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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » 3rd Shoe Drops? Gallant Claims C250 protects pedophiles and will be repealed

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 3rd Shoe Drops? Gallant Claims C250 protects pedophiles and will be repealed
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 11:34 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/2s5pf

"The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses, for example, pedophiles," Gallant said in an interview with CTV.

"I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed," she said.

The remark sent the Conservative Party swiftly into damage control mode. A party spokesperson said Gallant's comments were incorrect, and the Conservatives were not planning to move to repeal the act.

Needless to say, step 2 will be, "but of course if one of our backbenchers introduced a private member's bill..."

Hey Stephen, you mean one of your backbenchers like Cheryl Gallant?

By the way, repealing C250 will end forever the lie of that it's a matter of freedom of speech. It's not and it never was. The Reform have only had a problem when it comes to homosexuals. They don't have the balls to repeal hate speech against Jews or Blacks.

Just queers.

Scum.

Lying, filthy, immoral, evil scum.

Every single one of them.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Newbie ]


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noelle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5479

posted 06 June 2004 11:55 AM      Profile for Noelle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ugh, Now I hope than no progressive here will try to tell any of us not to be worried about Harper winning. Eveyday he is caught lying, and his own caucus proves it. Harper must be shut down now.
Some things are just more important than partisan politics. I'm beginning to feel ill everytime that I open a newspaper or turn on the TV

From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 06 June 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believing I'm going to fucking say this:

I hope Gallant goes down, even if her successor is a Wappel-style Liberal.


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 June 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Newbie is right. This party has to be destroyed— wiped out. Totally. Even if it means a Liberal majority.

They are lying, filthy, evil scumbags.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Radioactive Westerner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4432

posted 06 June 2004 12:32 PM      Profile for Radioactive Westerner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now theres a rational viewpoint. Destroyed? Wiped out?

The Liberals just sit in the middle and laugh at the stoops in the other two parties.

When will people learn that demonizing their counterparts in the political spectrum just ends up making their own party look bad?

A Conservative government won't mean the end of Canada, we've suffered through them before. They didn't abolish abortions or lock up the non straight people. In fact they were remarkably hard to distinguish from the Liberals.

By playing the Liberal game of name calling and fear mongering you are only scaring away people from yourself.

By labelling other parties as homophobes and bigots there is no way that they will ever be attracted or interested in you viewpoint. In fact they will never even listen to you.

Aren't your ideas sound enough to stand on their own?


From: Edmonton | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 June 2004 12:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wrong. We have never suffered through the Reformatories nationally before. The "new" Conservatives are not the Tories of old.

I'm one of those voters lucky enough not to have to make a strategic decision, and besides, I've voted NDP since 1968 and would never do otherwise.

However, I'm a little offended by the fixation of some party people here in arguing that the neo-cons are not worse, substantially worse, than any alternative, in their willingness to demand party loyalty from people who are facing a deeper and immediate crisis of principle.

People like me haven't voted NDP for forty years merely for the greater glory of the party hacks and wonks. It would be nice if that registered with a few of the more superficial carriers of the banners.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Radioactive Westerner:
When will people learn that demonizing their counterparts in the political spectrum just ends up making their own party look bad?

I voted PC in the last election. This is not the PC party, it is the Reform party and their only reason for existence is to spread hatred.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 06 June 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By labelling other parties as homophobes and bigots there is no way that they will ever be attracted or interested in you viewpoint. In fact they will never even listen to you.

1976...Received wisdom: "Gays are pedophiles"
1982....Greater demand for civil rights:..."Gays are pedophiles"
1995...Adoption rights discussion..."Gays are pedophiles"
2003...Equal marriage .... "Gays are pedophiles"

Sure, dialogue will really solve all of this once and for all.

If you're a CPC supporter, RW, direct your oh-so-rational insight to your party, rather than get on a high horse about the profound anger a toxic twit like Cheryl Gallant causes just by opening her mouth.

...back to hiatus.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 06 June 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:

I voted PC in the last election.



Hmmmm.

That might actually help to explain a few things.


Tell me this. Which political party is responsible for the customs bureaucrats who are improperly seizing literature and materials headed for Vancouver's Little Sisters bookstore even AFTER court decisions in favour of Little Sister's? Is that the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party, who have been in opposition since 1993?? Or is it just possible that Canada's Mighty Liberals, the Natural Governing Party, just might have a bit of responsibility in this instance?


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 June 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Newbie is right. This party has to be destroyed— wiped out. Totally. Even if it means a Liberal majority.

They are lying, filthy, evil scumbags.


Yes, they are (for the most part) lying, filthy, evil scumbags, but we don't have to wipe them out. All that's needed is that they be denied a majority, and I'm pretty confident that they won't get a majority for the forseeable future. As more stories like this come out, they will gradually fade away. No need to wipe them out- every time one of them opens their mouth they move a bit closer to oblivion, so there's certainly no need to, for example, soften our attacks on the Liberals out of fear that we're playing into the Reformatories' hands.

If the choice was between (1) a minority government, or (2) a Liberal majority with the CPC being reduced to nothingness, I'd prefer (1). Why? Because the Liberals are also (for the most part) lying, filthy, evil scumbags. Not as offensive in their social policies, but about as destructive in their economic policies. And lying, filthy, evil scumbags are tolerable as long as they don't have a majority. So we base our stragegy on which group of lying, filthy, evil scumbags still have a significant chance of getting a majority, and put our efforts into stopping that from happening.

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Noelle:
Ugh, Now I hope than no progressive here will try to tell any of us not to be worried about Harper winning. Eveyday he is caught lying, and his own caucus proves it. Harper must be shut down now.
Some things are just more important than partisan politics. I'm beginning to feel ill everytime that I open a newspaper or turn on the TV


I'm not much worried about Harper winning. If anything it puts the spotlight on these people. People like Cheryl Gallant, Rob Anders, Art Hanger et al thrive in opposition. There they can criticise all they like and never have to take responsibility for their views. If they get anywhere near power, the spotlight moves onto their beliefs and Canadians start to notice just who they're considering voting for. That's what I want to happen. A Harper government would self-destruct within a few months, ridding us of this threat.


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

posted 06 June 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Wrong. We have never suffered through the Reformatories nationally before. The "new" Conservatives are not the Tories of old.

I'm one of those voters lucky enough not to have to make a strategic decision, and besides, I've voted NDP since 1968 and would never do otherwise.

However, I'm a little offended by the fixation of some party people here in arguing that the neo-cons are not worse, substantially worse, than any alternative, in their willingness to demand party loyalty from people who are facing a deeper and immediate crisis of principle.

People like me haven't voted NDP for forty years merely for the greater glory of the party hacks and wonks. It would be nice if that registered with a few of the more superficial carriers of the banners.


Skdadl, clearly I'm one of the people you're talking about. Equally, I'm a little offended by your comments. However, it's pointless for us to get offended or into semantic arguments over this. We both want these people exposed for what they are. I happen to believe that a CPC administration would implode within months exposing the extremists in their ranks. We want them exposed, and I think the only way Canadians will take notice is to have the threat of them dictating their lives to them. Have faith that Canadians will reject these people.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 June 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:

Have faith that Canadians will reject these people.

Exactly. Most Canadians have no time for this shit. If anything, the biggest worry is that people will vote Liberal to stop them.

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 06 June 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Conservatives do intend to repeal C-250 - nearly all of them are against it and Harper and others worked behind the scenes to try and have the Senate kill it earlier this year. I saw this every day earlier this year when I became closely involved with C-250. I actually wrote to Senator Lowell Murray and told him I agreed with him forcing a vote on it to prevent Anne Coombs and her friends in the Senate from trying to kill it. As for Ms. Gallant, she has made anti-gay remarks before but she will not be defeated in this election because she won last time and the Cons are higher this time so she is safe. The most important thing is to expose who Harper is.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 June 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Screaming Lord and Mike, my personal hugs and kisses to you both. No hard feelings, eh?

But if what worries you most about the current election is that a few old-time loyal dippers like me might pipe up with a few intelligent reservations about your feel-good messages, then you really don't know the history of this party.

There are reasons why leftists of all sorts in Canada have had very on-off affections for the NDP. Yes, there is responsibility to be took on all sides. But to me, those people who expect us to line up unquestioningly behind "the party" (what is the party but us?) are the first who need to be reminded of their responsibilities.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 June 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Screaming Lord and Mike, my personal hugs and kisses to you both. No hard feelings, eh?

But if what worries you most about the current election is that a few old-time loyal dippers like me might pipe up with a few intelligent reservations about your feel-good messages, then you really don't know the history of this party.

There are reasons why leftists of all sorts in Canada have had very on-off affections for the NDP. Yes, there is responsibility to be took on all sides. But to me, those people who expect us to line up unquestioningly behind "the party" (what is the party but us?) are the first who need to be reminded of their responsibilities.


No hard feelings. I just don't want people giving the Liberals a free pass purely because the Conservatives are extremists. We all agree that we want the extremists exposed, we just disagree over process. Message boards have a way of making people who agree on 99.9% of things into violent enemies, don't they?
To clarify, I want no-one to blindly accept the party line (hell, I whined about Father McGrath and his anti-abortion anti-SSM vies), but I am frustrated at the possibility of the party missing out on what is clearly their best shot for success in 16 years to the advantage of Martin's Liberals.

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


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 June 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Screaming Lord and Mike, my personal hugs and kisses to you both. No hard feelings, eh?

But if what worries you most about the current election is that a few old-time loyal dippers like me might pipe up with a few intelligent reservations about your feel-good messages, then you really don't know the history of this party.

There are reasons why leftists of all sorts in Canada have had very on-off affections for the NDP. Yes, there is responsibility to be took on all sides. But to me, those people who expect us to line up unquestioningly behind "the party" (what is the party but us?) are the first who need to be reminded of their responsibilities.


No hard feelings here either. And as I mentioned above, I've felt differently in the past about strategic voting, and I think that even now there might be a time and place for it. This, however, is not the time and place. Perhaps I should clarify my position on the two major parties. The Cons are worse than the Libs in the same kind of way that being shot and pissed on is worse than just being shot.

I just think that if we allow ourselves to think that a Liberal majority under Martin would be a tolerable alternative to the Cons, we will have even more trouble convincing people not to vote Liberal.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 06 June 2004 06:11 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:

I voted PC in the last election. This is not the PC party, it is the Reform party and their only reason for existence is to spread hatred.


Hold the phone. He voted for the party of Elsie Wayne, and he's mad at as for voting for the party of Monia Mazigh?


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 06 June 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They are lying, filthy, evil scumbags.

Isn't that what Hilter called the Jews?

Yes, lets dehumanize the opposition. That will definately win over more votes for the NDP.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 06 June 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hold the phone. He voted for the party of Elsie Wayne, and he's mad at as for voting for the party of Monia Mazigh?

yeah no kidding.....Funny how that party was the party of Elsie Wayne and Scott Brison...

who would have figured political parties are broad coalitions of people, not special interest groups.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 07 June 2004 12:45 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:

(hell, I whined about Father McGrath and his pro-abortion anti-SSM vies.


Surely there is a typo in that sentence somewhere.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 01:22 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by candle:

Surely there is a typo in that sentence somewhere.


Shit. Yeah, clearly he's anti-abortion, what with the whole Catholic priest thing going on.


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

posted 07 June 2004 01:35 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am very upset by Gallant's statements. they are without question founded in an ignorant hate that goes far beyond intolerence. One could even argue that Gallant is providing a case for retroactive abortion. But one should never think such awful things. so instead we cool off and decide what this actually means to us.

It is no surprise that there are people in this country who hate homosexuals. That some of them would draw a connection with pedophelia is disgusting. In fact, this is offensive in both directions. It is deeply offensive to equate a disgusting damaging predatory illness with something harmless and natural. As a person who is concerned about child abuse, I am just as concerned about raising pedophelia to normal as I am about reducing homosexuality to the status of something sick and ugly.

However, as angry as I cannot help but be with her, am I REALLY that upset that Gallant's mouth disconnected from her brain? Not really. She has given voice to something I know many in her party believe. I am glad to see that exposed. I accept the benefit that this may reduce the chance of that party taking power.

I do worry about the effect on the NDP. I hate to see the Conservatives as the perfect foil for the right wing Liberals. The new conservatives, Alliance or whatever they are called, seem to perform that function best. They allow the Liberals to feign reasonableness and scare away people who might support our party and real social progress in our country.

The only way I would vote Liberal would be if there were only two candidates in my riding and the other was Conservative. If the whole country would be so right wing as to elect these people with a majority, then I'd rather look for another home than to have to consider abandoning most of my beliefs just to keep out the bad guys. I will vote NDP in the hope that enough people will either join me or at least not vote directly for the Cons that they will not be able to govern.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 07 June 2004 01:40 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As my father was saying the other day, Ms.Gallant is a rather crass lady and should not really be an MP. She has made anti-gay remarks before and this is not really a surprise. Unfortunately she will be reelected this time because Con support is higher than the last time she managed to get in. I am glad her riding is outside of Ottawa instead of where I live because if she came to my door I would let her have it. I was a supporter of Bill C-250 and I won't allow an airhead like her to repeal it.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 10:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see why anyone is upset by Cheryl Gallant's views. Heck, why don't we see if she'll join the NDP? Gays and lesbians don't matter, after all.
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 10:43 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't see why anyone is upset by Cheryl Gallant's views. Heck, why don't we see if she'll join the NDP? Gays and lesbians don't matter, after all.


Well, I dunno Michelle... I mean, Cheryl Gallant would make for a nice set of three, but we've got one in Churchill now, and apparently one in Ottawa South.. problem is, Cheryl Gallant is from Ottawa too.

Can't we find one down on the East Coast, or something? HEY!! Maybe we can get Elsie Wayne to come out of retirement and play on our team?!?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 10:53 AM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't see why anyone is upset by Cheryl Gallant's views. Heck, why don't we see if she'll join the NDP? Gays and lesbians don't matter, after all.

quote:
Well, I dunno Michelle... I mean, Cheryl Gallant would make for a nice set of three, but we've got one in Churchill now, and apparently one in Ottawa South.. problem is, Cheryl Gallant is from Ottawa too.

Can't we find one down on the East Coast, or something? HEY!! Maybe we can get Elsie Wayne to come out of retirement and play on our team?!?


Church of Newbie lives on.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 07 June 2004 10:53 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms article 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The danger in having "every individual" just listed, that encompasses, for example, pedophiles!!

I assume this will be the 4th shoe?

These bigots MUST be crushed!

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 11:15 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:

Church of Newbie lives on.


If by that you mean I won't accept "being given" my human rights, you're damn right, and I'll take your comment as a compliment.

And if you meant it as something other than a compliment, I don't give a damn. I'll still wear it as a compliment.

It's not just Noob and I who feel this way y'know. We're gawwdamn tired of standing cap-in-hand waiting for society to finally come around and recognize our civil rights which already inherently exist. Just because they are not being recognized does not make them non-existent.

That's why this whole issue had to end up in court— because the courts are the only ones who would listen to us, while the gutless Liberals vacillated, fractured, and then defeated the bigoted Alliance motion because "it doesn't really matter."

Svend was RIGHT on C-250, and so were all the NDP MPs. If any current candidates do not support what Jack himself calls "an issue of basic human rights," then why are they allowed to run as NDP candidates?

I swear, Newbie was right! If this issue was about blacks or Jews, there would BE no debate.

"Church of Newbie"... Haaa! Watch out I don't become like Newbie. I'm being polite as hell so far, just a little forceful. Or would you prefer the word "uppity"??

Church of Newbie... I could get to LIKE that term...


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:
Church of Newbie lives on.

If by "Church of Newbie" you mean "people who support equal rights for gays and lesbians" then I'm a proud member of that church.

I said this in another thread and I'll say it here. Like rasmus, I didn't like the way Newbie hurled abuse at everyone on babble who didn't agree with him. BUT, I agree with Newbie completely when it comes to equal rights for gays and lesbians - there should be NO compromise. Including this "civil unions" crap.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 11:29 AM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If by "Church of Newbie" you mean "people who support equal rights for gays and lesbians" then I'm a proud member of that church.

Yes, people who believe that SSM is the only issue at stake in this here 'lection -- with everyone else being bigots, of course.

In the sense they can't see any room for another point of view between those who support and oppose equal marriage rights, their views are shockingly analogous to the opinions of some of George Bush's Southern supporters.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Fester ]


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, people who believe that SSM is the only issue at stake in this here ?lection

Or who just think that basic human rights aren't a bargaining chip that can be traded for, say, "a good record of labour activism", or "a positive attitude toward progressive taxation", or whatever. It simply shouldn't be on the table.


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:38 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:

Yes, people who believe that SSM is the only issue at stake in this here 'lection -- with everyone else being bigots, of course.

In the sense they can't see any room for another point of view between those who support and oppose equal marriage rights, their views are shockingly analogous to the opinions of some of George Bush's Southern supporters.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Fester ]



To be fair, Fester: can you name any regular babbler who has said that SSM is the only issue that matters?

What amazes me is that dipper operatives would be spending their time alienating leftists who care about SSM and a number of other serious issues of the day, if I can put it that way.

All those elephants in the room, Fester. For me especially, the "war," but SSM for sure, women's independence for sure, human liberty for sure.

And to those of us who are deeply fearful of the obvious worse threat that the neo-Cons represent, all you can offer is wonky disdain?

Learn smarter politics, Fester.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 11:38 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:

Yes, people who believe that SSM is the only issue at stake in this here 'lection -- with everyone else being bigots, of course.

In the sense they can't see any room for another point of view between those who support and oppose equal marriage rights, their views are shockingly analogous to the opinions of some of George Bush's Southern supporters.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Fester ]


Fester, no one here is calling SSM the only issue at stake in the election. You're getting pretty overheated yourself. However, equality is equality. I don't believe in 62% equality.


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:39 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't see why anyone is upset by Cheryl Gallant's views. Heck, why don't we see if she'll join the NDP? Gays and lesbians don't matter, after all.

Huh?
Where did this come from?
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that.
The point was who cares what a moron like Gallant thinks? What does it mean to the NDP and what it stands for in an election? What does it do in the wider question of progress towards human rights?

When such a moron does more damage to herself and her party than anything else while exposing the nasty stuff that entire party has under the rock, then should we be that upset? Isn't it better to have that out where it can be seen, derided, defeated?


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

posted 07 June 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about these quotes from our Liberal friends?

quote:
John McKay, House of Commons, June 6, 2003:

“The phrase sexual orientation defies definition. Not all sexual orientations are the same – we still have injunctions against bestiality /pedophilia/incest etc., all of which appear to be orientations and are presently prohibited by the Criminal Code. But it gives one a feel for the difficulties of definition…. The other identifiable groups are far more precise – race, religion, ethnic origin…. Mr. Speaker, creating a new category in the Criminal Code, absent definitions, with weak defences, with no real evidence of support, is a lousy way to create law.”

John McKay MP, Scarborough Guildwood, (416)439-1230


Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.), House of Commons, June 6, 2003:

“My problems with this bill relate to the definitions of sexual orientation as well as inciting hatred. Is sexual orientation limited to homosexuals or does it include those who practise other forms of sexual deviance, such as pedophilia? Are those not also sexual orientations? Am I a criminal if I express hate for those adults who prey upon children?”

“I would like to say again that because of what Bill C-250 would do, the infringements that I see with it right now, it is definitely a flawed piece of legislation and I cannot support it.”

Murray Calder, Dufferin Caledon, (519) 941-4722


Tom Wappel, House of Commons, May 9, 1996;

“What I have said and will continue to say is sexual orientation, as a phrase, means far more than heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Recognized experts in the fields of law, medicine and psychiatry who have appeared before various committees of the House have given that testimony.”

Tom Wappel, Scarborough SouthWest (416) 690-0557

Dennis J. Mills, House of Commons, June 14, 1995:

“Yet I cannot bring myself to support the inclusion of sexual orientation as a legal category in the bill, as it seems to me there may be unintended consequences of this inclusion that may affect our definition of the family, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”

Dennis Mills, Toronto Danforth (416) 463-9449


Paul Steckle, House of Commons, April 30, 1996:

“I have told the Prime Minister and others within the party, that I cannot support this bill. Had there been some amendments giving definitions to the term sexual orientation or the family perhaps we could have addressed this issue differently. There would be no one in the House who would agree there should be discrimination based on whatever reason. For those reasons and because those amendments will not likely be forthcoming I will not be supporting this legislation.”

Paul Steckle, Huron-Bruce (519) 524-4848


Jean Chrétien, Justice Committee, January 29, 1981:

“...I am not here as a judge to determine what marital status means, what sexual orientation means. It is because of the problem of the definition of those words that we do not think they should be in the constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you what it is, because those concepts are difficult to interpret, to define and that is why we do not want them in the constitution. I am not going to venture to tell you what is sexual orientation. I am not interested; and I will not fall into that trap, because we do not want them for the reason that it is socially, and in terms of law, it is a very difficult area.”



From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 07 June 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't believe in 62% equality.

I couldn't agree more.

And the NDP does not require unanimity of thought or uniformity of philosophy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 07 June 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Church of Newbie.... Heck, I'd throw a few bucks into the collection plate. Does he wear a cool outfit like the Pope? I hear he uses the Julian calender.

Anyway, I just wonder how accidental all these slips are. Harper's trying to cast himself as a moderate which seems to be working for lots of people who pay no attention to politics between elections. (that's an awful lot of people) Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if the party was also sending out signals to the 'phobes of various stripes that they haven't abandoned their old reform ways with the merger. Harper gets it both ways. I don't have to tell anyone here that there's lots of anti-choice and "family values" types out there, and they appear to vote. Harper doesn't want them to feel they've been abandoned, so these little "slip's" happen every now and then. He of course takes the high road and brings them back on message, but the point gets made.

[edited for typos]

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 June 2004 11:49 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the sense they can't see any room for another point of view between those who support and oppose equal marriage rights, their views are shockingly analogous to the opinions of some of George Bush's Southern supporters.

I support the Charter of Human Rights. Or are you saying that if I am really, really, really morally offended and outraged by religion in general, that I can work towards taking it away from folks? Or can I pick and chose which religions I like and don't like? Can I pick and chose who gets equal rights?

Suggesting that folks that support human rights utterly, with no middle ground, have something in common with bigots is crass. I didn't think that wanting equality for everyone made me a bigot or an unreasonable person?

I won't be made to feel guilty about supporting equality because some people are uncomfortable with SSM. Put up or shut up, least you find those who defend equality being a little less concerned if someone steps on your rights, we might just be busy that day.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 11:51 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fester:

I couldn't agree more.

And the NDP does not require unanimity of thought or uniformity of philosophy.


Again Fester, you're moving the goalposts. All I've ever said is that I personally would have a difficult time supporting people like Mazigh or McGrath. That's a long way from requiring unanimity.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 June 2004 12:15 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:

When such a moron does more damage to herself and her party than anything else while exposing the nasty stuff that entire party has under the rock, then should we be that upset? Isn't it better to have that out where it can be seen, derided, defeated?


What about our candidates in Churchill and Ottawa South Centre? Isn't that the "nasty stuff that entire party has under the rock"? Because if they are OUR representatives, then we have no right to criticize the Cons. Or do we say, "Oh well, we may have a couple of bigots, but you way waaay more than us. You guys are soooooooo bad!!!"

As for "hav[ing] that out where it can be seen, derided, defeated," that's exactly what some of us are attempting to do, but we keep getting "sssshhhh-ed" by self-appointed damage control crowd...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca