitalized, by the way - have some respect, won't you? ), I was invoking Holocaust deniers.

But feel free to use my anti-miscegenation example if you feel offended by the Holocaust denial example.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 13 December 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
And this is NOT a personal issue. It's a political issue, and an important one! Nobody would think it was just a "personal issue" if we had a person wanting to publicly represent the NDP who said publicly that she thought that, say, people of Chinese descent shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, but that she would magnanimously ABSTAIN should it ever come to a vote.
No one's saying it's not political. What we're saying is we have to create a space in our party for people who have doubt. Do we fucking allow doubt in this party or are we going to be some freakish sect that demands purity of belief? Fuck, I've met doctrinaire marxist cults that are more forgiving than some of you guys.

And I notice, again, that my paralell is being ignored - if it was okay for some New Democrats to support suspending civil liberties and throwing people in jail without cause, why can't we tolerate a few NDP members who say, "I don't agree with SSM but I accept it as policy?"


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 December 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Furthermore, it's not like Monia Mazigh is the only woman of colour who could have run for the party. There are lots of women of colour who AREN'T bigots towards gays and lesbians. I'm sure there are lots of women of Muslim background who are not bigoted against gays and lesbians.

Including a Liberal MP and a Liberal senator.

In 2002, Senator Anne Cools introduced a bill in the Senate to define marriage as male/female only.

http://tinyurl.com/4z9p6

quote:
"They are telling more generations of young Canadians that we should not treat homosexuals equally: Homosexuals must not use the word 'marriage' to describe their relationships. They are also teaching that intolerance of homosexuals is both proper and righteous."
Senator Mobina Jaffer

Jaffer was quoted as saying Bill S-9 is "giving comfort to those who hate".



From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 December 2004 09:52 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay Michelle -- even touching the word Holocaust (I'm show'n respect now ) even if it adds the word deniers has a similar connentation for many people. If a person sees the word Holocaust they will equate that with (well we all know what they will equate that with) even if it has another discriptive term with it. As such I'll try to use your other metaphor -- and sorry for the hall monitorish post -- I suggest that other people do as well.

[grammer]

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 09:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it's not my fault if people don't read critically. This is a political discussion board, and sometimes people have to read beyond hot-button words.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 13 December 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well yes but it's not their problem if that's how they interpret you (myself included). Interpretation can be far more important than "what you meant".

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 December 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bullshit. No politicians deserve the credit for this. This fight was fought by gays and lesbians across Canada, the MCC and Egale. Roy McMurtry deserves more credit than any elected politician.

The NDP were cheerleaders in this fight, not players.


Agreed, but i meant that the NDP led the fight in the Parliaments of Canada thanks to people like Svend Robinson etc... Its ironic that Roy McMurtry is now seen as the big hero. Back in 1981 he was Attorney General when the notorious bath house raids occurred and he is thought to have ordered the raids and was seen at the time as public enemy number one to the gay community. I guess he has repented!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 13 December 2004 10:22 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, it's not my fault if people don't read critically. This is a political discussion board, and sometimes people have to read beyond hot-button words.

Good that we got that cleared up... others are wrong, but you're just misunderstood...

Seriously though, after 250 some odd posts on two different threads, we're no further ahead. Ultimately, there is no way that the NDP can justify kicking Bev out because of her position on SSM, even if she votes against it. THE NDP recruits and employs bigots. And Jack signed her nomination papers. Stick a fork in this one -- it's done.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 13 December 2004 10:28 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, first of all, Dagmar, regarding my supposed "lukewarm" response to anti-semitism - how be you go fuck yourself.
[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Michelle:

While I did not point to your lukewarm response to anti-Semitism per se (I was talking about the left in general) I did have the opportunity to look at some threads that you moderate. You're right. There's no lukewarm response to anti-Semitism here

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=001152


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 13 December 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If it's bigoted to not compromise on human rights, then I'm guilty.

Michelle, what rights are absolute? Who decides when rights are absolute, relative or non-existent either? You say that rights to marry are absolute. Others disagree. How about minority language education rights? How about rights to free speech? Should anybody be able to say anything to anybody anytime? Including holocaust denial? How about the rights to form a union? Some people disagree with that right. Other people disagree with the fact that unions have the right to deduct dues from all employees whether or not they're members or not.

So tell me: what human rights are absolute? And what do you have to say to thsoe who have different conceptions of those rights?

I guess I'm having trouble accepting the very idea of "rights" as absolute, never changing things that exist at all times.

And finally, I still utterly disagree with your invocation of Holocaust deniers. We can go over this again and again, but I think I'll just simply rest by saying that it is deeply disturbing. It seems to me like you do a great disservice to yourself, to your arguments and to your passionate defence of important civil liberties.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 13 December 2004 10:55 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because the marriage bill is going to be so close, it is absolutely unacceptable for an NDP mp to vote no to the bill, and if she does, she should be kicked out of caucus. If she doesn’t, than it would just create a slippery slope. How much intolerance will the NDP tolerate from its members? I don’t think it would be such a big deal if NDP mps couldn’t bring themselves to personally support same sex marriage, but from a political point of view, they represent the NDP and they should vote according to its values. Marriage is human rights, every couple in every country is allowed to get married, and that makes it a right. And i am teling you, the vote is crucial. I dont care how many people believe that the same sex bill will pass easily next year, my belief is that we will have to fight for it till the very end.

One of the unique aspects of NDP is its unconditional and full support for gay rights. Tolerating Bev's no vote , i think, would damage NDP's reputation.
But thats just me, i just think that I could rely on NDP for its full support of gay rights, and i think thats an important standard to uphold. Or else NDP would just become another Liberal party.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 13 December 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for those calling for anti-SSM employees of the NDP to be fired... would this even be legal? I am no expert in labour law, but I'm pretty sure if you fired someone over a privately held political belief when said belief was not materially related to the specifics of their job, you end up forking over several million dollars to that person when they sue your ass back into the Middle Ages.

Seriously, could the people who are either willfully stupid enough or willfully deceitful enough to suggest firing employees for their position on SSM please fuck off? Thank you

Spindoctor - rights only cease to be absolute when they conflict with competing rights. In the case of marriage, no rights are harmed by sanctioning same sex marriages.

Dagmar - You are an asshole. No, I will not deal with the substance of any of your arguments. Yes, you can childishly play the "That means you can't rebut my positions, so I rule and you drool!" card if you like. I mean, no one else has ever done it, so at least it's original.

Oh, and in case you missed it, you are an asshole. Your are disingenuous. You have hijacked every conversation you've ever participated in here. Your goal is not constructive, but destructive. You are false, you are pompous, you are deceitful, you are offensive, you are useless....

...and you are a grade-A, USDA approved cut of premium marbled asshole, lightly seared over an asshole grill and smothered in asshole mushrooms and a light asshole sauce. On your most annoying days you come with baked asshole and sour cream, and your choice of desert from the asshole tray. Try the asshole creme cheesecake, it comes with assholes!

Asshole.


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who decides when rights are absolute, relative or non-existent either? You say that rights to marry are absolute. Others disagree.

This isn't about which rights are or aren't absolute. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, but everyone has the same right to speak, and the same non-right to slander, defraud or perjure on the basis of this "freedom". But to whatever degree we do or don't have free speech, that right isn't doled out on the basis of skin colour, sex, age or homo/heterosexuality. From the point of view of the law, we're all free to speak our mind.

Can you imagine if only men had this freedom? Or only Asians? Or everyone except Asians? We certainly wouldn't waste our time pointing out that sometimes free speech is limited, and that it's not an "absolute" right, when we grant it as a right to one group and not another.

Should't that be the level this debate takes place on? Why it is that we continue to deny one group the right to marry the adult of their choice, while promoting it to sacrosanct for everyone else? Given that, as pointed out above, granting homosexuals the right to marry takes nothing whatsoever away from heterosexuals who also want to marry, on what grounds can you or anyone else justify this pervasive double-standard?

"It's always been that way", "Some people are fond of tradition", and "But change takes time, so wait longer" aren't really cutting it anymore, and certainly aren't very progressive.

And I know this has been mentioned many times, but in case it's not clicking: if you don't believe marriage is an absolute right, try taking it away from the heterosexuals. Seriously. Propose that in the interest of fairness, no heterosexuals will be allowed to marry. When they're applying the tar and feathers to you, be sure and point out how marriage isn't an absolute right!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 14 December 2004 02:21 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John_D:
Seriously, could the people who are either willfully stupid enough or willfully deceitful enough to suggest firing employees for their position on SSM please fuck off? Thank you

Dagmar - You are an asshole. No, I will not deal with the substance of any of your arguments... Oh, and in case you missed it, you are an asshole. Your are disingenuous. You have hijacked every conversation you've ever participated in here. Your goal is not constructive, but destructive. You are false, you are pompous, you are deceitful, you are offensive, you are useless... and you are a grade-A, USDA approved cut of premium marbled asshole, lightly seared over an asshole grill and smothered in asshole mushrooms and a light asshole sauce. On your most annoying days you come with baked asshole and sour cream, and your choice of desert from the asshole tray. Try the asshole creme cheesecake, it comes with assholes!

Asshole.


Someone's got a hate on...

Seriously though, I can't argue with that. If you want to employ bigots in the party, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

As for the asshole thing, hey, everybody needs an asshole... if you didn't have an asshole, where would you stick your head?!


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 14 December 2004 02:23 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
And, it can serve as a sort of 'Habitrail' for your hamster.
From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 14 December 2004 02:24 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
And, you can use it to open twist-off beer caps.
From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
phoebe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5466

posted 14 December 2004 02:34 AM      Profile for phoebe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John_D:
I am no expert in labour law, but I'm pretty sure if you fired someone over a privately held political belief when said belief was not materially related to the specifics of their job, you end up forking over several million dollars to that person when they sue your ass back into the Middle Ages.

For what it's worth, speaking as a lawyer practising in this field, I would say that firing her would be prima facie discriminatory but would probably be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement. In any event, the employer (the party) could, without cause, choose to terminate her employment, provided that sufficient notice (or pay in lieu thereof) was provided. (This may not be the case if the position is unionized, however). Suffice it to say, however, that regardless of how the relationship was severed, there is almost no way that damages could be in the "millions".


From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 14 December 2004 03:30 AM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Robert James ]


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 14 December 2004 03:33 AM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this needs some serious consideration by many posters here; it's an important point.

Gay/lesbian marriage is not an absolute human right. Marriage in general is not itself an absolute human right. The Supreme Court of Canada made its decision ostensibly based on the premise that denying gay/lesbian marriage violates the guarantee of equality in the Charter (S. 15). Thus, disallowing gay/lesbian marriage would be inconsistent with THAT 'absolute' Charter right.

A couple things to consider. The court has interpreted the case and decided gay/lesbian marriage is permissable and consistent with a particular Charter right. Thankfully I - like many others here - agree with the POLICY implications of this. But, I am hesitant to conclude that this is now an 'absolute human right' BECAUSE 9 Supreme Court judges say so - is that really what makes this an absolute human right? This point has nothing to do with the particular case of policy, but has to do with the very idea that judges somehow dictate at a particular temporal juncture what an 'absolute human right' requires of public policy and what it does not. There have been many instances where judges themselves have reinterpreted former decisions about the meaning/content 'rights' and altered the scope of our understanding of what one's 'rights' are in the process vis-a-vis public policy.

Now does this mean rights are always absolute and it's just a matter of eventually seeing them for what they really are and duly applying them to public policy, or does it mean that rights might be universal in scope and application but the precise meaning of them is subject to interpretation and change?

A lot of progressive people have a litany of examples to draw from that suggest the meaning of rights is not absolute and that rights have often been used to deny progressive policies (think about the history of the American labour movement pre-New Deal and the battles Canadian unions have had on grounds of freedom of association - does this mean the freedom of a union to represent the interests of its members to an employer or the freedom of an individual to opt-out of a union if he/she chooses not to associate with it?).

Take this for what it is worth. While the ideas behind rights might be absolute, the content and meaning of those rights (as interpreted by our gatekeeper judges) is NOT. So, be a little careful when you say something like 'absolute human rights'. I think it's an absolute right of all human beings to have shelter and food to survive, but that's not been read into our Charter. Nor do many champions of human rights in Canada seem prepared to advance this reading either. (Inicidentally, the post-Apartheid constitution in South Africa allows for these kinds of social and economic rights as part of its understanding of human rights). Do you serious want to tell me human beings have an 'absolute right' to marry but NOT to be housed and fed? And if you do, why is your interpretation absolute and mine not? Because judges say (or in this case, don't say) so?

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Robert James ]


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 December 2004 03:35 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
And, it can serve as a sort of 'Habitrail' for your hamster.

In view of the main thread topic, Dagmar, it's pretty clear what reference you were making, and what sterotype you were employing.

I would point out that no one with half a fucking brain believes that kind of bullshit, but then this IS you we are talking about. What's next, a snide remark about luring children with candy?

For the sake of anyone who is NOT aware of the vile slanders Dagmar was alluding to and perpetuating, I would refer you to this Snopes article...

quote:
The notion of gerbilling (not necessarily restricted to homosexuals — the insertion of items into the rectum for purposes of autoeroticism is practiced by heterosexuals as well) appears to be pure invention, a tale fabricated to demonstrate the depravity with which "faggots" allegedly pursue sexual pleasure. (While people do stick all sorts of unusual items up their rectums, they also do so for reasons other than sexual pleasure.)

In the meantime, asshole, I am writing a message to Audra about this. This is the first time any babbler has pissed me off to the point of doing this, and I can't say that I'm really surprised that it was you who provoked it.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 December 2004 03:43 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Robert James:
Gay/lesbian marriage is not an absolute human right. Marriage in general is not itself an absolute human right. The Supreme Court of Canada made its decision ostensibly based on the premise that denying gay/lesbian marriage violates the guarantee of equality in the Charter (S. 15). Thus, disallowing gay/lesbian marriage would be inconsistent with THAT 'absolute' Charter right.

quote:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A number of nations, led by Brazil, and supported by Canada, have been trying to have "sexual orientation" added to this definition, but their initiatives have been roadblocked by a gang of fundamentalist bigots spearheaded by the United States, a number of Muslim nations, and the Vatican.

Hey, all the animosities can be put to one side if it's for the sake of ganging up on the faggots. One must have priorities, after all...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 14 December 2004 04:04 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(1) Men and women of full age ... have the right to marry

You know... when I was at law school I asked a prof if this language precluded men from marrying men, and women from marrying women. He laughed and said he'd never thought of it that way, but once he had, that an argument for that interpretation could certainly be made. I think it's a reasonable intepretation. It would be much easier than trying to change the UDHR, which is nearly unassailable (and thankfully so, for the most part).

From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 14 December 2004 09:50 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I read Article 16:1 that Heph posted, before reading the under post. I had took it to mean regardless of sexual orientation. The wording is not that solid to just meaning male marrying female.

Why has it not been argued that it has that open meaning?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 December 2004 10:35 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I'm getting more confused here. Is opposition to SSM homophobia or not? And is Mazigh homophobic if she is openly opposed to SSM?

I no longer can figure out what the NDP "policy" or "principle" is. It seems to be all over the map.

Whoever is in charge of the NDP should go figure it out. Until then, I'll hold back on sending in my donation. If it's all over the map on this, I suspect it may be all over the map on other issues.

Someone who knows this stuff can perhaps clarify.

But personally, it feels weird to see the NDP or its representatives denounce those opposed to SSM and then turn around and recruit people opposed to SSM.

Makes my head spin.

I can't figure it out anymore.

And I'm the wishy washy moderate guy ("Bob Rae rules!") who dislikes purism.

But if's a principle, act like you mean it. If it's not, that's also OK I suppose. At least I'll now what the "position", "policy", "platform", "stance" is.

Im suppose it's even OK to say MPs who are homophobic for opposing SSM must leave caucus but that employees who are homophobic can be accepted as long as they do not work on the issue of gay people. At least that's a position. But things seem quite confused to me right now.

P.S. I work and have worked with employment lawyers - my understanding is that Mazigh could be fired, with or without cause, I'm not sure but she could be terminated or her contract not be renewed. The NDP can argue (and win) that being for gay rights is a bona fide occupational requirement of an employee of a social democratic party. It's not a simple "personal opinion" in this employment context. Amnesty International has no obligation to keep an employee about whom they discover that he or she thinks torture is OK. Being against torture is a bona fide occupational requirement for AI. My reading of today's NDP is that being in support of gay people's rights, at least to the extent as defined by courts, is the same thing. And the NDP knew she was against gay people's rights when they hired her. Of course, she could turn around and argue that the NDP knew and hired her anyway and this is retroactive and arbitrary. But I think the NDP could still win on the balance of the arguments.

At least, the NDP can refrain from hiring people like her in the future, if this is indeed a "core position" or "core principle".

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 14 December 2004 10:58 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
In the last few weeks, I have received a few phone calls and letters asking for donations to the NDP. Given the importance of the SSM issue for the NDP, I think I have to be consistent myself and I can't feel confident giving money to a party that will expel Bev Desjarlais from caucus but allow other homophobic people to get a salary (and does my donation help pay for the salary of these people who would deny friends of mine the rights we are all entitled to?)

...

The cheque is going to Amnesty International instead.


I don't agree totally with your rationale and I'd never want to discourage someone from donating to Amnesty, but you do have another option: make your donation directly to your local riding association. You get the same tax receipt and, unless you live in Churchill (which you don't), you have no such worries.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 11:00 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
To be honest, I don't hold Monia Mazigh in as much contempt as some people...although, I'm not an NDP partisan, so there's that. She explained why she would abstain from voting on this issue, and, if anything, I got the impression she was being honest. She also addressed the fact that she understands she lives in a secular society, and wasn't railing against it. All I expect from other people is honesty, not all kinds of convoluted arguments to explain away their bigotry.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 December 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
That's actually a good idea Scott.
From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 14 December 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
That's actually a good idea Scott.

Hey, I'm a fundraiser for a local riding association...

And, on that note, this thread is getting too long, so I'm going to suggest that it be closed (actually I was going to close it myself, but my moderator superpowers now seem to be restricted to the USA forum) and open another one over here.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

These people who are in opposition to me have had years to change their minds. Years of patient lobbying by Egale and other organizations, including churches. Years of listening to heart-rending stories of discrimination.

And they don't care. Not only are their minds closed, so are their hearts. They are utterly indifferent to the suffering they cause to others. So be it. Fuck Bev Desjarlais. Fuck Stephen Harper. Fuck Pat O'Brien. Fuck Monia Mazigh.



Realitybites: Monia Mazigh does not go to church.

Your reasoning fails to recognize that new Canadians, such as Monia Mazigh have not "had years to change their minds." It also fails to recognize that the "patient lobbying in churches" excludes Mosques and the work previously done in the christain community is only just in process in the Muslim community. A close look at the article posted by Burns shows this debate is active:

quote:
Apparently in Delic’s world, the choice to don the head covering, or hijab, gives Muslim women the added burden, one not borne by men of course, of having to conform to Delic’s vision of true Islam.

For Delic, the gay marriage issue is so important that it justifies the public humiliation of a highly respected human rights activist in the Greater Vancouver community. When asked if he would give Syed a chance for a rebuttal, he insisted that she should not be given a chance to address the mosque attendees unless she first comes out with a statement retracting her support of her party’s positions on same-sex union. Delic also insisted that he has nothing to apologize for.


This is an example of the work that RealityBites is discussing having happened in Churches, going on in mosques, today. It is not something that has already happened, it is happening now.

Realitybites reasoning is exceptionally ethnocentric. I think it should also be recongnized that Monia's position within the NDP might substantially forward the cause of equality for women, and also quite possibly gay people, in the Muslim community -- not because her position is particullary grand, but because her acceptance of belonging to a pro-SSM party (something that I am sure people like Delic would reject as an option) puts her far in advance of other leaders of her community.

I think this should be recognized.

By rejecting Monia, and thereby undermining her political credibility within the Muslim community is the NDP really forwarding education around Gay and lesbian equality issues within the Muslim community? Or is simply closing the door (from this side) to the most progressive elements of that community and giving over the pulpit to the most regressive elements of Islamic thought.

By rejecting Monia, out-of-hand, is the NDP strengthening the hand of the gay and Lesbian rights community in Islam, or is it simply isolating the community from more progressive mentalities, by allowing them to silenced both inside and outside of the community.

I doubt for instance, that in her time, or in her world, that Mary Wolstoncraft had great position on SSM, and it is simply not true, and ethnocentric in the extreme (in a fashion that borders on racist bigotry) to suggests that Arab-Muslims (in general) have been exposed to the same kind of education afforded the white-christian community on SSM.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You fail to recognize that new Canadians, such as Monia Mazigh have not "had years to change their minds."

Sure they have. It's 2004 for them just like it is for you or me. Unless you mean "we haven't been spending these last years trying to change their mind for them". But they've been welcome to debate it just like everyone else has, no?

quote:
it is simply not true, and ethnocentric in the extreme (in a fashion that borders on racist bigotry) to suggests that Arab-Muslims (in general) have been exposed to the same kind of education afforded the white-christian community on SSM.

Are you saying the Muslim community couldn't debate this issue on their own? That "we" have to "teach" them, or it's not gonna happen?

And exactly what "education" have any of us received with regard to SSM? That some gay people would like to marry? Check! And we won't let them, even though we let everyone else? Check! What else is there, and what else does anyone who truly believes in equal rights need, anyway?? How much handholding and cajoling and "educating" should any of us need in this regard??


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 14 December 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
I'm getting more confused here. Is opposition to SSM homophobia or not? And is Mazigh homophobic if she is openly opposed to SSM?

I no longer can figure out what the NDP "policy" or "principle" is. It seems to be all over the map.

Whoever is in charge of the NDP should go figure it out. Until then, I'll hold back on sending in my donation.


Well, kepp your money if you want but the position is crytsal fucking clear and it has been pursued aggressively:

The NDP supports same-sex marriage as a basic human right. The party has and will chase down the Liberals, the Conservatices and any other party that eithers opposes or dithers on making this happen. If NDP members disagree that's too bad for them. This is not a policy they can disagree on.

I know it's a reactionary homophobic hard-to-follow position.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 December 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Don't be glib and dismissive, Magoo. It's not your best quality.

I don't think Cueball was suggesting we have anything to teach "them". Muslims are part of this society like anyone else. Progressive Muslims will have to engage the debate within their communities. as the rest of us do in our own. That's the point.

I've lived in other places, and I know that the frankness of debate over issues of sexuality don't come near to what we're used to here. It's a reasonnable assumption to make for newcomers to Canada...also, from my experience, many newcomers to Canada had more enlightened views on sexuality than we did. That, of course, has changed.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 December 2004 12:24 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is not a policy they can disagree on.

Then it would make sense for the NDP - at least from now - to avoid recruiting homophobic candidates or hiring people who cannot accept to endorse equality rights for gay people. What's past is past and mistakes can't be undone, but that doesn't dictate the future.

I am not sure any more what the disagreement is about. Perhaps this is just one of those silly hairsplitting incidents that occasionally occur on Babble where everyone agrees but pretends not to. Just for the hell of it on a slow day I suppose.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't be glib and dismissive, Magoo. It's not your best quality.

Correct. I'm told that's my legs. But I don't think I was being glib or dismissive. There just seemed to be a quality of, well, something in his post. Something suggesting that if the Muslim community is "behind the times" with regard to SSM that it's because we haven't taught them. Or, I suppose, that they haven't taught themselves. But haven't they had just as much time on earth as anyone else?

quote:
I've lived in other places, and I know that the frankness of debate over issues of sexuality don't come near to what we're used to here.

I'm also not sure what to make of a statement like this. It seems a little bit circular if you break it down. Any society or group can have whatever degree of frank debate they want, can't they? And if they don't seem to want that, isn't that the root of the problem in the first place?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 December 2004 12:37 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
To Cueball:

I didn't say she went to church. You really ought to learn to read one of these days. I said churches have been lobbying MPs for years. Mazigh was not the focal point of my piece -- scum like Desjarlais and Harper were.

As for Mazigh, sorry, no affirmative action. If her thinking and compassion for others is not sufficiently developed to allow her to fulfill her duties as an elected representative of Canadians that is HER problem.

I have no intention of allowing it to be mine or let her walk over me. FUCK HER.

Being an MP is NOT an entry-level position.[/qb][/QUOTE]

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 December 2004 12:42 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Back in 1981 he was Attorney General when the notorious bath house raids occurred and he is thought to have ordered the raids and was seen at the time as public enemy number one to the gay community. I guess he has repented!!

It's never to late to save one's soul, after all. McMurtry has a lot to atone for.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for Mazigh, sorry, no affirmative action. If her thinking and compassion for others is not sufficiently developed to allow her to fulfill her duties as an elected representative of Canadians that is HER problem.

Fundamentally you refuse to enter dialogue or understand. That is evident.

Interestingly the Islamic anti-gay bigots don't want to enter dialogue with you, nor do they want to understand you. No affirmative action for you is a corect summary. That is their position. That makes them bigots.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 December 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RB I understand or at least accept that for you this is an issue that is black and white. You are either for SSM or against. And if you are against get the heck out of the way.

But this entire debate reminds me of an episode of the tv show the west wing. In it a group is debating gays in the military. There are soldiers and political staff sitting around a table talking about the merits. The scene shifts and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs walks in and he is asked for his opinion.

He answers and to paraphrase. I am against it but then again 50 years ago many were against me being in the military as well and now I am the Chairman. The actor is african american.

My real opinion on the issue of SSM is that it is a human rights issue and for me I was not alive or old enough during the height of the civil rights fight, or during the quota times for Jews and blacks at schools like McGill and U of T to name a few. And I know that their are other battles that have happened.

But I am here for this battle. And if others had not fought before me then I may not have a say today. And for tomorrows battle whatever it might be I am glad that the fighters for SSM will join in that battle as well.

Many straights were against SSM because they feared that their religious organization would be forced to "change" to perform the ceremony. THe courts and even Alex Munter during his press conference upheld the right for a religion to do as they see fit.

But you know lost in this debate about Bev et al is the fact that a party caucus before being whipped is about 98% in favour of a major social policy. THat is simply amazing.

As far as Bev goes. Let's wait and see what she actually does before we pass judgement. Maybe her opinion will change.

She might just do the right thing.

And as you wrote above if McMurtry can change.....

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 14 December 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
Then it would make sense for the NDP - at least from now - to avoid recruiting homophobic candidates or hiring people who cannot accept to endorse equality rights for gay people..
I don't think Monia Mazigh, for example, "cannot accept" equality rights for gay people. I think she may have a personal disagreement with party policy on this issue. If one was interested in being honest or intelligent about this one might note that she has, in fact, gone out of her way to explain what the NDP policy is on this issue - even when it has been difficult to do so.

I think she is an absolutely extraordinary woman and I'd tear up my membership if I ever learned she got kicked out of the NDP or fired after all she's done for the party.

For those who feel there has to be a "purity test" for all MPs and staff, I suggest you form a new party - based on your Shining Path of Righteousness - and see who you can sign up. I'll predict that you'll have few people to worry about.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what is really missing here is any sense of allowing for an evolution of consciousness and ideas. Rather than trying to see Monia as a possible conduit to engage the Muslim community in this debate, some people seem to be intent on reinforcing ghetoization and religious orthodoxy, but shutting down the discourse.

Very disturbing.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 14 December 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, if she's not homophobic, that's fine. I don't see the problem.

If she is homophobic, there is a slight contradiction in the NDP vowing to fight this issue tooth and nail and not being careful about who its candidates are. I don't see myself as the only one here in these threads who sees a flaw in the logic.

And if Desjarlais and others change their mind, that's cool.

But where's this "purity test" idea coming from?
It's not a purity test if this is a fundamental principle of Layton's NDP. If it's that fundamental, then officials and MPs can't go against it. If it's not fundamental, then of course the situation is different.

Some people argue being anti-SSM is a form of homophobia, others say it isn't a form of homophobia. Apparently, there is no official stance on this.

But if Mazigh is a homophobe, why would I want to defend her? I am not convinced today that one can oppose SSM and not be homophobic, perhaps not to the point of gay bashing, but it does show an attitude that is not very open and tolerant.

Unfortunately, it was seen fit to have her as a candidate and then to hire her. It is more of a big deal than some here seem to acknowledge.

I think the argument can be made that this kind of mistake should be avoided in the future.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 14 December 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long!

confidential to Scott: That's how I meant to set it up in the first place Hope you didn't get too drunk with power!


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca