June 29, 2005
Is same-sex marriage a "single issue" issue?
Some people have pointed out that the same-sex marriage debate is a mountain being made from a molehill. The number of homosexual couples who will avail themselves of marriage will be small, the effect on day-to-day life negligible, the safeguards for religious freedoms sufficient.
In my "drilling down" piece I suggested what might go wrong, but I didn't really highlight it well enough. So I'm going to try again.
It's about taxes.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:38 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Excellent points. Civil disobedience is allowable in certain circumstances (according to Catholic teaching) so we may reach that point. If I may introduce another critical piece of the puzzle of what C-38 means:
Looking at C-38 from the point of view of the weakening of legal support for natural family bonds reveals any number of grave potential repercussions of C-38. Hidden in all the innocuous platitudes is a statist revolution. For a brilliant preview of what this entails, head on over to Waiting in Joyful Hope. It's a bombshell-of-a-read.
Posted by: Linda at June 29, 2005 09:18 PM (oCPrU)
2
I doubt that the tax exempt status bit will actually happen. I think even the NDP wouldn't be stupid enough to try that as it will be the worst public relations disaster in the history of Canadian politics.
Anyhow, it's not like the Catholic Church would end up paying taxes to begin with. With some creative accounting based on their charitable work and the next to poverty level income of the clergy, they could actually find a way so that the government would end up PAYING THEM in the end! That would be the ultimate middle finger salute to those stupid enough to try and have the Catholic Church's tax exempt status changed... and I would love to see it happen.
But even if the government were to change the tax status of the church -- and the church didn't pay -- let's remember how many times uncollected taxes are written off by the government. Knowing the Liberals, this would be their end run to screw everybody and make them happy about it... something they seem to be very good at doing these days.
Posted by: Surecure at June 29, 2005 10:31 PM (jg4N7)
3
Who'se saying our complaints are "making a mountain out of a molehill?" If you've been watching CBC, CTV, or Global news programs, your lead to believe the gay community and its supporters outnumber the population of the maritimes. I don't think all the gay protestors who came to the pro-marriage, pro-family rallies I attended (and slammed me as a "born again bigot") think that all this fuss was a molehill.
Angry, taxes is too specific. Think bigger, think more diabolical: think socialism.
Any concept or promotion that weakens the family unit and removes parental responsibilites is exactly what the Liberals and the NDP want. It is so much easier to get control of the children (and make them learn what you want them to learn) when you get the parents out the way.
The government feeds the child, educates the child, then gets to form the child in its image.
Get 'em while there young. It's so evil, I almost have to admire it.
Posted by: accidentwaitingtohappen at June 29, 2005 11:32 PM (3VvuA)
4
accidentwaitingtohappen, your summary of the situation makes me shudder, mainly because it's true.
If it gets as bad as descibed then I will turn to long prayer, hope that God is listening and will just let the U.S. take us all and be done with it.
Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at June 30, 2005 12:47 AM (glkWC)
5
And what seems to be the problem? You are quite accurate in your assumptions, and that there is movement in Alberta to challenge the legitimacy of a central body in Ontario in which taxation is directed towards.
Without any tangible results for the money flowing in one direction, many voices are being added to the discussion.
Just the other day that ass-hole Martin was out in High River placing a ceremonial sand-bag for his photo-op.
After having lived through the flood there in 95', I know there are some folks who would love to have floated him down the river.
Posted by: View from the West at June 30, 2005 05:09 AM (nThEG)
6
What we need here is for two sisters or two brothers to apply for a marriage license and when refused to challenge this legislation in court. We are constantly barraged with "the state has no business in the bedroom of the nation or its not about sex etc etc. So if it isnt , surely its discrimination or a denial of a right for two sisters or two brothers to get married. If nothing else it would show up this piece of legislation for the sham it is.
Posted by: MikeP at June 30, 2005 09:46 AM (p000C)
7
Well actually we have a government that now decides for itself whether or not it is a legitimate one. It says it has the authority to govern because, well, it says so.
I'm not sure taxation is the true recognition for the holding of sovereignty of a nation. But even these days, especially in Africa, the lines of community and collective societal accords, are too blurry to pin it down.
If it's not taxation, my guess would be that it's "we'll put you in jail, rape your women and burn your house (or some degree of that) if you don't go along with the collective will that we define!"
Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2005 11:31 AM (pznI9)
8
The sibling marriage argument is a red herring. There are reasons for denying the marriage right to siblings that the court would consider valid. As such the reasonableness of the denial of rights will be upheld. you might find the court inconsistant on this point but that is in fact the point. The courts will push the boundries of what the public will accept but they will not go so far that the public will react strongly overturning them. They know the limits of their power.
Posted by: Chris at June 30, 2005 12:23 PM (k2vsv)
9
Just a comment about your sites content filter the word i-n-c-e-s-t was filtered out. Is that really appropriate? perhaps you could look at your filter settings.
Posted by: Chris at June 30, 2005 12:26 PM (k2vsv)
10
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that this is not about law suits or tax exempt status for them. It is about C-250, the hate crimes bill. We have given the homos the right to define the term homophobia and they have said that it means anything whispered by a Christian or any other kind of conservative against anything they want to do. But until C-250, the only thing they had to use as a club was the Human Rights Tribunals which they have stacked with their friends, thanks to your taxes being used for gay advocacy. But we have had the word from various police forces in Canada, that the thing they were waiting for was gay marriage legislation so that a refusal to provide a nuptial Mass can be interpreted as an act which may tend to promote hatred. And that's a criminal offense kids.
The whole business has been a long-haul project to make any public expression of Christianity a criminal act.
Don't believe me?
Well, you don't need to. All we have to do is wait.
In Human Rights Tribunal cases it has already been established that the publication of _references_ to biblical passages denouncing homosexuality qualifies as promoting hate.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf02998e.html#E11E1
Subsection (2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating statements, other than in private conversation. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the meaning of "willfully," "promote" and "other than in private conversation" in R. v. Keegstra.6 The court held that "promotes" involves the active support or instigation of hatred; a simple encouragement or advancement of hatred is not enough.7 With respect to "willfully, " an accused needs both to intend, in the sense of desire, and to foresee the stimulation of hatred as a certainty. Neither recklessness8 nor the mere fact that the accused was aware of the risk of stimulating hatred are sufficient to convict under s. 319(2).9 A conversation or communication intended to be private but which was accidentally or negligently made public also does not f all under s. 319(2).10
Posted by: hilr ary at June 30, 2005 01:00 PM (UfhOG)
11
If, as we keep hearing, marriage is "a loving commited relationship between two adults," then there is absolutely no reason in Canada why any two adults cannot now get married.
And since there is no moral, logical, biological or rational reason to limiting marriage to only two people (as is the case when marriage is rightly recognized as the union of two genders), polygamy is inevitable.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 30, 2005 05:32 PM (hxWW4)
12
Chris: "The sibling marriage argument is a red herring. There are reasons for denying the marriage right to siblings that the court would consider valid."
What reasons?
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 30, 2005 05:32 PM (hxWW4)
13
Chris the sibling argument you give that the judges know the boundaries and wont cross them because people wont stand for it, just doesnt hold water. People stood for gay marriage so why should they object to siblings. As far as the public is concerned marriage as an institution is ruined now anyway. However even if judges didnt buy sibling marriage for reasons of outrage, they would have a tougher time turning down the request because siblings want the same pension rights as anyone else or tax benefits etc. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Posted by: MikeP at June 30, 2005 06:45 PM (p000C)
14
Now that marriage is a sham in Canada I'd suggest anybody wanting to get married - and really feel married, take a vacation to a nice red state to get the ceremony done.
Otherwise a few years down the road you're likely to feel like somebody who had been married by "Reverend Ed" of "The Church of Ed" who they found in an alley and woke up long enough to do the ceremony.
When people start marrying their houseplants, married people are going to start having serious doubts about how married they really are.
Posted by: Jay at June 30, 2005 07:31 PM (PuNh2)
15
My friend Abdula wants to marry his goat, Frieda. Since it won't hurt anyone, and they are a very loving couple, can he find someone in Canada who will marry them?
Posted by: Aizlynne at June 30, 2005 11:20 PM (Uagor)
16
I think that we have to admit that the court makes its decisions based on what they believe will be accepted by society even if they are guilty of being inconsistant. I don't believe that society would accept as legitimate a supreme court that ruled that i n c e s t was a consitutional right. At least, not yet. (Begin Scarasm)If the veneer of divine wisdom was stripped away from the court anarchy would rule. (/end Begin Scarasm)
"I suggest it is the instinct for self-preservation, and the recognition that the court, which 'has no influence over either the sword or the purse,' cannot go too far down the road of an enforced neutrality that contradicts both historical fact and current practice without losing all that sustains it: the willingness of the people to accept its interpretation of the Constitution as definitive, in preference to the contrary interpretation of the democratically elected branches." Justice Scalia
Quoted in the NY times
- Norman Spectator
Posted by: Chris at June 30, 2005 11:55 PM (G021a)
17
You didn't say WHY i n c e s t would not be "allowed".
WHy not?
On what grounds?
Why do two brothers not have "the right" to get married?
-----------------------------------------------
Anyone smell a lawyer here:
QUOTE from "Edmonton cops investigate attacks on gays, activists blame Klein"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/ 2...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
...
Gay activist Murray Billet said Premier Ralph Klein and his government's opposition to same-sex marriage has help foster an atmosphere of intolerance of gays and lesbians.
"What Mr. Klein and what this government are doing is nothing short of schoolyard bully behaviour," he said. "It is just unacceptable."
Billett said Klein owes gays and lesbians an apology and called on the province to end its fight against same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Brian Banned-from-Shitgun O'Neill at July 01, 2005 12:15 AM (hxWW4)
18
So I guess, because my car was broken into last year, I can expect an apology from Klein because his government's refusal to fund more cops for cities helps foster an atmosphere of tolerance to crime?
I think that Mr. Gay Activist Billet needs to have his head examined. What a stupid argument. I guess absolutely no gays elsewhere in the country are beaten up by homophobes? Prove it, Mr. Billet. Prove it or STFU.
Posted by: Candace at July 01, 2005 01:01 AM (R7nd+)
19
Also,
How come every time some gay guy is beaten we hear about "homophobia"?
Maybe some of them are just beaten up because they're assholes, or they got beaten in a fight, or they grabbed some footballer's johnson (ha ha - as if any ball player would object!)
Posted by: Brian Banned-from-Shitgun O'Neill at July 01, 2005 02:24 AM (hxWW4)
20
What was even more crap about the above news release was that Mayor Mandel of Edmoton said(paraphrasing) that this attack was evil and that Mr.Klien was wrong in trying to avoid SSM because evrybodies rights should be protected.HEY STEPHI-BOY,then what about the smoker's rights you just stepped on?? Hypocritical piece of shiiite! And BTW,I am a non-smoker.
Posted by: fubar at July 01, 2005 02:32 AM (Iqhxu)
21
If marriage is now a "union of two people", why only two brothers or two sisters? Why not a brother and sister? How about a father and son?
Posted by: zee at July 01, 2005 04:25 AM (QrPMN)
22
Zee part of the new law says you cant be closely related, which is what we have been discussing. Chris the judges have already stepped over the line and rights are rights are rights.
Personally I dont believe in the rights grab but obviously judges do and now they have opened Pandoras box, it will be difficult to close.
Posted by: MikeP at July 01, 2005 09:58 AM (p000C)
23
Happy "Canada Day" (Dominion Day) Everyone.
God Bless The Old Bitch!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 01, 2005 10:54 AM (hxWW4)
24
Bill C-38 is a lawyer's bonanza. There will be a whole new area of property rights and family support, shared and divisable assets, pet custody and who knows what else for lawyers to profit by,
There will be additional revenue to the Government as well. Revenue that is generated through the same rules that government profits from with standard marraige. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 01, 2005 12:10 PM (rmMzv)
25
10 Ways to Celebrate Diversity on CANADA DAY:
1) Free Canayjin citizenship for everyone in China
2) Demand that the Senate immediately ratify C-38
3) Declare war on America
4) Honourary citizenship for Robert Mugabe
5) Appoint Karla Teale-Homolka to the Supreme Court
6) Invite Svend Robinson for a sleepover with your son
7) Forgive all debts for all Canayjins
Demonstrate felching in an elementary school Social Sciences class
9) Feed one of your limbs to a bear
10) Kill yourself by watching only Canayjin TV shows
Demonstrate felching in an elementary school Social Sciences class
9) Feed one of your limbs to a bear
10) Kill yourself by watching only Canayjin TV shows Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 01, 2005 01:32 PM (hxWW4)
26
Brother - sister marriage has, as a quick ballpark number, a one in ten chance of significant genetic disorder. Among the European royal families, who practices serial cousin marriage, hemophilia, withered arm and some sort of jaw issue were recurring problems.
Posted by: triticale at July 01, 2005 06:38 PM (z/Kj9)
27
That 10 ways to celebrate list should be on the front page.
Posted by: Jay at July 01, 2005 06:54 PM (PuNh2)
28
Re: "Brother - sister marriage has, as a quick ballpark number, a one in ten chance of significant genetic disorder."
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument against i-n-c-e-s-t marriage?
What planet have you been on?
Haven't you heard that "marriage has nothing to do with reproduction"?
More predictable rejoinders:
- "They could have themselves sterilized before marriage."
- "Women have higher and higher chances of miscarriage.down syndrome etc with increasing age."
- "What is a genetic disorder? You're a bigot. Who are you to say what is normal."
- "The mother could just get an abortion."
So, that's our line in the sand -- brother-sister i-n-c-e-s-t abnormalities?
Does that imply that brother-brother, mother-daughter, sister-sister, [infertile] grandmother-grandson marriages would then be acceptable?
People, we in Canada have truly, sincerely, seriously entered a very hell on earth.
Don't underestimate the depths of our new government-sanctioned depravity.
Brought to you courtesy of EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL PARTY IN CANADA.
Yes, EVERY party!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 01, 2005 08:14 PM (hxWW4)
29
Yes, It's a lawyer's bonanza, as marriage generally has become a lawyer's bonanza. In an uncontested divorce, lawyers expect 30 % of family assets; in a hotly contested divorce, it goes up to 50%. After 'no-fault' divorce, you can't separate 'marriage' from divorce, and as the legal profession controls this file, 'marriage' as a legal construct is simply a lucrative playpen for lawyers. They have felt shut out of the 'gay' end of this lucrative client base, and so they want in, and this bill gives them the 'gay' file also, along with the hetero file.
People saw the scam and preferred 'common law' which used to exclude the lawyers from their lives, so this was shut down when common law was made the same as marriage.
70% of MP's are lawyers and they make law that increases the role (and financial take) in human lives for lawyers. Same sex 'marriage' is simply a continuation of this process, but may be a good thing in that:
When the first slew of contentious same sex divorces come down the pike, the glaring inequities of the 'marriage' scam run by lawyers will fall under a spotlight because traditional gender differences will no longer muddy the waters of what the lawyers are really doing to 'marriage'.
Posted by: edward mills at July 01, 2005 08:37 PM (c4Z9/)
30
What does it mean when someone says that they're in favour of "gay marriage"?
They are saying that Canadian taxpayers, workers, bureaucrats, and employers are OBLIGED to honour, respect, and SUPPPORT homosexual couples, just as all governments in Canada are now obliged to support normal couples (including, unfortunately, uncommitted (i.e. "common-law") normal couples.
What does it mean when someone says they support homosexual "civil unions", but not "gay marriage"?
They are saying the exact same thing.
Politically they are being impotent quislings.
There is ABSOLUTELY no political benefit in such a position. They are equally susceptable to accusations of bigotry.
The Conservative Party of Canada's position on this matter has been shameful, pathetic, and disgraceful.
Was it even sincere, or was it just an attempt to straddle the fence; to satisfy both the Belinda-Stronach-types who eventually vote Liberal anyway, and also the pre-modern conservative base of the party who will eventually turn away in disgust anyway.
If you were "in favour of civil unions but opposed to gay marriage" then you - were - a - FOOL. You never had a chance.
If you're opposed to both, then the government, EVERY opposition party, and the courts have all just shit on you.
And they'll keep doing that. That's why they keep saying, "get used to it!"
Yes. it stinks, but get used to it.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 01, 2005 08:46 PM (hxWW4)
31
Oh lovely!
I turned on CTV about 5 mins ago, just in time to see a guy go down on his "wife"/spouse/whatever.
Then he notices that one of his wife's balls has some sort of tumour.
I guess they're trying to out-homo CBC and Global (with Scott Thomson's "My Gay Wedding", etc).
I hope nobody complains to CTV about obscene content. You wouldn't want a visit from the RCMP.
Which channel has Queer-ass Eye for the Flexible Straight Guy?
Has anyone ever seen a hetero blowjob on network TV at 9 pm?
Oh well . . .
Happy Canada Day, suckers!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 01, 2005 10:19 PM (hxWW4)
32
"Brother - sister marriage has, as a quick ballpark number, a one in ten chance of significant genetic disorder."
No problem. The 'government' will take care of any two-headed children. The parents have the 'right' to expect nothing less.
Posted by: Brian M. at July 01, 2005 10:33 PM (fcVtR)
33
If they have two heads they can marry themselves.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 01, 2005 10:46 PM (hxWW4)
34
EdwardMills, Thank you. It's not often someone has the ESP to read between my written sketchiness and come up with the full and exact picture of what I was trying to say.
*is simply a lucrative playpen for lawyers*
Yes... my meaning exactly. Well SSM C-38 enlarges that lucrative playpen.
And Brian, ol' buddy, I agree with your right to be *STEAMED* about this stupid short circuited screww up of the institution of Marraige.
It is a screw-up, but when the CPC finally get to cleaning up on the Criminal Liberals, It will become evident to most people that SSM C-38 was brought in under circumstances where the Government was not entirely legitimate.
There is still the option of modifying C-38 and returning the marraige contract back to it's normal standaing in Canada.
They can call the other [adult oriented] contract something like Civil-Bond.
Now on to putting teeth into C-11. Whistle-Blower Protection law. Saves money for 100% of Canadians. 73s TG at BendGovt.blog.ca
Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 02, 2005 01:02 AM (rmMzv)
35
Today is "Canada Day" and it so, so depressing.
It used to be called Dominion Day, but it was changed because that was too offensive.
It used to be called "The Dominion of Canada", from Zechariah 9:10: "His dominion will be from sea to sea."
It's supposed to be a celebration of Confederation, but they changed the name to "Canada Day," which is nothing but idolatry.
As far as I know, this is the only country in the world that celebrates Country Name Day.
Imagine if they tried to introduce "Japan Day" in Japan.
People would either scratch their heads or laugh. "Japan Day? I don't get it. We know this is Japan. What's the point."
In Israel they celebrate the establishment of the state on Independence Day.
In the US you celebrate the Declaration of Independence.
In the USSR they celebrated the revolution.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the Soviet Revolution or US Independence or Canadian Confederation. The point is, the day has a meaning, a context, a history. It celebrates an event. It doesn't just say, "Hey, let's celebrate . . . HERE! . . . 'Coz that's where we are now. Yay!"
Aaaahhhh . . . too depressing.
The sooner the West finally separates the better!
I pray to God it comes quickly.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 02, 2005 03:05 AM (hxWW4)
36
Canada: A nation of narcissistic morons, sitting around a mirror, worshipping themselves, humping their ancestors, wiping their asses with the past.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 02, 2005 03:08 AM (hxWW4)
37
Canada's Unhappy Birthday
By David Frum, National Post (Canada), June 28, 2005
What a grim and troubling anniversary this coming July 1 will be.
Canada's national day does not celebrate a declaration of independence (like America's July 4), or a revolutionary upheaval (like France's Bastille Day) or a moment of national redemption (like Mexico's Cinco de Mayo).
July 1, 1867, was the day the British North America Act came into effect. In other words, Canada Day commemorates the creation of a system of government. That system of government is failing--and the failure is making Canadians poorer, less free and less secure.
The Canadian federal government created by the British North America Act has evolved into the least representative and least accountable national government in the advanced democratic world.
Unlike the presidents of France and the United States, Canada's chief executive is not elected by the people at large.
Unlike the prime ministers of Japan or Israel and even Great Britain, Canada's prime minister exercises total control of his government. He chooses his own cabinet and can dismiss members of the senior civil service at his pleasure.
Unlike the prime minister of Britain, Canada's prime minister controls a civil service and national police force politicized by long years of one-party rule. So long as the PM is a Liberal, he can count on the bureaucracy to obey almost any order, no matter how dubiously legal.
Unlike the U.S. president, a Canadian prime minister can enforce almost total secrecy upon his government.
Unlike the prime ministers of the Scandinavian countries, Canada's prime minister governs untroubled by a strong ethics commissioner who can decide whether or not he violated any rules.
Unlike the prime minister of Italy, he can enjoy the power of an absolute majority of the House of Commons with as little as 37% of the popular vote--as Jean Chretien did in 1993.
Unlike the prime minister of Australia or the chancellor of Germany, he need not worry about an elected and independent upper chamber defying his edicts.
Although it is true that the prime minister of Canada must contend with a dozen provincial and territorial chief executives who rule their domains as absolutely as he rules his, it is equally true that he has most of the taxing power--while they must bear the responsibility for running the programs that those taxes fund.
And as Canadians have just learned, the prime minister is no longer restrained even by the most basic and fundamental rule of Westminster-style government: the need to command a majority of the House of Commons. He can disregard a whole series of non-confidence votes--can deny a majority of the House the right even to propose non-confidence motions--and keep governing until he has reassembled a new majority by hook or by crook.
All told, the job of prime minister of Canada bears a much closer resemblance to that of, say, president of Mexico than to that of any of its First World counterparts.
Some, like my friend Andrew Coyne, hail the Charter of Rights as a corrective to the chief executive's unrepresentative, unaccountable power. In fact, the Charter has only aggravated the problem. It has enfeebled Canada's already feeble democracy, without placing any effective limits on the executive branch.
Indeed, one could argue that the Charter has actually enhanced the power of the prime minister. He chooses Canada's newly empowered judges at his sole discretion, in secret, and without public discussion or debate. By subsidizing some litigants (feminist and gay rights groups) and not others (religious or property rights groups), he influences the cases that come before the Supreme Court and thus the issues it is called upon to decide.
More ominously, the Charter as written and interpreted has tended to expand rather than constrain the power of the state. There will be an election soon--but Canadians have no Charter right to buy newspaper or radio ads to express their opinions. The Charter does not guarantee private property or the right to contract, and offers only wan protection to free speech and the free press.
Judicial power has not compensated for the absence of democratic accountability. Canada's government has grown ever more arrogant, arbitrary and corrupt. Canadian citizens in response have grown ever more passive and cynical. The Canadian economy and Canadian society have paid the price.
Over the past dozen years, Canadians' standard of living has plunged relative to their American neighbours'. Hundreds of thousands of the elderly and sick have waited longer and longer in pain and fear for necessary medical treatments. Canada's influence in the world has vanished, as its helicopters crash and its submarines burn. The courts have reinvented the definition of the family, accelerating the collapse of the Canadian birth rate far below replacement. Tens of millions of dollars have been stolen by operatives from the governing party, while the man who signed the cheques and now leads the party presents himself as an unknowing helpless victim of somebody else's scam.
On Friday, the federal Liberals responsible for this ongoing disaster will go home for the day. They will attend federally funded barbecues and preen before the television cameras. And they will stand before the voters they have silenced and give speeches proclaiming Canada the best governed and most successful country on Earth.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 02, 2005 03:19 AM (hxWW4)
38
Koch is the kind of person Lenin referred to as "useful idiots"
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 02, 2005 07:51 PM (OpeJ8)
39
i'm probably posting too late, but had to mention - i don't see a difference between "gay" marriage and i n c e s t - they both have serious health consequences - look up the life expectancy for homosexuals - decades less than hetero - why? it's not bcz they are all getting beaten up, it's because what they are choosing is bad for them... and at least the i n c e s t couples aren't going to sue the government to pay for cloning procedures so they can have their own bio children - you know that's one of the next things - if prisoners can demand "gender reassignment surgery" for free here in Canada, surely we won't begrudge two women having their own bio baby thanks to Korean technology... it's not all taxes, it's not all kill the churches (they won't die anyway, if anything this will be a good, purging time - look at the church in China - went underground, grew like a weed bcz people took it seriously again)... it's a huge many tentacled octopus wrecking every room in the house -
Posted by: mama2five at July 04, 2005 10:47 PM (6nf8f)
Predictions -- Drilling down
Based on some comments here and at other blogs, I want to drill down a bit on my prediction with regards to churches and the law.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:11 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 818 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I would argue your point that Canadians aren't as religious as Americans - I suspect (and suspect only, no proof) that while not many of us are regular, every-Sunday-morning church goers, the bulk have some kind of religious training in our childhoods and would get up in arms over this (while not attending - because we have the right to support an institution's stand on an issue while not supporting said institution). Look at the number of 'non-believing' bloggers that are pissed about SSM. You don't think they'll take up the cause, regardless of their leanings?
This is about basic rights, and basic rights being trampled on by the government. And there are far more religious followers in Canada than there are gays & lesbians.
Posted by: Candace at June 29, 2005 10:34 AM (R7nd+)
2
Right, all these will happen because queers can marry ...
Just like right now Catholic churches are routinely (and successfully) sued because they won't marry non-Catholics, and mosques are sued because they won't marry Jews, right?
This is fear mongering of the worst form.
Posted by: grendel at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM (A1Iza)
3
The media keeps harping (get it) that if Stehen Harper gets in he will have to invoke the notwithstanding clause. But does he? Leaving aside the arguement that the Supremes will knock down his new law, he does have other options.
1. Open the constitution and have marriage declared as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
2. Give the marriage act to the provinces and let them decide how they want to go with it.
Right or Wrong??
Posted by: MikeP at June 29, 2005 10:46 AM (p000C)
4
amending the Constitution pretty much a practical impossbility. It's not a realistic option.
Posted by: grendel at June 29, 2005 10:57 AM (A1Iza)
5
Actually, a perp walk for a priest or minister is well within the forseeable future. Just ask the Swedes. They passed an anti-hate law in 2003, which included homosexuals as a protected group (Canada's similar law C-250 passed in Apr. 2004). Last year, a swedish pastor, who read the bible and preached a sermon on homosexuality being sinful and detrimental to society, was arrested and charged for promoting hate. He was sentenced to 30 days, but won on appeal, only to have that decision appealed by prosecutors. He now faces a third trial.
Posted by: Paulm at June 29, 2005 11:18 AM (qkPeI)
6
We'll know when the jig is up, when, as Mark Steyn put it, the SSM advocates start making complaints to human rights tribunals about Mosques not allowing SSM ceremonies ontheir properties. Then the multi-culti paradox comes to a head.
Posted by: Mitch at June 29, 2005 11:37 AM (Jiqqf)
7
Interesting predicitions, just a slight correction Bishop Henry is the Bishop of Calgary.
http://www.rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca/page_bishops_bio.htm
Posted by: dan0 at June 29, 2005 11:45 AM (zw8QA)
8
I wonder if we are more likely to experience what Scandinavia has experienced with their version of same-sex unions (not "marriage").
A scholar had this to say about the state of marriage in Scandinavia:
"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA...Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood...Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has" (Kurtz, Stanley. "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses." The Weekly Standard 9.20 (2 Feb 2004). http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp).
So, if I understand what has happened in Scandinavia, marriage has simply become an "endangered species" among social institutions. The introduction of same-sex unions there did not result in the sort of political uproar that this post speculates could happen here (maybe this is because the word "marriage" was not tampered with). But ironically, same-sex unions have done a great deal to aid in the movement aimed at reducing marriage to a meaningless institution (to society at large that is) and as a result fewer and fewer people are getting married. Personally, I would prefer the political uproar and the eventual restoration of marriage as a child-centered institution because I believe the death of marriage will result in serious negative consequences that will be manifested in the long run.
Posted by: dragev at June 29, 2005 12:44 PM (Ah0PF)
9
I don't think the Catholic Church will do much more than issue a strongly worded statement. Most people don't realize how much our bishops admire powerful politicians and crave their company.
I attended the last Cardinal's Dinner in Toronto and was surprises to see John Turner on the stage as a guest of honour. Apparently he was chairman of a previous Cardinal's Dinner as well. It was Turner, as justice minister under Trudeau, who architected the omnibus bill that paved the way for easy divorce and freely available abortion in Canada. It is easy to argue that this bill was the push down the slippery slope that has resulted in the current passage of SSM.
Seeing that, I now know why most bishops, apart from Fred Henry, have been silent on SSM. No excommunications will result and no priests will hand back to the provinces their licenses to perform marriages. Invitations to fancy dinners and golf outings are at stake here.
Posted by: Marc at June 29, 2005 01:09 PM (11T5B)
10
Is the scenario envisioned here based on a chain of events in either the Netherlands or Belgium, where SSM has been legal for 2 to 4 years? Just wondering...
Posted by: hoffa at June 29, 2005 02:04 PM (RXZ43)
11
Marc has the most plausible scenerio. There will be no major uproar over SSM. It is the single most important issue that is keeping CCP from forming an attractive government or even a popular opposition. Single issue politics fail. And the CCP is portrayed, like it or not, as single issue screamers.
Posted by: Larry at June 29, 2005 03:25 PM (RZt42)
12
Too bad we don't have freedom of speech in this country. Then the churches wouldn't need to hope the courts recognize their religious freedoms.
Whazzat? We do have freedom of speech? Sorry, the gov't has threatened the free speech rights of many individuals and groups who don't align with the leftist views.
Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2005 03:45 PM (Z+kns)
13
Say it over and over again, Paul you are right!
Posted by: Larry at June 29, 2005 04:02 PM (RZt42)
14
there is only one way to protect yourself, laws written in your favour and backed by government that wants to see it enforced.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 29, 2005 04:24 PM (mjnql)
15
Personally I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Why do we need certificates signed by some bureaucrat to affirm the love in our relationships. As things stand survivor benefits and pensions don't require a formal marriage. My wife and I were common law long before we were formally married.
Leave formal marriage to the churchs and the government can avoid the entire debate over SSM.
Posted by: Iron Oxide at June 29, 2005 04:24 PM (NC5nV)
16
Good of you to take up my post. Thanks!
I think your scenario again is reasonable. These things seldom happen as dramatically as my post suggested.
Support for your contention is the snail-like progress of C-68, the gun registry. Since 1995 the government has yet to charge anyone with simple posession of an unregistered firearm, preferring to charge them with improper storage, brandishing, what have you. Therefore we are not confronted with the spectacle of some otherwise blameless farmer jailed for merely posessing their own firearm.
Yet. But, they are all primed and ready when the opportunity presents itself. You never know when you might need to suddenly jail a bunch of Conservatives.
Likewise it shall be with the churches and SSM. The law will be ignored even in the most flagrant cases until such time as it is politically desirable to prosecute. And then it'll be the old bishop wearing orange.
I should add here that I am related to Sikhs and have no animus toward them or toward their religious practices. My point was that the Liberals will have no problem with a double standard at the expense of Christians, as they are closely tied to the Conservative opposition while Sikhs are still a Liberal voting block. Should that change I'm sure the immunity will be magically revoked.
Likewise I have no problem wth gays cohabiting, any more than I have a problem with people who live with pets. Its supposed to be a free country, you don't need my permission or approval. My problem is that with this government doing things like ramming through C-38 the country can't remain free.
I think its very important for the gay community to understand who they are dealing with in this issue. Socialists don't care about rights. They care about power.
Should it come to pass that the Liberals stop getting mileage out of pushing the gay rights issue they'll drop it like a hot rock.
Posted by: The Phantom at June 29, 2005 09:49 PM (nAMT1)
17
It isn't about "marriage" folks because all the research done so far says that gay folks, especially men, aren't busting down the doors and running towards the altar.
Its about an understanding of the meaning of things and how they come to be. There is nothing transcendent and everything is enculturated. Therefore use the powers of the culture and you can redefine at will and marginalize those who differ.
There are two flaws with that, of course. First that method of coercing definitions through the power of cultural institutions like the government can backfire. People may simply not like being uder the thumb of their, in this case, new politically correct overlords and some day storm day storm the castle.
Second despite the arrogant attempts of the secular west to eradicate them, there still are natural laws and they have a way of winning even in the face of intense pressure.
Communism killed millions but could not kill the desire for faith or human creativity apart from the state. In the same manner, but in quicker time, the utter nonsense of the secular social engineers is already being revealed and even when they have power they have not been able to destroy the knowing glances and quiet resolve of those who are already going through the motions of obedience in the hope of better days ahead.
The laws of marriage are no different. They are deeply rooted in the human being, the human biology, and the human soul. They came to be through eons of human experience of what works and what doesn't, what is best for the whole and what ensures a stable future. In the end all the activists, mental health professionals, theorists, bureaucrats, courts, and governments will not be able to change what has endured because of its deep resonance with the human being. What has always been will endure and novelty will disappear precisely because it is just that.
The hard part is that this process will involve pain. We in the West have forgotten that the freedom we cherish has a moral requirement, an unwritten code in the very laws of nature that we flaunt at our peril. Our current rush to acceptance of any and all sexual values has already produced a torrent of disease and death, heart break and social dislocation. It promises to get worse.
Some day in the future when we have had enough we will start to look for a way out. Someone, somewhere, will find a dusty old book or some artifact and perhaps get a glimpse of why the things we so quickly have scorned made sense. It will be on that day when future generations will curse us for our stupidity and view the vision of things we are so desperately trying to destroy as true light.
Posted by: John at July 01, 2005 02:56 PM (JkxIH)
18
one more question...
with marriage "redefined" - what options do people who previously wanted a marriage license but now feel it is worthless have? i've been in contact with a few organizations about suing govt for breach of contract as they have changed our contract without our consent... also, can the govt force anyone to marry? if we have a church ceremony, but don't do the govt end of things, live together, have children, are we "married" - or can we tax file as single? right now we are kicked in the butt no matter what if we follow their rules, now i can see a real benefit to *not* doing the legal marriage bit - any ideas?
Posted by: mom2five at July 04, 2005 10:55 PM (6nf8f)
19
Mom2Five, I imagine you will have to prove injury to successfully sue. You will probably have to go with some sort of "emotional distress," since clearly two people of the same sex choosing to sanctify their relationship can't be proven to have reduced the stock of your investment.
Posted by: Tedders at July 05, 2005 02:40 AM (8vRPy)
C-38 Passes -- I hope I'm wrong
Bill C-38, the bill that re-defines marriage to include same-sex couples, passed third reading last night. Now it's off to the Liberal-dominated Senate for easy passage and then royal assent.
Now some predictions, all of which I hope are wrong.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
07:40 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Re polygamy -- I don't think the first challenges will come from fundamentalist Mormons or Muslims, but from the 'polyamory' lobby... Here's just one site advocating for this 'lifestyle' -- Google will spit out dozens more...
Posted by: Linda at June 29, 2005 08:01 AM (oCPrU)
2
Regarding Linda's post: did you notice on the website that you can make a TAX DEDUCTABLE DONATION to that group? I presume this means the government views this organization to be in the public interest.
Surprisingly, it seemed to be based in the US.
Posted by: Anti-Socialist Mike at June 29, 2005 08:18 AM (og0rB)
3
Angry, I concur with your predictions. Particularly the one about revoking tax exempt status for churches.
I'm quite confident the Liberals will be quick to punish dissent from the multi-culti norms they have decreed, and a nice tax windfall will be icing on the cake.
It will be interesting to see how the disinterested public reacts when they start seeing tottery old bishops hauled out of cathedrals in handcuffs and doing the perp walk in orange jumpsuits because they refuse to allow gay couples to marry in their church.
It will be even more interesting to observe the public reaction to the mysterious immunity from prosecution enjoyed by Muslims and Sikhs who also refuse to marry gay couples.
I predict interesting times for the next few years.
Posted by: The Phantom at June 29, 2005 09:22 AM (nAMT1)
4
Angry the notwithstanding clause cannot be used in this instance.
Posted by: MikeP at June 29, 2005 09:43 AM (p000C)
5
Point 1 won't happen. Because it's federal law, a province trying to invoke the notwithstanding clause would result in a big ball of nothing. It just wouldn't work.
Points 2 and 3 are almost guaranteed, as is your last point.
Not sure about the polygamy one and I wouldn't like to say.
Posted by: Ruth at June 29, 2005 09:45 AM (8uHL7)
6
The next challenge may not come from poligamists as there are probably not enough activists to generate a political force. I would thing the next level will all be about adoption.....
Posted by: john at June 29, 2005 09:48 AM (caz42)
7
Interesting possibilities... I think it would be good with some more polarization and court challenges... it could actually generate a real and intelligent debate about real issues, such as the how far the tyranny of the state should be allowed extend to.
But I don't think this will affect Canada-US relations, free trade, mad cow, security, etc are far more significant in that regard.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at June 29, 2005 09:48 AM (A4UEy)
8
MikeP
The not withstanging clause can be used in this instance why can it be used to deny anglophones their rights in quebec but not let Religious people have their rights in the roc.
Posted by: Hollingshead at June 29, 2005 10:03 AM (d8h4x)
9
Let me check some more on that Hollingshead but its been talked about here in Alberta and dismissed. I will check again though just to make sure.
Posted by: MikeP at June 29, 2005 10:12 AM (p000C)
10
The notwithstanding clause can be used to shield a provincial law that contravenes C-38 and the Charter. It can't be used to ignore C-38, of course.
I might be wrong. Can I get some confirmation?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 29, 2005 10:13 AM (LtsTC)
11
Klein said something yesterday about just dumping the Marriage Act altogether, i.e. having Alberta "get out" of the marriage business and leave it up to the churches. Which would be interesting - what happens to atheists that don't want to marry in church?
This should be interesting to watch.
Posted by: Candace at June 29, 2005 10:28 AM (R7nd+)
12
As Much as I hate to admit I think your predictions will all come to pass, perhaps even sooner than your timetable.
We need to get away from the nothwithstanding clause issues, it's a red herring thrown out by the Liberals. If Alberta wishes to defend it's marriage laws or enact new ones then the process begins at the begining, Provincial Court Challange, Appeals Court, Provincial Supreme Court, Federal Court, Federal Supreme Court. Then if the provincial law is struck down then we can talk about the nothwithstanding clause.
The use of the nothwithstanding clause by the federal government is only an issue to suspend a ruling by the Supreme Court for 5 years while the government enacts new legislation that corrects the ruling of the court.
As the Supreme court has not ruled on the constitutionally of any laws there is nothing to invoke the clause over. All it will take is a Prime Minister with courage to repeal the Bill and take our chances with the courts.
Posted by: Brent Colbert at June 29, 2005 10:30 AM (gV4P0)
13
I guess I jumped the gun on the notwithstanding clause -- of course, the law has to be struck down first. But I think the provinces can telegraph their intention to do so, making it clear that gay marriage is not welcome there, nor will be for many years.
If a province decides not to "correct" the law, and instead just re-apply the notwithstanding clause, can the federal government go after them?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 29, 2005 10:34 AM (LtsTC)
14
Predictions:
- When the next Hells Angels murder trial comes along, the accused will get quickie "marriages" in order to take advantage of the principal of "spousal immunity", in which spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other.
- Convicts and criminals will rush to get "married" in order to circumvent court orders prohibiting them from associating with each other.
- Married Quarters on university campuses, run by religious institutions, will be forced to close down because they cannot keep up with the demand from the hordes of starving students who get quickie "marriages" to save on rent.
- Constitutional lawyers (not to mention divorce lawyers) will continue to get really really rich as the opportunities for constitutional challenges present themselves.
Posted by: Steven at June 29, 2005 11:25 AM (9WEFx)
15
Of course the notwithstanding clause can be invoked to override Bill C-38, or ANY court ruling.
Clause 15 menas that Parliaments have the final word on EACH and EVERY issue.
This is why Chretien wrote it in the first place.
Furthermore, this vote yesterday, and the upcoming Senate vote, is not, and CANNOT be "the last word" on this particular issue.
Because from a rotten tree you can only get rotten fruit.
Here we have a PM who can't even follow the most basic teachings of his church:
"Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. ... Under no circumstance can they be approved. ... Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman."
- Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Sections 2357-2360
Saint Augustine: " 'Pride is the commencement of all sin' because it was this which overthrew the devil, from whom arose the origin of sin; and afterwards, when his malice and envy pursued man, who was yet standing in his uprightness, it subverted him in the same way in which he himself fell. For the serpent, in fact, only sought for the door of pride whereby to enter when he said, 'Ye shall be as gods.' "
This kind of perverted government, and immoral legislation CANNOT stand.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 29, 2005 11:40 AM (cG2bA)
16
Brian the notwithstanding clause can only be invoked in this instance by the Feds. Not by provincial governments. The Feds wont do it.
Posted by: MikeP at June 29, 2005 11:48 AM (p000C)
17
I was referring to what CAN be done.
This Glib Gov't won't invoke NWS-clause, but a future gov't could. As could any provincial legislature (think "101")
BTW, here's CPC "Justice critic Vic Toews' limp-dicked "defence of marriage":
nhttp://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020112.html
Toews stated, “The Conservative party will be proposing amendments to provide clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage”, but then continued that they would also, “provide full recognition of same-sex relationships as possessing equal rights and privileges.”
The Conservative leadership seems to have completely rejected warnings by some pro-marriage leaders that marriage would be further devastated and Canadians robbed of religious freedom and conscience rights whether homosexual couples are given marriage rights under the word “marriage”, “civil unions” or any other terminology.
Boston's Archbishop Sean O'Malley stated last year on behalf of the Massachusetts bishops, "We are concerned with proposals to give same-sex couples identical benefits and protections to those given to husbands and wives that pose a grave threat to religious liberty and the freedom of conscience." Robert Knight of the US Culture and Family Institute wrote last year, "Civil unions are a Trojan horse for gay marriage — and more. They are just gay marriage by another name."
A reporter asked Conservative Party critic Toews, “I hear you saying you want to extend all the rights, benefit, obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, except the right to use the word marriage, is that correct?
“That’s essentially the point”, replied Toews, on behalf of his party.
- Oh Yay-Hoo! Such Fortitude!
This is why these lunatic "laws" pass. Not because people support them, but because most people just get tired of opposing them, and compromise step by step until we're all lining up on Robson to do the dirty deed with Libby and Svend.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 29, 2005 12:23 PM (cG2bA)
18
Also, Boozer Klein has already decreed that Alberta will NOT invoke NWS-clause, but that Alberta will "get out of the marriage business," whatever that'll mean in the real world.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 29, 2005 12:26 PM (cG2bA)
19
Message sent to the Globe's John Ibbitson today"
'True Intolerance
Dear Mr Ibbitson,
In your Globe article "So much political blood shed over this vote", June 29, you write:
"Healthy conservatism...does not, or should not, assert the right of white, Christian heterosexual males of a certain age to limit the rights of everyone else. The past 100 years of social history has been dedicated, on good days, to constraining the dominance of this minority...And congratulate yourself [reader]. You are part of the most diverse, tolerant and open-minded place on Earth."
Since it was that minority that has controlled politics and Parliament for the last century, it follows that the minority in fact constrained itself and actually expanded the rights of everyone else. For that reality you should have been congratulating these people instead of presenting them as ogres to be feared and loathed.
I would also remind you that it was the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden that gave the franchise to women in Canada, and that it was John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives who enacted the Bill of Rights. It was Brian Mulroney's government that took a very strong lead in opposing apartheid in South Africa.
The first Chinese-Canadian MP (1957) was Douglas Jung, a Progressive Conservative--"he vowed not to join the Liberal Party of Canada because of its racist legislation against Chinese in the past". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Jung
And the present group of Conservative MPs includes substantial number of women and non-whites.
It is you who are intolerant and close-minded.
Regards,
Mark Collins
Ottawa'
Posted by: Mark Collins at June 29, 2005 12:38 PM (qDcMN)
20
There seems to be some confusion the NWS clause allows governements to pass laws that contravene the charter (as interpreted by the court). The NWS clause does not allow a government to change the area that it has consitutional authority for. The federal goernment cannot pass a laws about regulating school board tax rates in Ontario using the NWS in the same way that a provincial government cannot define marriage. The definition of marriage is a federal matter. End of Story. Now Alberta , or any province could scrap the provinical marriage act but they cannot define who is to be married.
Posted by: Chris at June 29, 2005 01:21 PM (k2vsv)
21
I believe that you are confused. The feds cannot compel any provincial leg/bureaucracy to marry any couple (threesome, foursome...).
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 29, 2005 01:58 PM (cG2bA)
22
I think we have lost sight of an important fact, what we have is an illegal government that has decided to change the fundamental institution of society strictly for strategic reasons. The circumstances that surround this bill invalidate it, in fact all legislation which has been passed since the Liberal party lost the confidence of the House is invalid. We do not have a legitimate government in this country. (As an aside, the gentlemanliness of the CPC in letting the Libs off on this was misplaced, they should have continued to hammer on this point, letting go was THE mistake.) The Alberta and PEI governments should simply refuse to recognize the legislation. Even those who support SSM should be dismayed at this. You cannot demand celebration, the most you can do is demand tolerance.
Posted by: Leonidas at June 29, 2005 02:47 PM (PNWng)
23
Adoption has been available to same sex couples for sometime. The first SSM divorce has been granted. The B.C. poligamast old men have their teeth (they are 15 km south of me). The boys may not as they are the unwanted. Poligamy is not enshired in the Quaran.
The Morman Church is the fourth largest private landownwer in the U.S. Taxation of some church properties has to be discussed.
Posted by: Larry at June 29, 2005 03:57 PM (RZt42)
24
Does anyone have the numbers on how the Senate breaks on this issue? Don't they have dissent on the Liberal benches, just as the Commons did? Is this bill really assured of an easy ride through the Senate? After all, it's not a money bill so they can do whatever they want with it.
And the NDP marriage vows expire once C-48 passes the Senate and receives royal assent. Is there a chance this will die in the Senate with an election call?
On the other hand, I wonder about the implications of marrying a corporation. That would appear to be legal under C-38 (except in Quebec). And then inherited benefits could continue for as long as the corporation continues to exist.
Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2005 04:01 PM (Z+kns)
25
"I think we have lost sight of an important fact, what we have is an illegal government that has decided to change the fundamental institution of society strictly for strategic reasons. The circumstances that surround this bill invalidate it, in fact all legislation which has been passed since the Liberal party lost the confidence of the House is invalid. We do not have a legitimate government in this country"
Leonidas: excellent points. What we need is to form a shadow government/militia and take to Ottawa. I'm sure there are thousands of like minded individuals in Alberta that would concur. Now is the time to strike, after all, as you say this is an invalid gov't. Are you with me?
Posted by: nonce1 at June 29, 2005 05:20 PM (IAUF7)
26
No, not with you, I'm actually doing what any sensible person would under such circumstances: I'm going in to exile (so to speak). In less than two months I will be a resident of the USA (California, but sadly right now it is still a step up). Fortune has smiled upon me and I am heading to do my PhD. From there I intend to work toward Alberta's future independence.
This may seem drastic to some, but given that the Liberals have a firm grip upon the coercive powers of the federal government, and that they have proven that they will use any means to retain them, I cannot see any other option (at least that has a probability of success). Too many of my fellow citizens in the ROC are slaves, with the slavish souls to go along with it, if they weren't they would have risen up to demand that the Liberals resign. But, given that the media in this country is firmly within the Liberal camp they managed to convice the people (at least those in Ontario, the only people thata matter) that it was the CPC that was being unreasonable, that the nine day delay was not too much to ask, that our constitutional precedents are infinitely flexible to Liberal interpretation (i.e., meaningless). Andrew Coyne was the only newspaper columnist who, to my knowledge, wrote about this with the proper sort of indignation, while the rest towed the party line.
I will no longer vote federally, for I will no longer provide a veil of democratic legitimacy to what is in reality a despotism (albeit a soft one). I will no longer support the CPC. That the CPC let the Liberals off the hook is inexcusable; as a wise man once said: "The newspaper reader says: this party destroys itself by making such a mistake. My higher politics says: a party which makes such mistakes has reached its end — it has lost its sureness of instinct." At the federal level Conservatism is dead, the structure of our political system has seen to it. The only hope is for the West, and the East, and Quebec to free themselves from the dictatorship of Ontario.
In fact, of any case in Canada, it is the case of Quebec that is the most unjust. Les Quebecois have consistently punished the Liberals at the federal level for their corruption, and yet time and time again, the Liberals are returned to power simply to further corrupt the political culture of Quebec. The Liberals have corrupted every facet of political life within the province, but the most disturbing is the judiciary, naming Liberal supporters regardless of qualifications to the bench is inexcusable.
The sooner this diseased dominion is laid to rest the better. I look forward to drinking at its wake.
Posted by: Leonidas at June 29, 2005 08:30 PM (9NL9G)
27
Amen!
Posted by: at June 30, 2005 12:12 AM (cG2bA)
28
Amen!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 30, 2005 12:14 AM (cG2bA)
29
I am sure what I write will upset many but needs to be said:
In regards to the NWS clause. Any government may use this clause to override certain provisions of the Charter. This may only be done by the government that enacted the legislation (so only Parliament would be able to use the NWS to deny SSM and only after repealing C-3
. As Parliament has supremacy over all other levels of government a provincial government may not override the federal governments legislation. (Frankly Ralph Klein reminds me of Cartman from South Park with his 'screw you guys I'm going home' pouty petulant response.)
In regards to the courts forcing churches to marry SS couples, this is a red herring. As people are protected from discrimination based on marital status wouldn't the Catholic Church be forced to marry divorced people? As people are protected from discrimination based upon gender wouldn't the Catholic Church be forced to ordain women? No because churches and all people have the freedom of religion and conscience and as long as they do not advocate hatred towards anyone they are free to preach and believe what they choose. Churches are free to preach that homosexuality is immoral and a sin if they choose but they may not call for people to go out and 'stone the sodomites to death'.
In regards to people believing that this is a leftist- activist court directed move at social engineering and that courts should not be able to 'redefine' the meaning of words please be reminded that it was the JCPC in London that redefined the word person to include women. In their ruling the Lords stated 'that the exclusion of women from public office was a "relic of days more barbarous than ours." Here we have 5 upper class male British Lords (hardly an activist lot) changing the meaning of words. Much to the vitriolic dismay of many.
I am not saying gay people live in barbarous times but it does lay down a long history of our courts interpreting the laws with regards to what is right, even if it is drastically different from the beliefs of our current political masters.
Further to that (I'm not sure if Canada has ever had any anti-miscegenation laws) up until 1967 16 US states had such laws on their books. Basically these laws defined marriage as 'the union of a man and a woman of the same race'. Basically in June of 1967 (at least in the US) the Supreme Court 'redefined' marriage to allow people of different races to marry much to the vitriolic dismay of many. When people mention the 'traditional definition of marriage' to which date do they believe that this tradition started?
The definition of marriage has never been static. It has changed, evolved, and developed with each society and in regards to the times.
I am a gay Canadian from Alberta (not an Albertan) atheist secular humanist who is strongly libertarian. I wish that all the conservatives in this country would be able to stop this peering over neighbours fences with disapproval. I don't care what my neighbour does so long as it does harm my ability to pursue my life or my property (a la Ayn Rand). So why would a polygamous marriage bother me or anyone else that is not involved in the relationship. As long as it is not based on coercion but one of free choice to be able enter and leave who am I to decide how someone should be able to live their life, as I want no one to decide for me. Nor would you want someone to decide for you.
. As Parliament has supremacy over all other levels of government a provincial government may not override the federal governments legislation. (Frankly Ralph Klein reminds me of Cartman from South Park with his 'screw you guys I'm going home' pouty petulant response.)
In regards to the courts forcing churches to marry SS couples, this is a red herring. As people are protected from discrimination based on marital status wouldn't the Catholic Church be forced to marry divorced people? As people are protected from discrimination based upon gender wouldn't the Catholic Church be forced to ordain women? No because churches and all people have the freedom of religion and conscience and as long as they do not advocate hatred towards anyone they are free to preach and believe what they choose. Churches are free to preach that homosexuality is immoral and a sin if they choose but they may not call for people to go out and 'stone the sodomites to death'.
In regards to people believing that this is a leftist- activist court directed move at social engineering and that courts should not be able to 'redefine' the meaning of words please be reminded that it was the JCPC in London that redefined the word person to include women. In their ruling the Lords stated 'that the exclusion of women from public office was a "relic of days more barbarous than ours." Here we have 5 upper class male British Lords (hardly an activist lot) changing the meaning of words. Much to the vitriolic dismay of many.
I am not saying gay people live in barbarous times but it does lay down a long history of our courts interpreting the laws with regards to what is right, even if it is drastically different from the beliefs of our current political masters.
Further to that (I'm not sure if Canada has ever had any anti-miscegenation laws) up until 1967 16 US states had such laws on their books. Basically these laws defined marriage as 'the union of a man and a woman of the same race'. Basically in June of 1967 (at least in the US) the Supreme Court 'redefined' marriage to allow people of different races to marry much to the vitriolic dismay of many. When people mention the 'traditional definition of marriage' to which date do they believe that this tradition started?
The definition of marriage has never been static. It has changed, evolved, and developed with each society and in regards to the times.
I am a gay Canadian from Alberta (not an Albertan) atheist secular humanist who is strongly libertarian. I wish that all the conservatives in this country would be able to stop this peering over neighbours fences with disapproval. I don't care what my neighbour does so long as it does harm my ability to pursue my life or my property (a la Ayn Rand). So why would a polygamous marriage bother me or anyone else that is not involved in the relationship. As long as it is not based on coercion but one of free choice to be able enter and leave who am I to decide how someone should be able to live their life, as I want no one to decide for me. Nor would you want someone to decide for you.Posted by: Jason Koch at July 02, 2005 02:28 PM (+cYp2)
30
Typical ill-informed gliberal/glibertarian clap-trap!
This has nothing to do with "peering over people's fences" to see what they are doing.
This is about people (not gay people) forcing everyone to support others with no rationale at all.
If you see no difference between men and women then you are a complete moron.
Try telling any child that thereÂ’s no difference between men and women, or between a man amd a woman and two men or two women.
This gay “marriage” nonsense has nothing to do with homosexuality.
ItÂ’s about reason, logic, biology, sanity.
And you are part of the reason that this country is fucked.
For third parties: people keep asking (completely insincerely, in my opinion), "How is this going to affect heteresexual marriage?" (As if there were another kind).
Right here we see how it is affected.
The end of the road is polygamy, homosexuality, bisexuality, whatever, with no limits -- they can all be "marriages"
LOGIC:
That means that ultimately the word "marriage" will have no sensible legal definition.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at July 02, 2005 07:34 PM (OpeJ8)
31
Jason Koch:
Sir, you say that legislation can be overridden only by the legislature that passed it. Sorry, but that is incorrect. After all, Quebec, via Bill 101, overrode federal bilingualism legislation via the NWC. Also, the NWC was placed into the Charter at the insistence of the provinces so they could use it if need be. Otherwise, there would be no Charter at all. Before saying I'm wrong, prove to yourself via careful research that I am. It would also help to actually read the Charter if you haven't already.
Posted by: Stephen McAllister at July 03, 2005 08:00 AM (y42an)
32
Stephen McAllister:
Sir, thank you for creating a reasoned response. I would have to counter Mr O'Neills contention that I am part of the reason this country is 'fucked'. I would counter that the main reason why people feel this country is 'fucked' is that the level of debate and dialogue has diminished on both sides of any issue (I would say that this is especially true of the Liberals, who feel that they can end any debate by calling someone a racist, bigot, homophobe etc. without actually coming up with a reasoned counter response).
As to Mr. McAllisters response: I actually studied the Charter under Rainer Knopff years back and I must admit that my recall of it might be a bit rusty and am in no way an expert. But I have reviewed sec. 33 and must stand by what I stated earlier.
Sec 33 states:
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#instruction
Sec 33 only applies to secs. 2 and 7-15. It does not give a legislature the right to override a law passed by Parliament and vice-versa. This is further evidenced by Ralph Klein and the Alberta Justice Minister acknowledging that the NWS clause is ineffectual in this instance.
According to the law department of the University of Alberta at: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/bill_101.html
Bill 101 was struck down in regards to the sign provisions because it contravened sec 2(b) of the charter which provides for the freedom of expression. Unfortunately I was unable to find the text of Bill 101 (it was renamed at some point to make it comply with the Charter including the NWS clause).
I have also reviewed the Official Languages Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-3.01/90080.html
This is a law that primarily deals with operating the federal government and its agencies in both languages. There is mention of the provinces but only in directing the Minister of Canadian Heritage to work with the provinces to promote both languages.
If I am wrong in any of this please let me know... I always strive to have my facts correct.
Posted by: Jason Koch at July 04, 2005 03:19 PM (+cYp2)
33
Stephen McAllister:
Sir, thank you for creating a reasoned response. I would have to counter Mr O'Neills contention that I am part of the reason this country is 'fucked'. I would counter that the main reason why people feel this country is 'fucked' is that the level of debate and dialogue has diminished on both sides of any issue (I would say that this is especially true of the Liberals, who feel that they can end any debate by calling someone a racist, bigot, homophobe etc. without actually coming up with a reasoned counter response).
As to Mr. McAllisters response: I actually studied the Charter under Rainer Knopff years back and I must admit that my recall of it might be a bit rusty and am in no way an expert. But I have reviewed sec. 33 and must stand by what I stated earlier.
Sec 33 states:
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#instruction
Sec 33 only applies to secs. 2 and 7-15. It does not give a legislature the right to override a law passed by Parliament and vice-versa. This is further evidenced by Ralph Klein and the Alberta Justice Minister acknowledging that the NWS clause is ineffectual in this instance.
According to the law department of the University of Alberta at: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/bill_101.html
Bill 101 was struck down in regards to the sign provisions because it contravened sec 2(b) of the charter which provides for the freedom of expression. Unfortunately I was unable to find the text of Bill 101 (it was renamed at some point to make it comply with the Charter including the NWS clause).
I have also reviewed the Official Languages Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-3.01/90080.html
This is a law that primarily deals with operating the federal government and its agencies in both languages. There is mention of the provinces but only in directing the Minister of Canadian Heritage to work with the provinces to promote both languages.
If I am wrong in any of this please let me know... I always strive to have my facts correct.
Posted by: Jason Koch at July 04, 2005 03:20 PM (+cYp2)
34
Wow. I've not been witness to so much paranoia since watching 'Reefer Madness'.
In 6 months (then in 6 years) when none of your predictions has come true, will you offer a humble apology to your readers?
Here's one for you:
In a couple of years, mention of the SSM issue will be me with shrugs and quizzical looks; "What was all the fuss about?" The same reaction that we now have to gays in the military and gay rights in general. Who cares?
As a Christian, I'm ashamed at the way Jesus' teachings have been warped and misused to promote small-mindedness and mean spirit.
peace,
pn
Posted by: pn at July 10, 2005 07:42 PM (7rlrZ)
June 28, 2005
Paul Martin has to be listening now
Not all opinions are made equal, and Paul Martin has been made aware of one of those more important opinions. Now let's see if something comes of it.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:58 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If Paul Demarais can't reach Paul Martin privately or publicly, then what hope would an average citizen have? Has Martin reached the pinnacle of self-absorbion that he can no longer take input from anyone even his close backers.
Hey, I thought the media had given that right exclusively to Stephen Harper. Is nothing sacred in Canada anymore?
Posted by: walking eagle at June 28, 2005 01:45 PM (QK3tc)
2
BTW, did anyone from the Brascan Corp(a MAJOR receipient of Liberal Government largesse, think CPP money) sign that document?
I think not.
Oh Well!
As long as Brascan thinks we're OK, I guess we are.
Brascan Brazilian Beef, anyone?
Posted by: walking eagle at June 28, 2005 02:15 PM (QK3tc)
3
Yep, Desmarais and troop want things back to normal, so that we can get back to what's important: Creating a One World Government under their friends Strong, Johnstone, Frechete et al; Helping China sell arms around the world so that they can counter balance the USA; slagging the USA; and finding a way to get at Iraqi oil without friends like Saddam to assist us.... those Desmarais are such a nice bunch.
Posted by: Debris Trail at June 28, 2005 04:39 PM (Psvos)
4
The important part of your post is found in the statement, "To publicly chastise him like this sends a message to all Canadians who recognize this relationship that even Paul Martin's friends see what we all see -- a government in name only, spending its time reacting instead of leading."
How many Canadians know of, or care about, the relationship between Martin and Desmarais? My guess is that of the voting population, few know and even fewer care. I find it unfortunate that people are so ambivalent about the extremely close relationship between the Liberal Party and the elite of the elite in the business community.
Posted by: Anti-Socialist Mike at June 28, 2005 05:01 PM (og0rB)
5
Hush, now. Go back to sleep. All is well. All is well. All is ..........
Posted by: 49erDweet at June 28, 2005 08:15 PM (KDLQn)
6
And perhaps the Demarais family is concerned that if Paully carreens off the track completely, someone might start running the country that can't be bought. And maybe letting the Auditor General loose.
With both Adscam and Oil for Food getting so close to home, there must be a few sleepless nights, one would think.
Posted by: Candace at June 29, 2005 01:21 AM (R7nd+)
7
Hey I love your site. Feel free to vist my blog at
http://mypib01.blogspot.com/ and see what I think of our current Liberal government.
Posted by: The_fallen at July 02, 2005 05:52 AM (Yc0IU)
8
I was not able to restrain my impulse to instruct the Canadian Council of Chief Executives on the next appropriate steps they should take. The gall.. eh?
Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Read the first part of your nine page PDF Canada First!
In the second and third lines are these words. “ good governance, rigorous financial management.
We agree. This is the first priority and it should be forced into place as promptly as focused singular pressures can get it done.
The first priority is Whistle-Blower Protection with beefed up reporting independence and penalties with teeth to make bill C-11 effective.
This legislation helps protect paid public revenues from waste, re-direction and laundering. It also works regardless of what party governs Canada.
The second priority is individual account & audit for each ministry and government department reporting to an independent committee and house speaker.
This was promised by Paul Martin himself during his grovel speech to Canadians via television. Did you miss this promise? I fear it went right over the heads of 99% of Canadian viewers.
I scanned through your Canada First PDF and read on page four, “labour productivity at 1.7%. Very good, but not the required 2%. You then mentioned estimated social program costs and I thought, what difference does all this make if the treasury has numerous gaping leaks through which our public funds are leaking away without limit?
So from page four back to page one and first things first. I will read your whole plan when you use your influence and power to take care of an effective revised Bill C-11, and Paul MartinÂ’s fiscal promise.
The PM is an expert on accounting security and diversions of funds. What he suggests in accounting and audit practice shall certainly be effective.
First things first, 73s, Anthony Robinson at www.bendgovt.blog.ca
And www.BendGovernment.blogspot.com
Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 05, 2005 12:24 AM (rmMzv)
June 27, 2005
Debate? We don't need no stinking debate!
The nanny state steps in to urge people to stop talking about stuff and getting themselves all worked up:
Federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh says he's "disappointed" with Canada's doctors -- and especially the head of their influential national association -- for planning a debate at their annual meeting this summer on the role of private health care in this country."I would have expected the president of the [Canadian Medical Association] to be a little more circumspect."
Talking leads to thinking and thinking leads to criticism and criticism leads to a new health minister.
Time to nip this talking thing in the bud!
[Hat tip to NealeNews]
[The Americans take note of our healthcare silliness.]
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:35 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
1
MDs "rash" on private care
You have to admit the title is pretty funny though??
Posted by: Jimbo at June 27, 2005 12:39 PM (3ETGr)
2
What's a 'hate tip'? That sounds nasty!
Posted by: Jonny_eh at June 27, 2005 01:38 PM (U2GJM)
3
Angry,
This is another prime example of Liberal strategy. If questioners or disenters open their mouths, the Liberal strategy is to buy them or riducule them into submission. Notice that the first three letters in ridicule is RID, as in, get rid of.
Posted by: walking eagle at June 27, 2005 04:02 PM (QK3tc)
4
The impertenance of the man. But that's Liberals for you.
Buy them, riducule them. What's the third option, shoot them ?
Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at June 27, 2005 04:46 PM (v91nX)
5
Third option: Threaten to deport them! (to the U.S.?)
Posted by: Dan Carroll at June 27, 2005 04:54 PM (Zjh8u)
6
Do you think we will get a new health minister... that would be grand!
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 27, 2005 05:23 PM (vAI+5)
7
Dosanjh was on the radio talk show with Bill Good in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago. He was asked If your wife was sick would you pay for private health care for her? He said that would be her decision.
These scum bags all beleive in "Don't do what I do, do what I say!!!!!!"
Posted by: capt_bob at June 27, 2005 07:54 PM (ZJrqf)
8
Of course the current state of affairs is the preferred one for the political elite, as they are not affected by its shortcomings, and are in a perfect position to excersize power over their subjects.
The political elite will always find a way to quickly end up at the front of the queue. (Cmp Buzz H's wounded knee e.g., or the, more generally, the situation in the old Soviet union.)
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at June 27, 2005 09:01 PM (pxwAq)
9
Not only was the content of the Health Minister's statements revealing, but also the tone.
He was "dissappointed". You don't want to dissappoint him, lest you get on the wrong side of the omnipotent liberal machine which villifies those which question the party line.
After all, one doesn't want to be equated with advocating the selling of the family farm in order to get health care.....get it doc?
Posted by: mitch at June 27, 2005 10:10 PM (6imlL)
10
I tell you, if any politician, no matter which party, starts to talk seriously about having a healthy, open and reasonable debate about the future of health care in this country, I might faint from the shock!
Really, it's like they're treating this as some kind of social taboo, and what ends up passing as health care policy and discussion is Martin and Dosanjh screaming "American-style two-tier health care BAD!!!" when anyone has the gall to think otherwise.
What a joke.
Posted by: Jason M at June 27, 2005 10:42 PM (Kwrb7)
11
Seriously! I'm from Saskatchewan, and I can tell you that anyone who even breaths private healthcare will lose his seat in the next election. The army of healthcare union workers and old people will run them out of town. So, for now I'd keep my mouth shut if I were a Sask CPC MP.
Posted by: Debris Trail at June 28, 2005 12:25 AM (Y1ykG)
12
So, the CMA can't even debate private health care. God forbid we have a rational discussion about the problems coming along with monopolized health care.
Sadly, this is not surprising given the recent steps the Grits have taken to limit debate in the House of Commons. I guess if they don't see the need for debate in Parliament, why should anyone else need to debate Liberl policy?
Posted by: Anti-Socialist Mike at June 28, 2005 01:50 AM (og0rB)
Canada-Taiwan Checklist
CSIS issues warning in 1999 about Communist China's methods for influencing foreign governments: CHECK
CSIS issues prediction in 2000 about war over Taiwan more likely after 2005: CHECK
Sleep-walking Liberal government ignoring CSIS in favour of wealthy interests: CHECK
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:28 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1025 words, total size 7 kb.
1
You'd have to define what is meant by "if things go badly."
If you mean "China successfully annexes Taiwan, no opposition," Joe Volpe will be under the gun. There will be tremendous pressure from the Liberal B.C. caucus (not to mention the NDP) to relax the rules for Taiwanese refugees and other Asian seeking to flee the war zone.
If you mean "China tries to annex Taiwan and gets into a fight with the U.S.," then you can bet that Paul Martin will do his absolute best to keep the Americans happy instead of the Chinese. According to our latest figures, China only makes up 1.4 percent of our total exports and 5.2 percent of our total imports, compared with 81.4 and 55.2 respectively for the U.S. Cutting off trade with China may hurt Canada some, but not as much as taking China's side against the U.S.
However, Martin may harbour a Pearsonian notion of Canada being a "helpful fixer" by keeping diplomatic and other channels open. That's a dangerous game to play given China's intel assets in the country and their reputation for technology theft, alluded to in the Pentagon report.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at June 27, 2005 10:10 AM (U8FJD)
2
How much trade did we have with Iraq?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 27, 2005 10:12 AM (LtsTC)
3
How much trade with Iraq - did you mean legally recognized trade? Or Oil for Food trade? or a combination thereof?
Posted by: Candace at June 27, 2005 10:51 AM (R7nd+)
4
Taiwan is the litmus test for China's imperial ambitions in the pacific. If they use violence to seize Taiwan then I guarantee that they won't stop at Taiwan. They probably wouldn't come after the Canadian mainland but Canadian flagged ships would be at risk.
If China invades Taiwan then Canada's response should be to build a fleet capable of convoy duty in the pacific and air force bases capable of supporting our navy and repelling an amphibious attack on B.C (not that it would be likelly).
Chinese imperialism is an issue that is bigger then Liberals versus Conservatives. They have the potential to be the biggest threat to Canada since the USSR. If China goes active I would support any political party willing to take the necessary steps to defend Canadian interests.
Posted by: Iron Oxide at June 27, 2005 10:57 AM (NC5nV)
5
The Liberals have long ago picked sides in the up coming war, and war is coming.
The Liberals decimated our armed forces during the cold war, why?
To allow a communist force to roll through from the north and attack the USA at it's weakest point...the Canadian borders.
Liberals since Trudeau have always supported communists, hell a communist with ties to the Chiness communist party is Paul Martin's # 1 adviser, I of course speak of Maurice Strong, # 1 scumbag on the planet.
Posted by: Durward at June 27, 2005 11:35 AM (yVXTt)
6
Are you suggesting that the reunification of Vancouver with mainland China could meet with resistance? It's not like we defended Canadian soil against Denmark.
Posted by: Paul at June 27, 2005 11:42 AM (Z+kns)
7
Paul...don't forget,we MAY be able to defend Vancouver.If West Edmonton Mall sells their subs to the Canadian Navy,thereby increasing our "useful"sub force by 400%,we just might pull it off.But then again,Vancouver is all ready mostly Asian,so maybe the Chinese have by default all ready won!
Posted by: fubar at June 27, 2005 12:00 PM (Iqhxu)
8
On the fundamental Freedom:
"China's new Regulations on Religious Affairs have done more in strengthening Beijing's control and governance of religions than safeguarding the people's religious freedom, the Mainland Affairs Council of the Executive Yuan [of the ROC] said in a newly released report.
"The report said it is clear from the new regulations that religious affairs in China are not ruled by law, but are still ruled by government officials.
"Article 3 and Article 4 emphasize that all religious groups and activities must be in line with national unity, consolidation among different ethnic groups and social stability, and free from foreign control. This means that religions are still subject to the highest guiding principles of the Communist Party of China.
"People in China are not allowed to preach freely. Religious workers are not allowed to preach outside their places registered with the government, and they can only preach in designated time periods."
From:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2005/06/27/1119834571.htm
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 27, 2005 01:14 PM (m0QpJ)
9
Durward. This is the main reason I've been saying for some time, including on Canadian blogs, that Alberta needs to make a deal with the US to allow the US to set up their missile defense in northern Alberta.
I think it's time for Alberta to flex it's muscles and take sides. By that I mean with the US and against Ottawa.
China is not our friend and we should not be doing business with them. Period. Buying their products may be different provided the right ground rules are laid out, but lending them money and investing in their resources should not be happening.
Posted by: John Crittenden at June 27, 2005 01:34 PM (cONYb)
10
Recommended articles for overview of PRC military threat:
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050626-122138-1088r
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050627-124855-6747r
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050627-010217-7779r
Posted by: Brian Banned-from-Shitgun O'Neill at June 27, 2005 01:47 PM (m0QpJ)
11
"The United Front Department bases its activities around three central premises. First is the idea that all Chinese are unified by their common heritage. Second is the theory that true enemies of the CCP actually represent only 5 to 10 per cent of society, and other elements – patriots and anti-imperialists – can be rallied to strike out at these "antagonistic contradictions." The final premise relates to Mao Zedong's three-thirds principle, whereby representation in CCP organs should be split between the Party (which would retain a leadership role), non-party progressives, and "intermediate sections who are neither left nor right."
Now, change a couple of words:
The Liberal Party of Canada bases its activities around three central premises. First is the idea that all Canadians are unified by the Charter of Rights. Second is the theory that true enemies of the Liberal Party of Canada actually represent only 5 to 10 per cent of society, and other elements – like immigrants and business elitists – can be rallied to strike out at these "antagonistic contradictions." The final premise relates to Paul Martin's three-thirds principle, whereby representation in Liberal Party of Canada organs should be split between the Party (which would retain a leadership role), non-party progressives like the NDP, and "intermediate sections like the Bloc, as convenient."
Sounds like a match made in heaven.
Posted by: Linda at June 27, 2005 06:23 PM (oCPrU)
12
"Vancouver is all ready mostly Asian,so maybe the Chinese have by default already won"
If you made it this far through the thought process, then you're starting to understand the problem in Taiwan.
And why it's imperative that Canada condemn China's warmongering immediately and completely.
Posted by: Paul at June 27, 2005 10:13 PM (Z+kns)
13
Random thoughts on Taiwan / Free China:
The ROC (commonly referred to as "Taiwan" is an independent nation; established Jan. 1, 1912; our wartime ally; a democracy. We should never have broken off diplomatic relations in the first place. It's long past time to re-establish relations.
We have already been at war with the PRC, and we will be again.
The present-day territory of ROC consists of two provinces and a number of territories.
One of those provinces was a province of the Qing Empire for 7 years, before they gave it to Japan. It was liberated by the USA, who then granted custody of the territory to the ROC. In 1952, Japan surrendered all claims to those territories, whose status under international treaty is still undetermined.
One thing for sure is that by the will of the VAST majority of citizens of the ROC, none of that independent nation's territories are or have ever been any part of the PRC.
Taiwan was not "settled by the Chinese." (And being settled by Chinese people does not make a territory "China")
There were numerous Taiwanese (not Chinese) people before the Spanish and the Dutch arrived.
It was the Dutch who developed agricultural industries on Taiwan, and who established international trade. It was the Dutch who provided land to new Chinese immigrants.
The Dutch were driven out by Chinese pirates and refugees who used it as a base from which to attack
China.
Many refugees came to Taiwan to escape from the Manchurian Qing Empire.
It was finally conquered by the Manchus in 1683 and placed under the authority of a governor.
It was made a province in 1887 and ceded by the Qing to the Japanese Empire in 1895.
It was liberated by the USA, who then ceded CONTROL to the ROC. Both the Treaty of San Francisco and the US Taiwan Relations Act make it clear that those territories are no part of the PRC.
The ROC has no connection to the PRC.
The ROC was established in 1912. It took control of Taiwan and the Pescadores (Peng-hu), courtesy of Douglas MacArthur, in 1945. The PRC was established in 1949.
Canada's relationship was with the ROC. The PRC has never controlled one inch of the ROC territories on Taiwan, Fujian or the Nanshas, etc.
The ROC is neither a province nor an island. It is an independent nation. It has been for 93 years.
Canada is a sovereign nation and has the right to establish diplomatic relations with any other political entity it sees fit to.
There is no such political entity as China.
The ROC is the ROC.
It would change its name to "Taiwan" or "The Rep. of Taiwan" in a HEARTBEAT if it weren't threatened with war for doing so.
But whatever it is called, it is what it is.
The PRC is recognized by its diplomatic partners as The PRC, not as China's legitimate government.
The ROC has diplomatic relations with 25 other nations: Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, El Salvador, The Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, The Holy See, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, The Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Swaziland, The Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
In 1970, the ROC had diplomatic relations with the majority of world nations, including with virtually every free nation on Earth.
Did that mean that the PRC did not exist?
Did that mean that any nation was not free to establish realtions with the PRC?
Then how did Canada ever establish such relations in the first place?
Should Canada's sovereign rights be subject to international concensus?
How bizarre.
Re-establishing diplomatic relations with the ROC would not in any way be a "transfer" of recognition. The PRC and the ROC are two different countries. There is no connection between the two. Mao Zedong made that clear 56 years ago.
The PRC is headed for catastrophe.
India, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. can, and will, easily replace anything supplied by the PRC, with a much more stable future.
Taiwan is one province of the ROC.
How on earth could the ROC be independent from China?
There is no such political entity as "China". The PRC was established by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949.
The ROC has absolutely no objection to establishing diplomatic relations with any other nation, regardless of whatever other relations that nation may have.
PRC - "here" & ROC - "here".
Different nations, different governments, different history, different populations, different territory.
By what right can the PRC dictate other nations' rulings or views on disputed territorial possesions. The PRC has no business whatsoever dictating to Canada.
"The US, Canada, the UK and Japan recognize that there is one China and that the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. However, the US and Japan ACKNOWLEDGE rather than RECOGNIZE the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China. In the case of Canada and the UK, the bilateral written agreement stated that the two respective parties TAKE NOTE of Beijing's position, but the word SUPPORT was never used."
The ROC does not claim to be the government of Shanghai, Yunnan, Nei-Mong-gu, Beijing, Guand-dung, etc etc. It recognizes PRC sovereignty over these territories. It has done so for 14 years now.
The ROC claims (and ASSERTS and EXERCISES) sovereignty over the Isalnds of Taiwan and Peng-hu in the province of Taiwan, Kinmen and parts of Lienchang county in Fujian province, and a number of diputed territories also claimed by Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, the Phillipines and Vietnam.
International diplomacy is not based on popularity competitions or the sole will of large nations.
Canada did not "transfer recognition" from the ROC to the PRC.
Canada established realtions with the PRC. The ROC, ruled by a foreign, Chinese, KMT dictaorship, broke off realtions with Canada in protest. The present, democratically elected government of the ROC has no problem with "dual-recogition," as happened with Vanuatu last year.
The UN does not decide international territorial disputes, and does not dictate Canada's sovereign rights to conduct bilateral relations.
Jiang Jieshi was Chinese
Jiang Qingguo was Chinese
Lee Denghui is Taiwanese
Chen Shuibian is Taiwanese
"The ROC government actively maintained that it was the sole legitimate government of China, until 1991 when President Lee Teng-hui claimed that the government would no longer challenge the rule of the Communists on the mainland. However, the National Assembly has not officially changed the national borders, as this would be seen as a precursor to Taiwan" -- http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Political_status_of_Taiwan
"What a formal declaration of indepedence would consist of is confusing given the fact that the People's Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan since its founding.
...
"At the establishment of the ROC in 1912, Taiwan was de jure part of Japan.
"China ceded the island of Taiwan to Japan "in perpetuity" at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. In the Cairo Conference of 1943, the allied powers agreed to have Japan restore "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese", which included Taiwan and the Pescadores, to the Republic of China upon Japan's surrender. According to both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, this agreement was given legal force by the Instrument of Surrender of Japan in 1945.
...
"On the other hand, a number of supporters of Taiwan independence argue that Taiwan was only formally incorporated as a Chinese province in 1885. Subsequently, because of the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895, Taiwan had been de jure part of Japan when the ROC was established in 1911 and thus was not part of the Chinese republic. Also, because the Cairo Declaration was an unsigned press communique, the independence advocates argue that the legal effectiveness of the Declaration is highly questionable. Furthermore, they point out that the Instrument of Surrender of Japan was no more than an armistice, a Modus Vivendi in nature, which served as a temporary or provisional agreement that would be replaced with a peace treaty. Therefore, the independence supporters assert that both the Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei hold the legal supremacy over the surrender instrument and that these treaties did not transfer the title of Taiwan from Japan to China. According to this argument, the
sovereignty of Taiwan was returned to the people of Taiwan when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, based on the policy of self-determination which has been applied to "territories which detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War" as defined by article 76b and 77b of the United Nations Charter and also by the protocol of Yalta Conference. Independence advocates point out that at the end of World War II, allied powers agreed that the Republic of China was to "temporarily occupy Taiwan, on behalf of the Allied forces" under the authorization from General Douglas MacArthur's General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945. Even though some people interpret the 1952 Treaty of Taipei as indirectly suggesting that Japan recognized the ROC government's sovereignty over Taiwan, Penghu, and "territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government," Japan abrogated this treaty upon establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1972.
"Although the interpretation of the peace treaties was used to challenge the legitimacy of the ROC on Taiwan before the 1990s, the introduction of popular elections in Taiwan has compromised this position. Except for the most extreme Taiwan independence supporters, most Taiwanese support the popular sovereignty theory and no longer see much conflict between this theory of sovereignty and the ROC position. In this sense, the ROC government currently administrating Taiwan is not the same ROC which accepted Japanese surrender because the ruling authorities were given popular mandate by different pools of constituencies: one is the mainland Chinese
electorate, the other is the Taiwanese constituencies. In fact, current president Chen Shui-bian has been frequently emphasizing the popular sovereignty theory in his speeches."
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/political-status-of-taiwan
There is a Taiwanese nation.
There is no political entity "Taiwan" besides the name of one of the provinces of the ROC.
Lee Denghui (Lee Teng-Hui), former ROC president, was born in Sanchih, Taiwan.
He joined the KMT since it was the only legal political party, became VP under the Chinese Jiang Qingguo, and assumed the presidency upon the death of Jiang, thus becoming the first Taiwanese president. (At the time, even the governor of Taiwan was Chinese.)
Since 2001, he has been the leader of the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which advocates Taiwan independence.
"Lee has publicly stated that he supports changing the name of the country from the Republic of China to the Republic of Taiwan and opposes increased economic ties with mainland China.
...
"Lee has also stated that he believes that Taiwan cannot avoid being assimilated into the People's Republic of China unless it COMPLETELY REJECTS A CHINESE IDENTITY, and that he believes that it is essential that Taiwanese unite and develop a unified identity other than the Chinese one. Furthermore, in reference to Mainlanders, he believes that to be truly Taiwanese, one must assume a "New Taiwanese" identity."
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/lee-teng-hui
Chen Shuibian was born in Guantian Township, TainanCounty, Taiwan.
He is a lawyer. Here is what he has to say for himself (from his biograhical sketch on the ROC government website):
"In what is now known as the "Kaohsiung Incident," the authorities came down on democratic activists with a heavy hand, bringing them before military tribunals on charges of SEDITION. Their trials drew international attention and inspired Mr. Chen's sense of truth and justice. With the support of his wife, he became a defense lawyer for one of the defendants, Huang Hsin-chieh. In the "court of the Taiwan people's conscience," he stood in defense of freedom, human rights, and democracy. This was the beginning of Mr. Chen's dedication to politics and the opposition movement. [He served eight months in prison in 1986-87 for criticizing the government].
"In 1991, the DPP considered amending the party platform to make the establishment of Taiwan as a nation an explicit goal of the party. Mr. Chen suggested the addition of a procedural premise: "Based on the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people, the issue should be decided by all the residents of Taiwan through a referendum." Thus, the DPP's so-called independence platform was revised to include a referendum."
-- http://www.president.gov.tw/1_president/e_subject-01.html
Clearly they are both Taiwanese first.
As are most people in the ROC.
And they would change the name of the country in a heartbeat if they weren't threatened with fascist murderous violence for doing so.
Posted by: Brian Banned-from-Shitgun O'Neill at June 28, 2005 12:22 AM (8qs9g)
14
Depends on whether the 2 new tankers for CSL are delivered or converted into aircraft carriers.
Yes Paul Martin is having 2 ships built there presumably to avoid the taxes.
Posted by: Hollingshead at July 04, 2005 10:13 AM (gR135)
June 26, 2005
Newspaper headlines and the power to influence
The function of a newspaper headline is to provide an idea of what to expect from the article that follows. At least that's what I always thought.
Boy, am I naïve!
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:36 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 707 words, total size 5 kb.
1
You make some interesting points. I didn't realize the stats were that low! Would more people read newspapers if the journalism was of a higher quality, do you think? My sense is that I doubt it would make much difference, so how motivated are they to provide "fair" reporting, whether in the headlines or the actual article.
Posted by: Candace at June 26, 2005 11:30 AM (R7nd+)
2
There's two kinds of stories -the ones written by the papers themselves and the ones written by the wire services. In the latter case the only means by which the paper can add its political spin is through the headline. It is a simple indicator of the political bias of the paper. Rather than using the one line at the top to summarize the story, they use it to advocate a particular position.
Think about that headline the next time you read an entire story in which the paper has license to use every linguistic tool in the book to advocate its position.
On its face the story will be framed as the paper merely giving a "factual" account, yet look slightly deeper and you'll find underlying premises, charged terms and characterizatrions of protaganists and antagonists which completely lack neutrality.
Under the guise of informing, they continue to advocate.
And we wonder why the Liberals have remained in power despite the corruption and ineptitude? The media has effectively filtered it out for the majority of Canadians.
Posted by: mitch at June 26, 2005 11:40 AM (6imlL)
3
Mitch: Your points are well taken! As far as international news, the vast majority of it is provided by AP. News outlets purchase stories and provide their spin, usually in headline form. The interesting thing is that AP news is taken at face value; as the truth. Yet, anyone following the debate in media watchdog agencies will find out very quickly that AP is far from neutral in its world view.
Personally, I think the best thing would be for Canadians to turn their back on news providers. A lot of us are already doing that; I will not purchase a News Paper, simply because I do not want the Canadian News Paper industry to get one penny from me... not until they reintroduce the elusive concept of "Balance." I wonder, how many of us do a quick scan of internet news, then go to other sources for "the rest of the story!" I will not support the Canadian Power Cartel, and its official communications branch, the Canadian MSM.
Posted by: Debris Trail at June 26, 2005 12:38 PM (Y1ykG)
4
Debris if only it were just the newspapers. CTV newsnet ran a headline which I cant remember word for word, but the gist of it was that the Conservatives were still "angry" over the budget vote. Its another subtle way to tell us the Conservatives are angry or that Stephen Harper is angry. Funny when I saw Mr. Harper talk about it I thought he was more cynical than anything else. But cynical is not strong enough for what the press have in mind. They want him to appear as Angry and thus not capable of leading.
Posted by: MikeP at June 26, 2005 12:57 PM (p000C)
5
GAY GAY GAY GAY
ALL DAY GAY
COME TO CANADA FOLKS FOR ALL YOUR GAY NEWS!
The lunatics have really taken over the asylum:
"I am exposed to overt heterosexuality all over the
place - from pictures of spouses on desks, to
heterosexuals kissing on public transportation, etc."
Posted by: Fred Litwin
[http://gayandright.blogspot.com/]
June 25, 2005 03:01 PM
@
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/06/passing_marriag.html#c6504666
[NB: "Welcome aboard to "gayandright," our newest
member of the Shotgun family . . . Check out Fred's
excellent blog . . . Thanks for posting Fred and we
look forward to hearing a lot more from you." Editor,
Kevin Libin.]
We're all "exposed to overt heterosexuality all over the place", because it's NORMAL.
What's next? Mark Steyn promoting the CBC? David Frum replacing Tim Murphy? Michael Coren leading TO's "Pride" parade?
So it's official - The Shotgun sucks *%&#, big time!
Is it too much to hope for just ONE real wide-spread circulation conservative magazine in all of Canada?
Just one.
Of course they can never ask gayandright to leave,
'cause that would be "homophobic", and he's so "nice"
and so Canadian.
Ezra wonders "Oh, what's the big deal?"
The big deal is that gayandwrong is saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can't be read in/on ANY MSM radio station/newspaper/magazine/TV station, and it is inevitable that if anyone disagrees with him they will ultimately be called a "bigot," "closed-minded," "homophobe" blah blah blah.
And it works so well for Conservatives to be more "open" and "tolerant."
It worked so well with Keith Martin, with Scott Brison, with BS, with . . .
Posted by: - Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 01:17 PM (Rd6U9)
6
P.S. I look forward to getting banned here too.
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 01:18 PM (Rd6U9)
7
Ban you? I've never banned anyone. I'm not even sure where the "ban" button is. I don't like the idea of banning people.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 26, 2005 01:24 PM (LtsTC)
8
Imagine that, the MSM editorializing in its headlines.
I am almost nostalgic for the days when the MSM could directly contribute to the Liberal Party. At least then, there was some pretense of balance in their news coverage.
Posted by: Steve at June 26, 2005 01:25 PM (N8/Qe)
9
"Imagine that, the MSM editorializing in its headlines."
What makes my example so much fun is that since the story is exactly the same text, the differences in the headlines are the only differences.
It's like a science experiment in which you control all the variables, keeping all but one constant.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 26, 2005 01:30 PM (LtsTC)
10
Anyway, why wouldn't Stephen Harper bring his 9-year old to a "Pride" parade?
Wouldn't it be fun and educational for the little tyke to see a bunch of hairy bikers whipping each other while getting buggered by "nuns"?
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 01:35 PM (Rd6U9)
11
Monte Solberg on CTV's Queer Period right now with Craig Vulture-beak Oliver debating Queer "marriage" bill.
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 01:39 PM (Rd6U9)
12
Atta Boy to Angry in TO. I tend to read the blobs faithfully and appreciate the time you guys take to give us information and food for thot we can't get anywhere else. Is there any site that's main focus is pointing out the bias in the media? A place people could send comments to when they see it happening Perhaps if enough continually point out the manipulation, eventually the public will start to hold them accountable. A place that would list what papers have what biasis and what journalists are big time offenders, what party columinist consistently promote?
Is there any hope of ever getting a TV station that promotes the right?? Just asking and wishing.
Posted by: readintheblogs at June 26, 2005 02:05 PM (Rww+E)
13
readintheblogs: Try www.cbcwatch.ca for starters, I'm not sure of what else there might be.
Posted by: Debris Trail at June 26, 2005 02:15 PM (Y1ykG)
14
This is hilarious:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/06/free_taiwan.html#comments
Two days of arguing with "conservatives" about how Canada should support Taiwan, citing history, culture, political arguments, international diplomacy -- and they deleted every one of my comments. So all you can read are the other commentators' (ill-informed and insulting IMO) responses to my arguments, and their regurgitations of Communist Chinese propaganda.
Someone should tell the editors/censors at The Limp Shotgun that they forgot to white-out the parts where people quoted my comments within their own comments.
That's the problem with censorship, as Stalin soon realized.
First you silence your critics, then you have to ban them, then you have to remove anything they've ever written, then you have to edit them out of photos and start re-writing old newspapers, then in the end you realize it's easier just to kill them and anyone else who remembers they ever existed.
- Winston Smith
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 02:59 PM (Rd6U9)
15
I think visting the Hockey Hall of Fame instead of a Gay Parade will prove more popular with most people. So on that count I don't think Stephen Harper has anything to worry about.
Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at June 26, 2005 03:24 PM (FhfhI)
16
Hockey must be for Homophobes!
Ban Hockey!
The TO Blue Gays had a gay day.
How come the Leafs don't at their next game?
Huh?
How come?
See? Homophobes!
(BTW, when IS there next game???)
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 03:33 PM (Rd6U9)
17
I just got my daughter a Tamagochi.
I was shocked, shocked! to learn that when he grows up, she can connect him to other Tamagochis and get married.
BUT ONLY TO FEMALE TAMAGOCHIS!
Isn't this unconstitutional?
Posted by: Brian "Banned" O'Neill at June 26, 2005 04:31 PM (Rd6U9)
18
Why is every news service in Canada singing exactly the same song?? Something is seriously wrong here.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 26, 2005 06:47 PM (vAI+5)
19
I think it was best said in the book "The Shipping News."
"What kind of headline would you give this sky?"
"Sunny day expected?"
"Nope, Storm imminent"
"But what if it doesn't come?"
"Danger averted"
Posted by: Paul Vincent at June 26, 2005 08:15 PM (WThET)
20
Aaah, the Good Old Days-
-when the National Post represented a sane voice of reason, with Conrad Black hiring Ken White, Blatch, Steyn, et al, and giving Diane Francis freedom to ferret out government corruption
-when Paulie was just another toady prostrating himself abjectly before "da liddle guy from whothef#*kcares"
-when Canadians didn't have to turn apoplectic each and every time they mistakenly surfed to CBC news and had to watch that craven anti-Semite Neil Macdonald report on the "Canadian" take on the Middle East or other parts of the Muslim world, or have to watch some other biased hack?
-when Canadians didn't have to work until September before finally pocketing some change for themselves instead of supporting our bloated, self-serving and utterly useless, corrupt government
-when Canadians looked forward to paying off the soul-destroying debt brought on by that idiot Trudeau and finally seeing an end, somewhere in the future, of our excessive, repressive and counter-producing income taxes, sales taxes & taxes on taxes?
-when Canadians didn't have to worry about our lax immigration laws which see everyone who promises to vote Liberal allowed to bring in every relative in their extended family on a TRP? or worse, criminals who are ordered deported, then given repeated chances to use our "justice system" to stay on, collect welfare, and clog up the system?
-when politicians were of the moral fibre of Robert Stanfield or Lester Pearson, concerned primarily with the welfare of Canadians and the world's repressed minorities, instead of lining their pockets like Chretien and Martin?
-when... Aaah, screw it! You can't argue with the Great Unwashed of Ontario, so totally brain-washed by the MSM that they are deathly afraid of Stephen Harper and what he represents, instead of getting off their butts and reading the Conservative Party's Policy Declaration. I've read the thing several times, and can't find anything there but some common sense & a path for Canada for a healthy future.
I spent half my life in Ontario and now live on beautiful Vancouver Island. I can't wait for Alberta to separate and say farewell to our dyslectic easterners who deserve no better. With Quebec and Alberta out because of Liberal ineptitude and graft, we'll see if the rest of Canada finally wakes up to the fact that this socialist Liberal cabal has destroyed what was once considered the number one country in the world.
Posted by: Hank at June 26, 2005 08:24 PM (KV2tg)
21
Hank: Just hanker after that great Punjab by the lake.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1119649813189&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at June 26, 2005 09:53 PM (j9154)
22
Norman's Spectator has an interesting article in more ways than one regarding this lates "flag flap".
In the introduction to the fiasco Mrs. Elizabeth Hoffman-Tamereau, as such, but continueing on with the article she suddenly becomes Ms. Hoffman?from there on in, now am I being cynical in saying that it would serve the anit- semitic french Librano's( in my opinion) more to refer to her "Jewish" name rather than her "French" name? even though she is still Mrs. Elizabeth Hoffman-Tamereau? On top of that the article in Spectors is hillarious, seeing how the old retired "House Speaker" si spinning the tale trying to make her out to be a baffoon!
Stephen ww 2 vet.
Posted by: stephenmichaud at June 26, 2005 10:57 PM (bxOjK)
23
Happy Pride Day!
http://zubari.blogspot.com/2005/06/happy-pride-day.html
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 27, 2005 12:31 AM (GrBIR)
24
Excellent points and deductions about how to use Headlines to fool the shee.. citizens who often do not have the time to read the story text.
Hank. I'm reading along and going yes, yes to your points and then I see you moved to Vancouver Island also. Guess all the smart ones end up here, upstream and away from most pollution both air and political. Well it's tough to escape the political stinky stuff.
And Brian Walsh says *Why is every news service singing exactly the same song? Yeah, my question exactly and every day. Thank God for Blogsites and the Web.
73s TG at BendGovernment.blogspot.com
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 27, 2005 01:55 AM (rmMzv)
25
A letter just sent to Steady Eddie Greenspon, Editor-in-Chief of the Globe (cross-posted on SDA):
"Dear Mr Greenspon,
The egregious giggling Ms Taber has outed herself politically. She was just interviewed (around 0815, June 27) on CFRA, Ottawa, by Daniel Proussalidis about the Liberals' prospects for passing C-38 (same-sex marriage). She replied "What we're hoping", then went the equivalent of "Oops", and went on to explain it was simply that she personally supported the legislation.
Ms Taber is supposed to be a reporter. In that capacity she should not publicly take positions on the substance/substance of contentious political issues.
The Globe should immediately confine her to a columnist's role as a purveyor of opinion--what in fact she already mainly is.
Mark Collins
Ottawa"
Posted by: Mark Collins at June 27, 2005 08:59 AM (kh0a8)
26
Just wanted to point something out -- of the 42% of the population that gets their news online, I think most of us would be a part. However, where do we go for news? TV and newspaper sites. It's likely that the people who 'spend so little time reading the newspaper' are actually reading online content, and answering the question correctly. How much time to people who get news online spend doing it?
All those headlines were available on the web.
Posted by: no one of consequence at June 27, 2005 09:45 AM (lcBST)
27
"However, where do we go for news? TV and newspaper sites."
I would suggest that those sites are still written by newspaper people working in a newspaper mindset. The headlines are written by the same people, or by people who apprenticed under those guys.
I would be suspicious of newspaper headlines, regardless of the delivery medium (paper or online).
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 27, 2005 11:27 AM (tAhML)
28
Agreed, but my point is that the people you think are skimming the paper and only reading it for 2 hours a week are likely also reading a lot more online.
Your point is still very valid, I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: no one of consequence at June 27, 2005 12:03 PM (lcBST)
29
Check out this blatant anti-CPC propaganda, courtesy of the damn Aspers:
"Harper plays same-sex card to woo Muslims at convention
Peter Kuitenbrouwer, National Post, June 27, 2005
MISSISSAUGA - While hundreds of thousands of gays partied at the pride parade in downtown Toronto yesterday, federal Tory leader Stephen Harper POINTEDLY headed west, where he joined a celebration of traditional values among a massive gathering of devout Ahmadiyya Muslims.
...
Mr. Harper, making his first appearance at the convention, told the men [oh, so sexist!] that his party believes in tolerance of all faiths -- but draws the line at same-sex marriage. [that means he's not tolerant of that "faith"? - Huh?]
...
Federal Immigration Minister Joe Volpe was up next. [WHAT?! How come he wasn't at the Queer Pride festivities? Did he also come here "pointedly"? Did he also only speak to the men? (Of course he did, they just don't think that's worth mentioning.)] He showed his comfort in the salutation "as salaam alaikum" ("peace be upon you"). [Wow! What a linguist he must be! And he speaks Sicilian too? Wow!]
While he [naturally] avoided the topic of same-sex marriage itself, Mr. Volpe delivered an impassioned plea in favour of tolerance for all communities...
"We have learned to live with each other and love each other."
Community leaders, who call Mr. Volpe a close friend [wait a minute! That doesn't make sense! How come Harper's first visit is news, but Volpe comes and hangs out with these MEN all the time, appealing to religious "conservatives". Surely we'd have heard about that before . . .], said they'll have to get to know Mr. Harper better before they contemplate switching sides.
[Does that mean that bumfuck-marriage (hey, just kidding! I know lots of heteros also like to drive down the Hershey Highway, and tuppence-lickers also want to get hitched. Mellow out, maaaan . . .) and gov't hand-outs are more imporatant to them than the will of God?]
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=43bd13ee-133e-4883-b84f-aa0c3f3192f8
Posted by: Brian Banned-from-Shitgun O'Neill at June 27, 2005 02:11 PM (m0QpJ)
30
A fine blog entry. As a journalist by trade, I can confirm that this tactic does exist in the media. It's frustrating to watch on a regular basis, and it's even more frustrating to see it devised and enacted time and time again.
Posted by: Right Ho at June 27, 2005 03:05 PM (faQVA)
June 25, 2005
Tories must heed the wisdom of Yoda
Is there no limit to what we can learn from Star Wars?
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:31 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Why do Tories and their supporters call Paul Martin's party Liberals or even Libs. They are nothing of the sort. They are Grits plain and simple. I read that the Tories were snookered. No, they were conned. It is important to understand that those Grinding Grits are Con artists. When Tories are asked why they are angry, they should be saying " if you knew half of what we know about the Grits you would be angry to.
If you say something enough times people will start to belive it, so why not say Grits , Grits Grits, Grind, Grind, Grind, You've been conned. Why not learn how to counter punch? Whenever a Grinder says something that is part of the Big Con slam them with the Big Lie Busting Truth. Everything the Grits say should be followed with a big BUT or EXCEPT THAT then go on to explain why what the Grinders have just said is part of the Big Con and not true at all.
As Yoda would say, falsehoods to the darkside only lead . Truth what needed is, hmmm!
It isn't just up to the Tory MPs to counterpunch Girt lies with the truth. It is the right and responsibility of every honest Canadian to intervene with the BUT or EXCEPT THAT .. then spread the light of YODA'S TRUTH exposing the darkside of the BIG GRIT CON job for what it is.
Nothing but lies and deceit designed to con Canadians into voting for the Grits.
Posted by: truthsayer at June 25, 2005 11:23 AM (UyV5e)
2
Good comment from Truthsayer. I agree. Ignore the call for you to bring forth your policies, as the MSM & the GRinding Grits just steal the better ones. Keep hitting them with Adscam, the gun registry cost, any of those things & eventually it will get through to Cent. Canada. Plus, if people are really interested in policy, they will find out what they want to know on their own.
Steven, look at the camera when you are talking to the reporters & smile occasionally -- a smile that reaches your eyes, please!!!
Posted by: Lou_Lou at June 25, 2005 12:02 PM (rp6r3)
3
Good post! The Tories are obviously frustrated and angry, but these emotions are best left to the back rooms, as you suggest. I take issue though, with the MSM and even some tories confusing sore looser anger with indignation. The tories have every right to be indignant, as should Canadians, at what has become the Liberal Party of Canada. I am afraid though, that after decades of sleaze, that far too many Canadians have simply become used to it and are so immune to it that they cannot become indignant... when they should. Mark Steyn wrote a great essay awhile back that goes after this point... essentially, a country which no longer feels indignation at corruption, constitutional abuse, and squandering of public capital, is a country doomed. Are we there yet? In Central Canada, definately! In the West, not at all! In the East, can't say!
A sure sign of how far Canada has slipped into corruption habituation is the complete lack of indignation in the MSM and across the board at what the Liberals do on a regular basis. At this point, you should be able to put a monkey in charge of the CPC and they, or the NDP, should wipe the Liberals off the map... but we know that that is not the reality. Personally, I blame voters, and I believe that voters will get exactly what they want... more corruption, more waste, and more co-opting of our institutions by the Liberal elite. The Liberals have the bulk of the MSM covering for them, and without a center to right MSM source in Canada, I'm afraid that we will continue the slide into kleptocracy.
Posted by: Debris Trail at June 25, 2005 12:14 PM (Y1ykG)
4
Your point on indignation is right on. But even indignation or any other emotion, as primitive as it seems, must be deployed with care as part of a well thought out strategy and an overall plan, as contradictory as that seems.
Perhaps with regards with the way the media and the people react, the Tories need to use emotion to inspire emotion.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 25, 2005 12:43 PM (LtsTC)
5
There are some GREAT post here, Angry. We, the Conservatives, are angry but I know from being a teacher that as soon as you get angry at a group of leering, unprincipled, teenages/tweenagers - you lose. When I had a wild, undisiplined classroom of kids I kicked out the hell raisers with NO EMOTION. When they came back, out of boredom, they apologised to me.
We know that the Liberanos are BILLIONARE juviniles with no MORAL STANDARDS. They are drunk with power and they have no outlet for their undisiplined, unearned, undeserved, money driven power. What are the Conservatives to do? A carefully aimed kick in their plump postieriors, in public, would probably do the most good ; a punch in the flabby chops is showing them too much respect. As my mother would say they 'need a dressing down' ie public humiliation. Most of them are too old and corrupt and rotted out to ever hope to become functioning adults (tweenagehood is written in the genes of the NDP - they are a given 'write off' ). So, the teenybobbers got together with the very sophisticated, cut throat, Socialists from the BLOC. The BLOC wins and the BLOC laughs. What are the only adults in the room to do?
I think this has gone beyond the House of Commons. It is up to the people that hired the liberano/nd outfit. If they do not punish them by kicking them out then there is nothing the Conservatives can do but take a leave of absence and retreat to a private school that is in the business of growing a adult country. The world would keep spinning if the West left the country. When there are no rules for governing and no threat to the AWOL 'tweenages in charge' then a thinking person has to save a piece of the pie because the rest is like a avalanch that cannot be stopped. Save what can be saved !! The BLOC will be ruling directly or indirectly and that would ensure the downfall of the whole nation.
Posted by: Jema54 at June 25, 2005 02:43 PM (zihZh)
6
Man the X-wing fighters, it's time to bring down the evil Darth McLelland and Emporer Martin. I know where I would like to put my light sabre before I turn it on. Except in this version, why is Princess Stronach part of the dark side. Pretty sure she used her Jedi mind tricks on poor Luke Mckay. OK, so who is Chewie then????
Posted by: DazzlinDino at June 25, 2005 03:58 PM (WFplk)
7
The only MP who can lay a claim to Chewie is Bill Blaikie. Problem solved.
Posted by: kelly0 at June 25, 2005 04:41 PM (jTh/C)
8
Anger changes the world. Rage destroys the valiant.
As the anger builds we will in time corner the liberals and then...
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 25, 2005 11:42 PM (vAI+5)
9
I've got a better idea, let's pull an Adolph Hitler. Adolph Hitler was consistently pissed off at the Chancelor. All of his speeches were angry. The people began to get angrier and angrier with the ruling parties that they grew to support him. Its better to be an angry person leading an angry crowd then a calm person trying to persuade an angry crowd.
It would be like jumping over to the dark side.... (watches Episode 1-6) nevermind, we'd still lose.
Posted by: Paul Vincent at June 26, 2005 12:09 AM (WThET)
10
I'm not sure why people are saying the Conservatives were out-maneuvered. Who would have thought the Bloc would side with the Libranos. It seems the Bloc is more interested in their summer vacation, than Lieberal corruption. A Sovereign Quebec when it's convenient.
Posted by: DJeffery at June 26, 2005 12:34 AM (jTENw)
11
Would everyone be surprised if Harper could just pronounce something positive in a cheerful confident manner?
Harper could say * We are going to work hard to bring in Bill-C-11. The Whistle-Blower Protection bill will save Canadians hundreds of millions in protected revenues.*
C-11 is far more important than the SSM Bill-C-38. C-38 only applies to 1% of Canadians.
Nice going Harper. Something concrete at last.
Next, when can we see volunteers marching on the hill with *Enact C-11 Now!* placards?
Find why C-11 is so great at BendGovt.blog.ca
73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 27, 2005 01:34 AM (rmMzv)
June 24, 2005
Why same-sex marriage makes no sense (part 2)
I know I said the other post would be the last one, but based on some comments, I think a follow-up might be helpful.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:10 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I'm gonna have to disagree on a few points, while i agree with the sentiment in principle that gays should form a different institution.
First, marriage is already used with multiple meanings. For example it can be used to describe two separate factions or ideas compromising, "the marriage of big "C" and small "c" conservatism." Marriage is also occasionally used to describe superposition of two objects, "His head was married to the ball." There are others, but i can't think of them right now...
Santa is marry and Marry had a little lamb spring to mind.
I guess the problem with this use is that it is sooooo close to the original. It dilutes what it meant when i got married into something different, that I do not welcome. I never thought i'd have to anticipate saying, "I am married," only to have someone ask, "To a man or woman?" which really seems to underly that something is being taken from me...
Something I value.
Posted by: at June 24, 2005 09:17 PM (0AQqd)
2
I'm gonna have to disagree on a few points, while i agree with the sentiment in principle that gays should form a different institution.
First, marriage is already used with multiple meanings. For example it can be used to describe two separate factions or ideas compromising, "the marriage of big "C" and small "c" conservatism." Marriage is also occasionally used to describe superposition of two objects, "His head was married to the ball." There are others, but i can't think of them right now...
Santa is marry and Marry had a little lamb spring to mind.
I guess the problem with this use is that it is sooooo close to the original. It dilutes what it meant when i got married into something different, that I do not welcome. I never thought i'd have to anticipate saying, "I am married," only to have someone ask, "To a man or woman?" which really seems to underly that something is being taken from me...
Something I value.
Posted by: Brad In Barrhead at June 24, 2005 09:17 PM (0AQqd)
3
Everything you have said makes sense and is correct but gay marriage is the wedge that will be used to destroy religion- any religion in this country and around the world. There can only be one force behind that kind of objective.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 24, 2005 09:24 PM (vAI+5)
4
"If homosexuals do not need to be monogamous, then a homosexual "marriage" is just a mimicry of heterosexual marriage"
This is somewhat dangerous reasoning. This means, for example, if the husband in a marriage finds out that he can never be a father for whatever reason, since he "does not need to be monogomous," their marriage is just a mimicry of a "real" marriage. In fact, it seems that once any married woman reaches menopause (if she has no children), her marriage would automatically mimic a "real" marriage.
Posted by: Mid at June 24, 2005 09:24 PM (pTXYq)
5
We seem to be hung up on refining a "definition". This is more of counting angels on the head of a pin. I defy you to define "quality". Attempting to do so drove Pirsig into a rubber room in Motorcyle Maintenance.
Look, we have this innate "definition" of marriage. Indeed it is centered on reproduction, and the very special and complex arrangements that are its biological consequences. No matter how dearly it is desired, gays and lesbians will not be able to emulate that fundamental social building block. Biology defies it.
What can take place is the very precise definition of something else, which includes provisions for the financial implications and guardianship implications of this new kind of formalized relationship.
I will never consider it marriage, not ever. No amount of scrutiny and smithing of the definition of 'square' is going to alter the shape of a square peg.
That leaves the legal intricacies of resolving the various "what-if" scenarios as people form new kinds of relationships to be hashed out. These same issues resolved as a matter of discovery of the legal consequences of marriage provides a convenient template. But a square peg is still going to be a square peg even after all that.
Posted by: Shaken at June 24, 2005 09:46 PM (Mzobe)
6
Mr. Right and I came to a decision this evening. We were married in a civil ceremony in Scotland, because we figured "Hey, married is married, right?" But if this bill is passed, what we considered a marriage will effectively become a sham to us. So we have decided that we will be married, probably on our anniversary next year, in a church. A proper wedding, with a priest to call this man and this woman married. Because if it is only the churches (some churches) that recognize marriage for what it truly is, then that's where we must go.
Hey Angry, you free that day?
RG
Posted by: RightGirl at June 24, 2005 10:00 PM (bdiSz)
7
RG - I've been toying with the idea of taking that whole recognition a step further: what if religious institutions that refuse the sham 'marriage' being imposed by C-38 would launch a counter-offensive by completely dropping the M-word and coming up with a new one? Simplistic? Perhaps, but it could prove symbolically powerful -- and would bug the hell out of the secular fundamentalists.
Posted by: Linda at June 24, 2005 10:45 PM (oCPrU)
8
"Tied to that obligation are the biological consequences of failing to meet that obligation. Those consequences are pregnancies from relationships outside of the marriage bond, and the resulting personal and social fallout."
Do you know what an STD is?
I noticed in your article # 1 that you say you tune out people who talk about rights. Tune out now.
What do you say about the rights that come with marriage, that are, if not denied to homosexual couples, are very and unfairly hard to get? I'm speaking of next of kin, power of attorney, and the such....
The argument that marriage is a device to conceive and raise children is an argument created out of necessity to frame the anti-SSM debate in a logical light. Unfortunately for you nice folks, once that arbitrary foundation is exposed (for clearly, no law stipulates the birthing or raising of children as a requirement or even goal of marriage), the entire argument upon which your stance lies comes falling down.
Doesn't much matter, though. This isn't the US, and come Monday, or soon after, SSM will be legal. And just like 'not hanging blacks' and 'not having legal homosexual sex', you will soon catch up the social progressivity of the rest of Canada. And just maybe, after a while, you'll stop thinking gays want to harvest the sex organs of your children.
Posted by: Gordon Stephens at June 24, 2005 11:24 PM (TCY35)
9
Linda said: "RG - I've been toying with the idea of taking that whole recognition a step further: what if religious institutions that refuse the sham 'marriage' being imposed by C-38 would launch a counter-offensive by completely dropping the M-word and coming up with a new one? Simplistic? Perhaps, but it could prove symbolically powerful -- and would bug the hell out of the secular fundamentalists."
Wouldn't bother me at all.
The reason us 'secular fundamentalists', whatever that term means, want SSM to be SSM and not SSCU, is because of the name itself, not to rain on your religious party. What the churches provide is a service, but all the rights of marriage come not from the Churches, but from the state.
You could have your... whatever you'd call thems in a Church, but they'd be meaningless without a marriage certificate.
Posted by: Gordon Stephens at June 24, 2005 11:30 PM (TCY35)
10
Linda: “There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
— C.S. Lewis, British essayist, author, cleric
Posted by: DJeffery at June 24, 2005 11:34 PM (jTENw)
11
Gee Gordon somehow the thought that marriage is associated with children seems to me to have been around long before I heard of SSM. But yes I can see your point that people would get together and say lookee we have to come up with a reason to ban gays from getting married so why not say that marriage is about having children and creating a family. Yes what a novel idea.
Yes SSM is legal next week. They can make you say Anything but they cant make you believe it.
Posted by: MikeP at June 24, 2005 11:36 PM (p000C)
12
Socially Progressive = You Agree With Me.
Give me a frigging break, Gordon.
OK, since I am not 'progressive', I stake my claim on 'sensible'.
There you go Gordon, you're 'socially progressive', while we're 'socially sensible'. Works for me? Work for you?
Posted by: Shaken at June 24, 2005 11:42 PM (Mzobe)
13
>What the churches provide is a service, but all the
>rights of marriage come not from the Churches,
>but from the state.
Look, you're obviously not a historian, so let me clue you in. No. You have it totally backwards. A marriage is something which occurs in a church, before God. What the state confers upon 2 people is a recognition of a social contract, a legal binding partnership of two people. Churches don't get rights from the state on this issue, the Church pre-dates the state on this issue, and it was only in the middle ages, the late middle ages actually, that the state began interfering in the practice of marriage in the Church (with such wonderful state practices as prima noctis for example). A state chooses whether to recognize such a partnership, and that's done to protect both parties from abandonment of the partnership. Divorce is essentially a breach of contract hearing.
What happens in a Church is not derived from anything the state provides. The state is frankly the least important actor in a marriage, the most important actor is God, the second most important actors are the fiancees and the third most important are the congregants. What occurs is a sacrament of the church, that two people become one flesh, and there's a mystery to it, observed and lived out in the community of the congregants.
My solution to this whole issue is very, very simple. Get government out of the marriage business entirely. Government should legally bind people who choose to enter into a 'civil union' or a 'domestic partnership', no romantic love should be required, and thus the governments interest of protecting parties who are linked in some form or other would be respected, and all current marriages would fall under this category. To get married you'd go to church, but it would have nothing to do with recognition of that event by the state, for that you'd go to a government office, fill out a form and have it notorized.
As an added benefit, imagine two older sisters, both seniors, both unmarried or widows. They've lived in the same house for years, what happens when one gets sick? Well, they do not have spousal rights in the health care system, so treatment options and all the stuff married people have doesn't benefit them at all. And, further, when one dies, the property doesn't transfer smoothly, the survivor could lose their electricity and the like, they'd be forced to pay expensive and unaffordable estate taxes on a mutually owned property because it was in the name of the deceased, and probably have to sell the place. My compromise platform would solve this problem by allowing these two to become legally bound under the law with all the associated rights and obligations.
>whatever you'd call thems in a Church, but they'd
>be meaningless without a marriage certificate.
A religious ceremony is only meaningless to the uninitiated. Ask yourself this, if religious marital ceremonies are so meaningless, then why are gays pushing for blessing ceremonies in the Anglican church in BC? Why do they flock to unitarian and the metropolitan church in Toronto for ceremonies rather than just going to the Justice of the Peace? Precisely because meaning exists beyond the sterile governance of a contractual arrangement.
Marriage occurs in a church. Period. The government chooses to recognize them or not.
I'd also like to point out that the purpose of C38 is not to extend a right to gays. That right has already been established by courts in nearly every province.
The purpose of C38 is to declare war on religion in Canada, and its already beginning:
- Bishop Henry, of Calgary is being forced to defend himself in court against two human rights complaints related to a pastoral letter he sent to churches, which was later reported and transcribed in a newspaper. Two people read the article and letter in the newspaper and filed a complaint.
- BC and Manitoba marriage commissioners are being told that if they do not solemnize gay marriages, against their conscientious objections, they will be terminated.
- Chris Kempler, a teacher and guidance counsellor at a school in northern BC who was disciplined by his professional body, the B.C. College of Teachers for writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper denouncing the schoolÂ’s teaching on homosexuality. The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the discipline and said that Kempling was not entitled to the protection of the Charter.
If this was about 'rights' (which it isn't, gay people have the same rights as everyone else, even including the rights which marriage would affect) then more than 30% of people in Canada would support it. But it isn't and they don't. It is about the gay lobby trying to foist its views upon the rest of society and trying to force them to 'celebrate' their views, which is a violation of the freedom to hold religious views and the free practice thereof, and the free speech provisions of our constitution. We are literally watching our fundamental freedoms as citizens get eroded before our eyes and the law hasn't even passed yet. When it does... look out, the gay lobby has an army of lawyers chomping at the bit.
Posted by: Paulm at June 25, 2005 12:47 AM (GSEkq)
14
Linda said: "RG - I've been toying with the idea of taking that whole recognition a step further: what if religious institutions that refuse the sham 'marriage' being imposed by C-38 would launch a counter-offensive by completely dropping the M-word and coming up with a new one? Simplistic? Perhaps, but it could prove symbolically powerful -- and would bug the hell out of the secular fundamentalists."
Words are only a tool to communicate thoughts, concepts, ideas, etc. The word marriage brings a particular understanding or concept to people based on how it is used and what it has meant in the past. For example the word ice cream brings the concept of a certain product. If we decide to change the meaning of that word to say include yogart -- it is no longer the same concept of product that comes to mind, and now we have no way of saying ice cream other than to create a new word for it or to use a sentence instead of a word to describe what we are trying to communicate. The thoughts and concepts haven't changed we just no longer have a way to communicate until someone eventually comes up with another word or group of words to say what we are thinking. (Like now I have to say "I want the old kind of ice cream" instead of just saying I want ice cream to convey the same thought. So if the gay community changes the word "marriage" it doesn't change what people are thinking only limits there ability to communicate what they are thinking. So when someone from say India is learning English in Canada and they ask "how do you say the union of a man and a women" we will have to answer we don't really have a word for that (yet). Then because it is so tied to our values eventually we will find a new way of expressing it. I say let them create a new word for the type of union they have and define it any any terms they think expresses what it means and leave the existing word alone. If you change the definition of the word, it and what it meant is no longer the same. If they want what marriage is, they can't get it by changing the definition because in changing it , it is no longer what they wanted.
It looks like we might have to find a new word, but for the life of me, I can't think of what it could be - that would say the union of one man and one women quite as well as marriage does.
Posted by: Eavon at June 25, 2005 01:46 AM (FWPCU)
15
Spiritual aspects aside, government 'marriage' is about property and children. The present government-run 'marriage' regime imposed on unsuspecting young couples is not considered very wise or fair by older couples who have bought expensive homes and second homes for lawyers in Whistler.
So if the 'gay' set want in on buying BMW's and yachts for lawyers because they 'partnered', the lawyers certainly won't mind.
Anyone visiting divorce courts over the past two decades knows that 'marriage' as per government involvement is now a dirty word, so nothing is lost or gained by imposing this dirty word on 'gay' couples. The price of 'equality' is often to end up in the same mess everyone else is in.
'Marriage' has been ruined by Liberal social engineering, as the Cools Commission clearly showed. If you want to 'defend marriage', go back to the Cools Commission Report.
As it stands, this government-run racket for lawyers at the expense of children, families, and men and women, called 'marriage' is a carriage only a fool would want to get on. 'Gay marriage' won't harm that word. The harm has already been done over two decades where lawyers take 30% of family assests in an uncontested divorce, and 50% of the inheritance belonging properly to children in a contested divorce.
Stop waxing idealistically about the word 'marriage' in Canada under Liberal social engineering government control. The ideal is that aspect which is forever outside government control, and all that lawyers and government have done is destroy trust, which is the foundation for love.
Posted by: edward mills at June 25, 2005 01:59 AM (c4Z9/)
16
All this deep [but admittedly entertaining writing on SSM] is so simply solved.
Marraige is child based and is called Marraige. Civil Union is adult based and is called Civil Union or Civil Bond. Finis.
SSM affects about 1% of Canadians. Bill C-38
WB law affects 100 % of Canadians in a major way. Bill C-11
Whistle-Blower legislation is immensly valuable and protects our national wealth no matter who is in power. Check BendGovt.blog.ca
Dragging feet in the USA also on WB law.
Check www.nswbc.org and Lewrockwell.com.
WB is also an agenda for the UN.
Most Canadians have no idea of it's immense value. Applies to much more than just monies.
We should all scream for C-11. It's great.
73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 25, 2005 05:12 AM (rmMzv)
17
Well, there is a lot to respond to, so I'm not going to repond in quote form, I'll just use points. If you feel I ignored something vital, lemme know.
1) I stated that there is no law or stipulation saying that marriage is about having children. None of you came back and told me there is actually a law (due to there not being one). Now, I can understand that what most of you wish to preserve is a traditional definition of marriage. In a traditional sense, marriage can be said to include children as a priority, at least in most societies.
Now, the problem is that this is irrelevant to the courts, and to law. Laws and courts are not based on traditions, which are abstract and entirely subjective, but on reasonings which are acute and provisionally subjective.
2) I didn't mean to say that religious marriages, as performed by a church without the awarding of a marriage licenses, are completely meaningless, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. I mean only to say that legally, they are meaningless. Without a state sanctioned license, there are no legal rights that come along with marriage. You cannot go to a church, get married, and then suddenly have power of attorney. You need to get a marriage license, from the government.
So, in this respect, there are two different types of marriage already. One is done in a church by some religion or another as a traditional blessing or ceremony. The other is done in order to grant legal rights to the couple, and that is done by the government.
The big hangup for a lot of social conservatives is that it's called 'marriage'. Well, tough. The Bible doesn't have a copyright on the word.
3) It was said that the state is the least important factor in marriage, but that God is. This is just silly. Which God? Which faith? Which sect or cult or church or interpretation? The reality is that while you may personally believe God is the most important factor, other people do not. My parents are not religious, and dare I say that God didn't grant them next of kin powers, the Government of Canada did.
Your personal God may be very important in the traditional blessing of a church marriage ceremony, but it has nothing to do with the rights afforded you with marriage.
Those are the main 3 points I see, I'll respond to some individual snippets to flesh it out a bit.
Shaken: "There you go Gordon, you're 'socially progressive', while we're 'socially sensible'. Works for me? Work for you?"
I don't mean it as an insult, I mean it as a categorization. The very word progressive means to push new ideas and new definitions. The word conservative means to preserve the past (it also describes appealing to tradition).
Changing the definition of marriage is certainly progressive. Keeping the old definition is certainly conservative.
Paulm: "Look, you're obviously not a historian, so let me clue you in."
Marriage was not invented by Christians. It wasn't even invented by Jews. Choke on that for historical fact.
The truth is that defining marriage around the Christian god is arrogantly ethnocentric, and is only happening because Christianity became the largest religion in Europe. To frame the debate as such is not only an affront to non-Christian people, it is an affront to the supposed cultural mosaic of Canada.
In respect to the ethnocentricity of this framing of the debate, it's good to point out that if the Scandinavians had of maintained control of Europe, Thor would be the most popular god, and we'd get rid of the dead in funeral pyres, not graves. Framing the debate like this doesn't happen because it is true, but because Christianity is the dominant religious force by historical contingency, and historical contingency alone.
Paulm: "Marriage occurs in a church. Period. The government chooses to recognize them or not."
Marriage is approved by the state. Period. The church chooses to allow a ceremony or not.
Paulm: "I'd also like to point out that the purpose of C38 is not to extend a right to gays. That right has already been established by courts in nearly every province."
But not all, and this is what the SSM bill will rectify.
You discredit your first sentence with your second sentence. Please, show a little consistency.
Paulm: "The purpose of C38 is to declare war on religion in Canada, and its already beginning:
- Bishop Henry, of Calgary is being forced to defend himself in court against two human rights complaints related to a pastoral letter he sent to churches, which was later reported and transcribed in a newspaper. Two people read the article and letter in the newspaper and filed a complaint."
That happened a long, long time before C-38. This isn't even an ergo propter hoc fallacy, it's just a lie.
Paulm: "- BC and Manitoba marriage commissioners are being told that if they do not solemnize gay marriages, against their conscientious objections, they will be terminated."
So? Their jobs are to do x. When they refuse to x, they are refusing to their jobs. Why should the government pay someone to not do their job?
x can be anything.
I feel the same way about pharmacists who do not give out birth control, and teachers who don't teach sex education or evolution. I know that if I didn't do my job, I'd be fired, so I expect the same of others.
Paulm: "- Chris Kempler(sic), a teacher and guidance counsellor at a school in northern BC who was disciplined by his professional body, the B.C. College of Teachers for writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper denouncing the schoolÂ’s teaching on homosexuality. The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the discipline and said that Kempling was not entitled to the protection of the Charter."
Again, this happened long before C-38.
I agree with that ruling, and let me tell you why. Kempling did not just write into the paper. He wrote into the paper and used his authority *as a teacher* to promote his views. He wrote that he could not *teach* impartially about such vsubjective notions as 'promiscuity' and 'immorality'.
Now, if Kempling had of written his letters as a citizen, I'd be 100% on your side. He did not, however, but wrote as a teacher. For all intents and quite a few purposes, this is equivalent to taking it into the classroom.
"If this was about 'rights' (which it isn't, gay people have the same rights as everyone else, even including the rights which marriage would affect) then more than 30% of people in Canada would support it. But it isn't and they don't."
Gay people do not have equal access to those rights. As I originally wrote, to get the same rights, gays have to, unfairly, go through many legal hoops, and pay many legal bills. That is blatantly discriminatory.
Also, you invented the 30% number. The country has been split right down the middle on gay marriage since it first became a hot topic. When you make stuff like this up, you lose a lot of credibility. Don't try to sneak stuff like this by me, I take nothing you say as truth before I verify it.
"It is about the gay lobby trying to foist its views upon the rest of society and trying to force them to 'celebrate' their views, which is a violation of the freedom to hold religious views and the free practice thereof, and the free speech provisions of our constitution."
Typical rhetoric.
They aren't demanding that people celebrate their views. They are demanding that you respect the Charter, and the rights it affords them. You don't have to go to a gay marriage, or watch a gay pride festival or even walk on the same side of the street as a pair of dudes holding hands. However, it will be *you* who doesn't attend the marriage, *you* who doesn't dance on a float in a gstring, and *you* that crosses the street. Forced to celebrate them? Not a chance. Forced to respect them, you betcha.
"We are literally watching our fundamental freedoms as citizens get eroded before our eyes and the law hasn't even passed yet. When it does... look out, the gay lobby has an army of lawyers chomping at the bit."
Yes, fear the gay boogeyman!
They want equality, and its that equality that you are unable to handle.
To you, anything that is contrary to a Christian world is anti-Christian. To you, rights are only rights if you approve of them.
You're a hedonist, and God is your drug.
Edward Mills: Gays are destroying marriage? Why is it that the most conservative Christian denominations have the highest divorce rates? Seems that when you look at the facts, it's the godless atheists and secular humanists that are propping marriage up. Here's a link for US data on the topic: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Posted by: Gordon Stephens at June 25, 2005 06:13 AM (TCY35)
18
"So? Their jobs are to do x. When they refuse to do x, they are refusing to their jobs. Why should the government pay someone not to do their job?"
Everytime i hear a statement like that, it reminds me of war criminals on the stand saying "I was just following orders". Many of the people who became marriage commissioners did so before there was any such thing as gay 'marriage'. That being the case, should they be forced to go against their conscinece now? Or change jobs? Some of these people might be 2-3 years away from retirement, and by your statements, it's okay to fire them or make them resign if they can't sleep at night because they're forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. Yet you say it's not a war on religion? Or faith? Or beliefs? Now who has the blinders of rhetoric on?
Anyway, in regards to changing the name of Marriage to bring it back to it's true sense, in Arkansas they have "Covenant Marriages". Religious only, requiring one year of study on what marriage and family means, and you cannot get a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, which is good. I'm so sick of hearing about disposable marriages. Basically, you can't split up for any reason except abuse. Even if a partner cheats, you must prove that you've explored all channels of counseling (religious or otherwise) before you can call it quits, and it's a long and arduous process? Sound familiar? It should. That's what marriage used to be, before the state said it was okay to be married for less time than it takes to walk back from city hall.
Perhaps we'll go to Arkansas.... No, wait, can't do that. Bill Clinton.
Oh well, it was a thought!
RG
Posted by: RightGirl at June 25, 2005 07:25 AM (bdiSz)
19
Lots of good stuff here. But I'll add a few bits.
First, marriage and children. It is true that today we don't dissolve childless heterosexual marriages. However, in the past, that's exactly what happened, and I suspect in some places, it still happens. The fact that we don't do it today actually has weakened the institution, though I'm not suggesting we re-institute the practise. But I am saying we must not lose track of the fundamental basis of marriage. Couplings that are a priori childless (ie, same-sex) don't meet the standard for marriage.
I don't think marriages were ever dissolved with menopause. First, in times past, not many women would live that long, given human lifespans then. And second, by this time they'd would quite possibly be grandparents. Married couples were not meant to be an ongoing baby factories. After having children, they were supposed to raise children, and then grandchildren.
Does marriage belong to the churches? I'm not convinced. Marriage predates organized religion -- sorry, but everything I've read suggests this is true, and it also makes logical sense. In fact, I think you need marriage to form a stable society, from which point you can have communities, and then a priest class, and then religion (depending on your point of view, at that point humans could invent religion, or humans were ready for divine revelation). Marriage moved into the religious sphere, true, but even without religion, the biological underpinnings of marriage are still true. In fact, in my arguments, I never refer to religious justification for the form of traditional marriage.
On the word "marriage". If we allow the same word to label same-sex and heterosexual unions, we are faced with a problem. We either use the same word for two very different kinds of unions, and possibly two different sets of rules (for instance, if the obligations are different). That's fine for English -- many words are allowed to have multiple meanings. It is, however, a legal nightmare, where the general rule is that a word has a specific legal meaning. If "marriage" labels two vey different institutions, soon one side or the other will sue for discrimination, seeking to have an odious obligation rescinded on the basis that it is not universally applied.
And they'd be right.
Alternatively, we make sure "marriage" means the same for everyone in legal terms. That means either applying rules that make no sense to one kind of coupling in order to preserve it for the other (a situation rioe for a legal challenge) or we reduce marriage to what few aspects that are in common. Marriage would become a financial association, since monogamy and rules regarding children could not be universally applied.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 25, 2005 08:59 AM (LtsTC)
20
What question is most likely to be put to young married couples?? Chances are they will tell you, we are always asked when are we starting a family.
See Gordon you can twist marriage to mean what you think it should but you will never take away the real meaning. And somehow you think that the word marriage is going to mean a whole new respect for the gay lifestyle. You are dreaming in technicolor.
Bishop Henry happened before C-38?? The pastoral letter was only written because the Feds are trying to legalize SSM which is bill C-38.
Marriage is social policy and not a right.
Posted by: MikeP at June 25, 2005 09:05 AM (p000C)
21
>It was said that the state is the least important
>factor in marriage, but that God is. This is just
>silly. Which God? Which faith? Which sect or cult
>or church or interpretation? The reality is that
>while you may personally believe God is the most >important factor, other people do not.
In a real marriage, instead of a contract of convenience, God in the most important actor between the two people. That goes for any faith group around the world. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sihk, Hindu, or miscellaneous.
>Your personal God may be very important in the
>traditional blessing of a church marriage
>ceremony, but it has nothing to do with the rights
>afforded you with marriage.
The benefits the government chooses to endorse on relationships have nothing to do with marriage. A marriage is not simply saying 'I do' and getting all sorts of 'rights', any view that describes marriage as that is describing something else.
>Marriage was not invented by Christians. It wasn't
>even invented by Jews. Choke on that for
>historical fact.
So? Christians and Jews share the same spiritual heritage (which Islam later adopted as its own too), and with the greater integration of societies in the late middle ages and into the age of exploration, that view became gradually adopted worldwide. Prior to that the concept of marriage varied far and wide (and to a certain extent there still are tremendous differences), and the near uniformity of world cultures on marriage is a direct result of stuff which happened in Europe.
>The truth is that defining marriage around the
>Christian god is arrogantly ethnocentric, and is
>only happening because Christianity became the
>largest religion in Europe. To frame the debate as
>such is not only an affront to non-Christian
>people, it is an affront to the supposed cultural
>mosaic of Canada.
For a guy who seems to like quoting logical fallacies, check out your own argumentio ad hominem. Anyone who doesn't agree is 'ethnocentric' and 'arrogant'. Just wait, next post you'll say I'm homophobic too.
The fact is the current worldwide practices of marriage are much more uniform than they were even 500 years ago. Those practices have been altered from their initial local patterns by contact with the European west. That's not 'eurocentric', thats called cold, hard, historical fact.
>But not all, and this is what the SSM bill will
>rectify.
C38 has no authority to tread on the domain of the provinces in determining who they grant marriage licenses to. This bill will not force any province to do anything (especially given the notwithstanding clause).
>That happened a long, long time before C-38.
>This isn't even an ergo propter hoc fallacy, it's
>just a lie.
Bishop Henry's state sanctioned witchhunt began after he wrote a letter to his churches in January 2005, and in direct response to C38. The letter was later released to the media after media made several requests to see the letter. After they printed the letter, two members of the gay lobby pressed a human rights commission complaint against him, that happened in Februrary. On March 29, 2005 he submitted his response. So, we're talking about an event less than six months old, in direct response to C38. So...who's the liar?
>He wrote into the paper and used his authority
>*as a teacher* to promote his views.
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association."
That's from the Charter of Rights.
So, explain to me this: Why should we extend a right to marriage to gay people, 'because its in the charter' (which it isn't but...), but we should roll back a person's right to freedom of belief, thought or opinion?
Here's a guy that has a view you don't like. So, what do you try and do? Destroy him. Whatever happened to our so-called value of 'tolerance'? You want people who disagree with same-sex marriage to tolerate your view, but you refuse to extend the same tolerance to the other side?
>As I originally wrote, to get the same rights, gays
>have to, unfairly, go through many legal hoops,
>and pay many legal bills.
But you're arguing with the wrong guy, remember I want to extend those rights to anyone who wants to avail themselves of the governments sanction of their relationship, romantic or not, and that includes gay people. I just don't want it called marriage because that denigrates a sacrament of the church.
>Also, you invented the 30% number. The country
>has been split right down the middle on gay
>marriage since it first became a hot topic.
The polling numbers very much depend on the way the question is posed:
If the question is:
"Do you support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat or oppose strongly keeping
the definition of marriage as a union of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others?"
The results are: strongly support 50%, somewhat support 16%, somewhat oppose 12%, strongly oppose 22%.
I'm sure you can add.
If you phrase the question:
Suppose you had the following three options. Which would you prefer?
(1) Parliament should keep the existing definition of marriage as the union of
one woman and one man and should not pass any law recognizing same-sex
union (29%)
(2) Parliament should keep the existing definition of marriage as the union of
one man and one woman and should set up a separate legal category that
includes same-sex unions but would not be called marriage (36%)
(3) Parliament should change the legal definition of marriage to the union of any two persons, regardless of their gender (35%)
In that poll, only 35% agree with the contents of C38.
http://www.compas.ca/data/050202-SameSex-EPC.pdf
>When you make stuff like this up, you lose a lot
>of credibility. Don't try to sneak stuff like this by
>me, I take nothing you say as truth before I
>verify it.
I eagerly await your apology.
>They aren't demanding that people celebrate their
>views. They are demanding that you respect the
>Charter, and the rights it affords them.
Show me where in the charter is says that gay people have the right to marriage. Please.
>You don't have to go to a gay marriage, or watch
>a gay pride festival or even walk on the same
>side of the street as a pair of dudes holding hands
Ah yes, 'the anyone who is opposed is a bigot' gambit. It may surprise you, but I have several gay friends. I'm not the least bit homophobic. The problem is that this bill will be used to try and force religious people into doing what the gay lobby wants, regardless of their deeply held convictions.
The Gay lobby (see equalmarriage.ca) is already pledging to use C38 to try and force clergy to marry them, to force them to rent their facilities for their ceremonies and to attempt to end any tax breaks they might get if they don't comply.
>They want equality, and its that equality that you
>are unable to handle.
Gay people are already equal under the law. If you rob a gay person you get charged with theft. If you punch a gay person you get charged with assault. If you refuse to serve a gay couple in a restaurant you will be civilly prosecuted for discrimination. What you call 'equality' is real code for forcing everyone to agree and celebrate their sexual preferences, and it means an erosion of free speech and freedom of expression and opinion, all of which are GUARANTEED by our charter of rights, so who is REALLY about protecting the charter?
>To you, anything that is contrary to a Christian
>world is anti-Christian.
That's kind of funny since my prior post didn't ever even use the word. That's a straw man and you know it.
>To you, rights are only rights if you approve of
>them.
Another straw man. Ever heard of the charter of rights and freedoms? I actually am very much in favour of it. I'd LOVE to see government actually learn to allow the free practice of religion, belief, opinion, speech and expression.
>You're a hedonist, and God is your drug.
And you end of with another argumentio ad hominem (and its also a straw man).
Posted by: Paulm at June 25, 2005 12:16 PM (2YGUB)
22
Marriage is an ABSTACT noun. It has real meaning only in the minds eye, the IDEA of marriage is like the IDEA of hope, courage, dispair etc. A COMMON noun like hat and coat are not IDEAS, they are things. English is a rich, expressive language but the IDEA of marriage is forever in the minds eye, 'the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others' ; sorry SSM supporters you CAN NEVER rule on the minds eye view. This has been so since women refused to be assulted by rogue men who were not willing to support the inevidable consequences of their actions. Women in cultures who were deemed them "slaves" and of no consequence except as servants to men took this covenant to FORCE this arrangement on men. The bartering of women for dowery and beauty INSISTED on marriage so any childern would not be abandoned for offspring from another woman. Lovers have always been a man's preferable choice because there are no strings attached to 'shack- up' arrangements. Love has become the 'romantic' bases for the union of a man and a woman but the root of the definition is practical. If our state enforces a law that allows men to abandon the women that bear their childern in favor of a partnership with other men who will never claim their freedom and time for the messy business of raising childern then women are 'cooked'. Women cannot ever have the freedom enjoyed by men IF they want a family; if ALL women do NOT want a family then the planet earth is cooked. This bill is NOT practical and it defies the abstraction of the minds eye view. I have often wondered what it is about and my sad conclusion is that it is about the dehumanization of the human race. Test tube, generically engineered humans who grow up in human 'greenhouses'. The term human will have no meaning to the little 'robots' who do the 'states' bidding without question. Where did this minds eye view come from? oh yes, 1984. Mr. Orwell was a few years off - in Canada. Let this beautiful country be the FIRST to embrace the unthinkable existance of George Orwells 1984. Way to go, Canada!!!
Posted by: Jema54 at June 25, 2005 04:03 PM (zihZh)
23
RightGirl: "Everytime i hear a statement like that, it reminds me of war criminals on the stand saying "I was just following orders". Many of the people who became marriage commissioners did so before there was any such thing as gay 'marriage'. That being the case, should they be forced to go against their conscinece now? Or change jobs?"
Yes, they should leave. Do their job, or leave. Social conditions are not a constant, and people who are intolerant need to either overcome it while at work, or find new work.
It is unfortunate that they have to choose between their prejudices and their income stability, but it is not uncommon.
Angry in T.O.: "Marriage moved into the religious sphere, true, but even without religion, the biological underpinnings of marriage are still true. In fact, in my arguments, I never refer to religious justification for the form of traditional marriage."
Excellent points, but I disagree that marriage needs to be restricted on biological grounds. It's undeniable that there is a plethora of rights gained through marriage, and in the interests of equality, those rights must be available to all people.
Perhaps Paulm's idea for removing marriage licenses from purely intimate relationships makes a lot of sense in this regard.
Angry in T.O.: "It is, however, a legal nightmare, where the general rule is that a word has a specific legal meaning. If "marriage" labels two vey different institutions, soon one side or the other will sue for discrimination, seeking to have an odious obligation rescinded on the basis that it is not universally applied."
I don't follow that one. The institution of a gay marriage is exactly the same as the marriage of a barren couple.
Legally, marriage is going to be the same for straights or gays, so no legal problem will arise.
Paulm: "In a real marriage, instead of a contract of convenience, God in the most important actor between the two people. That goes for any faith group around the world. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sihk, Hindu, or miscellaneous."
I disagree. My parents are married, and are not religious. God is not the most important to them, they do not even believe he exists. What is most important is each other, and their family.
Once again, you attempt to artificially frame the debate in terms of God.
Paulm: "The benefits the government chooses to endorse on relationships have nothing to do with marriage. A marriage is not simply saying 'I do' and getting all sorts of 'rights', any view that describes marriage as that is describing something else."
As I've said, there are two different marriages. One done by the state, which is exactly what you say marriage is not, and one done by a religious institution, where God may or may not be the most important (I say may not, because many couples get married in a church simply to please their religious relatives).
Paulm: "Prior to that the concept of marriage varied far and wide (and to a certain extent there still are tremendous differences), and the near uniformity of world cultures on marriage is a direct result of stuff which happened in Europe."
Incorrect. Solemn vows arose independently in Asia, Australia, Africa, etc, and they all look the same in most respects.
Paulm: "For a guy who seems to like quoting logical fallacies, check out your own argumentio ad hominem. Anyone who doesn't agree is 'ethnocentric' and 'arrogant'. Just wait, next post you'll say I'm homophobic too."
I said your argument was arrogant and ethnocentric, not you.
Paulm: "The fact is the current worldwide practices of marriage are much more uniform than they were even 500 years ago. Those practices have been altered from their initial local patterns by contact with the European west. That's not 'eurocentric', thats called cold, hard, historical fact."
It is still historical contingency. If we want to talk about logical fallacies, look up "appeal to tradition."
Paulm: "C38 has no authority to tread on the domain of the provinces in determining who they grant marriage licenses to. This bill will not force any province to do anything (especially given the notwithstanding clause)."
Actually, it will. This is precisely why Ralph Klein is so miffed. As for using the notwithstanding clause, that is political suicide.
Paulm: "So, we're talking about an event less than six months old, in direct response to C38. So...who's the liar?"
Ah, you are entirely right, I apologize. I googled the name, and came up with some stuff from 2003. Again, I am sorry.
However, it is still not a cause of C-38. If he had of said the same thing without referencing C-38, there'd probably still be a complaint. Until the complaint has been processed, it's impossible to make assumptions on what is going on.
Paulm: "So, explain to me this: Why should we extend a right to marriage to gay people, 'because its in the charter' (which it isn't but...), but we should roll back a person's right to freedom of belief, thought or opinion?"
Mr. Kempling does have those rights. He made those comments, however, in conjunction with the invocation of his teacher status. It is for this that he was punished. The college of teachers is within their rights to enforce tolerant behavious, and Mr. Kempling broke those rules. As I said, if he had of simply wrote the paper as "Mr. Kempling", he'd have been fine, and I'd have defended him if he was shut down by the courts. What he did was entirely different.
Paulm: "Here's a guy that has a view you don't like. So, what do you try and do? Destroy him. Whatever happened to our so-called value of 'tolerance'? You want people who disagree with same-sex marriage to tolerate your view, but you refuse to extend the same tolerance to the other side?"
I am tolerant of his views. It is the college of teachers that is not tolerant of his invocation of their name in a publically available anti-homosexual letter.
Huge difference.
Paulm: "In that poll, only 35% agree with the contents of C38.
http://www.compas.ca/data/050202-SameSex-EPC.pdf"
Here's a site monitoring the trends over the last decade, with links to sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm
One from April: http://tinyurl.com/dktz4
An SES poll from this month: http://tinyurl.com/ac9un (PDF)
I am unsure why Compas disagrees so consistently to all other polls. It is obviously the odd one out.
Paulm: "I eagerly await your apology."
You used the source which agrees with you, while all others have contradictory results. Shame on you.
Paulm: "Show me where in the charter is says that gay people have the right to marriage. Please."
Read the court ruling yourself.
Paulm: "Ah yes, 'the anyone who is opposed is a bigot' gambit. It may surprise you, but I have several gay friends. I'm not the least bit homophobic. The problem is that this bill will be used to try and force religious people into doing what the gay lobby wants, regardless of their deeply held convictions."
It's been cemented in the law that religious institutions will not have to give marriage ceremonies to gays if they do not wish to. This law only affects marriage. Anything else is culture.
Paulm: "The Gay lobby (see equalmarriage.ca) is already pledging to use C38 to try and force clergy to marry them, to force them to rent their facilities for their ceremonies and to attempt to end any tax breaks they might get if they don't comply."
Forcing them to perform ceremonies will never happen.
Losing tax exempt status for discrimination... I don't know the legality behind that. I doubt a court would make that decision, though. Courts are smart to avoid being political pawns, as seen by them making the government change the definition of marriage.
Paulm: "Gay people are already equal under the law. If you rob a gay person you get charged with theft. If you punch a gay person you get charged with assault. If you refuse to serve a gay couple in a restaurant you will be civilly prosecuted for discrimination."
And if they go to a marrage comissioner in Alberta, they will be denied. Inequality.
just because they are equal in most respects does not mean they are equal in all respects. Until they are equal in all respects, there is inequality in the law.
Paulm: "What you call 'equality' is real code for forcing everyone to agree and celebrate their sexual preferences, and it means an erosion of free speech and freedom of expression and opinion, all of which are GUARANTEED by our charter of rights, so who is REALLY about protecting the charter?"
The courts, by forcing the governments hand to bring equality to all people in Canada.
Paulm: "That's kind of funny since my prior post didn't ever even use the word. That's a straw man and you know it."
I can read between the lines, and I stand by it.
The arguments you present are simply mirroring those used in the US, where Christians constantly proclaim that because there are secular schools and laws, that Christianity is being attacked.
The law is secular, and it will remain secular. Before secular law, we had the Dark Ages.
Paulm: "Another straw man. Ever heard of the charter of rights and freedoms? I actually am very much in favour of it. I'd LOVE to see government actually learn to allow the free practice of religion, belief, opinion, speech and expression."
Hilarious, since you brought up using the notwithstanding clause to defeat gay marriage earlier.
Paulm: "And you end of with another argumentio ad hominem (and its also a straw man)."
My only ad hominem, actually, and I freely admit it.
Posted by: at June 25, 2005 04:26 PM (TCY35)
24
Next step, those that care will start going outside the country to have a religious "renewal of vows" ceremony. Why? Because the legislation renders all marriages in this country meaningless...
Posted by: SilverLining at June 25, 2005 06:48 PM (0g5pl)
25
"And if they went to a marriage commissioner in Alberta they would be denied. Inequality"
If two sisters went looking for a license to get married they too would be denied. Is that inequality?
Posted by: MikeP at June 25, 2005 07:17 PM (p000C)
26
Silverlining is absolutely correct. I had not thought ahead to that obvious result. Marriage in Canada would be meaningless then.
Marraige is child based. = Marriage
Civil Bond is Adult based.= Civil Bond
Now on to bill C-11. The Whistle-Blower Protection bill that protects all Canadian's interests, no matter what party is in the Ottawa driver's seat.
See why = BendGovt.blogca Also underway in the USA = www.nswbc.org 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 25, 2005 07:42 PM (rmMzv)
27
"Forcing them to perform ceremonies will never happen."
How long ago was it that it was being said that gay marriage would never happen? After all, this is just the next logical step, isn't it? The gay population has fought (and rightly so, and with my full support) for safety and security under the law, to avoid discrimination, to avoid hate crimes, to have crimes against them deemed as such. They are a protected population, far more so than the average Joe on the street, and I never took issue with that. But where did the sudden hard-on for marriage come from? Why is it so important that it be called marriage when a civil bond will do just fine? If I wasn't married, and because I have no next of kin at all (everyone dead), I could post my best friend as power of attorney over my affiares, which she was up until I married. Were we lesbians? No. Did we have to get married for me to make her my legal guardian? No. I went to a notary, signed a paper, $75 later I knew I was in good hands, and that she would look after my legal, financial and health affairs if I was unable to. I also had her signed as sole beneficiary to my insurance policy which I had through my employer. When the employer asked if we were "involved", I said no, so therefore she was unable to receive health insurance through my company. Who had the more rights? If we had been gay, she would have had dental! So what is the problem in going along in that way? Sounds to me like you have good protection and rights under the law.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl at June 25, 2005 08:37 PM (bdiSz)
28
Marriage (with the captial "M") is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, that is intended to result in children (the product of true communion between the two sexes)--marriage is something that religion created to mimic the bond God has with his people and the communion that man has with God, and that religion must be a part of.
Marriage is, by definition, not a right guaranteed to anyone by any government--its is extended to people for a reason. Tax breaks and property rights are given to men and women in marriage to make it easier for families to exist--those families don't come into existance when both partners are of the same sex, like A.T.O said.
Love is not, though, the only requisite for marriage. I love a lot of things. I can't marry them. In some churches I can, but the state has the absolute right to determine the qualifications of marriage. I can't marry someone under 16. I can't marry my brother. I can't marry my cousin. I can't marry my pet guinea pig, and I can't marry another girl. All legal, and all regulations that the state can rightfully enact.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right. To make marriage a right it to want special treatment. Nobody is guaranteed by the state to have their marriage recognized, especially if it is outside of the governments specified parameters. To ask the government to specifically recognize marriage between same-sex partners is asking for more privileges than are guaranteed to others--its not just allowed, its protected.
I do not diagree that the the right to be next-of-kin in a hospital may be an exception to that (I am unsure as to what the current position on that is, but I think people are able to name their next-of-kin, or grant people certain people certain rights through legal means), but the other rights, again, exist for a reason, and they aren't necessarily rights that homosexuals cannot get by making agreements between themselves. Yeah, you can contract.
I agree that premarital sex and divorce have compromised the meaning of marriage in recent times, but that doesn't undermine the definition of what marriage is. True marriage is something that can only be acheived in the most traditional sense--the relgious sense (and if the couple cannot have children, the object of the sexual union does not change. It is procreative, and unitive, and miracles always happen. Always)--it can never be achieved by same-sex partners.
Even if they get the right of marriage. Its a sham. They will never have what a real Marriage has. They can't.
Posted by: E.M. at June 25, 2005 10:39 PM (EUi9o)
29
Quote
"RightGirl: "Everytime i hear a statement like that, it reminds me of war criminals on the stand saying "I was just following orders". Many of the people who became marriage commissioners did so before there was any such thing as gay 'marriage'. That being the case, should they be forced to go against their conscinece now? Or change jobs?"
Yes, they should leave. Do their job, or leave. Social conditions are not a constant, and people who are intolerant need to either overcome it while at work, or find new work." Quote
Job discriptions are basically constant though. Normally, governments don't change their employee's job discription. They don't fire them when they fail to meet a changed job discription. They especially don't change job discriptions specifically designed to exclude the person presently doing it. They wouldn't get rid of the wheelchair ramp at the office to force all those unable to walk to quit. I guess that would only be " a changing social condition". That's discrimination. It's persecution. It's anti-Christian. These people are doing the job they were hired to do.
How many same sex marriages have there actually been in the last 2 years of Canadians? Maybe a 1000. (Foreign visitors married here don't count.)So out of 400,000 potential gay couples, .25% have gotten married. Most of those are people who have waited all their adult lives for this opportunity, so presumably there was a pent up demand. So in a normal year, Manitoba is going to see 50 same sex marriages of Manitobans. So basically, marriage commissioners have been fired for refusing to do a job they would never have to do in the first place, that is marry people of the same sex. The odds of it actually happening are very small. However, the government had a chance to purge itself of Christian employees and took it.
You laugh at the anti-Christian accusation. Yet this is what we have now and what we didn't have 2 years ago. Fines. Malicious lawsuits. Loss of employment. Loss of livlihood. Loss of freedom of speech. AND you and your ilk are ok with all that. Basically when you're finished with us the only jobs we'll be able to do are clean your toilets and grow and prepare your food.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at June 25, 2005 11:56 PM (sfFSu)
30
>They don't fire them when they fail to meet a
>changed job discription. They especially don't
>change job discriptions specifically designed to
>exclude the person presently doing it.
Actually, the term for this is 'constructive dismissal', and it is illegal. If they do this, its highly likely the fired people will sue and unless the gay lobby weighs in, they will likely win a sizeable settlement from the government.
>Once again, you attempt to artificially frame the
>debate in terms of God.
And once again, you are failing to understand the spiritual significance of the word 'marriage' in the church. Think about words like 'communion' and 'baptism', that is the spiritual significance of 'marriage'.
>It is still historical contingency. If we want to talk
>about logical fallacies, look up "appeal to
>tradition."
Its not an appeal to tradition, you were disputing my historical statement, I affirmed its veracity, that's not an 'appeal to tradition', its a history lesson.
>As for using the notwithstanding clause, that is
>political suicide.
No, it isn't. The notwithstanding clause is there for a reason, and parties have used it in the past and will use it in the future to disregard a reckless federal government or judiciary which seeks to legislate by fiat in a provincial matter.
>Ah, you are entirely right, I apologize.
You get kudos for admitting it. Respect.
>If he had of said the same thing without
>referencing C-38, there'd probably still be a
>complaint.
If there was no C38, there'd be no letter.
>Until the complaint has been processed, it's
>impossible to make assumptions on what is going
>on.
Oh, I can tell you what's going on; someone's feelings got hurt, and so they launched a nuisance suit. Someone voiced an opinion that they didn't agree with, so they filed a complaint. Its ridiculous. The human rights commission system is rife with nuisance complaints of this sort, forcing the innocent using their lawsuits to financially damage those they disagree with. The human rights commission needs to have civil penalties for those whose complaints are found to be unmeritted.
>Mr. Kempling does have those rights.
If he has no right to exercise them, then he doesn't actually have the rights.
>As I said, if he had of simply wrote the paper
>as "Mr. Kempling", he'd have been fine, and I'd
>have defended him if he was shut down by the
>courts.
All he said was: "I'm a teacher and I think this". That's free speech and should be protected. Further, as a professional body, the BCCT is required to follow the charter, something they've failed to do on other cases (See Trinity Western v. BCCT a ruling from the Supreme court that they fail to respect), as his right to free speech is a charter right, the BCCT has no right to censure him for exercising it away from the school.
>I am tolerant of his views. It is the college of
>teachers that is not tolerant of his invocation of
>their name in a publically available anti-
>homosexual letter.
If he said: "my view represents the view of the BCCT" then he'd be guilty of defamation by misrepresentation, but he never said anything like that. All he said was: I am a teacher, and this is my opinion. That's an exercise of free speech, and he's not passing his opinion off as representative of the BCCT. The fact is the BCCT does not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them (again, see TWU v. BCCT).
>I am unsure why Compas disagrees so
>consistently to all other polls. It is obviously the
>odd one out.
ok, first off... your 'religioustolerance' link data is from 2002 or earlier, so let's not even use that dataset, its outdated. The first tinyurl link is from the CBC, and does not give us any understanding of the question involved. Given that the CBC is full of BS most of the time I'm not even going to acknowledge the poll there. If you can find the actual poll question and results we can discuss them. The SES data is more interesting. The Question is not very good, its too broad. It only allows for a yes/no/unsure/no opinion, rather than demarcating competing views. For example, to that question I'd be torn as to whether to respond yes or no. After all I *DO* think such relationships should be legally recognized. I don't think that they should be called marriages though. Remember, I think government's role should be as an arbiter of a contract between two parties, nothing more. There's no wiggle room in the question. Its geared to push any 'civil unionists' into the camp of support for gay marriage, which they really aren't. If you were to pose the question as 'do you support C38 as presently written as the best way to address the issue of same-sex marriage' you'd get a much lower percentage in support because the civil unionists would say 'no'.
The data is very hard on this question. About 40-50% outright oppose same-sex marriages in any form. Another 20-30% support civil union rights, but not using the term marriage, while only 30-40% support same sex marriage fully. That data is pretty much constant in every poll.
And its not just compass.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/01/27/911547.html (Decima)
http://www.enshrinemarriage.ca/english/news3.aspx (Nordic Research group)
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2491 (only 39% support C38 by this poll)
The word marriage should apply exclusively to the legallyrecognized union of a man and a woman
35 %
The word marriage should also apply to the legally
recognized union of two men or two women (28%)
The word marriage should apply exclusively to the legally recognaized union of a man and a woman and there should be some other legal term for the legally recognized unionbetween two men or women. (36%)
(Ipsos Reid - not available online unfortunately)
http://www.nfocfgroup.com/news/03.09.05-samesex-charts.pdf
NFO CF (read page 13) basically the same as the IPSOS results above except they find 37% support for gay marriage, 37% for a legal union not called marriage and 19% no gay marriage at all.
So, compass is obviously not the 'odd one out'.
>You used the source which agrees with you, while
>all others have contradictory results. Shame on
>you.
I actually was citing two polls from two different organs, I merely only had a link to the compass one. So, I await my apology once more.
>Read the court ruling yourself.
If it is a 'Charter' right, shouldn't it be *IN* the charter? You know, like say... 'Freedom of expression, thought or opinion'?
>It's been cemented in the law that religious
>institutions will not have to give marriage
>ceremonies to gays if they do not wish to.
The liberals have long since proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy on such matters. As such the supposed protections for religious people are essentially the equivalent of legislated toilet paper. Within a year those provisions will be tested in court and repealed by activist judges prodded by activists in the gay lobby.
>Forcing them to perform ceremonies will never
>happen.
Oh, it will. One year. Mark my words.
>And if they go to a marrage comissioner in
>Alberta, they will be denied. Inequality.
And if they have poor eyesight and go to a driving test they will fail. Your point?
>The courts, by forcing the governments hand to
>bring equality to all people in Canada.
The abuse of the courts is eroding the freedom of speech, thought, expression and practice of religion in the country, all fundamental freedoms in the Charter. The job of the courts is to enforce the Charter, not to amend it.
>I can read between the lines, and I stand by it.
Not very well.
>The arguments you present are simply mirroring
>those used in the US, where Christians constantly
>proclaim that because there are secular schools
>and laws, that Christianity is being attacked.
To the best of my knowledge, no priest or bishop in the US is facing legal action for writing a letter to his congregants. No churches are being sued for failing to rent their facilities for gay weddings (already happening in two provinces), no teachers are being pilloried for expressing their rights to free speech and no marriage commissioners are being constructively dismissed for exercising their conscience. This is not about the US because religious people in the US are not under attack like they are here. In the US the religious right is saying: 'If we don't exert ourselves the slippery slope is coming.' Here religious people are saying: 'We are already seeing the assault on our rights, its not a slippery slope, we're already halfway down'.
>Before secular law, we had the Dark Ages.
The charter starts off: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
The basis for all western democratic systems is inherently theistic. There is no such thing as 'secular law', except as the possible outcome of a Canadian tragedy.
>Hilarious, since you brought up using the
>notwithstanding clause to defeat gay marriage
>earlier.
The notwithstanding clause was put into the constitution for a reason, and there is nothing illegitimate about using it, particularly when the federal government passes legislation which intrudes on the fundamental freedoms of others.
Posted by: Paulm at June 26, 2005 02:10 AM (2YGUB)
31
All of the above arguments are interesting. Allow me to try a different tack here.
The attack on traditional marriage is driven mostly by cultural relativism at its most militant. If gender roles and marriage behaviours are determined by cultural imperatives, why shouldn't we constructively change those imperatives to remove the inequalities of life? Equal rights for all, etc. etc. Best of all, because everything is "relative", we can do this and there will be no negative repurcussions. All cultures being equally valid and all that, don't forget.
As an anthropology major back in the 1970's I was presented with all this stuff, and my reaction after considerable though was "So why is it the white people of Europe drive cars and have antibiotics while the Yanomami drive crappy dugout canoes and have magic instead of medicine that works?"
Some cultures are more powerful than others. Not some races, I hasten to add, because culture is not genetically determined. Culture is what a human being uses to make up for the shortfall between his physicallity and the environment.
So I think it is with marriage. There are hundreds of styles of marriage recorded in the world's cultures, some include same sex couples as a possibility. Key point here, most of those cultures are no longer extant, the ones that are still around don't invent the electric light or win big wars. Our form of marriage confers a competetive advantage upon our culture compared to the other ones.
Just to kick a little more sand in the SSM crowd's face, let us consider the protective effect of the traditional Western marriage against the HIV virus, compared to sub-Saharan African marriages. African men in certain localities tend to have more than one wife in different little towns. They visit each one for a while, then move on to the next. while the woman maintains the household and rears her children. (Yes it is true, but by all means go look it up. Try some of the AIDS in Africa sites.) Women may have more than one husband too. This situation is made for spreading HIV. African HIV numbers reflect this.
Western style monogamy is quite the reverse, even monogamy that tolerates occasional male cheating with prostitutes. The chances of a male contracting HIV from a one time sexual contact are low compared to changing steady partners every couple of months. This is reflected in the North American and European rates of HIV among married couples.
As with HIV, so with all the other historically fatal STDs. Western traditional marriage is a powerful cultural tool for ensuring a child has two parents that live long enough to see him/her to adulthood. Far more powerful that other, more casual arrangements. Our culture "knows" this too, if one can say such a thing. Consider that the word "b@st@rd" will still get your butt kicked in most bars across the country.
Thus it can be said, it ain't all relative. Some things work better than others, our form of marriage works better than any existing alternative.
Screwing up a powerful traditional institution which keeps our country healthy because it suits the short term political purposes of a few radicals would seem to be quite amazingly stupid. Typically Liberal, in other words.
The Phantom
P.S. Cultural relativists will please include some kind of compelling, measurable science in their reply postings. Good luck with that.
Posted by: The Phantom at June 26, 2005 02:52 PM (nAMT1)
32
All this deep [but admittedly entertaining writing on SSM] is so simply solved.
Marriage is child based and is called Marriage. Civil Union is adult based and is called Civil Union or Civil Bond. Finis.
SSM affects about 1% of Canadians. Bill C-38
WB law affects 100 % of Canadians in a major way. Bill C-11
Whistle-Blower legislation is immensely valuable and protects our national wealth no matter who is in power. Check BendGovt.blog.ca Cuts down Govt. dipping.
Govt. also dragging feet in the USA on WB law.
Check www.nswbc.org and Lewrockwell.com.
WB is also an agenda for the UN.
Most Canadians have no idea of it's immense value. Applies to much more than just monies. Makes something interesting out of this important but boring topic.
We should all scream for C-11. It's great.
73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 26, 2005 11:44 PM (rmMzv)
33
Rarely have truer words been spoken than when you said "reason and logic seem to be in short supply in this debate". Good post Angry!
Posted by: Jason M at June 27, 2005 10:15 PM (Kwrb7)
34
Marriage is child based and celebrate the potentila for new life only possible in opposite sex relations.
SSM is like the Special Olympics - it makes a small group of people very happy but really has little meaning in the end.
Posted by: davey at June 28, 2005 11:02 AM (sNNre)
35
It is a bit strange to see "conservative" journals promoting the Marxist line.
From THE MANIFESTO (does it have anything to do with Canada today? Hmmm... Let's see!):
"Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love." - K.M.
"Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge." - K.M.
"The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination." - K.M.
"The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism." - K.M.
"CONSERVATIVE OR BOURGEOIS SOCIALISM [Red Tories?] -- A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind." - K.M.
"The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. ... They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." - K.M.
Aaaah, if only Marx were alive to see the Canadian Parliament vote on Bill C-38!
In the undying words of Friedrich Engels, "If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!"
But no. Excuse me. Let us move on to "more important things" than the bedrock of all human society.
"This guy must be obsessive compulsive! Why such a fuss about people getting married? It's not like it's important or anything."
Posted by: Brian O'Neill at June 29, 2005 03:47 AM (IC8Z8)
36
You are all a bunch of bigots and will burm in hell. Read your bible and you will find the truths of peace, love, and understanding.
Love,
Jesus
P.S. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. You know, people like Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and George W. Bush.
Posted by: Jesus Christ at July 20, 2005 12:29 AM (NP3vn)
37
Make everyone equal in the eyes of the government ”tax man”.
Everyone gets taxed as an individual including children. In the case of children they could either be used as a tax break or if they are earning an income taxed themselves.
It used to be we were all equal in the eyes of god. Those days are gone what with politics and taxes being the main concern. Or you could look at it as the government being god. Thus taxes are equal and on an individual basis.
Personally I would be willing to give up some of my tax breaks as a married hetero sexual, to protect the sanctity of marriage. I was married in a church and swore my oath for better or for worst to my wife not for financial gain or tax evasion but because I truly loved my wife! Love you HUN!
Now as for the “For better or for worse” part I think I got the better end of that deal, but who’s counting not me I’m winning LOL.
Petition protect sanctity of marriage and make everyone equal in the eyes of the tax man. Exception being children get or can be used for tax break much the same as they are today.
Posted by: NL Expatriate at October 02, 2005 03:32 AM (z7JgX)
Why same-sex marriage makes no sense
I can summarize it in one word: rights!
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
04:12 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1236 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Brilliant, well though out, and entirely convincing.
Thank you!
Posted by: Average_Joe at June 24, 2005 05:08 PM (Namz1)
2
Hear, hear! Absolutely insightful. A much-needed post. Thank you.
Posted by: Spooky at June 24, 2005 05:17 PM (V9X4P)
3
Soon everyone will have rights and then we will have anarchy.
The dark side loves anarchy.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 24, 2005 05:18 PM (vAI+5)
4
You are entirely right.
The issue here is not gay marriage but a fundamental shift in the thinking that guides our society. The idea that anyone can do whatever they want, and defines that idea as some kind of right. Taken from this premise, gay marriage is a logical next step. Telling someone "You can't do that!" has suddenly become bigotry, and counter to other people's right to do whatever they want.
I guess i'm bigoted. I say that to my daughter all the time.
We, as the people of Canada, need to consider the benefits of traditional constraints, such as marriage and law, if we want a functional country in the next century.
Gay marriage is a scary thought, not because I hate gays, but because the idea underlies a gradual erosion of the constraints that create a functional and prosperous society.
Posted by: Brad in Barrhead at June 24, 2005 06:04 PM (0AQqd)
5
1998 statistics..... hmmm.
Hey - has anyone even bothered to ask children if they prefer to be raised by a mom and dad or by an alter-native parental unit?
All I know is that they are passing laws without fully thinking through the consequences. It's a selfish person who says "It's okay as long as it doesn't affect me".
Posted by: Aizlynne at June 24, 2005 08:12 PM (Uagor)
6
Great post. Marriage is indeed not a human right. I recently wrote a little commentary on this very theme here. Canadians have been hoodwinked.
Posted by: Linda at June 24, 2005 10:28 PM (oCPrU)
7
We are thinkin of shipping our marriage certificate back to Ottawa. Just gonna take our baseball bat and head on home. Sour grapes if you will. Since we have been together for almost thirty years I am sure our relationship will stand the test of not having the word marriage associated with it. I guess I am too old but the mere thought of sodomites desecrating the word marriage is too much for me.
Posted by: Mike at June 24, 2005 11:04 PM (p000C)
8
Just think with all these individual rights you will be able to take your registered gun and off Martin and all his Lberal idiots without consequences.
Posted by: Pissedoff at June 25, 2005 12:00 PM (t6NgY)
9
Chris,
There are studies -- just tough to find in this P.C. world of ours...
Here's just two:
Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting (.pdf file)
Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree
Posted by: Linda at June 25, 2005 10:46 PM (oCPrU)
10
I can not believe that our society is actually coming to this!? Excellent article. Too bad we have to be a minority to be heard in this country. The average joe soon will be a minority at this rate. Pretty diheartening and also frightening to think what my young children will have to deal with when they are in their 30's.
Posted by: Shaking my head at June 26, 2005 07:55 PM (Rww+E)
11
First off... Great article.
The sad thing about the passing of Bill C-38 is what comes next. Expect to see demands for three-somes (and larger n-tuples) be allowed to be married. Also expect to see many more gay couples claiming discrimination when turned down by adoption agencies.
Gays will gain little or no increase in rights. Bill C-38 is the gay lobby flexing it's muscles to prove it can. They care very little about eroding the tradition of marriage. And for the record I am not the slightest bit religious, but I am a traditionalist.
Posted by: Bruce at June 28, 2005 04:19 AM (EiiUR)
12
Nice post. But I disagree in all particulars.
For one, there is confusion in the article you site. It *is* about responsibility, and the spontaneous institutions that enforce contracts, promises, vows, etc., do operate in just the sorts of ways the article alludes to. But there is little reason to suspect that these institutions have either waned, disappeared, or been weakened.
Since what we're talking about is something difficult to quantify or study--just a sort of 'gist' that you get in your belly when you watch television or whatever--I find the claim that "nowadays people don't take their responsibilities seriously" unfalsifiable. And if it isn't falsifiable, then it's more or less meaningless. At any rate, exactly when (1920? 1830?) did we take these things seriously?
Point two: Marriage, and any similar bond, partnership, contract, etc., is entered into for reasons entirely explicable by rational choice. We constrain our desire for immediate satisfaction to ensure greater gains over time. Marriage is *not* about sacrificing in general, it is about failing to go for immediate benefits for lasting, long-term, and more profound benefits.
Put differently, marriage is rational.
This is the major confusion surrounding rational choice theory, and the preference-maximizing model of human behaviour in economics and other social sciences.
Finally: I am utterly confused about the equating of gay marriage with the sort of individual rights that you sneer at. Gays have said that they, too, would like to enter into long-term contracts with their significant others to (rationally) constrain immediate benefits for greater gains over time.
Right now gays have no bonds or 'official' commitments recognized by their communities. Right now is when they can go ahead and screw anything that walks, should it please them. It looks to me like they are looking for communal constraints on just this sort of behaviour. They appear to me to be looking, and asking for, constraints!
That's how I see it, Angry.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski at June 28, 2005 02:40 PM (gTrMy)
13
Canada is a wonderful country
Now that ssm has been passed any 65-year-old judge or politician (or any liberal for that matter) now has the RIGHT to marry a 14-year-old boy and legally sodomize or consummate the marriage with the parents permission (16-years without).
That should bring the best of breed to Canada.
Posted by: WWS at June 29, 2005 01:54 AM (5UEf1)
Child labour horror in Alberta!
Sometimes the ways the media can spin the story to almost submininally guide the formation of an opinion in the mind of the reader are subtle and difficult to spot.
And at other times, they are as subtle as a brick to the back of the head. Albertans might be particularly interested in how a major central Canadian paper tries to leave the reader with the impression that Albertans are exploiters of child labour in the best Dickensian tradition.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:10 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.
1
If delivering newspaper isn't a good example of exploitation and child labour I don't know what is.
And knocking on strangers doors once a week isn't putting children in harms way?
Posted by: glenda at June 24, 2005 02:41 PM (75KMV)
2
Hadn't thought of that. Good one!
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 24, 2005 02:44 PM (phwde)
3
Geez... I've been working by choice since I was about 8. There is something encouraging about being able to have a little bit that is "really yours" when you are that age, when most of what you get is from your parents.
I weeded gardens and cut lawns, for everyone's information, and i think it's helped make me a better person.
It's another example of the left trying to tell us how to live our lives. I don't appreciate it!
Posted by: Brad in Barrhead at June 24, 2005 03:03 PM (0AQqd)
4
Excellent point glenda. I'd like to see the G&M complain about child workers when the delivery services dry up.
Perhaps some other child labour issues they should complain about:
- bake sales
- lemonade stands
- car washes
- snow shovelling
Posted by: Surecure at June 24, 2005 03:08 PM (EfzgE)
5
Remember everyone, that the problem is not children working. It's children working in positions that unionized labour would like to move in on. That's all the Federation of Labour cares about. Safety blah blah exploitation blah blah -- PFFFT!
If the Teamsters wanted to run bakes sales, you'd hear about how terrible it is to make a child sell a cookie.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 24, 2005 03:13 PM (PTRPR)
6
Change the subject to the age that consensual sex should be allowed and watch the right whingers suddenly remember that 14 year olds are indeed children. You're pathetic.
Posted by: Robert McClelland at June 24, 2005 04:41 PM (O22pr)
7
Robert kids working is one thing, kids screwing is another. Kids usually do jobs that their age and maturity dictate is suitable. See above. Perhaps at 14 we would deem that they just arent mature enough for sex and the responsibility thats supposed to come with it. Doesnt sound difficult to comprehend.
Posted by: MikeP at June 24, 2005 04:55 PM (p000C)
8
It used to be in Alberta that volunteers served kids their lunch time meals and supervised them. The unions balked a few years back and now its a paid job. Up went our taxes.
Posted by: MikeP at June 24, 2005 05:03 PM (p000C)
9
Trust McClelland to equate a kid learning how to become a useful and productive member of society, with having the "right" able to bend over a chair for the benefit of a 30 year old "boyfriend".
Posted by: Kate at June 24, 2005 05:28 PM (iBNdk)
10
Leave it to Robbie to be the troll he claims to be.
That's okay Robbie boy. The adults are talking, you can go play now.
Posted by: Surecure at June 24, 2005 05:36 PM (jg4N7)
11
The Globe is no end of embarrassment.
Does anybody know now why they decided to turf Conrad Black?
He was a conservative in the way of the communist take over.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 24, 2005 05:39 PM (vAI+5)
12
Newspaper delivery: bad example.
The Globe is on the doorstep by 6:30am. It's delivered by a guy in a car who rolls into the driveway and flings it at the front door. Newspapers' "Carriers wanted" ads almost always carry the note "Must have own car."
Posted by: Styptic at June 24, 2005 05:44 PM (yRvdg)
13
Okay... so my daughter has had her own babysitting business since she was 12. Does this means it qualifies as child labour?? I must have been slave labour then too since I started babysitting at that age too.
My kid actually earns minimum wage, tax free, and can spend it on the things that she enjoys that aren't the necessities that I pay for.
It's just like the socialist style G&M to curtail free enterprise for our young people. I am sure many retail dynasty's would fold without money being spent by tweens and teens.
Posted by: Aizlynne at June 24, 2005 08:25 PM (Uagor)
14
so my daughter can no longer help our cousin at the farmer's market? $40 is a lot of scratch to an 11-year-old who is also having fun...
I guess that me encouraging that "exploitation" will have Social Services knocking on my door?
What a lot of crap. It's not like it was a "slow news day," after all.
Posted by: Candace at June 24, 2005 09:10 PM (R7nd+)
15
No more skinnin beavers for the kiddies...
Posted by: alsocanadian at June 24, 2005 09:44 PM (wpR7a)
16
Don't you ever tire of being a dishonest, Kate? I said nothing about this legislation nor did I make any comparison as you claim. I only pointed out the right's hypocrisy when they whine that the story refers to a 14 year old as a child. You do the exact same when it suits your purpose.
Posted by: Robert McClelland at June 24, 2005 11:39 PM (O22pr)
Rattling Chains -- A warning to America about where the Kelo decision will lead
I wrote this essay early this morning after having ruminated on the Kelo decision and its implications for Canadians and Americans. It's aimed at Americans, so feel free to post links at any American blogs you think might appreciate it.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:54 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1021 words, total size 6 kb.
1
The Kelo decision isn't all that's happening. You are watching the takeover of America by the New World Order. This is also happening in Canada. The following three things are bad news for individuals in both countries:
1. The Kelo decision in the US concerning expropriation. Good post Angry.
2. Recent revisions to the Bankruptcy Code. This makes it virtually impossible for middle class Americans to file for personal bankruptcy. Look for this to happen in Canada too.
3. The Codex Food Code in Europe. This will affect your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements. While this was recently defeated they are still trying to get it passed and eventually will. When it is supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization. The CODEX Food Code is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. and Canadian laws. When this happens supplements will be available only by prescription at a much higher price and pharmaceutical companies will benefit.
I doubt that there are enough tough, individualistic Canadians who are willing to stand up to their government on these issues. But I do think that, once the implications of these three objectives become known, we will see Americans rise up in arms and take their revenge, both on the street, at the stock exchange and at the polls. I'd hate to be in the way when this happens. Europeans and Canadians may be willing to lie down and take it, but Americans aren't.
Posted by: John Crittenden at June 24, 2005 11:38 AM (cONYb)
2
The City of Calgary has notices in today's paper that it is expropriating a couple of dozen properties in the Victoria Park area, just off of downtown. This is adjacent to the lands that are occupied by the Calgary Stampede and facilities such as the Pengrowth Saddledome.
The presumption here is that this is to allow for the anticipated expansion of Stampede Park. Not unlike Kelo, the municipality has deemed it in the public good to expropriate private property for the purpose of granting them (perhaps via ownership or perhaps by lease) to a private body. While Weadick Properties, the land ownership arm of the Stampede, has been buying up properties as they became available on the market, these last properties appear to be holdouts.
Certainly, many will be pleased to hear of this, as the Vic Park area is a blighted community occupied by drug users and dealers, prostitutes, and other "undesireables". However, I suspect that this condition has been cast upon the community, as we have all been long aware that there was intended expansion of Stampede Park into these parcels. In the absence of that expectation, developers would long ago have bought up available land and redeveloped for highest and best use.
I'm personally torn on whether this is positive or negative. Certainly, it comes as no surprise. However, it seems that in expropriating property in order to grant its use to a private body, we coincidentally have a directly similar situation happening today in Calgary as was set in motion by the U.S. Supremes in the Kelo decision.
Posted by: Johnny Pockets at June 24, 2005 12:11 PM (QShAG)
3
"Americans will mobilize and compel their government to pass a constitutional amendment".
What good would that do? The Kelo decision just overrode the Fifth Amendment. The Raich decision just redefined the Commerce Clause to include pot grown in one's own backyard for personal consumption as "Interstate Commerce".
When the Supreme Court abandons the constitution, no amount of constitutional amendments will change anything. I suppose it has not occurred to them that without the constitution the supreme court has no authority at all.
Posted by: Ed Minchau at June 24, 2005 01:04 PM (pPVQ0)
4
Ed - I believe its up to each individual State to pass legislation to limit the use Eminent Domain laws to seize private property and hand it over to private interests.
Lots more on this on Boortz.
Posted by: JasperPants at June 24, 2005 02:25 PM (83qHU)
5
It IS up to individual States now. Fortunately some of them are up to it.
See http://otherclub.blogspot.com/2005/06/simple-solution.html
for an example.
Michigan pre-empted the Federal attack on property rights.
Posted by: Hershblogger at June 25, 2005 10:22 AM (WzuE0)
6
Wholesale NFL Jerseys,Cheap NFL Jerseys Outlet Sale For Fast Delivery and Guarantee Quality!
Posted by: Cheap Browns jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:04 AM (wmdzq)
Kelo fallout and yet hope for Canada?
The Kelo decision continues to tear across the American political landscape. Meanwhile in Canada, there are people pushing for change for the better.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:27 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1000 words, total size 7 kb.
1
A similar situation involving expropriation took place for the so far not built Pickering Airport east of Toronto in the 70's although probably not to the same degree as Mirabel, multi generational farms going back to before confederation sit vacant. Owners were compensated for a meagreness of the true value. I thought that Mirabel was to be closed, but I guess that was just to passenger traffic. ItÂ’s a sad sad affair.
Posted by: Momorider at June 24, 2005 11:04 AM (+ZvZ2)
2
http://www.vocalvoice.ca/home.html
Not so far back, eh? There's even a GTAA office in Brougham, a hamlet at Highway 7 and Brock Road.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 24, 2005 11:28 AM (PTRPR)
3
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.MercurialVaporIXfootball.com
Posted by: nike vapor 9 at December 03, 2012 06:40 PM (vjPdB)
The Blogging Tories -- The Rankings
There is a new community on the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem called the Blogging Tories. Remember that the ranks are defined by the amount of linkage you have from within the community.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Very cool - thanks Angry.
Might I suggest that the Captain's Quarters be removed from the Canadian blog ecosystem, since he now has another home with the Blogging Tories?
Posted by: Andrew at June 24, 2005 09:25 AM (MlJaC)
2
Sounds fair.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 24, 2005 09:39 AM (PTRPR)
3
Hello my fellow Tories. Feel free to check out my new blog site at http://mypib01.blogspot.com/
Posted by: The_fallen at July 02, 2005 05:56 AM (Yc0IU)
June 23, 2005
The Kelo Decision
South of the border, American bloggers are up in arms over the Kelo decision. As quoted by Michelle Malkin:
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Now understand that the situation is different for our American friends. They do still have a fundamental right to private property. If the state decides that property is needed for some public purpose, compensation must be provided as per the Fifth Amendment.
The furor is over how the scope of "public use" has been dramatically increased to include private property of use to the public, and that anger is justified in my view.
Still, they have it much better than we do here,
In Canada the Authorson decision made it clear that the Canadian government can take anything from anyone at anytime, no compensation, no warning, no nuttin'. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government is essentially unfettered by any restriction. The Americans have taken a huge and dangerous step in that direction.
[As you can see from the strikeout, my thinking has evolved overnight, and I've come to believe that the Kelo decision is far worse than I originally thought.]
[Kevin Libin at the Western Standard walks us through the details.
Captain Ed and QandO gives us an extended analysis from the American point of view.]
[Update: Apparently this is shaping up to become a blogswarm in the United States. Why not a debate in Canada about our property rights, or lack thereof?]
Posted by: Steve Janke at
03:57 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Angry thanks for putting this out there..
But you say in Canada.. what a pity??
We do have the Charter of rights though??
No where in there does it refer to sexual orientation but we gonna get gay marriage... it does refer to freedom of religion but our buddy communist Cotler admitted that they 'can't guarantee protection of churches...'
WElcome to Kanada, you ain't got SHYTE for RIGHTS!
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 23, 2005 05:25 PM (vAI+5)
2
It is useful to note how the Court broke pretty much along philosophical lines, the more "liberal" justices still dominating this Court.
I suspect even Democrats on the Hill will have some difficulties with this decision, which they'll have to keep in mind when (or if) President Bush moves to fill any vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Paul at June 23, 2005 05:55 PM (Z+kns)
3
Rights! Rights! The only right you have in Canada are the ones the Brascan Corporation, Power Corp and the Aspers tell you you have. When the revolution comes, politically speaking, a lot will be revealed about who has the rights to what!
Posted by: walking eagle at June 23, 2005 06:14 PM (QK3tc)
4
I disagree with you Angry.
The consequences of the 'Authorson decision' are that the federal government can take away an individual Canadians property with federal legislation specifically designed for that purpose.
The consequences of the 'Kelo decision' are that any municipal or state jurisdiction can seize an individual Americans property using eminent domain in order to give it to someone who has more money.
I'm not sure which one is worse but I wouldn't say that "they have it much better then we do here".
Posted by: Iron Oxide at June 24, 2005 08:58 AM (NC5nV)
5
After sleeping on it, Iron Oxide, I'd agree with you, and I've changed my post accordingly.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at June 24, 2005 09:03 AM (phwde)
6
I have a great deal of respect for anyone willing to say "I might be wrong".
BTW: Thanks for getting rid of the pop-up j(g)ambling adds.
Posted by: Iron Oxide at June 24, 2005 12:46 PM (NC5nV)
7
Now this is refreshing. Civilized debate; What a total pleasure.
Next bone of contention; Bill C-11. Whistle Blower law.
This bill, [unlike SSM C-38 = 1%], applies to 100% of Canadians and works no matter who is elected.
I say it is the most important legislation in the pipe and we should push to have it enacted pronto!
Show me anything more worthwhile and I will faint if you can find such.
See - Bill C-11 in pipe at BendGovt.blog.ca 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 27, 2005 12:46 AM (rmMzv)
8
Wholesale jerseys outlet,2012 Nike NFL jerseys wholesale China
Posted by: Eagles jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 11:05 AM (wmdzq)
9
I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f
Posted by: cheap lebron 9 low at December 02, 2012 03:04 PM (MB/bp)
More trouble for Paul Martin
First, the Ethics Commissioner is going to target Paul Martin for investigation, and now Paul Martin's sons are being questioned:
[Canadian Steamship Lines] has been the greatest source of Paul Martin's significant wealth and we've always known that our Prime Minister pays his corporate taxes to a foreign country, at a tax rate of about 2%, to avoid paying into social programs as a corporate citizen. Now his sons, which hold the company in a "blind trust" have been called before the [Standing Commitee on Finance] to answer questions its questions concerning CSL.
The appearance will take place in October. In time for a fall election?
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:48 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Name me one country in the world, execpt ones run by a dictator, who would elect as their leader someone who refused to pay taxes in the country he wants to lead. People in Ontario have to be the most obtuse heard of sheep to keep supporting a tax eveader. Not only does he avoid paying taxes in Canada he also lines up at the trough to the tune of 200 million in non refundable tax payer grants to his company CSI. What a joke.
Posted by: Barrie McClarty at June 23, 2005 01:07 PM (rp6r3)
2
But of course, monsieur. What is your problem? We knew they were sheeep during the reign of the glorious Trudeau, non?
Why would they now change? Eet requires too much effort to wake up and roll out of the trough.
And besides, the alternative solution is too awful to behold! Thees other guy is tres dangerous!
/sarcasm
Posted by: 49erDweet at June 23, 2005 03:09 PM (KDLQn)
3
And thanks to our dithering "leader", my father has hepititis C, thanks to that load of hillbilly blood he bought off one former governor William Jefferson Clinton, courtesy of the inbreds from the Arkansas corrections system. Well at least he's a "devout/practicing Catholic" and can beg for my family's forgiveness.
What gets me is how the eastern press swallows his prime cut horse @#$%.
Big press announcement courtesy of the Liberal fart catchers at the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail/Toronto Star: ".....upon advice and concern from his wife, Sheila, Prime Minister Paul Martin has begun the South Beach Diet"
The eastern media has a collective orgasm over this revelation. "How metrosexual our benevolent leader is!", they crow. "Pretty hip for a 60 year old" "Quick get Bono on the phone for a comment".
Paul Martin should be jailed.
Posted by: Eskimo at June 23, 2005 03:31 PM (PVc3P)
4
You mean Canada COKE Lines is coming under investigation? For what?
They just move COKE from SA to Miami on a regular weekly run...
So what?
This is KANADA you know...
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 23, 2005 05:49 PM (vAI+5)
5
Come on, an election can't be held until AFTER the investigator's report is issued on PMPM's sons. In other words, no elections until the last Liberal is investigated . . . .
And you thought you had a democracy?
Posted by: Kneave at June 23, 2005 07:57 PM (QOviQ)
6
Kneave, you can't be serious. No election until all the Martins are investigated? Hell, they will hold power by default for the next ten years minimum.
I suggest, as many Albertans do, That Martin and Chretien go to jail for fraud now, so they can't skip off to the Turks and Cacaos. [That's where other Adscam people have slipped away to]
They may also skip to Barbados. Barbados welcomed CSL with open arms, and the same would hold true for Martin and Chretien, no doubt. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 23, 2005 08:58 PM (rmMzv)
7
Alert;= Thinking Dell?
Think carefully. Things have changed. Service is now India Based. Amazing testimonials at *WWW.buzzmachine.com* comments= 81 and rising.
Don't buy that notebook yet. Be informed. Be aware. Be happy with IBM or Mac. This off topic interruption will save many blogger friends anguish and heartache. You will thank me
Another Dell faux-pas. Patty paid off a Dell 4100 and got a $4 cheque from Dell. Her next credit card statement showed a debit of $139.95. When Patty cashed that $4 cheque she unknowingly began a DealPass account. DealPass never notified her and the $139.95 was for the discount service.
She felt betrayed by Dell. Check July 05 PC World, page 42.
What are you doing, Dell?
73s TG at BendGovt.blog.ca
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 23, 2005 09:00 PM (rmMzv)
8
CSL hauls wheat for the Canadian Wheat Board, which buy the way operates over Western farmers with a war measures act given during WW2. It DOESN'T fall under the freedom of information act...and the PM's boats hauled wheat for the CWB...
You connect the dots.
Awake Canadian
Posted by: Awake Canadian at June 23, 2005 09:03 PM (f+MSo)
9
CSL's head office is in Montreal and operates offices in Halifax, Winnipeg, Burlington, Boston, Singapore and Sydney, Australia. I am sure that many taxes find their way to Ottawa.
The CSL Group owns 50 per cent of CSL Equity Investments Ltd., which owns a broad portfolio of property in Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, Arizona and Colorado, including condominiums, office buildings and property. The company also controls shipbuilding and ship design companies on the Great Lakes.
The CONS can scratch for dirt all they want but as is evident all they accomplish by continuing to sling mud is their loss of ground.
There will be no election this fall.
Posted by: hiti at June 23, 2005 09:53 PM (5pdo0)
10
Since I cannot edit my post....
In August 2003, when Martin was running for leadership of the Liberal party, he transferred his interest in CSL to his three sons to try to head off any allegations of conflict of interest.
So Martin no longer owns CSL
In defending the amount of business the government gave to CSL, Martin pointed out that the company and its subsidiaries were given $82 million in contracts in 1993, when the Progressive Conservatives, not his Liberals, were in power.
In February 2004, Martin asked Auditor General Sheila Fraser to investigate why the government reported the lower figure for the amount of business CSL got from the government.
So CSL has already been audited and the CONS are fishing for dirt again.
Posted by: hiti at June 23, 2005 09:58 PM (5pdo0)
11
beware hiti is a liberal.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 24, 2005 12:04 AM (vAI+5)
12
Yes beware of Liberals.
A Harper/Grewal ticket could fix all that is broken in Canada. Interest rates at 1.5%...FIXED. Low unemployment...FIXED. No deficit...FIXED!
What does Harper and the Cons stand for? For the budget , against the budget, abstained from the budget... he does it all! They're a versatile team.
Posted by: Baghdad bob at June 24, 2005 12:13 AM (wW4PK)
13
hiti is a cogenital idiot!
Posted by: ron at June 24, 2005 08:40 PM (xYrhU)
14
hiti is a congenital idiot!
Posted by: ron at June 24, 2005 08:41 PM (xYrhU)
A brilliant idea from the National Post
From their editorial:
It's time for someone with suitable experience, a strong stomach and the courage of his or her convictions to take over this vital position. And with that in mind, we can't help but wonder if a replacement might not be found in Mr. Shapiro's toughest critic -- New Democrat MP Ed Broadbent.The former party leader is expected to soon make his exit from politics to care for his ailing wife. But if he were able to find the time, Mr. Broadbent would be an ideal ethics commissioner. Well-respected, outspoken and capable of being objective, we can't think of anyone better suited to holding Ottawa to a higher ethical standard.
I like it.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:48 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I am certainly no lover of the NDP. However, I think Ed Broadbent has shown great fire and passion in his criticism of Shapiro. The National Post is on to a great idea here. I'd vote for Ed for Commissioner, if only I didn't live in Western Canada where my vote means nothing in this country(I know we don't vote for the commish!).
Posted by: Huggybear99 at June 23, 2005 11:58 AM (/ki02)
2
Ed Broadbent certainly comes across as one of those few, traditionally defined "Elder Statesmen": a person of character and conviction who takes principled stands and does so with honour. Even if one doesn't support his political views, one certainly cannot mar his character.
The fact that he was willing to pair with an absent Conservative for the budget vote gives credence to the suggestion that he would be an honest and fair Ethics Commissioner and would show no favoritism. Add this to his passionate stand for competency in the office of the Ethics Commissioner, and I'd be willing to bet dollars to cents that he would put his full weight behind the position and ensure that the office was neither a tool of the PMO nor a farce of the proportion we are seeing today.
I would certainly get behind Broadbent in the office. I just hope that Shapiro's review can see this as a possibility.
Posted by: Surecure at June 23, 2005 12:21 PM (lYr9/)
3
I like it, too.
Posted by: Jim Yu at June 23, 2005 12:48 PM (UrEIW)
4
Good idea but the optics suck.
Consider for a moment. Broadbent leads the charge to remove Shapiro. Shapiro resigns. Broadbent takes over. Promotion by assassination. It has a certain Martinesque quality about it but I'm sure that Ed B will see the flaw in the whole idea.
Posted by: herringchoker at June 23, 2005 12:57 PM (zh/oU)
5
Ed would be an excellent choice. But his wife's illness--and the reason that he is not planning on running again--would I think, preclude him from the position.
I, personally, would be uncomfortable in asking him on these grounds.
Posted by: RJ at June 23, 2005 02:17 PM (ud7ep)
6
I would fully support Ed Broadbent for ethics commissioner.
Quote (from RJ)
"Ed would be an excellent choice. But his wife's illness--and the reason that he is not planning on running again--would I think, preclude him from the position."
I would like to think that once we have a REAL ethics commissioner, MP's would think twice before undertaking questionable actions. The frequency of violations (or alleged violations) would decrease, thus making it a part-time job !
Posted by: Ed for Commissioner! at June 23, 2005 03:14 PM (8hDo1)
7
I agree that Ed would be a good choice for this position and I also agree that the optics at this time are not so good.
Either way it appears clear that Mr. Shapiro is not up to the job... he so badly wants everyone to love him in a job where everyone should hate him or fear him at least...
Simply not the right kind of guy to do it.
Ed does have that kind of crusty 'I don't give a damn anymore look on his face...' which would serve him well in this type of job.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 23, 2005 05:54 PM (vAI+5)
8
No. I think Broadbent is a great parliamentarian and a decent human being, but the last thing the Conservative Party needs when (if?) they form government is an avowed socialist with that much power breathing down their necks.
Posted by: Adam Daifallah at June 23, 2005 07:44 PM (5De3E)
9
You serious? A liberal would be a lot worse than Eddy.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 24, 2005 12:06 AM (vAI+5)
The Prime Minister will be investigated by the Ethics Commissioner
The hunt is on!
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:32 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sounds like Mr. Shapiro is trying very hard now to reduce the criticism he's been receiving. Let's see if he can produce real results.
Posted by: Jonny_eh at June 23, 2005 11:55 AM (U2GJM)
2
This is all just Liberal smoke from the PMO. Now that all parties are being "investigated", the Liberals will use their usual "Let the commissioner do his work" line to deflect all questions.
Then in a few months, some wishy-washy report will be issued saying no one was at fault.
Who out there really believes that the PM, his staff or Cabinet members will be raked across the coals by the commissioner?
Posted by: OttRob at June 23, 2005 12:04 PM (H8tXS)
3
I agree ... this is merely a tactic / smoke screen on both Shapiro and the Liberals to buy to buy some time for the HEAT to subside and for Shapiro personnaly , to save his bacon ... If he did not do it and do not want to do it the first time around, what changed this time to make us think he will be honest and straight forward in the execution of his duties and responsibilities ?
Posted by: Ron at June 23, 2005 12:20 PM (+iQbv)
4
Whew, good thing the CBC and CTV have that 80 year old
KKK fellow to focus their headlines on. Otherwise they might
actually have to put this story somewhere (anywhere) on their
web site.....
Posted by: JImbo at June 23, 2005 12:45 PM (3ETGr)
5
I don't think it benefits the liberals more then the conservatives if the tape scandal dissapears out of the headlines while it gets investigated. I can't remember who said it first but the optics of this scandal don't make anybody look good.
Whether or not it's going to be a fair investigation is another question entirelly.
Posted by: Iron Oxide at June 23, 2005 01:00 PM (NC5nV)
6
That's correct Jimbo. You are reading very accuratly between the lines.
Not just the CBC, but most MSM biggest advertiser is the Liberanos Government of Canada.
My worry is just how far reaching is the performance bonus plan to Judges. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 27, 2005 01:16 AM (rmMzv)
Is the mess that is the Sgro Report evidence of influence?
The blogger Phantom Observer has said something that made me think there may be an explanation as to why the Sgro Report is such a mess, and the Grewal Report was so clear and concise.
more...
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:17 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Let's get an Ethics Ethics Commisioner to investigate the Ethics Commisioneer. He should send his report to the PM first to ensure that the report isn't embarrasing!
Posted by: Jonny_eh at June 23, 2005 11:58 AM (U2GJM)
2
Let's be frank here... a genius can collect all the facts accurately and still interpret them incorrectly for whatever reason.
Let's hang Shapiro on his own petard... the facts he presents in his 'black on white' report. He can't run from it nor can the liberals.
Who cares what conclusion this sychophant comes to.. stick to the facts at large.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 23, 2005 05:59 PM (vAI+5)
The magical powers of Selwyn Pieters
Can you be harassed when you're not even in the room? It seems to be an almost psychic ability, like bending spoons or guessing what card I have in my hand (oh no, it's the race card!). Some people can sense the pseudo-harassment of others through time and space, and exhibit feeling of harassment themselves.
Problem is, some of these psychically empowered people are lawyers.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1274 words, total size 9 kb.
1
You what really hurts... we bring these people into this country.. give them good jobs and an opportunity to help themselves and often at the expense of locals..
and they are still never satisfied. This country has to change and change now before it gets any worse.
Posted by: Brian Walsh at June 23, 2005 06:06 PM (vAI+5)
2
I'm curious... is there a reason to assume Selwyn Pieters was "brought into" Canada and not born here? Are you sure he's not a "local?" And who are "these people" anyway?
Selwyn is and always has been a bit of a clown, but it's always sad -- yet never surprising -- to encounter clowns on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: Jim in Toronto at June 24, 2005 12:40 PM (jFQgX)
3
I can answer that one. "These people" are immigrants. Our enbolden immigration interest groups prey on the good will of the majority and its unquestioning acceptance of multiculturalism and this leads to perverse outcomes. Like suing your way into law school. Like suing the government on charter grounds when a refuge determination decision is not to your liking. Like declaring school curiculums racist because they don't teach African history. This is Canada. It is very different from all the other countries of the world and reasonable people who come here expect to have to adapt. The rest join immigrant interest groups.
Posted by: Parliament at June 25, 2005 10:55 AM (RCBf/)
4
"These people"? Who exactly are these people? And furthermore who brought them in and gave them all these "good" jobs? Are these the same jobs that the "locals" (aka. White Anglo Saxons) don't want? Hot dog vendor, farm worker, taxi cab driver etc. Kindly spare me the rhetoric about Canada's so called good will and tolerance towards immigrants and visible minorities.
Posted by: A "local" at July 02, 2005 07:36 AM (juZwJ)
<< Page 1 of 8 >>
327kb generated in CPU 0.0663, elapsed 0.1746 seconds.
113 queries taking 0.1265 seconds, 552 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
113 queries taking 0.1265 seconds, 552 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
