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   » election 2006   » Ottawa South Candidates on Same Sex Marriage

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ottawa South Candidates on Same Sex Marriage
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 05 June 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In "The Ottawa Citizen" today Monia Mazigh has ended our speculation on how she will vote on same-sex marriage. She says that because of her "religious beliefs" she cannot vote in favour of it but will not vote against it and will abstain. The Conservative candidate Alan Riddell is against it. Only Liberal David McGunity says he will support it.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 05 June 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is not what I'd like to hear, but I guess it's better than a vote against.
From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 05 June 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
McGuilty Jr. is right on one issue and wrong on far more than Monia is.
From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 05 June 2004 09:52 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
she ended that speculation in the Xpress months ago
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 05 June 2004 09:54 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will add that in the Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board meeting McGuinty used the term "civil unions". He never actually used the term "marriage". I found that interesting.
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 06 June 2004 01:14 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A walk through Ottawa South tonight revealed a lot of Conservative signs and a lesser amount of NDP and Lib signs. Perhaps the Cons will take Ottawa South just like they are going to take Ottawa Orleans?
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 06 June 2004 09:52 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the cons indeed have a good sign campaign, and the libs seem to be tanking. Hard to say at this point, but I would suggest that Ottawa-area New Democrats might consider helping us canvass!
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 06 June 2004 10:06 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i would gladly help out ms. mazigh, but i dont know how i would repsond at the door to someone telling me that her abstension of a vote on SSM is a tacit vote against something they consider to be a human rights issue.
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 06 June 2004 10:19 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
There is no need for any votes on SSM. The courts have decided the question. Nothing good can come from it being discussed in the House, or on the campaign trail.

Let it be.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder how she would feel about people abstaining from a vote on equality for Muslims because of their feminist beliefs.

I don't live in Ottawa South, but if I did McGuinty would get my vote.

Hands down.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 06 June 2004 10:55 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is no need for any votes on SSM. The courts have decided the question. Nothing good can come from it being discussed in the House, or on the campaign trail.
Let it be

well the possibility of a conservative government grows everyday, and harper has said he will retract the SC reference and put it to a free vote in the house.

so i dont think we should let it be, especially with three potential ndp abstentions


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 06 June 2004 12:35 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope McGuinty wins the riding.
From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 06 June 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't.

McGuintys are corrupt, entrenched pieces of shit with a love for regressive taxation.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 06 June 2004 01:54 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At least they aren't bigots like Monia Mazigh.

Moreover, I doubt that David McGuinty is an exact clone of his brother.


From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 06 June 2004 02:05 PM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
Calling someone a bigot is a pretty scathing indictment.

It tells you a lot about the posters who throw the term around so loosely.

It’s pretty bizarre to read posts by these self-proclaimed human rights campaigners who are openly committed to having either the anti-choice Conservatives or the “we’re not so sure about SSM” Liberals elected because a handful of New Democratic candidates hold minority views within the NDP.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 06 June 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I certainly don't want the Cons to govern, but I would prefer a socially progressive Liberal to a socially conservative New Democrat like Mazign.
From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 06 June 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would prefer a socially progressive Liberal to a socially conservative New Democrat

If that's your only qualification for a representative then I guess you can go back to name calling.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 06 June 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's not my only qualification.
I care about economic and environmental issues as well, but I would never vote for a social conservative.

From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 06 June 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really don't like this situation of a seat being filled by an NDP member who will abstain from a vote on SSM. To me that seat should be filled with someone voting in favour of SSM. Otherwise it is kind of like a wasted seat. I originally wanted Monia to win, but now I won't be unhappy that she probably will not.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bottom line is no one who will not vote for my equality can expect anything but equal contempt from me. Spit on me, I shit on you.

Larry Spenser, Stephen Harper, Monia Mazigh

Same disgusting slime.

Jack Layton is showing us the NDP is no more dependable or honourable than any other party.

"we’re not so sure about SSM" Liberals beat the hell out of openly bigoted New Democrats.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Newbie ]


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 06 June 2004 05:23 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Newbie, you really are an asshole.

SSM is an important issue, but it's not the only issue in this election. And we need to remember that there are a lot of kinds of diversity in our country and in our party - religious diversity must be defended as much as equality for gays and lesbians. We're not going to agree on all issues all of the time, but we have to think big picture here.

Those of you who make the knee-jerk assumption that Monia Mazigh is a bigot have clearly never met the woman and know nothing about her.

Have you even spent much time with the Muslim community to get their views on this issue? Or do you just dismiss them all out of hand, even though they may share progressive views about fighting poverty, defending public services, protecting the environment, and so on and so on?

Working on this campaign has taught me a lot about the Muslim community in Canada (or at least in Ottawa), and I am learning new things every day. I've learned that it's by no means a homogeneous community. I've met many people whose faith is extremely important to them, in a way that is quite different from the way faith is practiced in the Judeo-Christian communities I'm more familiar with ...in a way that is so deeply ingrained with day-to-day living. I admire it, even if my areligious self doesn't really understand it. Part of that integration, at least to this secular observer, is a very profound commitment to community and social justice. There are natural connections, some of my Muslim friends feel, between the values of their faith and the values of the NDP. There is an real opportunity to broaden the party here, and we're just starting to really be able to take it up in this election. Having a standard-bearer like Monia is an important part of that.

What keeps many Muslims away, it seems (and again, I'm not trying to generalize - I'm processing all this myself), is a perception that there is no room in the party for divisions on social issues where our positions conflict with their faith. We have tried to address this, especially around SSM, by framing the issue as one that has to do with human rights and the Charter, and by also distinguishing between civil marriage and religious marriage. There is a delicate balance here, but it's a balance that must be maintained. The Muslims I've spoken with who feel their faith prevents them from supporting SSM seem to be OK with this, as long as we're OK with them remaining more or less politically neutral - they understand we have a policy that is the result of a democratic debate and decision of the party. I've never heard anyone talk about trying to undermine or reverse that decision. The balance, though, would be threatened if one of "their own" were pressured to vote in a way that he or she felt compromised their faith. I think it's really important to respect that, move on and focus on the common ground.

Quite frankly, I think a lot of bridge-building needs to be done between the movement for equal marriage and the faith communities, but an election is not the time to do this. Wouldn't it be nice to have leaders like Monia in Parliament to help us as these discussions continue?

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]


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

posted 06 June 2004 05:24 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you're an apologist for bigotry, so go fuck yourself. Go suck up to your bigoted slime candidate, since you obviously are doing your best to drive away support anyway. Is this how you canvass too, when someone is upset about a bigoted candidate who, let's not forget, is directly violating the candidate's agreement?

Where the hell are your morals, Vicky? Where the hell is your integrity? Why would anyone with a shred of either go anywhere near a campaign with you on it, one that calls voters assholes for being upset that the candidate is vowing to violate party policy?

Frankly, with creeps like you in the NDP, Bill Graham is the ONLY thing keeping me from voting Liberal. I may just hold my nose and do it anyway. You've just made it perfectly clear, along with Fester and Jack Layton that the NDP will sell out queers for political expediency with a speed breathtaking even by Liberal standards. Just like Bob Rae did.

If I'm going to get so-cons disguised as liberals, why not go for the people with experience at it -- the ones smart enough to maintain their lies through the WHOLE election, unlike idiots like you, Monia and Cheryl Gallant.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Newbie ]


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am concerned about candidates who are governed by 'religious beliefs'. As with Father McGrath, I would have a hard time personally supporting her. I hope that the party keeps a good eye on Ms Mazigh in the (admittedly unlikely) event of her being elected.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I am concerned about candidates who are governed by 'religious beliefs'. As with Father McGrath, I would have a hard time supporting her. I hope that the party keeps a good eye on Ms Mazigh in the (admittedly unlikely) event of her being elected.

Duh. Don't trust a man who can't even make a post without dupeing himself.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 06 June 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
Hey Audra! Isn't it time to end Newbie's abuse of this forum???
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 06 June 2004 05:36 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Newbie? I've asked you to lay off personal attacks. It seems you are unable, or unwilling. See ya.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 05:36 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How am I absusing it?

By pointing out the unwelcome truth that the NDP welcomes bigots in the party and is just as likely to betray us as any others?

You don't like your precious Monia being called bigoted slime? Well then, the same option is open to her as to Stephen Harper: she can stop being bigoted slime.

Remember, you hypocrates, I was among the first to stand up and say I would not judge her on her hijab or her personal beliefs, but on how she votes.

We now know. And that bigoted slime belongs in the Alliance, not the NDP.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 06 June 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well, it seems the discussion continued as I was trying to craft my more reasoned response to Newbie. See above.
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 06 June 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Audra and Newbie posted at exactly the same time.

Was that a cosmic collision I just heard?


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lastnightsdream
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5285

posted 06 June 2004 06:05 PM      Profile for lastnightsdream     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please tell me he's been banned.

I truly believe that the ndp should include all individuals who believe in fundamental justice. That being said, I equally believe in the old saying 'your rights end where mine begin'. Monia cannot vote in favour of same-sex marriage due to her religious beliefs- however, she recognizes that her membership within caucus would not allow her to vote against this, so she choses to abstain. Well played I say.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: lastnightsdream ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 06 June 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And you're an apologist for bigotry, so go fuck yourself. Go suck up to your bigoted slime candidate, since you obviously are doing your best to drive away support anyway. Is this how you canvass too, when someone is upset about a bigoted candidate who, let's not forget, is directly violating the candidate's agreement?
Where the hell are your morals, Vicky? Where the hell is your integrity? Why would anyone with a shred of either go anywhere near a campaign with you on it, one that calls voters assholes for being upset that the candidate is vowing to violate party policy?

Frankly, with creeps like you in the NDP, Bill Graham is the ONLY thing keeping me from voting Liberal. I may just hold my nose and do it anyway. You've just made it perfectly clear, along with Fester and Jack Layton that the NDP will sell out queers for political expediency with a speed breathtaking even by Liberal standards. Just like Bob Rae did.

If I'm going to get so-cons disguised as liberals, why not go for the people with experience at it -- the ones smart enough to maintain their lies through the WHOLE election, unlike idiots like you, Monia and Cheryl Gallant.


Jesus fucking Christ Newbie, your hateful personal attacks are really becoming hard to take. I'm 100% in favour of gay rights and gay marriage but, I can't stand this. When Vicki posted a reasonable, argument and how did you respond?

By saying that, she is an apologist for bigotry, that she should go fuck herself, that she is a creep, and an idiot. Your far too agressive tone, is making some threads on this board unreadable.

And I have to question your logic. You suggest that because The NDP have 2-3 candidates, that are not fully in favour of equal marriage, you are conisdering voting Liberal. Yet why are you completely ignoring the fact that the Liberal Party has many candidates in MP's who are 100% against equal marriage? Some of the particularly hateful bigots include Dennis Mills, Tom Wappel, David Kilgour, and Dan Macteague. FAR FAR more of them than in the NDP. Furthermore Paul Martin has constantly dodged the issue of SSM, whereas Jack Layton has worked for gay equality his entire life. How could you even consider voting Liberal over NDP based on your support for SSM?


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:

Jesus fucking Christ Newbie, your hateful personal attacks are really becoming hard to take. I'm 100% in favour of gay rights and gay marriage but, I can't stand this. When Vicki posted a reasonable, argument and how did you respond?

By saying that, she is an apologist for bigotry, that she should go fuck herself, that she is a creep, and an idiot. Your far too agressive tone, is making some threads on this board unreadable.

And I have to question your logic. You suggest that because The NDP have 2-3 candidates, that are not fully in favour of equal marriage, you are conisdering voting Liberal. Yet why are you completely ignoring the fact that the Liberal Party has many candidates in MP's who are 100% against equal marriage? Some of the particularly hateful bigots include Dennis Mills, Tom Wappel, David Kilgour, and Dan Macteague. FAR FAR more of them than in the NDP. Furthermore Paul Martin has constantly dodged the issue of SSM, whereas Jack Layton has worked for gay equality his entire life. How could you even consider voting Liberal over NDP based on your support for SSM?


Newbie seemed to be operating on an either/or psychosis there. Notice he says he may vote Liberal because of some people in the NDP who don't live up to his pretty high standard, but ignored the majority of people in the party who do believe in SSM and abortion rights. If he can't get everything, he'll take nothing.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. I didn't dupe again. This post is totally deliberate. Honest.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlessumner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2914

posted 06 June 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for charlessumner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Notice he says he may vote Liberal because of some people in the NDP who don't live up to his pretty high standard…

Buzz?


From: closer everyday | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 06:26 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by charlessumner:

Buzz?


What, you're surprised I'm a hypocrite too? Sheesh!

I said I had my doubts, and have difficulty supporting them but I would likely fall into line come election day, if I had to. I was open to discussion on the matter. Newbie was in the pulpit. Like I said upthread....

I am concerned about candidates who are governed by 'religious beliefs'. As with Father McGrath, I would have a hard time personally supporting her. I hope that the party keeps a good eye on Ms Mazigh in the (admittedly unlikely) event of her being elected.

I didn't go into psychosis mode.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlessumner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2914

posted 06 June 2004 06:30 PM      Profile for charlessumner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
What, you're surprised I'm a hypocrite too?

*quizzical* No, your description of Newbie just reminded me of Buzz.


From: closer everyday | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 06:32 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, right, Charles.
I just realized that I was being a little hypocritical about slamming Newbie when I myself had expressed doubts about the value of having McGrath and Mazigh as candidates.
But yeah, it was Buzzesque.

From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
David Orchard Supporter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6001

posted 06 June 2004 07:49 PM      Profile for David Orchard Supporter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well personally I do not like NDP stance on ssm becuase of my Christian faith, and that was the reason I was an Orchardite( and still am) as opposed to the NDPr, but the trash talking of Father Magrath and Monia Mazigh who are commited members of the NDP is plain wrong.
From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 06 June 2004 10:13 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thing about Newbie is, in some ways I agree philosophically with him on this point: there should be no tolerance for intolerance within the party. I can accept a more liberal view of tolerance in society at large, but within the party, some things must be fundamental.

With Newbie, it's just his completely personalizing, vituperative, vitriolic, hate-filled way of attacking people who he disagreed with that I found objectionable. He never found a debate whose tone he couldn't lower.

However, I DO think it's important to assert that same sex marriage, like any question of human rights, is not merely one "issue" in a basket of issues. It is fundamental. Tolerating views that dehumanize other people is not on. Supposing someone supported segregation, or opposed interracial/intercaste marriage, for religious reasons -- as I am sure many have and do -- would we say, "so and so might not agree with us on this one issue, but they've done a lot of other good things, so let's support them"? Would we give it a pass on the basis of tradition, or religious freedom? Frankly, I doubt we would; and that would be the right thing.

Our consciousness on the issue of sexual orientation is still relatively fresh, and that's why it still doesn't seem beyond the pale to hold deeply dehumanizing views; that's why it is easy not to see these anti-SSM as the dehumanizing views that they are. But that doesn't mean we can afford to be slack about it, on the contrary, it is one of the very reasons why we should be incredibly vigilant about it. It's not so long ago that homosexuals were murdered in the killing factories of Nazi Germany. The gains of queer people are still fragile, and under threat. Here and abroad, many reactionaries harbour the deepest hatred for us.

That's why I do support a more militant line on this issue than most straight NDPers seem to. It doesn't mean I don't support the NDP in the election -- although it does mean that given the choice between a Liberal who supported SSM, and a Dipper who didn't, I might vote Liberal, depending on other factors. But clearly, the party has taken a slacker position. Therefore, and I think there are other compelling reasons for this too, such as the party brass's poor practice of anti-racism and anti-patriarchy, I would look for second-best solutions, such as the caucus's having to do some formal anti-oppression training. This approach still affirms the fundamental nature of these issues to the party's politics, and challenges those who deny others' full humanity to confront their beliefs.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 06 June 2004 10:53 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know what the deal is with Newbie but I'll say this for him. When some new poster accused me of anti-semitism over the word "shyster", Newbie was the first and only person to directly jump to my defense.

Newbie, you mightn't have liked my politics and you didn't have a lot to say to me that wasn't filled with hate, but thanks for standing up for me when you felt I warranted it.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I have been supportive of much of what Newbie has said in the past, and like Newbie, I will make no apologies for being adamant (and even loudly so) in my defense of my civil rights, which are directly tied up with the issue of SSM. As Noob has said so well, they are non-negotiable.

However... In this case I think that Noob went over the line in attacking Vicky so vociferously and personally. I agree with him that Vicky is wrong to excuse Monia Mazigh's stance, but there was no need for the language that he used.

As I am still fairly new here, may I ask...

• does "see ya" mean Noob is banned, or suspended?
• Is banning always permanent?

Because for all his diatribes, I sorta liked Noob, and I found his refusal to pussyfoot around issues and be "genteel" with bigotry to be refreshing.

All that being said, I would like to heartily thank rasmus raven for the posting directly above.

quote:

However, I DO think it's important to assert that same sex marriage, like any question of human rights, is not merely one "issue" in a basket of issues. It is fundamental. Tolerating views that dehumanize other people is not on. Supposing someone supported segregation, or opposed interracial/intercaste marriage, for religious reasons -- as I am sure many have and do -- would we say, "so and so might not agree with us on this one issue, but they've done a lot of other good things, so let's support them"? Would we give it a pass on the basis of tradition, or religious freedom? Frankly, I doubt we would; and that would be the right thing.


Thank you so much, Rasmus... THAT is basically what Noob was trying to say, but you said it in a much more polite fashion. I am very glad to have someone with your obvious moral convictions AND eloquence in "my" party.

And as for Monia Mazigh...? I'm afraid that at least as far as I am concerned, it very much IS an issue of fundamental human rights. If Ms. Mazigh's "morals" cannot allow her to vote in favour of recognizing my civil, equal HUMAN rights, then my "morals" cannot allow me to support her politically, regardless of her stance on other issues.

While Ms. Mazigh may not be considered a "bigot" by some because she will not actively oppose SSM by voting against it, those people need to recognize that she is abstaining from voting based on a prejudiced, bigoted viewpoint. I do not find that acceptable, and I would hope that Ms. Mazigh can come to recognize that in the very near future.

As I said in one of my very first postings on this forum, "tolerance" is not acceptance. I am sick to death of being "tolerated" — that's the kind of crap that was driving Noob crazy, too. I want acceptance, at the very least within my own party.

Any less is to tell me, and Noob, and all the rest of us that we are second-class citizens. And if that's the case, I might as well quit the NDP again. Can some of you maybe see Noob's point on this?

(And seriously, Rasmus, thanks!!)

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 07 June 2004 12:29 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just got back from several hours of canvassing in Ottawa Centre tonight. A lesbian couple with an adopted daughter told one of our team that they are unhappy that Monia Mazigh is not in favour of same-sex marriage and that this may affect the way they vote. It is interesting how candidates from other ridings can affect the way people vote. I make sure I tell gay couples in Ottawa Centre (which has a large gay population) that NDP policy supports same-sex marriage as does Ed Broadbent who said this in an interview with Ottawa's gay newspaper "Capital Xtra". I hope no one here holds one NDP candidate's position on same-sex marriage against Ed.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 June 2004 12:36 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do see Newbie's point. However I find it ironic that Newbie had lambasted me as a "bigot" - don't know whether it was because I thought it was necessary that a progressive party make its policies on social issues clear to any person who is a demonstrated devotee to any form of conservative, or "fundamentalist" religion, or because, in reference to a comment he had made about a "fat lesbian" that I thought rude and sexist I said even gay men can be sexist (meaning that most sexism is, of course, produced by straight men, but gay men aren't always immune). In any case it was hurtful, like the Zionists on the board who are always accusing folks here of being anti-semites. I didn't want to drag out either all my gay and lesbian friends or the many Middle Eastern folks I know.

I understand that Newbie is pissed off at homophobia and bigotry, but I don't see why he lashes out all the time at potential allies. I think Newbie makes a valuble contribution to this forum - though I have caught him out in some anti-Québécois bigotry of his own - and I have no problem with coarse language - it is just a question of how to get it through to him that his fellow-babblers are not his enemy, anti-gay bigots are. I don't know who can get through to him.

I still want Monia to win - she is a valliant campaigner for human rights and there should be a way to win her over to, not support for gay marriage, but a civil libertarian position that people have the right to do as they please if they harm nobody else.

Oh well, in my riding no such dilemna. The Bloc candidate is a shoe-in (with a social-democratic platform that doesn't even allude to independence), the NDP guy a "poteau" (figurehead). NDP supporters where I live are working for André Frappier in the riding two blocks north of my house. He won't win either, against Pettigrew - and both the Communist Party and the Communist Party Marxist-Leninist - but hopefully he'll get a fair number of votes.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 07 June 2004 12:38 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To bad about Pettigrew. He annoys me a lot.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 12:42 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I presume Newbie got booted because of his attack on Vicky. Regardless of the issue, that was unacceptable. This is unfortunate because if he had choosen to debate reasonably he could have been heard, as clearly he did not get booted for his views.

I recognize the emotion driving him. This emotion is in part an excuse even though what he did was wrong. I feel very sad that it came to this over an issue of human rights. It is sad to lose the voice of one who wants to help us move forward on human rights. However, he needs to learn that human rights include the right to hold opinions and debate them free from abuse. Compassion should teach him not to judge people harshly based on our current standards alone. I hope he is able to learn his lesson, rejoin again (even without us knowing it is him), begin again and find a way to debate civilly. I would miss his passion here and his dedication to speaking out.

I feel sad that there are people who oppose SSM and fail to recognize it as an issue of basic equality. However, I also recognize that we are people who are products of our experiences and backgrounds. My Grandmother was born in 1897 as a white Jamaican. It would be easy to brand her and all people of her generation as racists. Yet, seen in the context of her time, she was progressive. She taught black Jamaicans to read as a child and marvelled at their abilities and by the end of her life she was able to speak out on issues of equality with understanding and conviction. However, she was not where my generation started and even the language she used at times would be unacceptable for a person my age. I would challenge anyone who would call most people of her generation bigots. It was a dark time and in that context, to lead as far as you could go was something valuable. She would attract more attention for her weaknesses because she had the courage to show us her strengths. The bigots of that time, were invisible. We should not judge people without recognizing that our standards and understanding and level of enlightenment are also cultural. I was told by a friend who lived in Norway for a while, how he was so shocked at the pervasive sexism in our society on his return that he never had noticed here before.

I don't think my grandmother, in her lifetime, would have supported SSM. My mother died in 1986. I am sure she would not have even though she was a progressive. She would have had to live through the last two decades to have changed her mind, and I am sure she would have. Many here who would brand those in opposition to SSM would have to either recognize cultural context or brand their own relatives from previous generations.

My 80-year old father almost certainly would not have supported SSM 60 years ago when he parachuted into Nazi occupied France the day before D-day -- but he does now. He did know then that our values were developing and changing. He fought so that they would continue to, not so that they would be stuck with his understandings of the 1940s. He kept an open mind and learned. I got hit as a child, and so did he. However, he would not support someone who would do that today, and neither would I.

He was never a bigot. Someone who has the benefit of my socialization, in my modern enlightened community, if they held the same views now as he may have then, may be considered as one today. Once he experienced the enlightenment of his and my generation, his views evolved. He would consider a person to be bigotted if that person held the same beliefs today that his generation held then. We grow, we change, we learn and some of us accept our humility as only part of the process and not the final result.

It is too easy for an enlightened generation in an enlightended community, to point fingers at those who were not socialized to have our knowledge and enlightenment. It is our job to educate them and not to drive them away. If, over time, we find that they cannot be moved, then we can brand them -- once they have the benefit of the very things that make us who we are.

We are not better than those who came before us. We know more, and because of that knowledge our standards must be higher. We have to live up to the promise not only of what my father knew in 1944 but also the human development that he could not have predicted, but knew would come.

Let us now in that context take a look at Monia again. Look at the background she is coming from. She has moved further from her original context than I have. She has come from one of the most socially conservative places and has embraced a party that is the most progressive in this country -- when other parties would have had her. She has committed not to vote against any of our principles, even the ones that are so new to her that they are completely foreign. She is reconsidering learned religious beliefs to come with us. She has committed to sit with us and learn from us. And she may well support SSM some day. She also can teach us.

I am sure that she will sit beside advocates for human rights who may well not have supported this issue a couple decades ago -- in spite of growing up in our enlightened community. They would not have been asked back then as our society was not there yet. The woman has courage. She is a leader. We do not have to vote for the party and hold our nose for the candidate. She has leaned farther progressively from her background than most of us ever will. She will be able to understand both where she came from and us in a way that few can. As she progresses she will teach others.

I support SSM marriage without qualification. I don't live in her riding. I believe in human rights and would be happy to discuss SSM marriage with her, given the chance. I am sorry to say that I am one of those who may not have supported SSM 20 years ago. I may be early on the scene (as a hetero)having been vocal on this for about 15 years, but I was not always there.

I am happy Monia is open enough to agree not to oppose the party position. I would be very proud to have her as a candidate and MP. I would love to see her become a leader of her community -- as defined as the mixed community of Ottawa South, as a strong couragous woman and as a leader in the Muslem Canadian community.

If any of you choose to judge her. Then please, consider the difference between her background and yours. Consider how far she has come and where she is going and ask if you are really certain you would have done better if you had walked in her shoes these last few decades. Then remember that she is leaning way out so that she can be seen on this, while many people keep their heads down and say nothing.

Some people should go back and read the story about stones and glass houses -- Isn't it ironic that long after that story was made, we actually do build glass structures and hide our new modern views inside from where we criticize others who do not have the luxury of our own histories.

Monia, I am impressed. You have guts. Today is a day to think about guts. Good luck.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 June 2004 12:47 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I presume, in the context of this thread, that it is Pettigrew's policies and sure winning that annoys you, not that he is gay.

Park-Extension, the western part of Papineau, is solidly allophone and solidly Liberal. One could run a dead chicken there and win. Canvassers for André Frappier do seem to be getting a good vote, both in Park-Ex and in Villeray, a rather more francophone neighbourhood (but also with a strong multicultural presence). But will the votes really pan out? That remains to be seen. I fear a lot of people support Frappier but may well cast a "useful" vote.

Mandos, you do understand I hope that I was teasing you, not accusing you of being anti-gay...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 07 June 2004 12:49 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hephaestion, Newbie has been suspended before. Now he's just plan banned.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 07 June 2004 07:02 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
article in the globe today on monia
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 07:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
Newbie, you really are an asshole.

SSM is an important issue, but it's not the only issue in this election.


I guess I'm an asshole too, because I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her if she can't support same sex marriage. Sorry, the fact that she's part of a religious minority doesn't give her a free pass to be a bigot. I wouldn't put up with that crap from a fundamentalist Christian (and you can be damn sure that I wouldn't get slammed for saying so on babble were it a fundy Christian), and I won't accept it from a fundamentalist Muslim either.

Oh, and by the way, for those of you who were castigating those of us a while back who merely WONDERED whether someone who wears the more fundamendalist trappings of a patriarchal religion MIGHT be POSSIBLY socially conservative on this issue (even though we didn't say that she definitely was), and all of you said, "Oh of course she couldn't POSSIBLY be, because she would have been questioned on whether she could support the policies of the NDP before she was made a candidate, and you're such a racist for bringing it up!" Well, one in the eye for you.

(P.S. The passage I quoted above was posted BEFORE Newbie's personal attack on vickyinottawa, although I realize that Newbie's been getting out of control lately in other threads and that the banning was justified.)

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 07 June 2004 09:00 AM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I can understnad why Vicki was upset with Newbie even before his personal attack on her. I don't like Monia's position either, but I think Newbie went over the line in saying,

quote:
Bottom line is no one who will not vote for my equality can expect anything but equal contempt from me. Spit on me, I shit on you.
Larry Spenser, Stephen Harper, Monia Mazigh

Same disgusting slime.


Now Monia is a candidate Vicki is working for, and clearly has a lot of respect for. If I was in the same position I wouldn't like it either.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 07 June 2004 09:09 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
you know, i think i could overlook her stance on SSM if i knew that she was in full support of bill C-250.

(though i agree that support for one should follow the other)

any thoughts .... ?


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

posted 07 June 2004 09:20 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:
Now Monia is a candidate Vicki is working for, and clearly has a lot of respect for. If I was in the same position I wouldn't like it either.

Hey, I may know Dr. Dobson personally. But since he's in the public eye, and publicly states that it is his personal belief that gays and lesbians are second class citizens, you have every right to call him a bigot.

And hey, let's just talk about that for a minute. The excuse people are giving for Mazigh's homophobia is that the only way to make inroads into the Muslim community is to pander to the social conservatives on issues of equality. First of all, I don't believe that all Muslims are socially conservative. Secondly, I don't see why we should even TRY to make inroads into socially-conservative fundamentalist religious communities. I don't see the NDP working hard to try to get that Focus on the Family vote, even though many churches (my old one included) are full of people who believe in social justice economically, but really support Focus on the Family because of their socially-conservative bent.

So hey, let's take the green-and-orange bandwagon over to the next FOTF Love Won Out event and tell them that they can hate gays all they want as long as they support our economic policies. I'll bet you'd get lots of takers.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 07 June 2004 09:37 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
michelle, would you consider her a "bigot" or "homophobe" if she was in support of C-250.

many people do not see "civil union" as a form of second class citizenship. they see marriage as both a religious and civil institution. civil unions gives everyone an equal civic standing .. they just want their religious club kept to themselves

now i dont agree with this ... but i can see the other side as not being a bigoted one.

(though im not sure that monia would even support civil union, as she seems to disaprove of the lifestyle ... can you clarify, vicki?)

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: rubberband man ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 09:41 AM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And hey, let's just talk about that for a minute. The excuse people are giving for Mazigh's homophobia is that the only way to make inroads into the Muslim community is to pander to the social conservatives on issues of equality. First of all, I don't believe that all Muslims are socially conservative. Secondly, I don't see why we should even TRY to make inroads into socially-conservative fundamentalist religious communities.

I think this issue is more complex.

People from similar religious backgrounds/traditions can have differing views on controversial social issues.

I don’t think we can equate all socially conservative fundamentalist religions because they are in agreement on SSM or abortion or something else.

It’s a long stretch to equate Canadian Christian fundamentalist Pentecostals with Tunisian Muslims. Their everyday realities are very different.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rubberband man:

(though im not sure that monia would even support civil union, as she seems to disaprove of the lifestyle ... can you clarify, vicki?)



As long as we are asking for clarifications... what do you mean by "the lifestyle"?

My "lifestyle" is pretty much the same as all my neighbours in this community.

I thinkthe words you are pussyfooting around is, she seems to disapprove of who I FUCK.

I don't give a damn that she fucks a man. Why should she care who I fuck? (Not to be too, too blunt about it...)

And no, I'm not just going for shock value, or trying to fill Newbie's shoes. I just think if we're going to parse what it is that Ms. Mazigh "disapproves of" we might as well get down to brass tacks. And that's exactly what it's all about. She "disapproves" of something that is none of her friggin' business to begin with.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 June 2004 10:02 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, one reason Tunisian Muslims can't be compared as a group to Christian fundamentalist Pentacostals is that there is a wide range of religious belief and practice, political and social orientation among the former group. I have many friends from the Maghreb who aren't in the least devout - they dress like anyone in France or Québec, may well drink wine, don't attend mosque often if at all. Yet if asked most (except the most fire-breathing atheists) will say they are Muslim or "de culture musulmane".

I hope people will look into the thread about tradition, politics and SSM started by Mandos. Important to point out that what he said does not apply only to Muslim societies, but to many others.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 10:05 AM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I hope people will look into the thread about tradition, politics and SSM started by Mandos. Important to point out that what he said does not apply only to Muslim societies, but to many others.

What?

And not have the Liberals continue their kamikaze attacks on NDP candidates with something resembling religious beliefs?

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Fester ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 07 June 2004 10:38 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As long as we are asking for clarifications... what do you mean by "the lifestyle"? ... who I FUCK


um, no. and i think you know exactly what that means. i shouldnt have to explain this to you, but it obviously means more than how you have sex. i would think it has more to do with a same sex headed household.

but you avoided my question ... can someone be in favor of C-250 and civil union, but not "marriage" - which is seen as a religious institution, not a civil one - and NOT be a bigot?


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4310

posted 07 June 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for pink     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't often agree with Sean in Ottawa, but I think he hit exactly the right points in his post.

I wouldn't expect my 90 year old grandmother from rural Alberta to come around on SSM, but after my sister came out of the closet, a while after, she did.

Monia is already a champion of human rights. In the context of the muslim world, her position already marks signifigant movement.

Did everyone on this board support SSM ten years ago? I didn't.

I'll bet anything that Monia will support SSM in a few years. It's a concept we've all had time to get used to. New Canadians of Muslim belief have often not had that time.

We can either bring her into the party 'family' and win her over with solid arguments about human rights for one being human rights for all, or we can scream at her, call her a bigot, and send her (and the progressive muslim community) into the hands of the Liberals.

Our choice.


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

posted 07 June 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In this "for instance", would heterosexuals who get married outside of a church also be in a "civil union"? Or would they be considered "married" as they are now, and only same sex couples get the consolation prize?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 10:56 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rubberband man:

um, no. and i think you know exactly what that means. i shouldnt have to explain this to you, but it obviously means more than how you have sex. i would think it has more to do with a same sex headed household.

but you avoided my question ... can someone be in favor of C-250 and civil union, but not "marriage" - which is seen as a religious institution, not a civil one - and NOT be a bigot?


Nice try, but WRONG. She wouldn't have a problem with two "maiden aunt" sisters raising a nephew, I suspect. She doesn't have a problem with a "same sex headed household" so cut the crap. She doesn't approve of gay SEX. you might not like to face realities, but that's the unvarnished truth.

Second, your question is based on a false premise:

"marriage" - which is seen as a religious institution"

I don't give a damn how "it is seen". You don't get a marriage license from a CHURCH, you get it from CITY HALL. Marriage is a LEGAL and CIVIC institution, and is not the sole property of the church.

Why should I make allowances for religious bigots? If there’s no big difference, let them have "civil unions"— we want "marriage."

See it's not just about a word, it's about the message you send. And "civil unions" sends the message that gays are second class.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What baloney, that marriage is a "religious institution" and civil unions are the legal institution.

If I go to city hall and get a MARRIAGE license, and I get a JP to marry me, then I'm MARRIED, no religion involved. This whole "civil unions/marriage" thing is unadulterated crap. If that makes me a member of the "church of Newbie" then so be it. Like rasmus, I didn't like Newbie's constant flame-throwing, but I agreed with the POINT of his arguments.

As for the argument that in a few years, Mazigh will support SSM - great. Let her have a leadership role where she represents the party when she can bring herself to support equal rights THEN.

I can compromise a little bit on this and any other issue - if people are merely MEMBERS of the NDP but can't bring themselves to support a fundamental value of the party, that's okay. Maybe they'll come around, and hopefully they will. But they shouldn't have leadership positions where they'll be representing the party publicly.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 07 June 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hephaestion, i do get it. read my previous posts in thread. im just trying to see the issue from the other side. when you do youll see that you cant just label those who agree with other side as bigots. some are, granted. some arent. i doubt monia is.

to be honest, im surprised that someone like monia who has fought so hard for human rights in one instance wouldnt in another

but i do think that SSM opponents are more concerned with gay families than they are with gay sex. but hey, im not a SSM opponent, so what do i know ..,


new question then... can someone support C-250 and not SSM and NOT be a bigot

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: rubberband man ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlessumner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2914

posted 07 June 2004 11:11 AM      Profile for charlessumner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rubberband man:
can someone be in favor of C-250 and civil union, but not "marriage" - which is seen as a religious institution, not a civil one - and NOT be a bigot?

But there are faith groups who want to "Marry" same-sex couples. Leaving aside for a moment whether they'd be bigoted against lgb people - wouldn't they be bigoted against those religions?


From: closer everyday | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2004 11:14 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

What baloney, that marriage is a "religious institution" and civil unions are the legal institution.
If I go to city hall and get a MARRIAGE license, and I get a JP to marry me, then I'm MARRIED, no religion involved.


True. Which is why some have suggested getting rid of civil marriage, grant civil union status to those who want, and those who want to get married in a religious ceremony can go off and so. However, if civil union for gays is viewed as a way to "grease the skids" for eventual SSM, it's not as horrible as it may seem. Don't get me wrong. I'm for people marrying whoever the want. But I dispute the notion that someone who believes civil unions is the right course to follow at this point in time is, based on that alone, a bigot.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 June 2004 11:22 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I dispute the notion that someone who believes civil unions is the right course to follow at this point in time is, based on that alone, a bigot.

Hehe. Like saying that if I believe "the time isn't right" for blacks to ride at the front of the bus, and suggest that they should content themselves with the back of the bus "for now", and gently remind them that at least they get to ride on the bus, I wouldn't be a bigot?

What part of "equal" is everyone missing? If a candidate publicly states that they could not, in good conscience, support a biracial marriage, could they still find a warm and welcoming home in the NDP? What if they supported marriage for everyone except Jews? What would excuse that? How about if immigrants are forbidden from marrying?

Seriously: where's the line here? How absolutlely baldfaced does the discrimination have to be before the unofficial "damage control" stops leaping in to try and redefine the word "bigot" to exclude those whose bigotry is based in a bigoted belief system, and to tell us it's really not what it looks like, and everyone should just shush?

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
If that makes me a member of the "church of Newbie" then so be it. Like rasmus, I didn't like Newbie's constant flame-throwing, but I agreed with the POINT of his arguments.

I just got the same line of crapola in another thread, Michelle. I guess you 'n me are founding members. You wanna be the Great Poo-Bah, or am I stuck with it?

Or should we call the titular head, The Noob?

And if we're a "church" can we get tax-free status??


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 11:25 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

I just got the same line of crapola in another thread, Michelle. I guess you 'n me are founding members. You wanna be the Great Poo-Bah, or am I stuck with it?

Or should we call the titular head, The Noob?

And if we're a "church" can we get tax-free status??


Can I get married?


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2004 11:27 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, I'm not going on that merry-go-round again.

I will say that, at least from a political standpoint, the two situations are not quite apples and apples. Maybe apples and peaches.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 11:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I guess it would depend on WHY they're supporting "civil unions". If they're supporting it because they think it's a step towards eventual acceptance of SSM, then yeah, although I disagree with them on process, their motivation is good - equal rights for gays and lesbians eventually.

If, however, their support for "civil unions" is because they can't stomach the thought of those queer boys encroaching on their traditional family turf, and they think that gays should not be allowed to be "married" the same way hets are, then yeah, I have a problem with that, and yeah, that makes them bigots.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 11:30 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rubberband man:

but i do think that SSM opponents are more concerned with gay families than they are with gay sex. but hey, im not a SSM opponent, so what do i know ..,

I understand that YOU get it, RBM, but this is MY civil rights we're debating, and I STILL disagree with your point above.

If I want to marry my lover and we NEVER have any kids, these same people would oppose it just as adamantly. "Think of the children!" That line didn't hold water with interracial marriage, and it doesn't now.

It IS all about the S-E-X, whether they, or you, or anybody else wants to avoid the root issue or not.

Hephaestion
Acolyte of The Church of Newbie


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:33 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:

Can I get married?


I'm cool with it if Michelle is.

Which gender preference?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 June 2004 11:34 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's rewind here a little. Monia should be booted. It's not about SSM. It's about the Charter. What gets to be nitpicked next by another NDPer? NDP don't violate the Charter or pick and chose what works for us. And we don't let religion dicate the Charter to us either. You don't like the Charter? You don't have to live in Canada.

Is it bigotry or moral/religous conviction that makes Monia not support SSM? Who fucking cares. You don't get to disregard the Charter and still get to be a respected NDPer. I am pissed that Jack hasn't kicked her right out.

As for Newbie, I am sad to see him go. When he wasn't pissy he could be quite clever.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 07 June 2004 11:35 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Why can't you people chill on this.

Again, there is no reason for there ever to be any vote in the House on this issue. The B.C., Ontario and Quebec Courts of Appeal have spoken. No other provincial high court is going to contradict those courts. The very same Charter analysis would apply to any new "definition of marriage" legislation. If Harper wants to commit political suicide by resorting to the "notwithstanding clause", let him. No minority government would support him on that.

The big danger is in Harper having the chance to tamper with the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada. And as P.M., he can do so without regard to the views of any M.P. from any party.

Thus, people like Newb who would "stand on principal" are not only spiting themselves and their own pet issues, but endangering important civil rights that protect all Canadians.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

I'm cool with it if Michelle is.

Which gender preference?


Do I have to limit myself? What kind of a damn church is this?
Actually, I'm straight. Will my marriage be forever tarnished by extending my rights to these terrible sodomites?

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, I guess it would depend on WHY they're supporting "civil unions". If they're supporting it because they think it's a step towards eventual acceptance of SSM, then yeah, although I disagree with them on process, their motivation is good - equal rights for gays and lesbians eventually.

You made my point well.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 June 2004 11:46 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I will say that, at least from a political standpoint, the two situations are not quite apples and apples. Maybe apples and peaches.

Yes, in a sense, they're different today because we (mostly) all recognize that blacks have every right to sit in any available seat on any bus, just like everyone else. But of course there was a time when that was not true, and back then there were all kinds of otherwise decent people who simply couldn't support the idea of sitting next to a black man. And, I suspect, plenty of apologists for them too, reminding us that they're pillars of the community — "really good people" — and that their reluctance to sit next to a black man had nothing to do with bigotry (what a horrible word!), but was just "the way they were brought up", or some other claptrap.

And I'll bet these apologists were extra active in reminding everyone that even if you have to sit at the back of the bus, you're still on the bus, right? So it's not so bad, right? Better than a kick in the ass with a cold boot, eh? And that maybe "someday", y'know, "when the society is 'ready for it'" those blacks might get to sit anywhere they want. Just not now. So let's all stop focussing on this, eh?


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:56 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:

Do I have to limit myself? What kind of a damn church is this?
Actually, I'm straight. Will my marriage be forever tarnished by extending my rights these terrible sodomites?


No, no, no probs, SLB. It's just that we give free boutineers and bouquets to the happy couple. A matter of logistics, that's all.

We'll marry 'em all.

*Tsk* And "sodomites", SLB?? How Old Testament! We much prefer the more modern term Equal Opportunity Impaler.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 11:56 AM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Hephaestion, Newbie has been suspended before. Now he's just plan banned.


Some may be disappointed that Newbie won't be around anymore; I am simply amused. In another thread, about two days ago, he said he had voted Conservative in the last election. I think that helps to explain his anger,... it's the zeal of the convert, kind of like an ex-smoker who now smells smoke everywhere.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MT VIEW:


Some may be disappointed that Newbie won't be around anymore; I am simply amused. In another thread, about two days ago, he said he had voted Conservative in the last election. I think that helps to explain his anger,... it's the zeal of the convert, kind of like an ex-smoker who now smells smoke everywhere.



MTN VIEW, you've been pissing me off long enough with your sanctimonious pontifications. It's not like you didn't take great pleasure in baiting Newbie and TRYING to set him off.

Since I'm a founding member of the Church of Newbie, in the spirit of our Patron Saint, I say with all the requisite sanctity...

KISS MY ASS!!!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 June 2004 12:04 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh, and by the way, for those of you who were castigating those of us a while back who merely WONDERED whether someone who wears the more fundamendalist trappings of a patriarchal religion MIGHT be POSSIBLY socially conservative on this issue (even though we didn't say that she definitely was), and all of you said, "Oh of course she couldn't POSSIBLY be, because she would have been questioned on whether she could support the policies of the NDP before she was made a candidate, and you're such a racist for bringing it up!" Well, one in the eye for you.

I apologize for being wrong about Monia Mazigh. Now that she has answered the speculation around this question, I feel I have to withdraw my previous support of her (not that my support means anything, of course ). I am very disappointed in her view on this issue, considering the very real harm that befell her family because of intolerance of a different kind. Maybe she'll come around, and support the essential issue of equality for all, in time. Until she does, I don't feel comfortable with her as an NDP candidate.

That said, I certainly can't support the vitriol thrown vicky's way. All she did was express her reasons for continuing to support Mazigh, in spite of Mazigh's view of this issue. I can see why some of those reasons merit vicki's continued support. I don't think they outweigh the equality problem, but that's just my opinion.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 June 2004 12:25 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
KISS MY ASS!!!

I assume that in the Church of Newbie, that's a sacrament?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 12:27 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This debate was framed for a while as an issue of strategy. It really is not that anymore.

At one time, I felt that some people would have their lives improved by having civil unions quickly adopted and that full equality could be achieved in stages. This is where I was during the fight for inheritence and pension rights. At the time, while I supported the concept of SSM, I did not see it as something that our society could achieve then. Later, I felt, perhaps we should drop the whole marriage word for government-sanctionned civil unions for everyone, leaving "marriage" to religious groups alone. I knew there would be choices of religious groups that would extend marriage blessings to SS couples.

A great deal has changed in the short time since then. Before, a civil union idea could be realized, it was passed by as a logical step. I think it should be clear to anyone who is awake that SSM and full equality is now possible. The majority of Canadians, with the right leadership, will support it now.

In this context, I do not see the civil union concept to be a progression. Instead of being a step forward, as it may well have been only five years ago, it would now be a step back. It is time people recognized this.

All this being said, if someone still does not believe that SSM will fly and something else should be done in the interim, then I would rather conclude that they were mistaken than a bigot. If someone is against SSM, I think they deserve to be questionned on the subject and their motivations out there before they are branded as bigotted.

I also, have trouble with defining every person on the wrong side of an issue as a bigot. I also can't help but feel that our generation cannot assume that almost all people before us were bigots -- so context has somethign to do with it. I think being a bigot depends on the existence of hate. A person can be wrong about something without that position coming from hate. a person could even be out of step without that being hateful. There are people who are not bigots faced with an issue where society's views are changing, they are merely cowards.

There is a difference. We have many words in our language, we should not define them to mean the same things. We have words for ignorant people, we have words to describe those who are out of step but without hate and we have words for those who won't stand up for somethign they believe in. We also have words for those whose position is founded in hate. Bigot is one. We may suspect many others of being bigots but to automatically assume everyone who holds a position to hold it out of hate trivializes the existence of real fire-breathing bigots who feel and express hate towards other human beings. Once you apply that word to everyone who is on the wrong side, what word do you have left to describe that person you disagree with who actually does hate you? I want to distinguish between people moving in our direction who are not hateful like Monia and those who appear to be loaded with hate like a number of those in the Con party. I would even like to distinguish between those in that party whoase positions are founded in hate and those whose positions, actually may be founded in ignorance. We don't have to tolerate ignorance in our leaders, but we should be able to see the difference.

We have words to express degrees of positions based on why they are held and the level of extreme. I am not sure that it is even strategically sound to paint everyone who is not in our camp as a bigot. In some cases, I would rather remind them that they are walking with bigots and encourage them to rethink. Others, I might want to get them to think about why they hold certain views in the hope that they will come to a conclusion that they are inconsistent with reason and justice. Some people are inconsistent and do not manage change. People feel passionately about marriage - personally. I can accept that some people not wanting change are wrong without being bigots. I'd like to win them over without beating them up about it.

If you use up the word bigot on people like Monia who will sit and work with you and gradually move to your position, what word do you have for some others who hate your guts and wish you would die?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I assume that in the Church of Newbie, that's a sacrament?



Betcher sweet patooties it is, Magoo!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Magoo:

I don't remember hearing anyone say that where people sat on the bus actually interferred with anyone's concept of their religion or the meaning of their personal relationships. The fact is, the redefinition of marriage does change a definition of what some people have. We are talking about one of the three religious occassions in people's lives (if they are so inclined): hatches, matches and dispatches.

Equality must arrive here, but please don't pretend it is the same as where you ride on a bus. In some small way, the inclusion of SSM into marriage does affect all people, even though the effect is minor and positive.

The comparaison you present is real and legitimate in tems of a step for civil rights but it is not the same debate and context -- and maybe that is why it has taken us an extra 40 years to get to the same place in this fight.

I am also not so sure that as straight a line can be drawn between bigotry and the people who fail to stand up for SSM as it was with the civil rights in the 1960s.

I would like to distinguish between those who "don't stand up for SSM" and those who "stand up to oppose it." I see a difference. Don't some of you?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Sean from Ottawa —

From dictionary.com

"big·ot n.

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Hate is not required to be a bigot. Only intolerance is. Maybe we could differentiate by calling some of them "hateful bigots"?

As for Ms. Mazigh, fine, let her work her way through the issue until she comes to recognize that it IS an issue of basic human rights.

But until then, do we so badly need a candidate in Ottawa South Centre that we will accept someone who does not support my civil, human, EQUAL rights?!


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

posted 07 June 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't remember hearing anyone say that where people sat on the bus actually interferred with anyone's concept of their religion or the meaning of their personal relationships.

Then I'm sure we can find some social battlegrounds that did. Women voting? Spanking your child? Abortion?

I guess I'm just not all that concerned with what some invisible "God" wants me to disapprove of. If your religion believes homosexuals to be second class citizens, undeserving of marriage, then make some decisions. You could decide to leave that religion, of course, but there's another viable option too: ignore that part of the Bible/Koran/Talmud the same way prohibitions against touching the skin of a pig are routinely ignored.

And if someone is willing to ignore many of their own God's teachings, found in plain ink in their own holy book, but then uses that same holy book to prop up their belief that homosexuals need to be barred from marrying "because God said so", then I'm sorry — they're not just a bigot, but a hypocritical bigot. If you obey every teaching of your God (and I mean every last one of them) then feel free and obey this one too. But if they can ignore God's prohibition on cutting your hair, they could ignore his prohibition on homosexuality too. They don't want to? Fine. Then they need to at least admit that it's just them who doesn't want to. And once they make that choice, they're open to being called a bigot for it.


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

posted 07 June 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
And besides, Sean... Now we have two who oppose SSM on "deeply-held beliefs," "moral grounds," yadda, yadda, yadda...

Ottawa South Centre and Churchill. How many is too many? Six? Ten?

What else is on the table besides my human rights?

I KNOW this is not the ONLY issue, dammit, people, but forgive me for being insistent on this point— it a gawdamn BIG deal for me!

And before the "did you write to Jack" crowd opens your yaps, yes I did, but I haven't heard back yet.

I have to go to work now, but I'll check these threads later, and I'll be interested to see what you all have decided about my civil rights.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lastnightsdream
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5285

posted 07 June 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for lastnightsdream     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
it was my understanding that monia is in total favour of 250 since she can recognize that the bill would not effect her religious freedoms??
From: Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
C-250 is NOT SSM.

And what about Churchill???

Off to work. Be gentle with my rights, please— treat them as if they were your own....


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I feel different about Bev Desjarlais.

She is vocally opposing NDP policy and has threatened to vote against it.

I do not think that it is intolerence not to fight for some thing that is right. It may be to fight against it. There is a difference. There are several other explanations.

Question is, does our party require everyone to fight FOR this or at least that everyone not fight against it?

If we believe in democracy, then this is a question that should be put to the membership in terms of a requirement that people be counted on this. As far as I know there is no other issue that the NDP actually requires members to ACTIVELY support. I have mixed feelings about requiring people to be active on any one issue. However, while I hate the idea of such a requirement, it is a human rights issue. If we are to require any one thing, perhaps this should be it.

In the long run by pushing away people like Monia would we be setting our cause forward or back? Would we reduce our influence?

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 01:20 PM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But until then, do we so badly need a candidate in Ottawa South Centre that we will accept someone who does not support my civil, human, EQUAL rights?!

As usual, Babble’s lunatic fringe clings to its scream louder than and at everyone else strategy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:

As usual, Babble’s lunatic fringe clings to its scream louder than and at everyone else strategy.



Lunatic fringe? That's pretty low, Fester.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 01:29 PM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
You are screaming, not me.

My comment is a statement of fact, and this is not the first time I have highlighted the hyperbole that comes from this particular group of babblers.

lunatic - a reckless, impetuous, irresponsible person

fringe - a social group holding marginal or extreme views

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Fester ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:
As usual, Babble’s lunatic fringe clings to its scream louder than and at everyone else strategy.

Say, do you suppose this is within babble policy, Fester, since you're the one whining about it so much?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 07 June 2004 01:31 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm actually cheering for Magoo! And Michelle, and Hephaestion...

Fester -- you're actually saying that because I won't compromise on my human rights, I'm "the lunatic fringe"? Well the Church of Newbie has a new convert: Fuck. You.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 01:31 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:
You are screaming, not me.

My comment is a statement of fact, and this is not the first time I have highlighted the hyperbole that comes from this particular group of babblers.

lunatic - a reckless, impetuous, irresponsible person

fringe - a social group holding marginal or extreme views

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Fester ]


I appreciate that their concerns mean nothing to you. I may be screaming, but your low, insulting comments fester.


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

posted 07 June 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
I'm actually cheering for Magoo! And Michelle, and Hephaestion...

Fester -- you're actually saying that because I won't compromise on my human rights, I'm "the lunatic fringe"? Well the Church of Newbie has a new convert: Fuck. You.


That goes double for me.


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 07 June 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Time out (at least) for Fester. I've gotten too many complaints.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 01:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lastnightsdream:
it was my understanding that monia is in total favour of 250 since she can recognize that the bill would not effect her religious freedoms??

Same Sex Marriage wouldn't affect her religious freedoms either. I can promise her, from the bottom of my heart, that I will NEVER insist that she marries a woman.

But she SHOULD support the right of people NOT of her religion to do what they want regarding marriage and family. And yes, she should have to vote in favour of it. No, she doesn't have to actively campaign for gay rights. But as a member of Parliament, by abstaining from voting for gay rights, she will in effect be taking a vote away. That, to me, is actively opposing gay rights.

That is completely and totally unacceptable. She should not be representing the NDP in this capacity.


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 07 June 2004 02:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The whole business about supposed "non-bigots" whose supposed only concerns are for society, marriage and the traditional family would hold a great deal more water if we hadn't already had a bunch of SSM last summer. Apparently we survived it, and so any stalling or foot-dragging on the basis of "what will happen to our society if we do?" is just nonsense. We already know.

A co-worker of mine married his boyfriend last summer (they were among the first 10 couples in Canada) and so far I haven't noticed any change in my life. When I see him I ask him how married life's treatin' him, and when I do I listen quietly to see if maybe I can hear the sound of the moral fabric of our great nation being torn asunder, or perhaps our founding fathers simultaneously rolling over in their graves like some posthumous Synchronized Swimming event, but so far all I hear is "Great, and you?" (he's a staunch supporter of my right to marry).

If any candidate can demonstrate how last summer's same sex marriages have directly harmed them, interfered with their right to practice their religious beliefs, corrupted their children, spoiled their milk, etc., then let them speak up.
Perhaps Monia could tell us all just exactly what evil thing would befall her, or Canada, if two men get married. Same with Bev and Fr. Des.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 07 June 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For Monia and Fr. McGrath, it's partly a soul thing, at the very least. They have to find the line up to which they can compromise.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 June 2004 02:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then I'd love to hear how two men married affects their souls one tiny iota. Also, in the case of Fr. McGrath, I wonder if he could also tell me how cutting his hair, in strict defiance of his God's imperatives, affects his soul. And I suppose we could ask an Imam somewhere whether running for office in a (mostly) secular country hasn't already endangered Monia's.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 07 June 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm probably not qualified to comment on how Father McGrath resolves apparent biblical contradictions. I believe they have some form of theological filter that allows them to prioritize various moral issues. I'd be surprised if family structure didn't end up high on the list.

As for Monia, a large number of (at least Western-based) `ulema---imams aren't really priests, actually, but whatever---agree that Muslims can participate in secular political systems as long as they maintain some kind of religious conscience while doing so. As such it's probably easy for Monia Mazigh to accept most of the NDP platform, except, I guess, where it counts for many people on babble.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 07 June 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I won't argue against those saying Monia should support SSM; I think she should, like everyone else. But we have to have some sense of perspective on this: SSM is a matter of when, not if. It is as sure as death and taxes, and for that I am incredibly proud of my country and my party that has fought so hard to make it happen.

Monia will not be the straw that breaks any backs on this issue. It has been decided at the court level, and by the charter. Given that, I can still understand those who find Monia's position unacceptable. Her position on this one issue.

So what to do we do about that? Do we effectively bar most new immigrants, from the moslem world and other parts, from representing our party: Because we all know that Western countries are leaps and bounds beyond most of the rest of the world on homosexual rights. What most leftists would have to at least admit over a beer is that SSM wasn't even on the realistic radar until a couple years ago even in Canada; do we expect people from different cultural experiences to leap to the forefront on issues that have never carried any weight in even the most socially progressive elements of their cultural experiences?

I want Monia on side with SSM. How do we go about that? Do we tell her and her community that they have no place with us nice white progressives until they pass our litmus test, or do we work with her and her community in common and try to forge a consensus? Do we react with immediate disdain or do we look at civil rights as a process?

20 years ago an NDP candidate pushing SSM would have been laughed off the ballot, by NDPers. Cultural change takes time. Our party and our country have come a long way on homosexual rights, to the point where the sole obstacle to complete (formal) equality is SSM. I do not think the same thing can be said for our moslem population, who are constantly under community surveillance and suspicion, and face a deep and entrenched racism at every level of their daily lives. Are we really willing to throw aside an opportunity to work with that community and forge the links necessary to advance all our goals?

I hope Monia wins. I hope by the time (if and when) SSM re-appears at the legislative level that she votes for because those that have worked with her and treated her as a full partner, instead of a dangerous moslem intruder in our midsts, have convinced her of the position. I think that is more than possible.

One thing is certain: It is impossible if we reject out-right her worthiness to stand as one of us.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Magoo:
I agree with you entirely that as events are moving forward, the debate is changing. People who are not bigots had better come on board soon. The strategy is very different now that SSM is a fact. There is somethign different about trying to roll back the clock than to slow it from moving forward.

I am a little mystified by the suggestion that a debate about how to forward a human right can be termed fringe. While I am not in favour of booting our candidate in Ottawa South, I am certainly unwilling to characterize the concerns about her position as fringe or diminish them in any way. That would serve nobody, least of all her understanding of why our party has taken this position.

I would go so far as to term Monia's position as fringe. I am hoping that she will be brought to the mainstream of our thought before being booted away from it. This is an important distinction.

Further, the statement that we must move from tolerence to acceptance has resonated with me every time it has been repeated on this board. Acceptance means understanding that this right is part of a collection of human rights, the body of which we take together and as such cannot be fringe. The difference between tolerence and acceptance is directly related to whether or not we consider a human rights view to be fringe.

When it comes to being equal, this affects everyone's status. The concept of equal affects people on both sides of the equal sign. "Everyone" is hardly fringe.

As someone who is not gay, I believe that the concept of marriage is enhanced and made more beautiful by inclusion. I have to say SSM does affect my view of marriage. In my case, it does so positively. I have spoken to a number of other people who are not gay and they agree as well. I know of one case where a young person felt that marriage had been seen as outdated but now was becoming more relevant and more valuable for opposite sex couples because of this equality. That person would now consider marriage when previously, he thought it to be out-dated. It represents a particular progression in how society determines its values given how our lives are so centred around birth, death and marriage.

As big as SSM is for the G & L community, it is not absolutely nothing for everyone else. It also as I have said before, represents a level of social maturity with respect to human rights.

I want to bring over those wavering on the edge rather than drive them away.

And Hephaestion, I don't consider your rights negotiable or without essential value. My objectives are not very different than yours in this case.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 02:44 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:


MTN VIEW, you've been pissing me off long enough with your sanctimonious pontifications. It's not like you didn't take great pleasure in baiting Newbie and TRYING to set him off.

...

KISS MY ASS!!!



I never baited Newbie and you know it.

What pontifications are you talking about?

And no, I won't kiss your ass. I don't have to and neither does anyone else, and I don't feel like it. So, ... find yourself a more compatible bum kisser if that's what you're looking for.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Coyote:
Thank you -- I agree with the intent of what you are saying.

I just want to quiblle about one thing. You say "forge a consensus". i am sure that you did not mean to imply negotiation.

I am prepared to accept anyone in our party who accepts that this is the position of our party and will not fight it. I can accept some who due to their background cannot lead the charge.

I wish some of the people here like Hephaestion, would enter into a discussion with Monia and allow her to get to know them a little. But I know that this is too much to ask. I would find it hard to engage in debate with someone who denied me full equality.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

[Edited by Michelle to replace Coyote's real name (which he used to use on babble) with his alias.]

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 07 June 2004 02:56 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But if they can ignore God's prohibition on cutting your hair, they could ignore his prohibition on homosexuality too.

As I recall, I believe the hair cutting provision in the law was typically for people who were set apart (or set themselves apart) for special works (called Nazarites). When the time to do the work was over, the hair could be cut.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MT VIEW:

(sections deleted).


Umm, I hope nobody else gets booted. In spite of the high emotions here these comments and the ones that preceded it are over the top. The last above comment appeared to have some awful overtones in addition to being rude. I hope the poster will edit.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 June 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mph.
OK, for the record I'm very troubled by Monia's stance on this. Vicky makes an interesting coupla points, but those who note that we wouldn't make excuses for a Christian with bigoted views kinda nail it for me.

Moving slightly sideways--so where in the actual religious underpinnings of Islam does it say anything about gays? Is it there in the Koran, or are they basing it on books they have in common with other faiths e.g. Old Testament, or is it more of a cultural accretion? I mean, there's a lot of stuff that some Moslems do and consider part of their religion that many other Moslems don't do and don't seem to have anything to do with actual holy texts but rather with culture and tradition.
People may ask what's the difference. But I think it makes a difference in how it can be handled. Anyone have any ideas?


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

posted 07 June 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
do we expect people from different cultural experiences to leap to the forefront on issues that have never carried any weight in even the most socially progressive elements of their cultural experiences?

Why not? If it's never been on their radar then what reason could they have to immediately oppose it? And in a vote between "equality for all" and "not equality for all", should culture matter? If I moved to another country and culture, and someone asked me whether I believe that the local minority should have the same basic rights as the local majority, wouldn't I say "yes"? Isn't "equal rights" independent of culture?

quote:
Do we tell her and her community that they have no place with us nice white progressives until they pass our litmus test, or do we work with her and her community in common and try to forge a consensus?

"Nice white progressives" is nothing but inflammatory. This has nothing to do with white or brown. But to answer, how about telling them "here's what WE stand for. Come on board, or go join the idiots that are working, as we speak, to have you all deported. How does equality sound now?"

quote:
those that have worked with her and treated her as a full partner, instead of a dangerous moslem intruder in our midsts, have convinced her of the position. I think that is more than possible.

Again with the inflammatory. Nobody's criticizing the fact that she's Muslim, nor calling her a dangerous intruder. She just doesn't believe what the NDP believes. And how are we going to "help" her believe otherwise? By letting her touch a real, live homo, the way they help people get over their fear of snakes? Isn't her God going to frown on homosexuality pretty much forever?

quote:
One thing is certain: It is impossible if we reject out-right her worthiness to stand as one of us.

When a possible "partner" believes that 'immigrants steal our jobs', or 'Canada should be the 51st state", or 'we need deep tax cuts for business', do you fret about "losing one"? Do you concern yourself with the possibility that maybe sometime in the future we might have "helped" that one see the light? Do you try to woo them by overlooking their incompatibility with the NDP? If not, then why the whoop-tee-do for Monia? Let her go.

quote:
I want to bring over those wavering on the edge rather than drive them away.

Can you do it without allowing them to represent the party? Would it have been possible, say, for Monia to work behind the scenes for a few years while this 'bringing over' happens? That way, if your attempts to open her eyes fail, she's not out there making the NDP look like their "policy" on human rights is half-assed and arbitrary, and you might even be able to use nomination as a carrot on a stick to encourage some new thinking.

Failing that, I wouldn't make trying to woo the wavering into your new life's work. You're going head to head with their God and their upbringing, and all you have on your side is equality. If equality isn't a good enough reason for someone today, why would it be any better tomorrow, or a year from now, or ten years?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 07 June 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long!
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