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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Pat Martin to introduce "alligence to Canada" bill

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Pat Martin to introduce "alligence to Canada" bill
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 19 September 2006 10:31 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Winnipeg Sun

I don't really know what this is about here. Is this some sort of swipe at the Bloc? Or just a simple minor bill?


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 19 September 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
It sounds more like the old saw about either being for us or for the "enemy" rhetoric of the u.s. of arrogance.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2006 10:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the hell is this idiot on, anyhow? And what the hell is he STILL doing in the NDP? When he's not pissing and moaning about Muslims in the party being "loony-left Jew-haters", he's pissing and moaning about Bloc MPs.

Does he think this is the way to make inroads into Quebec? What a knob.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As long as he says "I love the NDP", he is allowed to say anything else he wants. Unless it's too left wing or anti-Israel (Svend, etc.). So his "I'm loyal to Canada" is unobjectionable. I actually find the self-exposure rather refreshing.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 19 September 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What an astonishingly stupid idea.

It won't pass, because the CPC and the Liberals aren't likely to wish to piss off the Quebec base.

And, quoting the article, separatist MPs don't 'sneak' into Parliament, they are elected. I much prefer a democratically elected channel for separatist or sovereigntist sentiments and aspirations.

Doesn't Martin know that widely held political aspirations (such as Quebec nationhood etc) will find other means for expression if they are blocked from democratic participation? It's not an avenue we want to go down.

Personally, I hope Canada finds a way to stay together, but that certainly won't happen with anything other than engagement and discussion as equals. And if Quebec opts to separate, then so be it. I'd be disappointed - I think Canada's an example of how two or more strong and healthy cultures can live together peacefully (more or less) - something that isn't particularly common.

But Martin's approach is about the least imaginative, most offensive idea available, and will accomplish absolutely nothing. I like a party that encourages/allows healthy debate within as well as without the party, but surely this is pushing the bounds of appropriate.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 September 2006 11:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Martin wants MPs to swear allegiance to Canada, rather than to the Queen, as at present.

Now, some here would prefer the oath be to Fidel Castro, but that is not likely to occur. As it happens, Cuban legislators do swear an oath to Cuba.

Myself, I think the present oath is offensive to Quebeckers. Probably the best oath would be one in which the juror swears allegiance to the people of Canada.

Martin's rhetoric is fairly stupid, though. If someone is elected, they should be allowed to serve as Member of Parliament.


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

posted 19 September 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that swearing allegiance to canada is FAR better than having to swear allegiance to the queen. Right on Pat!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 September 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. But it seems that his Bill does not get rid of the oath to the Queen. It just adds this new one.

That's not as good.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think you should have to swear allegiance to either, personally. Leave the flag-waving, oath-swearing jingoism to the Yanks.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oaths of allegiance and the Canadian House of Commons

quote:
The most recent and dramatic case involves the 1976 election of the Parti Québécois in Quebec. According to one press report, members of the Parti Québécois, faced with the necessity of taking the oath, resolved it by "crossing their fingers" while doing so.(17) Another explanation is that the oath was seen as an oath to the Queen in right of the province, since the Crown in Canada is divisible. As such, the Queen represents the state (or the province), and is a symbol rather than an identifiable individual.

Since 1982, members of Quebec’s National Assembly have been required to take a second oath. Section 15 of the National Assembly Act. R.S.Q., A-23.1, provides: "No member may sit in the Assembly before taking the oath or solemn declaration provided in Schedule I." Schedule I sets out the following oath or affirmation:

I, (full name of the Member), swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be loyal to the people of Québec and that I will perform the duties of Member honestly and justly in conformity with the constitution of Québec.

According to the Members’ Manual of the National Assembly:

Writers on parliamentary law (Beauchesne, 4th ed) state that the oath of allegiance to the Queen required by section 128 of the British North America Act refers to allegiance to the country, while the oath required by section 15 of the National Assembly Act is an oath of allegiance to the people and Constitution of Quebec.(18)
[unofficial translation]

This distinction between the two oaths, and description of the constitutionally required oath, presumably enables Members to take the oaths who might otherwise object to doing so.


That ignorant turd Pat Martin should be deported for disloyalty - suggesting that an oath to the Queen and to Canada are not one and the same thing!

God Save The Queen!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 19 September 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't think you should have to swear allegiance to either, personally. Leave the flag-waving, oath-swearing jingoism to the Yanks.

Good luck trying to find a single solitary country on the face of the earth that doesn't have some sort of oath for citizenship and oath for legislators that involves allegiance to that country.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
kulvahs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13141

posted 19 September 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for kulvahs        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What the hell is this idiot on, anyhow? And what the hell is he STILL doing in the NDP? When he's not pissing and moaning about Muslims in the party being "loony-left Jew-haters", he's pissing and moaning about Bloc MPs.

Does he think this is the way to make inroads into Quebec? What a knob.


i guess its a good thing you are a mod and dont have to watch what you say..eh
very democratic site i see,,,,


From: richmond | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, you're right, Stockholm.

But why is he bringing this up now? It's so frigging obvious that he's French-baiting. That's all he's doing. Was there a problem that needed to be fixed? Was the status quo on this issue something that was untenable? Was there something so pressing that he needed to run to the media and tell them about how he's got this great private member's bill that's going to make it so that a huge percentage of people from Quebec won't be able to be represented by their elected members of Parliament?

I'm about as anti-monarchy as you're going to get. But this is just stupid, baiting behaviour. It's Pat Martin being his usual stupid self.

Between this and the new law-and-order, social conservative crap the NDP is peddling lately, it's yet another thank-goodness-I-didn't-renew-my-membership day.

Make sure you pander to the Conservatives on their wedge issues - that's way more important than, say, actually trying to work with a Liberal minority government to bring in a national day care program or get some concessions on health care. No, that can be sacrificed for a Conservative minority government where the NDP has no influence at all, beyond actually AGREEING with the reformatories on the aforementioned wedge issues.

I'm actually getting a bit depressed about this whole thing. I haven't been a member for a while now, but at least I still felt like I could vote NDP. Lately, though, I don't really feel like I can. Can't vote Conservative - they're antithetical to everything I stand for. Can't vote Liberal - they're not left enough and they're a bunch of crooks to boot. Can't vote Green - they're courting conservatives and they're not really progressive anyhow. Can't vote NDP, because they're too busy baiting separatists and licking the reformatories' asses on issues like age of consent, and calling elections for the sake of gaining a few extra seats instead of trying to wring concessions out of the only one of the two mainstream parties they could actually influence on health care and day care.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


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

posted 19 September 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Make sure you pander to the Conservatives on their wedge issues - that's way more important than, say, actually trying to work with a Liberal minority government to bring in a national day care program or get some concessions on health care.

As has been said a hundred million times:

1. The Liberals made it perfectly clear last November that they would make no further concessions or deals with the NDP.

2. Martin was already committed to calling an election about two weeks later as soon as the Gomery Report was in.

3. As a result of the defections of pat O'Brian and David Kilgour who pledged to vote against the government, the Marton government was doomed to fall regardless of how the NDP voted. The only issue was whether or not the NDP wanted to go into the inevitable election with the "optics" of having tried to prop up the corrupt Liberals to the bitter end - despite the fact that there were no further policy concessions to be had.

What would you have done differently???


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 September 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm with the moderator here. All the things that she has mentioned about Martin are true. And we could, quite easily, add to the list. Martin's idea of good politics is to make incendiary remarks about "cutting the power" to the USA as a form of retaliation for the release of foreign biota into the Red River watershed by the State of North Dakota. He did that at a time when the Province of Manitoba was in negotiations with North Dakota and Washington,etc. He's a goddam loose cannon.

This current idea is a calculated insult to democratically elected members of Parliament. And Martin knows it.

Of course arborman is bang on. Maybe some idiots would prefer that separatists express their dissatisfaction with Canada in the style of the FLQ or something like that - but civilized people prefer the peaceful resolution of the National Question in this country.

What the hell does "loyalty to Canada' mean, exactly? Whatever Pat Martin says it means?

Until Her Majesty Elizabeth II stops being the "head of state" we won't be able to get rid of some sort of oath that both civil servants and members of Parliament swear in regards to her.

Maybe Martin subscribes to the conservative view that any press is good press. Maybe he likes to read his name in print. Who the fuck knows. I'd like to see some NDPers rip him a new one at a nomination meeting and see how he likes them apples. And I'm almost tempted to join the NDP just to do so.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 September 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is Pat Martin's answer to 60 BQ MP's who will never take that stupid oath? Have them 'cross the fingers' when taking it? What a jackass. What's Layton's response to this story?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 04:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Between this and the new law-and-order, social conservative crap the NDP is peddling lately, it's yet another thank-goodness-I-didn't-renew-my-membership day.

Make sure you pander to the Conservatives on their wedge issues - that's way more important than, say, actually trying to work with a Liberal minority government to bring in a national day care program or get some concessions on health care. No, that can be sacrificed for a Conservative minority government where the NDP has no influence at all, beyond actually AGREEING with the reformatories on the aforementioned wedge issues.


Great post, Michelle! You should consider posting more often!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 September 2006 04:30 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm with Michelle on this one, as well as her analysis of the new NDP. Pandering to neo-Cons will not do anything. The NDP should be working with the Liberals to bring these current fuckwits who run this country down, like way down, where they belong.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 19 September 2006 04:34 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
I don't see what the fuss is about here.

All Martin wants to do is make Canadian Members of Parliament swear loyalty to Canada. That shouldn't be too hard.

If it costs us votes in Quebec, that's how it goes. Isn't it better to take a principled stance instead of selling out all Canadians to score a few votes in Quebec. Besudes, even if the NDP tripled its vote in Quebec, it would win few if any seats. The Federal NDP should concentrate on moderate policies designed at winning its traditional strongholds. We can't even win a seat in Saskatchewan at the moment. Sounds like it's time to tend to the home fires first.


From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 19 September 2006 04:38 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe Martin subscribes to the conservative view that any press is good press.

Well right now, the Winnipeg Sun's online poll is running 95 to 5 in favour of Pat Martin. Which is pretty funny because I think Martin's proposed bill is directed more against monarchists than against separatists.

And in this case, who cares what Layton thinks. It's a private member's bill for goodness sakes. And one - judging from the hundreds of private member's bills ahead of it on the order paper -
has no hope of being debated let alone passed.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 19 September 2006 04:49 PM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN OF CANADA!!!

I love the Monarchy because its something possibly the only thing left that makes us unique from the United States and I have no problem swearing an Oath of Allegiance to my Queen and think all Canadians should do the same.


From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 19 September 2006 05:01 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think people who think we should swear oaths to the country or the queen or the flag or god or whatever should start by swearing an oathe to my ass.

Oaths are for simpletons and suckers. When Steven "God Bless America" Harper stands and swears an oath to Canada as Prime Minister with a straight face, oaths mean nothing.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 19 September 2006 05:01 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
What is Pat Martin's answer to 60 BQ MP's who will never take that stupid oath? Have them 'cross the fingers' when taking it? What a jackass. What's Layton's response to this story?

The answer is simple and implied in the Bill -- they either take the oath or they do not become MPs. Simple as that. As for Layton's response, who cares? His view is likely out of step with 95% of Winnipeg constituents anyway. Besides, it's a private members' bill.


From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 19 September 2006 05:04 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
Jingles, at least shave beforehand

I agree. the Queen is what makes us different from the US. Long live the Queen. The monarchy is also a good counter-balance to the enforced use of the French language across Canada (interestingly Quebec is not bilingual though).


From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 19 September 2006 05:09 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
This sounds like it would not survive a Charter challenge, even if passed. It's counter to basic democratic principles that a representative chosen by the people cannot represent her constituents views if she refuses to partake in some idiotic, nationalistic chest thumping non-sense.

Pat Martin pisses the hell out of me a lot, but as far as this bill goes, I'd just call it pure stupidty (rather than anything worth getting worked up about).


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 September 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't think of anything more antithetical to the basic foundations of the Canadian body politics than oaths of alliegiance. Pat Mrtin should be expelled from the NDP, and possibly investigated by the RCMP for spreading sedition.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 September 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Common Sense New Democrat: The answer is simple and implied in the Bill -- they either take the oath or they do not become MPs. Simple as that.

Not quite. It discriminates against MPs who for reason of conscience can not take the oath.

quote:
Originally posted by Common Sense New Democrat: As for Layton's response, who cares? His view is likely out of step with 95% of Winnipeg constituents anyway. Besides, it's a private members' bill.

Don't you feel Layton should be embarrassed having such a jackass in his caucus?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 19 September 2006 07:22 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Martin is an MP for Manitoba, right?

I wonder if he would say Louis Riel "had no business" in the House of Commons. Riel was after all elected twice, and denied his seat.

Is that the sort of thing Martin wants?


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 19 September 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can't think of anything more antithetical to the basic foundations of the Canadian body politics than oaths of alliegiance.

Sorry to break it to you, but right now our MPs and newlky sworn in citizens have to take an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. I'd much rather swear allegiance to canada than swear allegiance to a hereditary monarch who lives across the ocean.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 19 September 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was thinking that Pat Martin had lost his mind by putting forward this idea.

While I am certainly proud of my Canadian heritage, I get the creeps when I see lavish displays of super-patriotism by any country's government. Nationalism historically has it very, very dark side that has been used by all sorts of fascistic, totalitarian and imperialistic forces, as well as various kinds of bigots, to push an anti-democratic/anti-socialistic agenda.

But when I read that the intent here is to try to get away from swearing allegiance to a remnant of a totalitarian elitist feudal institution, such as the monarchy, I lightened up. It is still an NDP policy, although it's been decades since it's been a political priority, to abolish the monarchy and require public oaths to swear to the people of Canada.

I would like to see Martin spruce it up more to really make the point, such as requiring an oath of allegiance to the people of Canada and serve the public and uphold democratic and community values and building a free cooperative and egalitarian society.

Well, it may be a wild idea, but since it won't likely pass anyway, might as well go for the principle.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 19 September 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Sorry to break it to you, but right now our MPs and newlky sworn in citizens have to take an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. I'd much rather swear allegiance to canada than swear allegiance to a hereditary monarch who lives across the ocean.


This is a false dichotomy; there is no reason any citizens/potential citizens of Canada should have to declare allegiance to any nation/family/crown/corporation/etc in order to serve as a representative in parliament or to gain citizenship (indeed, in a progressive, modern society, they not only needn't do this, they should not have to). To suggest otherwise is a essentially a nativistic, reactionary sentiment; as if we are servants of some nation's flag first and foremost, and human beings second. This is the very point of view that Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, and George W Bush today invoke(d) to command their massive armies to slaughter thousands and thousands of foriegners in order to serve the "higher cause" of one's nation or army. When someone takes the view that someone's status as a human being can be viewed as secondary to some other superficial status (their nationality, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, etc) it is stunning the types of atrocities which human kind has proven itself capable of.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 19 September 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I doubt he's pandering to Conservatives directly - if anything he's pandering to local views in Winnipeg. I have no idea what the views on QC separatism in Winnipeg are like, but if they are anything like street level Alberta then he's singing their song.

That being said, it's not an appropriate position for a person who is committed to democratic principles.

And that being said, I'm still going to vote NDP, because my local MP is fantastic (Libby Davies), and because I think Pat Martin is the exception rather than the rule.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 19 September 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I remember seeing the headline in the Winnipeg Sun today, and the first thing that crossed my mind was "is Pat Martin shooting off his mouth again?

Oh and Michelle:

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Between this and the new law-and-order, social conservative crap the NDP is peddling lately, it's yet another thank-goodness-I-didn't-renew-my-membership day.

can you back up that statement, or are you going to continue to complain about the NDP working with the Conservatives when on almost every major issue there is no substantial difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives? As Stockholm said, what would you have done differently?

Here's a thread that I think is worth a look.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 19 September 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

To suggest otherwise is a essentially a nativistic, reactionary sentiment; as if we are servants of some nation's flag first and foremost, and human beings second. This is the very point of view that Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, and George W Bush today invoke(d) to command their massive armies to slaughter thousands and thousands of foriegners in order to serve the "higher cause" of one's nation or army.


People can have allegiance to a proud nation without having to kill others. The Swiss, for example.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 19 September 2006 10:01 PM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Between this and the new law-and-order, social conservative crap the NDP is peddling lately, it's yet another thank-goodness-I-didn't-renew-my-membership day.


By leaving the party you are surrendering, and handing it over to the folks you disagree with.

Instead of just opting out and giving up, why not sign up all your friends to the NDP, and then try to take on the "social conservative crap" you see in the party.

You can't only join when you agree 100% and then just leave when you don't like the direction the party is going. I urge you to take part in the party, to stop this drift towards conservatism.

I always tell people to consider their membership in a political party as being similar to being an activist shareholder. You don't need to agree with every policy to be a party member, but being a party member allows you to have a say in shaping party policies.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 19 September 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have written several emails to Martin asking him politely to mind his rhetoric. Somebody please rein this blowhard in.

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: V. Jara ]


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 September 2006 12:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Sorry to break it to you, but right now our MPs and newlky sworn in citizens have to take an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. I'd much rather swear allegiance to canada than swear allegiance to a hereditary monarch who lives across the ocean.


I'd rather the NDP reps invole themselves in the business of the nation, rather than pandering to pointless nationalist provincialism.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 20 September 2006 04:58 AM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This isn't a debate about swearing allegiance to the queen versus swearing allegiance to Canada. Pat Martin's proposal would not replace the oath of allegiance to the Queen; it would simply add another useless oath on top.

Time to get new party talking points, Stockholm!


From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 20 September 2006 05:49 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is an oath? What does it bind the oath taker to do?

What is allegiance? What does it require/presuppose?

What is your conception of allegiance to Canada? Is it to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? To the people? To the law? To the current government? To Parliament?

Pat Martin doesn't say. He should.

If one is going to take an oath in the classic sense of the word, one should understand the gravity of such oath taking. Its all well and good to say, for example:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. . . "

Every day hundreds of thousands of automatons stand from coast to coast in the USA and blindly recite these words without even the barest understanding of what it really means.

"And TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. . . "

That's the kicker - a republic, allegiance to a republic - quiz people - what do you think that requires of you - allegiance to President Bush? Congress? Fealty to the law (like the Patriot Act)?

Of course any idiot can recite the Pledge of Allegiance like a trained parrot. But every office taker, every service member and every Federal employee takes the same oath in this country. You've heard it if you've heard our president sworn in. It carries weight and gavitas because it specifically binds the oath taker to certain things:


quote:
U.S. Federal and Military Oath of Office

" I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''


Is this the kind of oath Pat Martin wants for Canada? Someone should ask him. Its serious business - I know - I've taken this oath several times in my life and should have given it much deeper thought.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 September 2006 06:11 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
from Hansard of Canada: [Monday June 2, 2003]

quote:
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a comment to my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party.

At present, public servants do have to pledge allegiance to Canada. The fact that this is an oath of confidentiality causes a lot of problems, in particular as far as denouncing wrongdoing and harassment are concerned.

I do not know if the member is aware of that, but in every case of harassment being investigated internally by Treasury Board, people hesitate to speak out because of the fear to lose their job.

I wonder if the member opposite knows that and if he has a substitute to this famous oath.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am indeed aware of it. I am not aware that an oath to the head of state in any way interferes with that process. I do not know how it does because the oath to a head of state is an oath to a head of state. What it does is acknowledge certain responsibilities in the heart and mind of the individual, and gives us all a focus on the governance of our country.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read from the House of Lords Hansard, when Lord Laird on January 3, 2003, asked Her Majesty's government:

Whether any new appointees to the Civil Service in any part of the United Kingdom are required to take an oath of allegiance; if so, which parts of the Civil Service require this...


The minister for the cabinet office and chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston replied:

Under the terms of the Civil Service Code, members of the Home Civil Service owe their loyalty to the administration in which they serve.


No civil servant in the UK is required to take an oath of allegiance.


I also note there is no oath of citizenship in the United Kingdom to the Queen or anyone else. Why should Canadians be more monarchist than the British?

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I get back to an answer I gave a couple of questions ago. Are we conformists or are we individuals? Are we a free country, able to make our own decisions or are we required to conform?


Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting some days to come into the House, to sit and listen to some of the debate and to see from where people are coming.

The public service sector really does not care if they swear allegiance to the Queen, themselves, their mothers or their fathers. What they care about is ensuring that government leaves it up to the people to be hired in the proper form, in the proper manner and that friends, neighbours and political interference is gone so the public service can do the job they are required to do, and that is to serve the people of this country and make it is easier for them to get the job done. For one reason or another, we forget about that and we worry about to whom we will swear allegiance.

As parliamentarians we swear to the Queen because that is our job and we do it. The public service should swear to the people for whom they will do the work, and that is the taxpayers. Who cares if they swear an allegiance to other people. ...


37th Parliament, 2nd Session - from June 2003

From this discussion in Parliament I note the following...

- there is the issue of harassment, of civil servants fearing to speak out about wrongdoing because they may lose their jobs.

There has been more legislation, however, since 2003. It would be interesting to find out the views of the Public Service Alliance of Canada on this matter. Have things changed, in their view?

- Julian Reed noted that the oath which civil servants take carries with it "certain responsibilites" without, however, outlining those responsibilites.

- MP Bryden noted that the there is neither an oath of citizenship for new citizens nor an oath of allegiance required for civil servants in the United Kingdom. As the MP asks, tellingly, "Why should Canadians be more monarchist than the British?" A fair question.

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 September 2006 06:36 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's an interesting story. It seems that a Canadian civil servant in Devon , Alberta refused to take the oath of allegiance and was threatened with dismissal. "The federal government has decided Vincent can keep his job while it looks into his claim," says the CBC story from 6 years ago.

Worker pledges legal fight over oath to Queen

The story gives some detail about the actual oath:

quote:
According to the Public Service Employee Act, federal government employees are supposed to sign the following oath:

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs, and Successors.


And there is MP Bryden again:

quote:
Still, some government members of Parliament think the case may be worth reviewing. Liberal MP John Bryden says Acadian descendants are not the only ones who might prefer a more updated oath.

"I don't want us to change our parliamentary system and become a republic," Bryden says. "But I really think Mr. Vincent strikes an absolute chord, in the sense that we should be swearing allegiance to Canada."


Supplemental: It turns out that the civil servant in Alberta won his case as a result of which " ... after December 2005, federal civil servants will not be required to take an Oath to the Queen." That is according to a website of the "Citizens for a Canadian Republic".

Citiznes for a Canadian Republic - 2004 statement, including remarks on civil servant from Alberta

Citizens for a Canadian Republic - goals, etc.

quote:
CCR: Minister Denis Coderre offering Bill C-18 in October 31, 2002. Among other revisions, the Bill would have replaced I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors with the same phrase, with Her Heirs and Successors deleted. It did not survive second reading in parliament.

Bill C-203 was introduced October 2, 2003 by MP John Bryden who addressed CCR at a meeting in Toronto about his action. It would have amended the act of citizenship to better define the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship and delete reference to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors. On December 2, 2002 it went through second reading and also dropped from the order paper. ....

Closely related to the issue of the Citizenship Oath is that of the Oath to the Queen that’s required of federal civil servants. Our associate director and co-founder, Pierre Vincent, was at least partly responsible for recent revisions to this Act he took the Federal Gov’t to court to save his civil service job after it was discovered that he’d not taken the Oath. He won the case and kept his job, and got national headlines in the process. Consequently, after December 2005, federal civil servants will not be required to take an Oath to the Queen.


Verrrrrrrry interesting!!

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 20 September 2006 10:30 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, could people at least stop equating Pat Martin's statements with general NDP policy?

A healthy party has a diversity of opinion and debate. I'd much rather risk the occasional MP or party member saying something stupid than the opposite, which is ironclad uniformity and mindless adherence to the talking points.

So Martin's an idiot. Is Davies? How about Olivia Chow? Nathan Cullen? Layton? What about Alex Atamanenko?

Given the other parties in the Canadian system, one doesn't have to look very hard to find an idiotic statement by one member or another. When's the last time a Conservative was allowed to take off his muzzle and speak anything other than talking points?

Using the actions of one individual to condemn the entire party is a cop out used by people looking for an excuse to be cynical.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 20 September 2006 11:23 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good source by N. Beltov! I just checked out the link for the Citizens for a Canadian republic, and, based upon what I read there, I see myself generally supporting its ideas.

I was quite surprised to learn this bit of info:

quote:
Canada’s head of state should be a Canadian citizen and not be above our laws. Presently, the Act of Settlement of 1701 constitutionally binds Canada to only heads of state who are not Roman Catholics. They must also be required to hold the position of Supreme Governor of The Church of England, thereby also preventing, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or anyone not a member of that Protestant denomination from becoming Canada’s head of state. Section 15(1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

Talk about institutional racism! Then again, it's in keeping with the general oppressive legacy of the British Empire and the dictators who ran it.

And I agree that firing or punishing federal public service workers for refusing to take an oath to a non-elected head of state (or, for that matter, an oath of any kind) is a fundamental violation of human rights and runs totally contrary to the values of the NDP and the labour movement, as well as to democracy in general.

quote:
Well, could people at least stop equating Pat Martin's statements with general NDP policy?

It's true that Martin's statements on this particular issue are entirely his own. But, as I said before, I have been told that abolishing the monarchy and replacing it with an elected head of state is old policy for both teh NDP and the CCCF before it.

quote:
A healthy party has a diversity of opinion and debate. I'd much rather risk the occasional MP or party member saying something stupid than the opposite, which is ironclad uniformity and mindless adherence to the talking points.

Hear Hear! Skookum rockin congrats! Glass of house red for the arborman.

quote:
I always tell people to consider their membership in a political party as being similar to being an activist shareholder. You don't need to agree with every policy to be a party member, but being a party member allows you to have a say in shaping party policies.

Skookum right on again! This is especially true for an open and democratic organization like the NDP. Glass of house red for Dana Larsen.

I'll stop now before I get everybody drunk. But folks should listen to what these two here are saying.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 September 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yea, the problem seems to be that other constitutional changes don't require the unanimous consent of all the Provincial Legislatures, (and the Quebec National Assembly}, as well as the Parliament of Canada. It may even be that unanimous consent of the House [in Winnipeg, in Victoria, in Ottawa, etc.] is required in some or all of these cases. But the National Question in Canada has, rightly, got the attention of politicians in this country over and above the "Monarchy" question.

Complicated questions like this require sensible, careful explanation to the citizenry. Even if I agree with MP Pat Martin's "goal" of moving to a Canadian loyalty oath to replace/supplement an oath to Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II, he's doing it all wrong. He's like a kid with a firecracker who can't wait to be entertained by the blast in a crowd. [That's my generous interpretation. My ungenerous interpretation is that he's trying to piss off elected Blok MP's. ]

It may be that Canada will get rid of the connection to the monarchy when the British get so far ahead of us in that regard that it becomes embarrassing for Canadians. It's already moving in that direction with the fact that Brits don't have a loyalty oath nor do civil servants there have to make a similar oath to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We don't need a loyalty oath, period. If something is nonetheless wanted or required, then an oath to abide by the laws of the country ought to be sufficient. Pat Martin's oath idea would be a stumbling block for our BQ MP's here, who could not in good conscience take the oath that Martin proposes.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 September 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose you're right. Martin wants to piss off BQ MPs from Quebec and get some attention. What a mean-spirited so-and-so. But it does raise the issue of unresolved Constitutional matters.

Some of us, foolish perhaps, would like to live to see a Canadian republic - socialist or not. And I don't mean a 51st state, either. With our Bill of Rights and Constitution and so on we've moved in that direction. What a shame that hosers like Martin muddy the waters of what are actually important long term political questions in Canada by his inane and sectarian proposals. It poisons the public mind for any discussion of such matters.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 20 September 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
Why is it "mean spirited" to piss off BQ MPs. Some might argue that it is rather mean spirited to try to break up Canada.
From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 02:23 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The next election will probably see 60-even BQ MPs duly elected by the citizens of Quebec. They have as much right to take their seats in the House of Commons as any other MP, and without an impediment such as an oath designed to keep them out. God, the more I think about his, the more sympathetic I become of the BQ.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 20 September 2006 02:47 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The next election will probably see 60-even BQ MPs duly elected by the citizens of Quebec. They have as much right to take their seats in the House of Commons as any other MP, and without an impediment such as an oath designed to keep them out.


Well siad!


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 20 September 2006 03:01 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
They can elect separatista all they want to their "National Assembly". But not in a Canadian Parliament. The more I read Pat Martin's bill and read the debate here, the more inclined I am to support this. Is it inflammatory? Undoubtedly yes. But too bad. Quebec Separatists have had it too easy for too long. It's time to send Separatists and the D'oh heads who vote for them a message.
From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Common Sense New Democrat:
They can elect separatista all they want to their "National Assembly". But not in a Canadian Parliament. QUOTE]

Why the hell not? The BQ are elected by citizens of Quebec. If I cast my vote for a BQ MP and he wins in my riding, I expect him to take his seat in Parliament, and if Martin puts up stumbling blocks that effectively thwart democracy, then as far as I'm concerned, Canada loses, and the movement for an independent Quebec gains momentum.

[ 21 September 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 20 September 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
Well if you don't want to vote for Canadian MPs, then leave Canada. But it is an affront to the rest of the country to have it both ways. If you believe in Canada, elect MPs loyal to the country. But if not leave. but don't derive the benefits from being in Canada all the while deriding it.

Martin's bill makes sense. This is the sort of thing that the NDP used to stand for. Hopefully it will again.


From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 20 September 2006 04:25 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Common Sense New Democrat:
Well if you don't want to vote for Canadian MPs, then leave Canada.

I think that paradigm is exactly the problem with Martin's bill -- it will serve to fuel sovereigntist passions in Quebec, rather than to enhance loyalty to Canada.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Common Sense New Democrat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13200

posted 20 September 2006 04:31 PM      Profile for Common Sense New Democrat        Edit/Delete Post
But Quebec voters already voted in 60 Bloc Quebecois MPs. Assuming that these MPs are representative of the sentiment of their respective electorates, it seems to me that this isn't an issue of fueling separatism -- it's already there. It's more an issue of drawing clear boundaries. The bill basically says "shit or get off the pot". Either you are committed to Canada and are fit to be an MP or you are not. but you can't be an MP collecting Canadian tax dollars whem yoru goal is to break up Canada. Take that somewhere else.
From: East Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Québécois in the North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10727

posted 21 September 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for Québécois in the North     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Common Sense New Democrat:
Well if you don't want to vote for Canadian MPs, then leave Canada.


Yeah! Leave our fucking country, cuz these are the canadian values: tolerance for everybody but for the bastards who think differently.

And if you are Kurd and living in Iraq, vote shii or find another land. And if you're a Chiapas Metis don't vote EZLN or will kick you out. And you the, Tibetan monk, will you please get rid of that Dalaï Lama poster and replace it by an appropriate painting of the Party's General Secretary. Pronto!

That's the true spirit of democracy. The true North strong and free and all that.


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 21 September 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Well, could people at least stop equating Pat Martin's statements with general NDP policy?

A healthy party has a diversity of opinion and debate. I'd much rather risk the occasional MP or party member saying something stupid than the opposite, which is ironclad uniformity and mindless adherence to the talking points.

So Martin's an idiot. Is Davies? How about Olivia Chow? Nathan Cullen? Layton? What about Alex Atamanenko?

Given the other parties in the Canadian system, one doesn't have to look very hard to find an idiotic statement by one member or another. When's the last time a Conservative was allowed to take off his muzzle and speak anything other than talking points?

Using the actions of one individual to condemn the entire party is a cop out used by people looking for an excuse to be cynical.


Well said. I have ripped up my party membership more than once and then watched from the sidelines as the neo-cons won elections and then tore down much that not only my geneation but my parents generation fought long and hard for.

Pat Maritn is an asshole and I wish he wasn't an NDP MP. However the NPD members in his riding nominated him and he then went on to win the election. Who am I to say that Jack or anyone else should overrule the party members in his riding and the electorate. That type of party scares me a whole lot more than a few wing nuts spouting garbage I despise.

My MP is Bill Siksay and he makes me proud to be back in the NDP. Pat Martin's stupidity is far outweighed by Bill's sensitivity and grasp of the issues.

And as an aside the oath to the Queen that the Acadien refused to sign was exactly the same oath that the Acdiens refused to sign and that refusal was what prompted the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the Acadian nation. I was proud of him for standing up and saying that in light of his family history he in good consiciousness could not sign that oath.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 21 September 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Political parties can indeed have a diversity of opinions, but it would seem odd to allow an MP to espouse an opinion or proposal that looks to be in conflict with that party's core principles - after all, the NDP is the New Democratic Party. Martin's oath proposal in my opinion goes against principles of democracy - his oath proposal will effectively block democratically elected BQ MP's from taking their seats in the House.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ravijo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11439

posted 24 September 2006 09:37 PM      Profile for ravijo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this is the kind of flag-waiving, blind and empty nationalism that was supposed to be denounced at the convention. I got a clear message from more than simply the Québec caucus that Canada needs to build a sort of "grassroots" federalism based on diversity and nationality within our borders.

Pat Martin has made it clear he does not stand for what New Democrats want. It's never bad to disagree here and there, but almost consistently, he has chosen 'Liberalized'; perspectives on key issues.

He seems to be mouthing stale ol' "Israel has a right to defend itself"; "Palestine are privileged to live next to such a great country"; "anyone who opposes Israel is anti-semetic". His calling for Sid Ryan to be kicked out of the party for the boycott was particularly colourful, given the margin by which the Israel-related votes passed at convention.

He was one of the ones who said that Canada should remain in Afghanistan. It now seems he's taking a stab at pissing off the Québec caucus through vague allegiances to a country yet inbuilt (the country we agreed to build at the convention). I respect differences of opinions, but his seems to undermine precisely what the party values, and what we have decided to support.

Please don't apply Pat Martin's right wing nuttiness to the otherwise improving federal NDP. There has been a lot of work in the past few years to build a party less like what Pat Martin is, and he seems to be an anomaly. I hope he gets contested or something.


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 28 September 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of the views on this thread, regarding the alleged offensiveness of swearing allegiance to Canada, are somewhat over the top. Here's some food for thought. The Honourable Gilles Duceppe has had to swear an allegiance Canada for the sake of his honorific. Since he's a member of the privy council he's privy to secret information deemed important to national security, or confidential information. And if he divulges that information he'd be considered a traitor. And look-y here, he accepted the honorific, and felt it important enough for him to take that oath knowing what it meant. So obviously Bloc members can live with swearing allegiance to Canada, and obviously doing so doesn't prevent them from taking their seats in parliament, and advocating for the independence of Quebec. I don't remember Lucien Bouchard ever having a problem with his honorific, and his position of advocacy for Quebec independence, and he was once a minister of the crown.

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


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

posted 28 September 2006 06:02 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
SThe Honourable Gilles Duceppe has had to swear an allegiance Canada for the sake of his honorific. Since he's a member of the privy council [...]

Actually, Gilles Duceppe is not a member of the Privy Council. Look here.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 28 September 2006 06:11 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Quit making apologies for reactionaries just because they happen to call themselves members of the NDP.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 28 September 2006 10:51 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quit making apologies for reactionaries just because they happen to call themselves members of the NDP.

Pat Martin is definitely a populist, but he's no reactionary. Check his website, the key issues he's championed lately include justice for aboriginal people, openness and improved ethics in government, eliminating transfats from foods, crackdowns on payday loan companies, and protection for workers' pensions in case of bankruptcy.

Pat Martin may take stands on a few issues you may not agree with, including on private member's bills where party discipline is generally not invoked, but he's definitely left of centre and belongs in the NDP.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 September 2006 11:12 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re the BQ and oaths: Do all MPs have to swear allegiance? (scroll down to June 23)

Yes, all Canadian MPs and Senators must swear an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance, promising to "be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second." So must members of provincial legislatures and legislative councils.

- snip -

The House of Commons can decide to punish a member it deems to have broken the oath. It has never done so, though former speaker John Fraser was asked to rule in 1990 on whether Bloc Québécois's first elected MP, Gilles Duceppe, had been sincere in making his solemn affirmation. After making the affirmation as the rules decreed, Duceppe made a statement outside the House of Commons Chamber expressing his loyalty to the people of Quebec. Fraser declared he could not judge whether Duceppe had been sincere in his initial solemn affirmation to the British monarch and left it up to each MP's conscience to assign a due seriousness to his or her personal pledge.

Lucien Bouchard, then the leader of the BQ, justified the seeming contradiction of avowed separatists pledging allegiance to the British Crown in 1993 by saying, "A pledge to the Queen is a pledge to the collectivity, and that is still very important."


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 28 September 2006 04:49 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:

Actually, Gilles Duceppe is not a member of the Privy Council. Look here.


Intresting, I did a google search of "The Honourable" and "Gilles Duceppe" and came up with various sources that had refered to him as "The Honourable Gilles Duceppe." I trust your source more than a simple google search though. In any case there are other examples of sepratists who are members of the Privy Council, such as Lucien Bouchard.

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 September 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Members of the privy council have the title of "right honourable". They are usually prime ministers, governer generals, recipeints of the Order of Canada I think? (and some premiers?) and they keep this title for life. MP's are given the title "honourable".

I don't know WHY they would do this....


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 28 September 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So much wrong information ...

MPs are "honorable" members for the duration of their term, but not usually referred to as such.

Provincial cabinet ministers / premiers are "honorable" for the duration of their term, and usually referred to as such.

Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (cabinet ministers, etc) are "honorable" for life.

Members of the Queen's Privy Council for the Commonwealth (Prime Ministers, etc) are "right honorable" for life.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 September 2006 08:17 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose I could have looked at the website....
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171

posted 28 September 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for mayakovsky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lucien Bouchard, then the leader of the BQ, justified the seeming contradiction of avowed separatists pledging allegiance to the British Crown in 1993 by saying, "A pledge to the Queen is a pledge to the collectivity, and that is still very important."

A very smart and honourable man. While I don't share his politics I remember one evening coming home and encountering him passing me on the trottoir entering a restaurant. I only spoke with him briefly. He does have presence.


From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  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