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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » Monia Mazigh and SSM

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Monia Mazigh and SSM
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934

posted 15 December 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Steve N     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've seen Monia Mazigh brought up numerous times on several threads lately. I've been trying to go through them all to see if anyone has actually quoted her saying something regarding SSM. I've done a google to see if she has said anything lately in the news. I've found nothing.

The only statement she has made that I'm aware of was during the election campaign, to the effect that if there a was vote on any issue that the NDP had official policy to support, and there was a religious conflict, she would abstain, not vote against. AFAIK the NDP has had this arrangement with other members and it is not a problem. To my knowledge Monia has not made any specific statements re SSM.

Am I wrong? Has she spoken out about it lately? Is there a reason why her name has been brought up in virtually every thread on SSM the last few days? Or is it just because she is a "known Muslim"?

edit to add: I come on the SSM threads when they're 20 posts long, then come back later and over 100. I'm sure someone may have actually quoted her or have reason to bring this up, but darned if I can find anything on it.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Steve N ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 08:18 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is the info you are looking for.

quote:
The Ottawa Citizen

2004.06.05

B1 / Front

Sutton Eaves
Ottawa South candidates unlikely allies on gay marriage:
Conservative and NDP hopefuls find common ground on controversial issue

In an unconventional alignment, both the Conservative and New Democrat candidates for Ottawa South have declared their positions on same-sex marriage -- an unequivocal no.

NDP hopeful Monia Mazigh told a meeting of the Citizen editorial board that she cannot support her party's position on the issue because as a Muslim, she is prohibited from doing so.

"I'm going to tell you my position is clear on same-sex marriage -- I'm not the best person to support it because of my religious beliefs," said Ms. Mazigh, whose decision breaks with NDP policy of equal marriage rights for all Canadians.

If elected, Ms. Mazigh said she would abstain from voting on the issue in Parliament, saying, "I cannot tell you that I am going to vote for same-sex marriage because I cannot contradict my religious beliefs; however, I'm not going to vote against it.

"For me, it's very clear. I'm going to remain neutral."

Ms. Mazigh said she would not vote against gay marriage because the NDP position of respecting equal rights amongst all minority groups is a good one -- just not one that she can support if forced to vote.


[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934

posted 15 December 2004 08:20 PM      Profile for Steve N     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, fair enough. As I understand it this stance (abstention) is acceptable to the party. So are we to not accept Muslim candidates then?
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 December 2004 08:32 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, the party may accept that stance, but my "religion" (all people are created equal and deserve equal treatment) "prohibites me from doing so"!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 15 December 2004 08:35 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steve N:
OK, fair enough. As I understand it this stance (abstention) is acceptable to the party. So are we to not accept Muslim candidates then?


There are plenty of Muslims who are pro-equality, just like people of other faiths. Believe it or not, there are even gay and lesbian Muslims.

Bigots come in all religious flavours.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 15 December 2004 08:55 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a better question Monia should be asking of her self, is what does Canadian Law support? She is representing her religious views, but do those apply to her, and not to how the state should run for all Canadians?

I know this is a contencious issue amongst Muslims. And they have a difficult time with it. And I don't want to target them, or Monia because I think she has a lot of good sides to her, but what is really driving all of this? I feel that there is not a recognition amongst even some very progressive Muslims that this debate isn't over their religious beliefs but what how a principle in the state law is applied. And that if this law is supposed to protect minorities, including their minority religion and that people from many different faiths and backgrounds, most notably atheists, will come to their defense - why this link is not drawn to other minority groups.

I know the Qur'an is supposedly explicit, on like the Bible (or more explicit anyways) against homosexuality. But that is to individual muslims, and religiously I find it in conflict to make such a judgement against non Muslims, which the Qur'an also speaks a great deal upon.

It is a very touchy subject for me, as elsewhere I have had to explain that "religious freedom" doesn't mean that you have the right to be hateful against homosexuals. This was a debate against a couple of "extremist" Muslims concerning the gruop in Toronto who wished to stop tolerance classes a month or two ago. Though there were other Muslims who took a similar opinion as to me, I find it difficult when I hear of socially progressive people taking such a stance against SSM, and even more confusing when it comes from a group which should understand the vulnerability the homosexual community is in.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 December 2004 11:13 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, Monia is now a private citizen, and I'm sure lots of people won't agree with me, but think it is somewhat inapropriate for us to continue to discuss her politics, months after the election.

When she was a candidate, that was fair game of course. But she is no longer a public figure and I think we should respect her privacy and not dissect her views, especially when we know very little about them.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 15 December 2004 11:15 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Word
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 15 December 2004 11:16 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
To get back to Steve N's original point, until such time as Monia puts herself back on the public record on equal marriage, I think this ongoing speculation about Monia's views should stop. Monia is no longer a public figure and her views should not the subject of speculation and innuendo anymore than the views of any other NDP Caucus staffer.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934

posted 15 December 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for Steve N     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm starting to wonder if there's a serious disconnect between the party executive and the membership. This is not a trivial issue, and while there was a certain news value in running Monia as a candidate, did it end up alienating the membership?
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 15 December 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Steve N, the answer in my case is a most emphatic NO. I thought you had started this thread questioning the appropriateness of speculating about Monia's views on equal marriage, now you're switching topics to prolong the discussion. What gives?
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 December 2004 11:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
You know, Monia is now a private citizen, and I'm sure lots of people won't agree with me, but think it is somewhat inapropriate for us to continue to discuss her politics, months after the election.

When she was a candidate, that was fair game of course. But she is no longer a public figure and I think we should respect her privacy and not dissect her views, especially when we know very little about them.


This is a matter of public discussion because the party accepted someone who said she would not support same sex marriage with a positive vote for it, and stated publicly that she was personally against it for religious reasons.

The reason it's relevant now is because the situation is being brought up as a precedent for other elected members of the NDP to possibly either abstain or vote against SSM.

She is a private citizen - however, her stand on the issue a few months ago has created reverberations that have lasted until now. And that makes it legitimate to discuss.

However, if you don't want to discuss it any further, Sara, you're perfectly free to ignore any and all threads on the subject.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 December 2004 11:33 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, and I'm perfectly free to keep posting about why I think this is an inappropriate discussion.

And by the way, how come we're not eternally discussing Father Des McGrath's views and how his candidacy "alienated the membership"? To me it smacks of sexism and racism.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 December 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bullshit. We HAVE discussed Father Des and Desjarlais. The last long thread was all about Desjarlais. Why don't you go to those other threads and see who brought Mazigh up first? If I remember correctly, those of us who were saying we have a problem with people abstaining from voting had Monia Mazigh thrown in our face as something we were somehow inconsistent about.

And yes, you're perfectly free to say you want us to stop talking about this. And we're perfectly free to tell you tough beans if you don't like what we're talking about and to make a suggestion that will help you protect your offended sensibilities.

The other reason Monia is being focused on more than Father Des is because people who think it's okay for the NDP to recruit homophobes keep talking about how racist we are for criticizing a Muslim for her PUBLICLY STATED position on the topic. And that tends to create a lot of discussion.

Also, the reason she is being talked about more is because most of us who are arguing against the recruiting of homophobes to stand for election kept having her thrown in our face as someone who is an employee of the party, as though it was somehow inconsistent. And the funny thing is, it was mostly the people who DON'T have a problem with homophobes standing for election who kept bringing Mazigh into the conversation, even though I and others kept saying there was a difference between a person in an elected, public leadership role, and a person who is a member at large, or an employee whose beliefs will not interfere with her job.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 15 December 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would like, in fact, to derail this discussion to a more general one, and in particular Mazigh's statement that
quote:
she would not vote against gay marriage because the NDP position of respecting equal rights amongst all minority groups is a good one -- just not one that she can support if forced to vote.
I would like to suggest that (completely aside from the question of whether SSM is a right under Canadian law) the conflict lies in the fact that unlike race and sex, sexual orientation is behavioural, and religion has always seen its role as regulating behaviour. Because of the emotional nature of these debates, I would like to strongly suggest that I am not anything about SSM as a right, but rather discussing the nature of those who cannot *explicitly* support it (like Mazign), and in particular the feeling of some who cannot accept non-rejecting non-acceptance such as that.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 15 December 2004 11:43 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steve N:
I'm starting to wonder if there's a serious disconnect between the party executive and the membership. This is not a trivial issue, and while there was a certain news value in running Monia as a candidate, did it end up alienating the membership?

No. It may have alienated a very small handful of people, some of whom are quite vocal here, but I certainly don't think there is a disconnect in the party as a whole on this.

During the campaign, I heard and responded to many (inaccurate) complaints about us running a "welfare bum wife of a terrorist". I don't recall hearing any concerns about her position on same-sex marriage anywhere other than here.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 15 December 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bullshit. We HAVE discussed Father Des and Desjarlais.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Desjarlais in this context. Of course we've discussed her views, and since she's a member of caucus I have no problems with it at all.

quote:
And yes, you're perfectly free to say you want us to stop talking about this. And we're perfectly free to tell you tough beans if you don't like what we're talking about and to make a suggestion that will help you protect your offended sensibilities.

Michelle, I am not offended, so you don't have to worry about protecting my sensibilities. (It's a bit patronizing, frankly.) As I said in my original post, I knew many babblers would not agree with me, so I'm not surprised by your reaction.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 December 2004 11:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We have discussed Father Des, too. But he's not the one people keep throwing in our faces when those of us who say we are against even abstaining, so we don't address him as much.

Maybe you should ask people like Dagmar and Critical Mass why Mazigh keeps getting brought up.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 15 December 2004 11:56 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You heard those comments from party members??
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 16 December 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We have discussed Father Des, too. But he's not the one people keep throwing in our faces when those of us who say we are against even abstaining, so we don't address him as much.

Maybe you should ask people like Dagmar and Critical Mass why Mazigh keeps getting brought up.


This was kind of exactly my point. Why does Monia come up more often than Des? Like I said, my gut reaction tells me there's some sexism and racism involved. But hey, I could be wrong, maybe Des was lucky to be a candidate far from central Canada so we kind of forget about him...


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 December 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It could be that the NDP was so gleeful about nominating a minority woman who was not only a member of a ethnicity that get lots of controversial press but whose husband was in the press as a victim of the goverment and by extension the Liberal party.

She was dragged out at seemingly every opportunity and was seen to be a opponent killing discussion stopping trump card.

Then, she turns around and says that she won't support the party on one of the major battles that the party has said is a hill worth dying on and an issue worth dying for.

In as far as nominating her was a transparent ploy by the NDP, it is easy to drag her out to throw egg on the NDP's face.

Why isnt Fr. McGrath dragged out more often? Well, seeing as he is a catholic priest, it isnt really a surprise that he'd have to vote against SSM. He also wasn't a showcase candidate.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 12:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry for being patronizing, Sara. I admit I was a bit peeved when I wrote it. But, see, what I find patronizing is when NDP members or insiders try to police what we say about the party on babble. You know, as if this web site were somehow party territory or something. That really bugs me. And so I got snarky. I shouldn't have been so sarcastic though.

I think the reason Father Des hasn't been talked about as much is because people can't play the racism card with those of us who think no homophobe, whether Muslim, female, union-friendly, or Catholic, should be representing the party publicly. And the reason she kept getting brought up by Dagmar and Critical Mass is because they think it's inconsistent to let her continue to be an employee of the party but sanction Desjarlais for her stand. Father Des isn't a party employee, therefore that argument can't be made about him.

And you might want to note that lots of us who are against even abstaining actually defended the hiring and the continued employment of Mazigh with the party.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 16 December 2004 12:22 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Michelle, no hard feelings. And I am sorry for my sarcastic tone as well.

FYI, I am not at all trying to quash this discussion to protect the party from embarassment (it seriously hadn't even crossed my mind). I agree that her candidacy, although I strongly supported it, was challenging for those of us who support SSM and see it as being a fundamental part of being a New Democrat. And sure that remains a legitimate discussion.

I really was looking at this from her perspective, and trying to make us think about at what point someone ceases to be fair game for a public trial (of sorts) when she withdraws from public life, especially when she was a public citizen for such a short time.

And, just to make the record clear, I am a member of the party, but I wouldn't want anyone to think I am some kind of "insider" (about the only power I have is what size font to print the Hamilton-West riding association minutes).

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 12:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I see what you mean, too. I feel perfectly fine about going after Bev Desjarlais for her stand on the issue without bringing Mazigh into it at all. Frankly, I also think her stand on the issue is irrelevant at this point as well, even if you take her past comments into account. Because party policy can (and should!) change. And personally, I think party policy should be that if you are a member and abstain, or speculate publicly about voting against civil rights for gays and lesbians, you should be booted from caucus. It doesn't matter what policy we had in the past. We can change it for the future. It's always possible to right a wrong.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 16 December 2004 12:32 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Sara, Monia is likely coming up more often because she is an employee of the federal caucus. This may come as a surprise to some, but caucus employees are quite constrained in being able to express their personal views on matters of public policy, particularly ones currently under consideration or debate.

In reply to Michelle, IMHO, it makes no difference who first raised Monia. Surely, this does not excuse some of the hurtful and disrespectful comments made about her, including a particularly odious one where a babbler in another thread claimed he (or she) would allow Monia to drown even if he (or she) was in a position to save her. While such a remark may have been made in anger, it has no place in a responsible public forum such as Babble.


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

posted 16 December 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why isnt Fr. McGrath dragged out more often? Well, seeing as he is a catholic priest, it isnt really a surprise that he'd have to vote against SSM.

Why on earth woujld he "have to"? I'm sure we've heard at least a few dozen times here on babble that "the Catholic Church isn't some big monolith". So... then he's free to support SSM, right?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 12:35 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you have been as offended if someone said that about George Bush? Would you consider that "hurtful" and say it has no place on babble? Because I tell you, if I saw George Bush drowning, I certainly wouldn't do anything to save him, and I don't feel one bit bad about saying so.

The fact is, Mazigh IS a public figure, and DID make those statements publicly. And the people that she has dismissed have every right to dislike her as much as I dislike George Bush, and to say so.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 16 December 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Darn, I'm too slow in composing my messages. Thanks Michelle and Sara for clarifying your earlier remarks.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 December 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I suppose that if he was just a catholic like Paul Martin then he could pick and chose which papal rules he can ignore. Being a priest kinda restricts that.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 16 December 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Too slow again. In reply to your specific question Michelle, yes I would try to stop George Bush from drowning if I had the opportunity to do so. Though I'm not sure why you're putting Bush on the same plane as Monia.

Now if it was Adolf Hitler, I'm not as certain, but I can't bring myself to put Bush on quite the same plane as Hitler either.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't put them on the same level. I used Bush as an example of another public figure that gets trashed regularly on babble.

And I didn't ask you whether you would let George Bush drown. I was indirectly asking you whether you've ever protested any of the downright vicious things people on babble have said about George Bush, claiming that it has no place on babble, the way you have with Mazigh. If not, then you're being inconsistent, asserting one set of rules for a public figure you like, and another for one you don't like.


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

posted 16 December 2004 12:57 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Maybe you should ask people like Dagmar and Critical Mass why Mazigh keeps getting brought up.

I have brought him up, Michelle, referring to him as 'Newfoundland guy' (I keep forgetting McGrath's name). But it is a strange point to make -- McGrath isn't currently employed by the party -- Mazigh is.

But I think it's getting pretty freaky with you all talking about drowning public figures. I've changed my mind. Keep Bev. Keep Monia. Kick out fringe idiots who favour drowning people they don't like. And kick out people who condone such statements.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 16 December 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
If you're asking whether I think that Monia (who I maintain is no longer a public figure) deserves to be treated with more respect by Babblers than Bush does, yes I do. I think that overall Monia Mazigh is an inspiring person worthy of our respect and admiration. I cannot say the same of George Bush.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 16 December 2004 01:01 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I suppose that if he was just a catholic like Paul Martin then he could pick and chose which papal rules he can ignore. Being a priest kinda restricts that.

Perhaps, but if so then had he been elected, the Vatican would effectively have a seat in Parliament, no?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 December 2004 01:03 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep...and I'd have probably gleefully pointed that out every time someone mentioned seperation of church and state in any context.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 01:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who said anything about drowning someone? I said I wouldn't HELP Dubya if he was ALREADY drowning. I certainly wouldn't actively drown him!

Do you even bother to READ other people's posts?


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

posted 16 December 2004 01:16 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Who said anything about drowning someone? I said I wouldn't HELP Dubya if he was ALREADY drowning. I certainly wouldn't actively drown him!

Do you even bother to READ other people's posts?


What is the difference between drowning someone actively and letting them drown. Do you even bother to use your brain?


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

posted 16 December 2004 01:29 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can one be "actively" passive?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 08:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:

What is the difference between drowning someone actively and letting them drown. Do you even bother to use your brain?


I already explained the difference, which would be immediately obvious to anyone who HAS a brain, in my preceding post. Only an blithering idiot would fail to understand the difference.

Oh yeah. Never mind.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2004 09:13 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IANAL, but I believe that Canadian citizens are required to do what they can to help someone whose life is in danger. One is not required to endanger one's own, but one is required, eg, to call for help, to notify authorities, etc.

And I would do that for anyone.

Also, a lot gets said on babble that grates on my ears but that I don't protest at every opportunity. First, it would be too much work. Second, I don't want to turn into a boring harpy. Third, I recognize that people have different ears and different levels of tolerance. I don't see that letting garden-variety, ah, colloquial speech, shall we say, sail past me much of the time makes me inconsistent when I finally pipe up about what seems to me a notable case of it.

And no, I don't expect everyone to agree with me about those cases, either. But I like feeling free to speak when I like and remain silent when I like.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 16 December 2004 10:00 AM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to be such a pest about this, but I believe that members of the federal caucus staff are governed by a collective agreement. I would be very interested to see a copy of the agreement and find out whether or not there are any provisions to protect individual members' freedoms of opinion and conscience. It seems likely that there would be. But I'd like to know just the same.

Any takers?


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

posted 16 December 2004 11:17 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I brought up Desjarlis, Mcgrath and Mazigh. I never brought up Mazigh in isolation. But she was a showcase glamour candidate trotted out at every opportunity - there is a certain something called "background checks" on candidates. I could sense back then this situation would blow up in the NDP office's face.

The point is why were all 3 considered OK as candidates if the NDP considers opposition to SSM homophobic? And why hire her if it is homophobic? The same applies to McGrath if he is ever hired.

If it's not OK for the NDP to have homphobic people in the party, Desjarlais will have to step down and Mazigh should no longer be an employee. If opposition to SSM is not intolerable in the NDP because it is not a core principle as some have argued, then Desjarlais can't be sanctioned for going against something that is not a core value.

The quote from the Citizen show to me that Mazigh is prejudiced. The question the NDP leaders have to answer is whether this is deemed incompatible with being a candidate, being employed, being a representative, being a spokesperson.

I happen to think it is and others disagree. It's not up to me to tell the national office what to do but the current position is quite inconsistent with what I see as very elementary logic.

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


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 16 December 2004 11:34 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
By the way, the debate is not "about Monia". It is about the NDP policy on SSM and what the NDP, its leaders and members can expect from representatives on the issue.

Desjarlais, McGrath and Mazigh's names come up simply because they are known. The names could be different and the debate would not change.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915

posted 16 December 2004 11:53 AM      Profile for Rich L     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Monia Mazigh:
quote:
I'm not going to vote against it. For me, it's very clear. I'm going to remain neutral.

Ottawa Citizen:

quote:
In an unconventional alignment, both the Conservative and New Democrat candidates for Ottawa South have declared their positions on same-sex marriage -- an unequivocal no.

I'm disappointed that Mazigh opposes SSM, but I thought the Citizen's interpretation was funny. Shouldn't they have reported Mazigh's position as an "unequivocal absention"? Or perhaps even as an "equivocal no"?

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Rich L ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 16 December 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Bullshit. We HAVE discussed Father Des and Desjarlais.

But Des McGrath is at least given the relative anonymity of being referred to as "the priest".


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 16 December 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know if she isn't a public figure for the NDP...

I know at least one rally, possibily more, since september where Monia has spoken as a representative of the NDP.

But over and atop of that all of who it is saying it aside, what is being trumped here? What would this person do if they were in a house where the vote was very close? Would they choose to support the rights of other people, even if they don't agree with them? I do not agree with Christianity, but does that mean I should support laws that discriminate against Christians? Insert any religion you want in there. As political officials who and what do they represent? In part they represent their constituents, but they also stand for the Charter - and minorities everywhere. It just to me asks what these people are doing in Parliament, and speaks to how we think of what a parlimentarian's job is.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 16 December 2004 01:02 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In terms of the disconnect between the party membership and executive I don't see it existing.

I'd encourage people who think it does to either bring forward a resolution or, for that matter, run a slate for executive at the next federal NDP convention.

Let's let the NDP membership decide whether strong community leaders should be chased out of the party when they have personal reservations about partyn policy which may lead them to abstain on votes.

Or whether they would prefer building a broad progressive movement that maintains and promotes democratic and socialist principles without imposing a rigid ideology but by instead allowing members to disagree privately but always vote according to party policy.

It's fucking bizarre to me that this is even up for discussion.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


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

posted 16 December 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

I already explained the difference, which would be immediately obvious to anyone who HAS a brain, in my preceding post. Only an blithering idiot would fail to understand the difference.

Oh yeah. Never mind.


Perhaps the discussion on drowning ought to take place in a different forum, entitled Murderers and Serial Killers. As it is, there are a few of you here who are creeping me out. Perhaps you should talk to someone...

By the way, I'm not just being provocative with my last point, I'm totally 100% serious. I'm worried about a few people here...


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

posted 16 December 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh, Dagmar? Five men drowned in Newfoundland recently, and clearly you didn't save them. Does that make you a Murderer or a Serial Killer?

If not, why would not saving anyone else from drowning make you a murderer or serial killer??

If you have a good answer to this, let's hear it. If not, I'm going to formally ask Audra to change your babbler status to "Murderer and Serial Killer".


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

posted 16 December 2004 01:45 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
You really are a fuckin' asshole, McGoo.

I wasn't standing by in Newfoundland when these people drowned, calmly explaining that if they only agreed with me more, I'd save them. That'd be something Reality Bites would do. Or Michelle, (upon further re-reading my comments, I omitted a word which I shouldn't have. In no way did Michelle relativize away the Holocaust. She did however, relativize away the gravity of Holocaust Denial) then supports watching people die.

You're all pretty fucked up as far as I am concerned.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]
edited to tone down comment

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


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

posted 16 December 2004 01:49 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Serial Killer Van


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2004 01:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, two things:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Uh, Dagmar? Five men drowned in Newfoundland recently, and clearly you didn't save them. Does that make you a Murderer or a Serial Killer?

If not, why would not saving anyone else from drowning make you a murderer or serial killer??

If you have a good answer to this, let's hear it. If not, I'm going to formally ask Audra to change your babbler status to "Murderer and Serial Killer".


This is a silly provocation of Dagmar. As Dagmar says, he was not standing by. If he had been and had done nothing, NO, that would not make him a MURDERER OR SERIAL KILLER, but it would make him something (lawyers?) -- Canadian law requires him to do something.

Dagmar, I believe that you were unfairly provoked there -- but if I were you, I would edit my last comment about Michelle -- that is way over the line.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 16 December 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

If he had been and had done nothing, NO, that would not make him a MURDERER OR SERIAL KILLER, but it would make him something (lawyers?) -- Canadian law requires him to do something.

Nope. Only if they'd drowned in Quebec. There is no general legal duty to rescue in Canadian law.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to rescue, no (gee, I wrote this out above) -- but one has a responsibility at least to report, yes?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Or Michelle, (upon re-reading comments, did not totally relativize away the Holocaust)

I didn't "relativize away the Holocaust" in the least, so you'd better fucking well take that back too, you asshole. And you're bloody fucking lucky I didn't see what you originally wrote, because I would have quoted it and sent it to Audra.

[ 16 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 16 December 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is a silly provocation of Dagmar.

I disagree.

He's been told, several times, that nobody has called for, asked for, wished for, or hoped for the drowning death of anyone.

He's been told that there's a difference between murdering someone, and simply not risking one's life to save that someone.

And if he's got hair on his chest he should be old enough to know that there's a huge difference between speculating about the future, and the present.

I suspect that deep down he knows that if he takes a deep breath and considers these facts long enough he'll have to stop having his tantrum and stop referring to "Murderers and Serial Killers", but he doesn't want to. Otherwise why is he still on and on about them?

Do you just not understand, Dagmar? Do you need help understanding this??

quote:
NO, that would not make him a MURDERER OR SERIAL KILLER

Nor would it make someone who speculates that they might not save someone else. So why are we even talking about MURDERER OR SERIAL KILLERS?

quote:
There is no general legal duty to rescue in Canadian law.

So now Michelle and RB aren't just NOT murderers, they're not even officially noteworthy. Assuming of course that Monia or Dubya are ever drowning, and Michelle or RB are wandering by.

Now can you let it go, Dagmar? Believe me, if anyone was asking for the death of Monia, or even Dubya, I'd be right there with you. But they're not. Quit making hay. Grow up.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 16 December 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Not to rescue, no (gee, I wrote this out above) -- but one has a responsibility at least to report, yes?

Nope. It'd be nice to tell the cops where to find the bodies, but you don't have to.

Generally, there is only liability (criminal or civil) for actions, not for ommissions. There are, of course, exceptions where there is a legal duty to act, but they are exceptions.


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

posted 16 December 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, I was just using Dubya as an example of a public figure that people likely WOULDN'T complain about babblers saying that about, even if it's a sentiment they don't personally share.

I personally would do everything I could to save Mazigh if she were drowning. (I likely wouldn't with Bush, although I suppose I'd do the least that was legally required.) I don't see her in the same league as Bush.

But what I was responding to wasn't the morality of Reality Bites' position, but whether or not it was against babble policy for him to say such a thing about Mazigh. And if it's not against babble policy to say it about one public figure (Bush) then it's not against babble policy to say it about another (Mazigh). And I'm sure no one would even bother to complain about it in terms of what is acceptable on babble had the comment originally been said about Bush.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
andrew, I yield to your superior knowledge -- until someone can come along and explain the discussions of our Good Samaritan duties that take place in this city, have taken place repeatedly over the last few years. Our beloved police chief (not that I am a fan) has lectured us on this subject, I am sure.

Not, unfortunately, that I can give you a quick reference.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 16 December 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, note changes to original editing on original post. By the omission of one word, It made my comments more sensationalistic than needed. In the original, I said that you relativized away Holocaust Denial.

I agree that in no way Michelle, have you ever relativized away the Holocaust.

You did, however, relativize away the gravity of Holocaust Denial, in comparing people opposed to same-sex marriage (like Monia and Bev) with Holocaust Deniers. That, you'd have to admit, was wrong.

And, my main point, is that you support, morally speaking, the creepy notion of watching people drown and doing nothing to save them. Which is my main point anyway.

That, and the fact that you're an asshole.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 December 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dagmar, you have no point you fool. Stop baiting Michelle, or I'll complain to the moderator on her behalf.

I like what Joe Comartin said of SSM. He said that, as a practising Catholic, SSM has his full support, that his church is wrong on the issue of SSM, and that he will continue to voice his opposition to his church.

I applaud his willingness to take a moral, ethic stand in favour of human rights because of his faith, instead of hiding behind it like some cowards.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 16 December 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When Joe Co was a practicing choirboy he probably thought differently. In fact, ten years ago he might have thought differently.

Thankfully, he had a chance to let his opinion evolve before zealots chased him out of the party.


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

posted 16 December 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice speculation there dude.

yours truly,
Human Rights "Zealot"


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 16 December 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
That, and the fact that you're an asshole.

And I always thought it took one to know one. Evidently it takes one to get a false positive.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 16 December 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[interuption from the peanut gallery]

This again? Really? Well do go on.

[/interuption from the peanut gallery]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 16 December 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
-- until someone can come along and explain the discussions of our Good Samaritan duties that take place in this city, have taken place repeatedly over the last few years. Our beloved police chief (not that I am a fan) has lectured us on this subject, I am sure.

Not, unfortunately, that I can give you a quick reference.


They are moral and ethical duties, but not legal ones. It is morally and ethically wrong to watch someone die while in a position to help without doing so. But it isn't illegal.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 16 December 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
The Quebec Civil Code imposes a duty on everyone to help a person in peril. So does the French legal system and that of various European countries.

In France, not helping a person in peril is an offense and will lead to prosecution by the state. It is part of the "Code pénal" (French criminal code). In Quebec, I think it constitutes a civil tort.

The laws of Quebec, France and Switzerland, as well as statutes in Ontario and BC, protect anyone from prosecution who unintentionally injures or kills another while trying to rescue them. Ontario and BC do not oblige anyone to rescue another, they only protect them from lawsuits should the rescue go wrong. Quebec and many European jurisdictions create an obligation to help others in addition to protecting rescuers should they hurt the victim unintentionally.

In Quebec, you are not allowed to walk away from a car accident or drowning. In France, you will go to jail if you walk away.

If Bush or Monia drown in Alberta, obviously, you're off the hook. Dubya should move to Freedomland (sorry, I mean France).

[ 16 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 16 December 2004 05:48 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Nice speculation there dude.
Well, I can't speak for Joe Co but in my own personal deluded past I thought gay marriage was sinful and I'm personally glad that I wasn't chased out of the NDP then, because it would have been that much less likely I would ever have seen the light.

But I know that many New Democrats would rather be "right" than actually change anything.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 December 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
At heart are the old questions: Do you wait for people to be more comfortable to make change? Or do people only become more comfortable in the wake of change? Do you sacrifice incremental benefits by going for the whole enchilada? Or do small changes merely sustain the status quo?

*snip*

The gay rights movement is not solely about marriage, and there are real gains in pursuing health benefits and Social Security. Activists do, as Hilary Rosen of the Human Rights Campaign says, need to tell the everyday stories of couples barred from hospital rooms and from health coverage.

But if we waited for comfort levels to rise, would we still have laws against interracial marriage? Would we still be waiting for Alabama to get comfortable with integration?


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

posted 16 December 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hephaestion, can you explain how the NDP's current position of aggressive advocacy can accurately be described as "supporting the status quo while we wait for comfort levels to rise"?

I've seen the NDP on the forefront of this issue pushing and demanding change. It was part of the platform and an issue that was pursued throughout the election campaign.

The real debate here is whether there will be any space in the party for people who privately disagree. One should note too, that we're not discussing people who want the party policy to be reversed. Simply, people who state the party policy clearly, indicate that they will not undermine party policy, but note that they have different personal feelings.

Some, for reasons that escape me, want the NDP to not only passionately advocate for same-sex marriage rights but to expel anyone who won't passionately advocate for same-sex marriage rights.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 07:34 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a good question. Thing is, it can be argued that Alabama is uncomfortable with integration because it was imposed before they had time to get comfortable with it...

A lot of the gains in civil rights in the US are under threat because there were a lot of people not given the opportunity to feel comfortable with it. It was thrust in their faces, and they resent that fact more than the rights themselves, it seems.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 16 December 2004 08:02 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
A lot of the gains in civil rights in the US are under threat because there were a lot of people not given the opportunity to feel comfortable with it. It was thrust in their faces, and they resent that fact more than the rights themselves, it seems.

You're right, these civil rights wouldn't be under attack if they hadn't been thrust in the face of the Southern US. That's because, if they hadn't been forced, these rights wouldn't exist today, in order that they may be under attack.

Gotta disagree on this one. Since the issue of same-sex marriage has been forced through the courts over the past few years, people have become more supportive. This is because over time, people see gay and lesbian couples getting married, and they also see that the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't ended. Much fear of new laws and change in general is basically speculation of horrible outcomes of the change. the best way to dispell the fear is to proceed with the change and, through time, prove that there are no disasterous effects.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 08:20 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're right, these civil rights wouldn't be under attack if they hadn't been thrust in the face of the Southern US. That's because, if they hadn't been forced, these rights wouldn't exist today, in order that they may be under attack.
This is not clear. Yes, the court victories were correct ones. I'm glad they happened. It would otherwise have taken (probably unacceptably) longer, but it's not clear that the rights could not have occured through the legislatures. They would have been on firmer ground then. Now they are very vulnerable. Takes a court justice or two to retire or die...
quote:
This is because over time, people see gay and lesbian couples getting married, and they also see that the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't ended. Much fear of new laws and change in general is basically speculation of horrible outcomes of the change. the best way to dispell the fear is to proceed with the change and, through time, prove that there are no disasterous effects.
Problem is the second part. "Prove that there are no disastrous effects." Many people in the US in particular, particularly parents (who do not only tend to start out more conservative, but are also tend to be made further conservative through parenthood) cannot separate civil rights from dangers they *perceive* their children to be under, both physical and metaphysical dangers. That's just one example.

There's no uniform way to decide which should come first between acceptance and rights. In Canada, I'd argue that by and large acceptance did come before rights. The rights questions are now almost academic, even if they are still pending.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 December 2004 09:44 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:
Hephaestion, can you explain how the NDP's current position of aggressive advocacy can accurately be described as "supporting the status quo while we wait for comfort levels to rise"?

I've seen the NDP on the forefront of this issue pushing and demanding change. It was part of the platform and an issue that was pursued throughout the election campaign.


Bollocks. The changes that have resulted have been largely because of advocacy and litigation by individuals and groups such as Egale. The NDP has, as RB stated the other day, largely fulfilled a cheerleading role until recently, such as Svend's work on Bill C-250.

As far as the most recent election goes, Jack and the caucus mostly talked the talk, but when it came time to walk the walk, Jack was willing to overlook the bigoted stand of three separate candidates when it came to this issue. I don't call that "pushing and demanding change".

quote:
The real debate here is whether there will be any space in the party for people who privately disagree. One should note too, that we're not discussing people who want the party policy to be reversed. Simply, people who state the party policy clearly, indicate that they will not undermine party policy, but note that they have different personal feelings.

I, for one, have *never* stated that I have a problem with Ms. Mazigh working for the party. I had a very *BIG* problem with her standing for election and representing the party, just as I did with Bev Desjarlais and Father McGrath. My problem now is limited to Bev Desjarlais, who I do not feel should be a sitting member of the federal NDP caucus. You can soft-soap it all you want by calling it "different personal feelings" — I say call it what it IS — discrimination. Bigotry.

quote:
Some, for reasons that escape me, want the NDP to not only passionately advocate for same-sex marriage rights but to expel anyone who won't passionately advocate for same-sex marriage rights.

Not me. I'd settle for Jack expelling the bigot in the federal caucus.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 16 December 2004 09:51 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
for those that dont think Bev should be expelled if she voted no, what is the threshold of allowing NDP mps to vote against SSM? 10 percent? 25 percent?
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 December 2004 09:52 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
In Canada, I'd argue that by and large acceptance did come before rights. The rights questions are now almost academic, even if they are still pending.

Something for which we can thank.... whom? Surely not any parlimentarian. No... a handful of gay activists, groups like Egale, and the judicial system.

Our rights are not on the verge of being FINALLY observed because Canadians suddenly became more "accepting" but because the issue was *forced* in the courts — by US. The rights are about to be acknowledged despite Parliament, not because of it.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Our rights are not on the verge of being FINALLY observed because Canadians suddenly became more "accepting" but because the issue was *forced* in the courts — by US. The rights are about to be acknowledged despite Parliament, not because of it.
I'd argue that on the SSM issue, well before the issue was forced, Canadians lacked many of the impediments to acceptance that happened in the US, so that even by the time it reached the courts it was already only a matter of time.

In the US, the acceptance of SSM is itself partially impeded by the fact that other civil rights (women, blacks) were recognized by the courts in the face of massive and ongoing resentment. SSM is seen as yet one more disruption in the Greater Order, although its more fundamental in some ways.

In Canada, these issues are simply not as emotional. I'm living in the US and race is an everpresent issue in a way that it really wasn't in Canada. It's hard to describe. But a scorched-earth approach to claiming rights above the willingness of others to recognize them can be backfire when future rights are claimed. It's a careful balance.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 16 December 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good point, though I can't blame Heph for not wanting to wait too much longer.

In any case, I wonder if it's a bit too simplistic to blame the process for present attitudes. Didn't it take a court decision to get women recognized as persons in this country? I'm not at all sure that that hurt other progressive causes- maybe it just failed to help in the US the way it did here.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 December 2004 10:15 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I'd argue that on the SSM issue, well before the issue was forced, Canadians lacked many of the impediments to acceptance that happened in the US, so that even by the time it reached the courts it was already only a matter of time.

Yes, I know... the "just be patient, we'll get there.... eventually" routine. Looks fine from on high, but it sucks when it's *you* that's being patted on the head. Trudeau took homosexuality out of the Criminal Code almost 35 years ago. Should we "just be patient" for another 35?

Not to put too fine a point on it, fuck that. We've waited far too long already. Gay marriage is here, and if Ralph and Bev and anyone else isn't ready for it, tough noogies. And between Roy McMurtry and (pick a name) Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Martin Cauchon, Irwin Cotler or even Jack Layton... I know who did the most to change their attitudes and secure our rights for us.

Hint: he wears a robe.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 10:17 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, in the US it was race more than gender that was emotional. Not even fundies in the US want to roll back the ability of women to participate in public life. Many of them are women! Women who've made a career of being political! Recognizing women's technical legal equality was probably the easiest thing to swallow in both countries, since every household has women, and at the time women weren't necessarily proposing to stop baking cookies and sleeping with their husbands, just vote. It could even be couched in the language of tradition, given the Victorian attitude of men as naturally dissolute without the civilizing influence of women.

Race and reproductive freedom (as opposed to technical political rights) were far more emotional issues in the US. Because these things threatened to upset the Greater Order, and create metaphysical harm that is laughable to many babblers but all too real to people whom such babblers profess often to mock. Somehow in Canada we dodged a bullet on those issues and sneaked them in through the back door, so it was pretty easy (comparatively!) in hindsight to sneak SSM through the back door too. Incrementally.

But in the US, because of their historic defeats, the resentful are eager to stymie any further metaphysical damage, and indeed to heal the fabric of Order. So SSM is watched like a hawk. Every phrasing, every word that seems to legitimize it is carefully scrutinized and expunged whenever possible. A scorched-earth rights strategy created a determination to prevent it from happening ever again.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heph: Yes and no. Bringing it back to Mazigh, it depends on the community, what you can force down their throats. In Canada as a whole, my point is that it is a moot point so it doesn't matter (much) if you force the issue through the courts.

The original quote raised the issue of Alabama. My point is that there is no general way to determine whether this comparison is correct.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 December 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Heph: Yes and no. Bringing it back to Mazigh, it depends on the community, what you can force down their throats. In Canada as a whole, my point is that it is a moot point so it doesn't matter (much) if you force the issue through the courts.

It is a "moot point" because it has been legalized province by province because of the courts. The "acceptance" *followed* the court battles. I will not give any credit to assholes like Chretien — we would have secured these rights long ago if the federal government had stopped appealing court cases long before it did. And that's ALL it did — just stopped fighting. They were dragged kicking and struggling almost the entire way by the courts.

quote:

The original quote raised the issue of Alabama. My point is that there is no general way to determine whether this comparison is correct.

Fine... make it Alberta, or better yet, Saskatchewan. Polls indicate almost 70% of Sakatchewanites are opposed to SSM. Are we supposed to wait until we get over 50% in favour in Saskatchewan?

Once again, fuck that!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sask is an incredibly small part of the Canadian political scene and we do not have an electoral college system nor guaranteed electoral representation for small states. So Sask opposition actually doesn't matter, and is probably not that passionate either.

Here in the US, the passion is quite intense. I live in a totally Democratic bubble here, so I don't feel THE OPPOSITION (rather the opposition to the opposition), but it can be felt in the media, etc.

In Canada, it gained acceptance through the courts...without that much outcry. Which is again, my point. Once it reached the courts, there wasn't that much outcry. So the courts may have won it...but at that point there are just a convenient administrative means of dealing with it...comparatively speaking again.

If the same thing happened in the US (as it DID in MA), then the sound and fury (as we have seen) would be (ie, is) unprecedented. You can't always force the issue.

Rosa Parks did it, and she is a hero for doing it. But that she did it created precisely the conditions for undoing it...or someone else's rights.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 16 December 2004 10:40 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:

A scorched-earth rights strategy created a determination to prevent it from happening ever again.


You could be right, but it could also be the case that the preexisting climate in the US was what necessitated a scorched earth policy. Or it could be a bit of both. I don't really know.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 10:45 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there was an economic climate re North/South that also impeded and a whole lot of other interfering baggage. But it doesn't detract from my point that it depends on the situation. It could be that in the US there was no option but a scorched-earth strategy and all its risks for things like race, etc.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 16 December 2004 10:59 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
I will not give any credit to assholes like Chretien — we would have secured these rights long ago if the federal government had stopped appealing court cases long before it did.

If they'd continued appealling the decisions up to the Supreme Court, there would probably be same-sex marriage in every province by now, instead of just some of them.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 December 2004 11:20 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Sask is an incredibly small part of the Canadian political scene and we do not have an electoral college system nor guaranteed electoral representation for small states. So Sask opposition actually doesn't matter, and is probably not that passionate either.

You been in Saskatchewan lately?

quote:
Here in the US, the passion is quite intense. I live in a totally Democratic bubble here, so I don't feel THE OPPOSITION (rather the opposition to the opposition), but it can be felt in the media, etc.

I have many good friends in the States and I am quite aware of how disgustingly bad it's gotten down there. That's just one of the reasons I despise Little Boots on a par with the hatred I felt for Ronny Ray-Gun. They were/are both repugnant slime.

quote:
In Canada, it gained acceptance through the courts... without that much outcry. Which is again, my point. Once it reached the courts, there wasn't that much outcry. So the courts may have won it... but at that point there are just a convenient administrative means of dealing with it... comparatively speaking again.

What kind of cheap hooch are you drinkin' Mandos? The feds fought this in the courts every step of the way, and Chretien, the Machievellian bastard, only decided to stop fighting it when it became clear that it was going to be a mess he left for Martin. He wasn't suddenly being "enlightened" or "progressive" — he was *trying* to create a headache for Martin.

And when the feds *did* stop fighting it, all kinds of church groups, Conservatives and other froth-at-the-mouth crazies took up the battle and the majority public opinion was *still* against SSM. It wasn't until the last election when the majority of Canadians saw the naked bigotry within CPC ranks that the levels of support climbed up past 50%. I therefore disagree that this would in any way have been possinble without the courts, or that the courts were simply a "convenient administrative means of dealing with it".

quote:
If the same thing happened in the US (as it DID in MA), then the sound and fury (as we have seen) would be (ie, is) unprecedented. You can't always force the issue.

Rosa Parks did it, and she is a hero for doing it. But that she did it created precisely the conditions for undoing it... or someone else's rights.


Last time I checked, it's still legal in Mass., sound and fury notwithstanding. As for the rest... so should Rosa Parks etc. have waited until everyone was "on board the bus" (excuse the pun)? They'd still have segregation!

As I said, it's awfully easy to intellectualize the debate when it's not YOUR rights on the line, Mandos.

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 December 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure. Please note that I am a part of a minority myself, and one who is in a prime target group here in the US. I don't believe in comparing these situations, but still.

As for Sask, no I haven't been there. But like I said, it's such a small part of the Canadian scene. Also, the sound and fury from all the court challenges in Canada were, like, nothing compared to what everyone knows exists down here. I am speaking entirely comparatively here.

It's still legal in MA, yes. But the clock is ticking. Even if they never unlegalize it in MA, they'd have stigmatized it so much that it might take decades to undo in the rest of the US.

Like I said, it depends on the case. Rosa Parks may have had no other option. I'm not convinced that this is the same for every struggle.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 17 December 2004 12:09 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
You say "it might take decades to undo in the rest of the US."

I think that's what we're faced with down there, anyway, and it's incredibly depressing.

Larry Kramer says (and I tend to agree with him)...

quote:
Almost 60 million people whom we live and work with every day think we are immoral. "Moral values" was top of many lists of why people supported George Bush. Not Iraq. Not the economy. Not terrorism. "Moral values." In case you need a translation that means us. It is hard to stand up to so much hate. Which of course is just the way they want it. Please know that a huge portion of the population of the United States hates us. I don't mean dislike. I mean hate. You may not choose to call it hate, but I do. Not only because they refuse us certain marital rights but because they have also elected a congress that is overflowing with men and women who refuse us just about every other right to exist as well. "Moral values" is really a misnomer; it means just the reverse. It means they think we are immoral. And that we're dangerous and contaminated. How do you like being called immoral by some 60 million people? This is not just anti-gay. This is what Doug Ireland calls "homo hate" on the grandest scale. How do we stand up to 60 million people who have found a voice and a President who declares he has a mandate?

But Larry's not taking it laying down...

quote:
Alisa Solomon: Since the election, the national lesbian-gay-bi-trans groups have been regrouping and asking what went wrong. All 11 state ballot initiatives defining marriage as between a man and a woman passed—and some of them even deny civil-union protections for gay and lesbian couples. Last week, people in the country's biggest gay lobbying group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), reportedly said they thought the movement needs to temper its demands and slow down. They even said they'd consider supporting Bush's plans to privatize Social Security if it would help advance LGBT rights. What do you make of the suggestion that we need to be more moderate?

Larry Kramer: It's a disaster! You can never not fight back. You can't give them an inch. So what if they're attacking us? You don't run back into the closet. I was appalled when I heard the idea dribbling out that we should pull back instead of carrying on or pressing even more. My favorite expression is: You do not get more with honey than with vinegar! What I'm hoping—and it looks like this may be developing—is that this may finally be, if not the downfall of the HRC, at least putting them in their place. I never saw an organization exist so long, raise so much money, and do so little. Their annual budget is $25 million! I think they get a lot of money from rich people in the heartland. I want to ask those people: What are you getting for it? This election is a real slap in the face to HRC and their complete ineptitude. And now they want to make deals!


Okay, that's all kind've off-topic for the thread, but you started it...


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

posted 17 December 2004 10:03 AM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
The changes that have resulted have been largely because of advocacy and litigation by individuals and groups such as Egale. The NDP has, as RB stated the other day, largely fulfilled a cheerleading role until recently, such as Svend's work on Bill C-250.
This is ridiculous and, frankly, why reactionaires often carry the day in the NDP. Jack and hundreds of other NDP candidates and thousands of volunteers were out there confronting bigotry and homophobia every fucking day on the campaign trail - in communities where you're likely to get lynched if you're out of the closet. Like thousands of others I knocked on doors (in places other than Toronto's Church and Wellesley) and refused to back down on same-sex marriage when the person behind every fucking door I went to said "I think it's wrong for two guys to get married." EVERY FUCKING TIME I said, "Well, the NDP is very clear on this. It's a human rights issue and we support that." And, for the record, that's what Monia Mazigh and Des McGrath were doing as well. Doors were slammed in faces. Threats were made. But, evidently, that doesn't mean shit to you.

The majority of NDP activists had absolutely nothing to gain by doing this work and a lot to lose. They did it anyway so people like you could shit on them and say they did nothing.

Unfortunately, most New Dems are used to this - but don't be surprised if some lose interest in expressing solidarity with you.

[ 17 December 2004: Message edited by: Burns ]


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 17 December 2004 10:06 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you think the NDP would have adopted such a stance without the work of the activists Heph cites, though?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 17 December 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The New Democrats who adopted those policies were among those activists.

And, I don't think that the NDP role can be defined as "cheerleading". In 1985, "Equality for All" contained a call for sexual orientation to be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act because of the work of an NDP MP. The NDP pressured Mulroney, Campbell and Chretien to follow up on that amendment and every NDP MP voted for it when it was finally introduced.


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

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca