Saturday, November 19, 2005

Reptilian Kitten Eater

Scott Brison has tipped the Liberal hand on what their campaign strategy will be. First of all, let me just say that it's refreshing to see David Herle come up with such a fresh and ingenious series of tactics. And, I must say I was shocked that it was Scott Brison who was sent out to call Harper anti-gay. Stay tuned for next week when Liza Frulla accuses Harper of hating women, Joe Volpe accuses Harper being racist towards Italians, and Ken Dryden claims Stephen Harper hates hockey.

As for what exactly Brison said, here's the money quote:

Harper has consistently found himself at odds with such core Canadian values as multiculturalism, bilingualism, publicly funded health care and the Charter of Rights and Freedom, Brison said.

"During the great debates around those issues...people like Stephen Harper consistently stood four-square against the types of policies that built the Canada we love,'' said Brison.

"As head of the National Citizens Coalition, Mr. Harper (and) his organization, held positions that were contrary to publicly funded health care, that were contrary to bilingualism and the charter, and to multiculturalism.''


Hear, hear Scott. I couldn't agree more. I think anyone who expresses views that go against Canadian multiculturalism has no place in Ottawa.

I think it would be a travesty if a Cabinet was assembled that might include people who are anti-Quebec and felt that Adscam was just "how business was done in Quebec".

And I would certain hope that Canadians would turn away from a party whose members have advocated against Same Sex Marriage.


As for the attacks against Harper being in favour of privatized health care, there may be some truth there. Just take a look at these quotes:

Roy Romanow was supposed to provide advice on how to change and create a more sustainable health care system in Canada. Instead, he clings to the belief that more money and an ideologically rigid opposition to private components in health care is the panacea – the universal solution.”
(Press Release, November 29, 2002)

"Whether for political or ideological reasons, Mr. Romanow refused to acknowledge private-sector involvement, quite possibly to the detriment of Canada's health-care system."
(Globe and Mail, November 29, 2002)

"If you want to gut the Canadian public health care system, the best way to do it is to… prevent any level of private participation in the Canadian system."(Hansard, December 10, 2002)

There's only one problem. Those quotes aren't things Stephen Harper said. They were said by a certain MP from Kings-Hants.


Note to David Herle: If you're going to send out an MP to accuse Harper of being against public health care, make sure the MP who is doing it doesn't support the privatization of the health care system.

53 Comments:

  • I have to admit, I'm a bit disappointed in Mr. Brison. One of the reasons I supported him as a Tory was BECAUSE of his daring positions on things like public healthcare. He's looking more and more like an anti-private-dogmatist every day, and it saddens me.

    By Blogger Clear Grit, at 6:55 PM  

  • God this again. If the Liberals are going to be nasty, be nasty. Do not speak in vague generalities about things the Conservatives might are might not be against. Provide quotes. Reference papers. No one in there right mind takes a politican at face value. Show them what evidence you have. Stephen Harper's comment about Canada being second rate, second tier, smug and resentful should be posted everywhere.

    By Anonymous koby, at 7:29 PM  

  • Isn't the word around the campfire that Scott is Herle's pony for the post-Martin leadership?

    David's hoping that the short-term memories of voters and media will allow him to rewrite the Brison story between now and then.

    Such a waste. Brison coulda been a contender in his past life.

    By Blogger The Hack, at 7:37 PM  

  • Herle always seems to think voter's memories are short. As to Brison's future, one of my partners is a big-time well connected Liberal, and when I raised the prospect of Brison's leadership he said, and I quote "the Party will never have a queer as leader, but the possibility is useful". I'm a conservative supporter and I wanted to punch him out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:42 PM  

  • Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.

    I love it when a Martinista gets burned by his own mind numbing hypocrisy.

    By Blogger Brandon, at 8:03 PM  

  • It seems like most of the Martin crowd will go McKenna or Brison next time around. Last time I'd heard, Herle was in the McKenna camp (but, then again, Frank might not even run for all we know).

    After the mis-hap last week with the illegal lobyist stuff, you'd think Brison would offer up a little more than vague generalities for this sort of stuff.

    That said, demonizing the Conservatives has proven quite effective at winning elections in the past so I can see why the Libs are going that route.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 8:24 PM  

  • I think anyone who expresses views that go against Canadian multiculturalism has no place in Ottawa.

    A 30 year old quote? You're turning into a right whinger, dood.

    By Blogger Robert McClelland, at 12:51 AM  

  • C'mon Robert. You can't think that guys like Telegdi, Wappel, Szbo, and McTeague are any better than the neanderthals in the CPC. At least Kilgour and O'Brien are gone, but there are still a lot of people in the Liberal Party who have said things just as bad as Harper's loose cannons.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:15 AM  

  • It's not like anti-Harper attack dogs don't toss out ancient Harper quotes on every possible occasion and then proceed to pretend that the man cannot change his mind over the course of a decade or so.

    These same dolts usually then proceed to praise the Liberals who were denouncing SSM only a few short years ago.

    Double standards suck.

    By Blogger Andrew, at 10:04 AM  

  • I'm saying that using a 30 year old quote to make a point is stupid. It's even more stupid when it doesn't back up your point. Telegdi's comment was not racist, it was a clumsy, ignorant attempt at making a point that had nothing to do with race.

    As for the rest, I didn't read beyond that point. I make it a habit that once I step in a pile of bullshit to not continue walking the same path.

    By Blogger Robert McClelland, at 10:07 AM  

  • Gee Robert, hasn't most of the venom spewed at the conservatives been a result of a "was not racist, it was a clumsy, ignorant attempt at making a point that had nothing to do with race" comment made by some rural conservative that doesn't not fit the modern version of a Canada espoused by the liberal party.

    By Anonymous Don Mitchell, at 10:33 AM  

  • geez robert, don't get your panties in a knot. You want another dumb Telegdi comment, how about when he said in regards to Parliament being the supreme voice in the land (otherwise known as Parliamentary supremacy)in regards to citizenship issues and having the final say "this legislation smacks of Hitler and Nazi Germany". Sorry Rob old buddy (aka. Andy Telegdi) but old Andy Telegdi is an idiot, plain and simple. You want to know when that quote was from buddy?? 2001 buddy, haha, is that close enough to the present day to be relevant for you??

    And Rob before I forget, do you know the context of that quote, before you allege I "took it out of context" or something equally dumn. The legislation was in relation to giving Parliament the power to revoke the citizenship of known Nazi warm criminals who had lied about their past involvment in organizations involved in war crimes to get into Canada Rob (Andy) I hope that dumb comment is close enough to the present for ya. Telegdi is a disgrace to the House of Commons.

    Now that we have identified an even dumber quote from Andy, you can continue on reading the post by Calgary Grit.

    Have a good day
    Sincerely
    Ilovelap (who clearly is not a disgrace to the House of Commons)

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 1:34 PM  

  • Do you recognize that's you've posted 5 awesome posts in the last 2 days, CG?

    Are you doing this full-time, or something? Come on. Give us little guys a chance. ;)

    By Blogger Gauntlet, at 1:39 PM  

  • I think Harper should say (en francais) that if Brison *really* loved his country he'd be able to explain away the quotes CG dug up in French.

    By Blogger matt, at 12:04 AM  

  • "I think anyone who expresses views that go against Canadian multiculturalism has no place in Ottawa"

    Yup, that sure worked for the French didn't it.

    Although I do find Islams view on homosexuality- ummmm- interesting.

    Horny Toad

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:34 AM  

  • But CG, Harper IS anti-gay. Harper practically spent 2005 gay-bashing.

    By Blogger John Murney, at 4:29 AM  

  • Telegdi, Wappel, Szbo, and McTeague are all idiots agreed. However, with the exception of McTeague they are back bench idiots with no pull within the party. (McTeague has the most influential posting and he is not even in cabinet.) What is more, had this been a majority Wappel and others might very well have been pushed out over their opposition to SSM. As it was, Kilgour and O'Brien left. All of this is marked contrast to the Conservatives. Indeed, the fact that Stronach left for the Liberals and O'Brien and Kilgour made noise about joining sums up the difference nicely.

    Toews is an idiot and he is in line to become justice minister. Day is an idiot and he looks to become Minster of Foreign Affairs. The mind boggles. Had he kept quiet, during the last election Merrifield might still be in line to be Health Minster. (Merrifield's comments were pretty tame in and of themselves, but his views on stem cell research, for example, put the Bush administration to shame.) Harper has repeatedly appointed idiots to critic positions. It was he that appointed Spencer, of homosexuality should be illegal fame, to families’ critic. Then there is the issue of Harper himself. Anyone who believes, for example, that it was just some low level staffer who said that Paul Martin supported child porn should think again. Harper said back in June 2003 that the Liberals have allowed child porn to remain legal and that furthermore that they failed to address the issue in throne speech that year. "This same argument applies equally to a range of issues involving the family (all omitted from the Throne Speech), such as banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda." http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html

    This was hardly some off the cuff remark; this was prepared speech that was subsequently turned into a policy paper. If that was not enough there is also Harper's comments on the Aylmer affair, which I mentioned previously. According to Harper, intervening was "an abuse of power" that no conservative could tolerate. "We saw the capacity for this abuse of power in the events that took place in Aylmer, Ont. Children there were seized for no reason other than the state disagreed with the religious views of their parents. No conservative can support this kind of intrusion, and conservatives have an obligation to speak forcefully against such acts."
    Now, as I said, this was prepared speech that was given in June of 2003. So, the July 2002 verdict would have been available to Harper. The judge ruled that hitting the kids with a belt, stick, electrical cords, clothes hanger and metal “spanking stick” went well beyond the use of “reasonable force” and slapping the wound of boy brunt by hot water so that a remedy including diluted bleach could be a applied to the wound was not protected by law. http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt33.html The Children’s Aid Society had every right to intervene; the parents claims to the contrary were “sheer nonsense”. "No community, or society, could reasonably agree with the concept that a parent who sexually abuses or physically mistreats a child should be entitled to give his/her consent to the interviewing, or examination of the child by a member of a Children's Aid Society." http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt35.html

    So, Conservative supporters have a choice. Either Harper was knowingly taking the side of abusive parents for partisan purposes, or he was ignorant of the facts of the matter. Your choice. keep in mind it was not an off the cuff report but a prepared speech.

    Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention some Conservative talking points on, say, SSM. As was mentioned in the press, Conservative MPs had to have their comments on SSM vetted by the party. You see, having, Hanger, Thompson, or Day going off on "buggery" would not be good for the polling numbers. In the end, the themes the Conservatives hit on were almost identical to ones being used by Focus on the Family (e.g., SSM poises a major threat to Canadian children).

    Maurice Vellacott (CPC) "I will quickly recap the last time I spoke with respect to an amendment on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. I talked about how we need to support traditional heterosexual marriage, first of all, for the sake of the children. They are the most vulnerable members of society."

    Brian Jean (CPC) "I will not support any legislation that infringes upon the rights of any Canadian. I believe strongly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be respected and the rights of all minorities must be protected. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

    The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and the nurturing of the children of the union. Our children are our future and must be protected."

    Jay Hill (CPC) "Divorce is a fact of life in our society and it is something that many parents and children continue to struggle through. There are many types of families in the 21st century and we must do everything we can to protect and nurture the children within them. However, to actually change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples and to legitimize same sex marriage as a perfectly acceptable option means abolishing the norm or the ideal of a child being raised by their biological mother and father."

    Diane Ablonczy (CPC) "the preservation of marriage is in the best interest of children. It is of paramount interest to the state whether children are born and grow up within or without the marital bounds because children that live in alternative family structures may incur multifarious disadvantages economically, socially, emotionally and physically. Even though many children raised in such alternative families do well, psychological and sociological studies indicate that children generally do best when raised by their biological parents in a stable marriage.

    Children require more than love from their parents. Every child raised in a same sex home is raised in a home without either a father or a mother and therefore misses out on experiencing the inherent differences, unique sexual relationship and bonding of men and women that are at the heart of the institution of marriage as a cornerstone of a stable society. It is unacceptable that Bill C-38 intentionally causes this situation."

    Norman Doyle (CPC) "Nobody has asked children if they “strongly prefer, strongly reject or don't care” whether they have: a single mom, single dad, mother and father, two moms or two dads."

    Greg Thompson (CPC) "Nobody has asked the children if they “strongly prefer, strongly reject or don't care” whether they have a single mom, single dad, mother and father, or two moms or two dads." (Yes that is right. Thompson and Doyle's are the same. Someone copied someone else's homework.)

    Russ Hiebert (CPC) "Redefining marriage will have serious consequences for Canadian society. In fact there is hard evidence of some of these consequences already.
    First, let us consider the impact on children. According to the social science research, children do best in the home of a married mother and father. The courts are required to consider the best interests of children. If the definition of marriage is redefined, same sex adoption and fostering will forever legally deny some children a mother and a father." (Hiebert is a BC MP. BC allowed gay adoption for several years prior to Bill 38. So Hiebert is not just an idiot; he is an uninformed idiot as well.)

    Ken Epp (CPC) "Yet when we think of same sex couples having children by the use of so-called anonymous sperm donor and/or egg donors, we are saying to the children that they will never be able to find out their biological roots. Whose rights are being violated when we do this?”
    (Yep that is right; Ken Epp of CBC radio causes violence against women fame, is against not gay marriage but also against the use of sperm donors. Oh Ken, how in god's name do these subjects relate?)

    By Anonymous koby, at 8:38 AM  

  • I got to know Brison a bit while I was living in Halifax. What you don't realize is that these sorts of speeches are what he does. He got up in front of a private Liberal gathering and most of his discussion was making fun of the Conservative caucus (particularly MacKay), mixed with some serious personal opinions. I agree that it is a bit over the top and does not work well in writing, but in person it is like a stand-up comedy act. Sometimes the context really does matter.

    By Blogger Jason Cherniak, at 10:06 AM  

  • With friends like these who needs enemies?

    By Blogger HisHighness, at 10:48 AM  

  • So Koby, from your post I gather that you would rather the state or gay couples only should raise our children. Thanks

    By Anonymous Don Mitchell, at 11:02 AM  

  • Koby, your giant post of quotes made me acutally laugh out loud. What a joke. You make it seem like you are so smart and have the silver bullet to once again scare Canada into thinking the Alliance Party neo-Christian beast has arisen up to make your children rehearse bible verses in school each morning.

    Do you know why they aren't using quotes like that? Because the same views expressed in those quotes have been expressed (in writting I'm sure) by a large amount of Liberal MPs all over the country over the last decade. Its a free country, and the views of individual members often deviate from the carefully planned wording of each party policy.

    Focus on reality bud, not digging up out of context quotes by backbench MPs from Saskatchewan... Maurice Vellacott.. Haha...

    The embarassing part is that you took so long to write that email, and probably have some database of quotes you actually think anyone cares about.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:14 PM  

  • Since Mr Brison's department has put a freeze on hiring white males, I wonder how close the composition of his ministerial exempt staff and of his riding office comes to meeting the department's diversity "goals"?

    See: "White males need not apply: Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works", National Post, Nov. 19:
    http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8b38e8a9-f7de-460b-9bd7-723991e9d12e

    Mark
    Ottawa

    By Blogger Mark, Ottawa, at 12:29 PM  

  • Anyone who can't see that Harper and his clan are way more anti-same sex marriage and overall more anti-gay than the Martinites is either:

    a. lying.
    b. an idiot.
    c. a lying idiot.

    I went to school with someone who works quite high up in the CPC party and he's one of the most homophobic people I know. And he's not alone up there either.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:10 PM  

  • Maybe Brison's Dept shopuld put a freeze on hiring Gays. . .. after all some discrimination is allowed.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 PM  

  • Also, the issue is not whether the Liberal caucus has some biggots. The issue is whether a Liberal government will give anything to said biggots as compared with a Conservative government. Only one of the parties is suggesting that we reopen the SSM debate as far as I am aware. It is not like Harper can claim that his biggots are being held back by his leadership.

    By Blogger Jason Cherniak, at 1:58 PM  

  • The CPC is a party of, misoginistic, racist, sexist, homophobes. ANYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK SO IS AN IDIOT.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:17 PM  

  • Nice try Anon.
    No one is calling them racists but many of them are proudly homophobic - including their leader.

    Do you think their opposition to same-sex marriage had anything to do with their desperate 'Martin supports child porn' accusation?

    Of course it did.

    Oh and fuck Rick Mercer for his recent Harper ass-kissing. That queen should know better.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:44 PM  

  • Congratulations, CG, you are now, by my count, a right whinger, stupid, a lying idiot, and an (I assume garden variety) idiot. And all you had to do was step outside of rabidly partisan for a few minutes to write a post on an unprincipled blowhard.

    OC

    By Blogger Alan, at 2:48 PM  

  • So, this is it, the scary defense? This is all they have?

    Harper's response should be this:

    1. Yes, I'm scary. If you're a corrupt hack or political appointee, I'm scary.

    2. I'm scary, yup, if there's money hidden by the Liberals to blow on their buddies. I'm scary.

    3. I'm scary for the hangers on and the cronies. Yes, for them, I'm scary. Now for Canadians, in a minority parliament, where I would be forced to work with the NDP, the BQ and, yes, the Liberals, how can I be scary?

    By Blogger Michael, at 3:00 PM  

  • Among the 3 statements Brison apologized for in the Commons today:

    "the Leader of the Opposition's past is littered with examples of questionable, if not illegal, behaviour"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:24 PM  

  • Anon at 12:17 is a real open-minded tolerant sort, CG. Your party and your fan club seem to have a few warts.

    By Anonymous MSFan, at 3:27 PM  

  • Yes, yes. Obviously the Liberals are more "gay friendly" or whatever you call it than the CPC. And obviously the Libs are pro-SSM and the Cons are against it.

    So if Martin wanted to campaign on gay marriage, that would be fair enough. Of course, he had to chance to campaign on it during the last election and wouldn't touch the issue with a twelve foot pole (likely due to a David Herle poll...).

    So if Brison had come out and said "our party supports same sex marriage while Stephen Harper has said he will overturn the legislation", I'd applaud Paul for standing up for liberal values and issues.

    But to launch a ton of blanket generalities as part of a smear campaign is just disengenuous. We saw Brison do the same thing last week with the lobyist issue which he has been forced to appologize for. And I thought the health care stuff was rich, given what Brison's said on the issue before. It'd be like if Paul had sent out Jean Lapierre yesterday to smack down Boisclair over his Clarity Bill comments.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 4:16 PM  

  • I can understand the feelings behind Brison's comments, being gay myself. When your rights and freedoms can be decided by the whims of elected officials, you get a little sensitive. Sure, his own party is full of anti-gay members like Wappel and McTeague... but it's not the whole party. Half a loaf is better than none, right?

    Still, it won't change my vote for either the NDP or the Green Party. They were wishy-washy on SSM ("The courts made us do it!"), and there's an arms-long list of other reasons to kick their collective ass out to the curb.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:37 PM  

  • Michael et al if you do not think the "scary" charge is going to work, why waste your time huffing and puffing about it? Indeed, you might as well encourage the Liberals to do their worse. You could, for example, include the following header, just below a picture of Harper superimposed over and American flag, at the top of each one of your blogs.

    “Harper has 1) condoned a case of child abuse for partisan purposes, 2) accused the Liberals of allowing child porn to remain legal, called 3) Canada "second rate", "second tier", "smug", "resentful", said 4) that whether Quebec remains in Canada is "secondary" to reducing the size of government; said 5) that any Westerner who does not vote for Alliance/Conservative is no Westerner at all, but is rather either a naturalized "Asian" Canadian who lives in a "ghetto", or is a stupid Ontario voter who has chosen to leave Ontario's winters for poverty in BC, presumably because they have not voted for him in great numbers, has said 6) that Maritimes is characterized by a "culture of defeat"; 7) told two Victoria women that if elected he would seek to annual all same sex marriages including theirs.

    Vote Republican, err, Conservative. And as dear leader likes to say in difference to America’s superior political system and traditions ‘thank you. God bless Canada.’”

    Think about what a great time you will have mocking Harper’s seven deadly sins and how little they matter.

    By Anonymous koby, at 4:38 PM  

  • Who cares what Martin thought about SSM - his comfort level with male-on-male action is irrelevant since as brave MPs like Navdeep Bains showed their own personal convictions are superceded by their responsibility to the Charter of Rights.

    Which brings us to the more important question of Harper's commitment to the spirit of the Charter and me thinks he'd like to take a torch to it (except the part where it supports a two-tier health system).

    -J.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:54 PM  

  • I find it particularly ironic, for a guy who claimed he left the Conservatives for fear that he would become the token gay and that his sexuality would become an issue, he is now making his sexuality an issue. I guess when a car and driver are on the line he's willing to become a token.

    As someone who both worked for and supported Scott in his bid for the PC leadership I find it sad to watch what he's become. He was once funny and friendly, now he just seems angry and bitter. It's as if Herle and Martin have drained him of the considerable charisma he once had and put him on an IV of pure bile (because, of course, they have lots to spare... my understanding is that Herle's intestinal tract is considered a modern miracle of medicine).

    And as to the Liberals who accuse Conservatives of being misogynist (at least we can spell), homophobic, racist, and a whole host of other libellous accusations, apparently you don't actually know any. I would not have stayed in the Conservative Party after the merger had I believed any of those things to be true, and in my considerable experience since it has not been.

    By Blogger ABigMachine, at 6:15 PM  

  • "The CPC is a party of, misoginistic, racist, sexist, homophobes. ANYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK SO IS AN IDIOT."

    This was said ironically!!!!
    I know you right-wingers have a problem with irony but it seems that one of you took it out for a test drive and ended up confounding your own people. I realize I can't absolutely confirm this but I'd ask that people ignore bullshit like this. If they were speaking 'from the left' they're a dumbass and if they were speaking 'from the right' they're a double dumbass.

    - J.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 PM  

  • With no natural partner in the house,the Conservatives would seek out short term alliances. This would mean that they would join with the Bloc in robbing the Federal government of power (addressing the fiscal imblance is the word both use). A Conservative government would also team with a bunch of Liberal MPs to do something as.

    As Conservative apologists (see above) like to point out, there are a group of Liberal back benchers who are opposed to gay marriage. 35 to be exact. (There is a world of difference, by the way, between having the Conservative party brass talking up how SSM posses a threat to Canadian children and the homophobic dripple of a bunch of MPS who are slowly but surely being pushed out of the party (e.g., Kilger and O'Brien.) These anti gay marriage Liberals, coupled with the odd Bloc MP, would be enough to push the Conservatives over the top in a free vote. Conservatives are of one mind set when it comes to Gay marriage. Only 3 of 98 MPs supported it. Oh the irony, the regressive beliefs of a bunch of back bench Liberals are yet another reason not to vote Conservative.

    By Anonymous koby, at 6:42 PM  

  • I think it is safe to say that 95% of policians are hypocrits that will say or do anything to further their careers or get votes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:47 PM  

  • Koby; I'm not so sure the votes would be there to overturn SSM. A lot of the seats the Tories stand to win are rural seats and they'd be bouncing anti-SSM Liberals. Plus, I figure the NDP will gain seats during the next election.

    And you have to figure a lot of MPs won't want to overturn existing legislation. Harper himself might not want to re-ignite the powderkeg of an issue (has he mentioned gay marriage at all this fall?).

    I do agree with you that a Tory/Bloc alliance is somewhat scary when it comes to decentralizing the country.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 6:51 PM  

  • I keep hearing that the Liberal party is pro SSM. How come so many Liberals voted against it and Junior had to let loose the party whip on the cabinet to ensure its passage.
    People who are anti-SSM are not bigots and they are not homophobes. Some of them in fact are gay and lesbian. They are folks that are ticked off that something like family, marriage and love is trivialized into a political talking point. I can hear it now from the Lefties...."it means a lot to the gays and lesbians who want to be married!" well shucks, I got married to my wife and I don't care if the province recognizes it or not. I sure as hell don't receive any special treatment from Revenue Canada in relation to gay common law couples. The problem with the legislation is that it tries to impose societal acceptance on gay marriage. It's not governement/societies place however to do so. The only opinions that matter are the couples and their families and friends.
    and also...
    The remarks by by Mr. Brison on Mr. Harper were inappropriate. True to form for the Liberals. Following their past history we should start to see a lot more anti-American activity (which has already started with softwood and passports) and some mention of people in the CPC believing in God.
    It's weak, it really is...

    By Anonymous NorthBayTrapper, at 7:19 PM  

  • I think it's pretty safe to say I "get" irony. I just thought Heather Mallick had posted.

    By Blogger ABigMachine, at 10:12 PM  

  • So tired of the homosexuals using their homosexuality as a political crutch to try and brand entire political groupd into a pigeon hole. Its more discriminatory than anything every done to gays ever in the course of history. Oh ya, and by the way I am:

    - totally pro gay marriage
    - 100% supportive of gay rights
    - liberal in every sense of the word

    But this whole anti-gay branding fear mongering that Brison and friends are participating in makes me want to puke. Sickening.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:18 PM  

  • So tired of the homosexuals using their homosexuality as a political crutch to try and brand entire political groupd into a pigeon hole. Its more discriminatory than anything every done to gays ever in the course of history. Oh ya, and by the way I am:

    - totally pro gay marriage
    - 100% supportive of gay rights
    - liberal in every sense of the word

    But this whole anti-gay branding fear mongering that Brison and friends are participating in makes me want to puke. Sickening.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:18 PM  

  • I see Trapper is employing the red herring defense. Did I say that all people who are opposed to SSM are homophobes? Has anyone ever made this argument? Incidentally, as you say, there are a few gay Uncle Toms out there who opposed bill 38. However, this fact proves nothing, nor does it insulate you against anything. After all, there are a lot of homophobic homosexuals (e.g., David Cameron).

    Now what I said was that there are large number of Conservative MPs and few Liberal MPs who are clearly homophobic. How do I know this? What they have said in the past speaks for itself. As to the parties themselves, it is quite clear from what the Conservative Party’s talking points were that the Party was pandering to homophobia. I mentioned the one about SSM being a threat to children, but there are others. Two of my favorites were the notion that bill 38 would lead straight to legalizing polygamy and the notion that Churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples. Oh guys, Jewish Rabias, say, are not even forced to marry Catholics. What made it more difficult to swallow was that despite being vetted, many Conservative speeches were riddled with factual errors and non sequiturs. I mentioned two above (e.g., Hiebert belief that gay marriage would lead to something that became a reality several years before, viz., gay adoption in BC. The other was Ken Epp using SSM as cover for his opposition to in vitro fertilization.) I should now point out that Ablonczy’s misgivings about SSM also go for divorce. To wit “Every child raised in a same sex home is raised in a home without either a father or a mother and therefore misses out on experiencing the inherent differences, unique sexual relationship and bonding of men and women that are at the heart of the institution of marriage as a cornerstone of a stable society. It is unacceptable that Bill C-38 intentionally causes this situation."

    “I sure as hell don't receive any special treatment from Revenue Canada in relation to gay common law couples.”

    In the eyes of the law Common Law relationships and marriage are not the same. For example, different requirements are made of couples exiting such relationships. Should only heterosexual couples have the right to enter into one relationship or the other? As for the so called civil unions compromise, not only has this been rejected outright by courts in Quebec and BC, it is also not under Federal privy. It would be up the provinces to pass such legislation and there is no guarantee of uniformity. Imagine for a minute that you stepped over the BC Alberta border and your marriage was no longer recognized or even was just downgraded in terms of what rights you have?

    “The problem with the legislation is that it tries to impose societal acceptance on gay marriage.”

    You have things ass backwards. What made gay marriage possible was the acceptance of homosexuality and recognition that arguments against homosexuality were an intellectually untenable. Once that became a reality, gay marriage became a forgone conclusion. Pace the Conservatives, the courts did not take an activist role. They simply could no longer hold back the breakwater. Societal acceptance is the raw material that court decisions of any such court decisions and these ones were no different.

    By Anonymous koby, at 11:03 PM  

  • ". Its more discriminatory than anything every done to gays ever in the course of history."

    Oh ya, and by the way you are:

    - more ignorant of history than a placenta covered newborn
    - wholly ignorant of Christianity, Islam and Judaism
    - not really worth answering cause you can take your '100% support' and shove it %100 of the way up your ass

    -J.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:03 AM  

  • koby: Two of my favorites were the notion that bill 38 would lead straight to legalizing polygamy...

    Actually, that idea was brought to public attention primarily by Status of Women Canada.

    By Anonymous The Invisible Hand, at 12:56 AM  

  • koby: "not only has this been rejected outright by courts in Quebec" - that's interesting, since under the Quebec constitution, the civil union takes precedence over marriage (similar, I believe, to France).

    As for making polygamy legal, why do you think the polygamists in BC haven't been charged? More to the fact that no prosecutor wants to start the case that will take polygamy to the Supreme Court, rather than it being technically illegal. Do you think SSM helps the prosecutors here? If so, how?

    By Blogger Candace, at 2:21 AM  

  • Do you admire Hiebert Candace?

    The Bountiful issue has been around a lot longer than gay marriage, but all of a sudden government inaction on this subject is the fault of bill 38?

    "koby: "not only has this been rejected outright by courts in Quebec" - that's interesting, since under the Quebec constitution, the civil union takes precedence over marriage (similar, I believe, to France)."

    Quebec has Civil unions, marriages and defacto unions (common law if you will). The Quebec court ruled that limiting gay couples to the later two ran contray to the Charter.

    "Actually, that idea was brought to public attention primarily by Status of Women Canada."

    Come again? The fact that Status of Women Canada called for papers on subject of polygamy does not mean that their position was that Bill 38 would conceptually lead us down the road to polygamy. Hence none of the papers submitted mention 38 in their title. The back drop to the confernence was growing attempts by groups such as the UN (see for example http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.80.UGA.En?Opendocument) and Amnesty Interntaionl (see for example http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAFR590012005) to get the Uganda government, in particular, to ban polygamy.

    "Expanding Recognition of Foreign Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada

    Martha Bailey, Beverley Baines
    Queen's University

    How Have Women's Experiences and Impressions Shaped Policy Approaches to Polygamy? An International, Comparative Analysis

    Angela Campbell
    McGill University

    An International Review of Polygamy: Legal and Policy Implications for Canada

    Joseph P. Hornick, Jean Gomes, Lorne Bertrand, Nicholas Bala, Joanna Harris and Joanne Paetsch
    Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family

    Law, Policy and Polygamy

    Linda McKay-Panos, Melissa L. Luhtanen and Brian Seaman
    Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre"

    By Anonymous koby, at 4:10 AM  

  • Dear Koby,

    My first post was not directed at you but seeing that you have a complex this one is.

    It is not a red herring. The only time people think about is when it is in the news. Your points made about common law marriage were inaccurate.
    You say that a large number of Conservatives are homophobes, how many is a large and what is a homophobe. If you voted against SSM, does that make you a homophobe? You say that few Liberals are homophobes, again I ask you to explain "few" and how you came to label them.
    I agree with you that tolerance for gays and lesbians is improving and I think this is great. I long for the day when all forms of persecution are stomped out and I am happy to say that Canada is well along to that goal.
    This, however, has nothing to do with marriage. If you wish to argue what marriage is then perhaps Calgary could start a new thread.
    And then you sink yourself is ridiculous Hyperbole. Harper condoned a case of child porn is as disengenious as saying that the Liberals support child porn (a conservative hyperbole which I found to be distasteful).
    Koby you are one of those strange ultra-Liberals who defend your conservative Liberal Party because it is your team and you want to win (a good Martinite then) and I hold the same amount of respect for you as I do the whack job Ultra-Conservatives...look in the mirror Koby you are one in the same.

    By Anonymous NorthBayTrapper, at 1:51 PM  

  • Gonna challenge you on this one Calgary.

    Would the Liberal Party, Paul Martin, Corruption and Equalization be construed as scary as well as a Bloc/CPC alliance?

    Personally I see the CPC working with the Liberals (much like the new German government) and not the Bloc who are way left of the political spectrum (NDP sovereignists by trade)
    If the Liberals win a minority that cannot be covered by the NDP would they work with the Bloc.
    I think we can agree that the threat to Canada is not the CPC or the Liberal Party, it is the Bloc.

    (personally I think that Paul Jr. would be more open to making deals to keep power than the Harper, your views on this?)

    By Anonymous NOrthBayTrapper, at 2:16 PM  

  • Come again? The fact that Status of Women Canada called for papers on subject of polygamy does not mean that their position was that Bill 38 would conceptually lead us down the road to polygamy. Hence none of the papers submitted mention 38 in their title.

    Wow! That certainly is a deeply relevant fact, especially when you consider that the SoWC paper came out before C-38 was introduced. :P

    Furthermore, I wasn't talking about why SoWC put out their call for proposals, I was talking about how it was these proposals that brought the "Will SSM lead to polygamy?" question to Canadian public attention, not the Conservatives.

    By Anonymous The Invisible Hand, at 1:50 AM  

  • Hi, Fellow!I like your blog!
    I just came across your blog and wanted to
    drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
    the information you have posted here.
    I have a used car web site
    site. It pretty much covers used car web site related subjects.
    Come and check it out if you get time :-)
    Best regards!

    By Blogger Paul Adams, at 9:17 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home