Monte Solberg loves Canadians

In his column today in the National Post (subscriber only), Adam Radwanski pulls one quote from Monte Solberg's blog after the same-sex marriage vote and uses it to suggest that conservatives don't like Canada, and that this attitude is responsible for their not achieving 'power':

June 28, 2005

Its a route
Its over. Gay marriage is now on the fast track to becoming the law in Canada.
The new Canada. You can have it.
posted by Monte at 7:06 PM

Radwanski doesn't seem to understand the subtleties of the English language -- or perhaps he is being deliberately obtuse in order to force Solberg's ideas to fit his premise that 'Conservatives dislike Canada'.

I read Solberg's posts that day -- all of them -- which one really should do if you want context (which obviously Radwanski doesn't want to give his readers). I never took from any of it that Monte was 'Canada-bashing'.

Radwanski describes Solberg thus:

He's considered a comparatively moderate conservative --thoughtful, funny and well-liked on the other side of the House. So, far from being an isolated rant from the party's fringes, his outburst presumably came from a common perspective within the Tory caucus -- one that has come to largely define the Canadian right.

So Radwanski not only uses the one post quoted above to decide that Monte Solberg doesn't like Canada, but extrapolates to conclude that in his dislike of Canada, he is representative of both the Conservative caucus and all right-thinking Canadians. If Radwanski can jump to that giant conclusion, you'd have to bet he can leap tall buildings in a single bound, too.

Radwanski pulled this one brief post, from a wealth of blogging by Solberg, and implies that Solberg doesn't like Canada. Never mind that throughout his posting, Monte consistently expresses concern for, and understanding of, the average Canadian -- and not just the fleas who nip the dog and who through sheer irritation factor, have set the agenda and the course for our nation.

What Radwanski forgets as he sits in that ivory tower of his, is that the average Canadian might vote Liberal or NDP more often than he votes Conservative, but the average Canadian is not part of the liberal elite who determine what 'Canadian values' are and should be. A good lot of us were offended by the government telling us that our values are 'unCanadian' and that our religious or personal convictions are 'against human rights'. Their 'outbursts' -- which vilified over half of all Canadians -- are perhaps justifiable to Mr. Radwanski because he agrees with their ideology. Just remember though, every time Paul Martin or Jack Layton told us that SSM was a human rights issue, and that people who disagree with it don't hold Canadian values -- we know that they were referring to ordinary people. Solberg was obviously referring to the government. Which POV is more offensive to Canadians?

This column is typical Radwanski. Taking a snippet of the truth and twisting it to fit his theory. His column continues by equating Solberg's lament over the passing of the SSM bill with Michael Coren's and David Frum's Canada Day columns, both of which examine the failings of our nation at this juncture.

What Radwanski has failed to grasp is that Coren, Frum and Solberg share one thing -- and that thing is not political ideology. Frum is an avowed 'neo-Con' far to the right of almost anyone in Canadian politics. Coren, though socially conservative, is far more in line with the NDP on issues like foreign aid, the environment, affordable housing etc. -- I've read him for years and I wouldn't presume to say which way he votes -- he would probably be insulted to be called a 'conservative commentator'.

These men don't hate Canada, nor does anything they've put to paper convey that sentiment to someone who isn't looking to 'expose' them as anti-Canada. No, the one thing these men share is a disdain for our governance. They despair for the Canada that could be -- that might be -- if not for Liberal corruption, ineptitude, cowardice and arrogance. They talk about the democratic deficit, the lack of accountability, the smug liberal attitude of entitlement. That is not Canada-bashing -- that is government bashing. It is Liberal bashing. And it's true.

The Liberals were voted in with three successive majorities and one minority -- so one might conclude that to criticise their policies and programs is by extention, criticism of the very people who voted them in. Perhaps the answer is for all conservatives to refrain from commenting on the direction this country is taking. Radwanski seems to think we should be silently accepting of the governments flaws, and just be grateful that we live in such a pretty country. Radwanski would likely say he didn't mean that -- that these men he's quoted criticised Canada -- but then, why is it inferred by liberals that when a Carolyn Parrish says: 'Americans, I hate those bastards' that she meant only George W. Bush and his crowd, but when Solberg says: 'The new Canada. You can have it.' it must mean he hates Canada and all Canadians?

Radwanski has likely read Monte Solberg's Canada Day post. He didn't bother to comment on it, I expect because it doesn't fit his theory of the Canada-bashing man he's trying to portray.

Here are some quotes from the post -- read it, then tell me Solberg doesn't like Canada.

The oil patch goes strong 24/7, and so do the businesses that support it. They will work right through the Canada Day weekend and most will not reflect for two seconds on what it means to be Canadian.They will not watch the ceremonies from Parliament Hill today. They will not listen to CBC radio and fret over Canadian culture and heritage. They won't sit around telling each other how much better we are then the Americans.

They will work. They will look for opportunities to make life better for themselves and their family.

(. . .)

What strikes me is how typically Canadian this story is. I'm saying that the vast majority of Canadians practice a set of values and a way of life that is unrecognizable to official Ottawa, to too many journalists and to that squishy class of people who simultaneously revile and live off the backs of that Tim Hortons crowd.

(. . .)

But most amazing of all is that the overtaxed and despised Tim's crowd are the ones who would volunteer to stand in the breech first if, God forbid it, there was ever again a whisper of war. The thumb suckers would head for the bunker before you could say conscientious objector. But the Tims crowd would be there to fight. They would fight furiously, like they've always done. But they would not fight for King and country, for the CBC, or for the Department of Canadian Heritage. They would be there to fight for their little platoons, for their families, and their friends in the trenches.
The ordinary, garden variety decency that makes them the head of the Rotary Club in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia or Taber, Alberta would make them a VC winner on a foreign battlefield.

Maybe what Radwanski finds offensive about Solberg's brand of patriotism is it that is celebrates the average Canadian -- the ordinary people who are not part of the left-leaning liberal elite that fill out the ranks of the press gallery or who inhabit the inner sanctum of the PMO. Guys like Radwanski who are part of Ottawa's connected crowd -- they don't like us -- the regular folk.

What Radwanski doesn't say is what conservatives, and I would guess most Canadians know to be true: although Monte Solberg dislikes 'Canada' (read the government) he loves Canadians -- whereas Paul Martin loves 'Canada' (read, the government) he really doesn't much care for Canadians. Does Paul Martin even know any Canadians? Real Canadians? Can he have lived that kind of sheltered, rarefied existence, and really have his finger on the pulse of the nation?

Radwanski is part of that network of people, who know all the people, who are the people, who decide what matters. He speaks for them.

Monte Solberg speaks for me.

canadianna

Someone's been having fun

I'm not bothering to delete the previous two posts, although I have no clue how they got here. I've changed my passwords and I'm hoping that will be enough to prevent similar mysterious postings.

I've never been 'hacked' before, and although someone obviously had access to my entire blog, these entries are all that seem to have been done.

I don't usually sign out of my account; I just close my browser. These posts happened while I was online, on my own computer but was doing other things.

Now I just wonder if it was a stranger, or if one of my kids figured out my password and posted to be funny. If it was one of my kids, they'll no doubt think it was too hilarious to keep to themselves much longer. I'll let y'all know if there's a comedian in the family as soon as I find out.

canadianna

hay

itz me agen

GUESS WUT I CUNDT HIDE IT

MAY NAME IZ PAUL MARTEN WANT SUM VIZAYZ?

hi

hay

i am canidanea

no rilly

no i am a joke i am hacked canidanea ha ha i am funnee

if u cn gess my name i will giv u a fray viza 2 canada

her is a hint it is start w/ "Pee" and end w/ "Ell" and i am very importint

Why?

There are those who will blame Tony Blair and the UK foreign policy for the attacks on London, but given the history of Britain when faced with adversity, terrorists couldn't be expecting the British to back down. Perhaps they are all suicidal and were hoping to galvanise Britain's resolve.

On a talk show today I heard someone using the 'root causes' defence. You know the drill . . . 'terrorism is a product of poverty . . . of a marginalized population . . . of the west's greed --- if any of these were reasons that terrorists attack, it would be angry young sub-Saharan Africans blowing things up, but it isn't.

Here in Toronto, TTC Chair Howard Moscoe dismissed concerns that Canada could be a target in terror attacks, saying that 'we don't have troops to pull out of Iraq' and 'first the terrorist would have to find us on a map.'

We do have troops in Iraq, and civilians working on the rebuilding effort. We also have troops in Afghanistan -- and a couple of our sharp-shooters are credited with taking out some important members of al-Qaeda.

His glib response is boorish. Why is it they say Toronto is a 'world class city' when they want the Olympics, but that terrorists couldn't find us when are trying to downplay the threat that exists to all civilised nations?

I doubt Toronto will be a target any time soon, but I wonder if that has more to do with our immigration policies than our foreign policy.

Angry has an interesting perspective on today's tragedy.

Prayers and all that to the people of Britain, but nothing is never enough at a time like this.

canadianna

Courting the Media

Yesterday, publicity-shy murderess Karla Homolka sought out the media -- while trying to get an injunction against the media. Apparently the irony was lost on her.

Upon the 'advice of her lawyers' Homolka, describing herself as 'very private' went on to share her intimate thoughts, feelings and fears with an absolute stranger, before a television audience of at least a million viewers.

Could it be possible, rather than wanting to prevent the media scrutiny, Homolka is actually fuelling the flames of attention? If it weren't for the court challenge scheduled for September, we might just turn our minds away from her -- now, for at least the next few months there will be bits and pieces about her in the news, and then when it finally comes to court, she'll be centre stage again.

That picture of her on the front pages today looked different enough from the Karla we've seen over the past few months in the papers, that if she hadn't run to the TV studios upon her release -- it's likely no one would have recognised her. Good thing she got her mug plastered everywhere, now she's sure to get the kind of privacy she craves.

It's absolutely sickening. This was like a dating service ad for her. Calling all pervs; here I am.

It is shameful that our criminal justice system allows this felon to continue to haunt their victims and force the public to pay for the process.

canadianna

God Bless America

America has such gorgeous symbols for the values they hold dear.




And words that resonate still:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Happy Independence Day!

canadianna

The Irish way

There's an article in today's Star by Thomas L. Friedman, about Ireland's improved place in the world over the past 30 - 40 years.

It started me thinking about the current Liberal focus on early childhood indoctrination.

Freidman says:

In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even better educated workforce. . . The results have been phenomenal. Today, nine out of 10 of the world's top pharmaceudical companies have operations here, as do 16 of the top 20 medical device companies and seven of the top 10 software designers.

"We set up in Ireland in 1990," Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computer, explained. "What attracted us? Well-educated workforce - and good universities close by. Ireland has an industrial and and tax policy which is consistently very supportive of businesses, independent of which political party is in power."

Childcare is getting an huge amount of attention because Ken Dryden is pushing it. He has said only regulated care can deliver high standards for health and safety, staff training, ratios of caregivers to kids, and other key elements of early childhood development. His suggestion is that parental care is inadequate, and there has been some talk of negotiations with New Brunswick (where they want greater flexibility for parents who choose to stay home with their kids) According to Andrew Coyne in yesterday's National Post, these talks have suggested that parents would have to receive 'training' in order to benefit from any government support and that they would be 'regulated'. I'm not sure how that would work, but it sounds too weird to me.

Anyway, although Dryden knows most families would prefer to have one parent stay at home with their children, or for a relative to care for them, he says the national daycare program should be like public education or medicare by creating a system that would generate demand from parents -- forcing governments to keep expanding it. "More spaces, higher quality, higher expectations and ambitions, a bigger and growing public appetite, building the pressure on each level of government, to reinforce the commitment implicit in building a system," he said. "We need to paint ourselves into a corner because it's a corner we want to be in and need to be in."

Needless to say I disagree. In a post a couple of months ago I wrote against national public daycare, and more and more I realise how the Liberals are trying to turn this from a debate about babycare to a debate about education. But the fact remains, the government is trying to get into the babyminding business. Call it 'early childhood education' if you like, but it's babysitting. Changing diapers, chasing toddlers, spit up, potty training etc.

Most parents encourage learning during infancy at home, and as Rona Ambrose has pointed out, having a caregiver from within the family enables a child to learn language and culture from his own heritage. Infants and toddlers require a lot of individual and messy attention. Daycare workers might be able to incorporate periods of 'learning' but let's not pretend we're going to be churning out child prodogies as a result of a program like this.

It would seem that Ireland's focus on post-secondary education has been a major factor in the turnaround they've made from a poor, needy country to a rich, productive country.

There are other factors of course. Friedman continues:

By the mid-1980's, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of EU membership -- subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into. But it still did not have enough competitive products to sell, because of years of protectionism and fiscal mismanagement. The country was going broke, and most college grads were emigrating.
"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under." said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."

In a quite unusual development, the government, the main trade unions, farmers and industrialists came together and agreed on a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5% (far below those in the rest of Europe) moderating wages and prices, and agressively courting foreign investment.

An educated populace realises that if you have jobs you won't need public housing and bottomless pit social programs.

Maybe we should be rethinking our education priorities, making post-secondary programs financially feasible to all citizens rather than paying billions to strangers to mind our infants and pretending that it is better for them than parental care. A mom, dad or grandparent can as easily teach their little ones their ABCs. Handing them over to state regulated care is not going to miraculously transform toddlers in to baby geniuses.

canadianna

Martin's parliament was a success

Paul Martin heads off for the summer gloating over his government's successes this term.

I agree.

1. In late March, early April, the government, seeing that the Conservatives were ahead in the polls, feared the Conservatives might use this opportunity to bring down the government -- the Bloc and the NDP were against the budget so the only thing preventing a non-confidence vote was the Conservative decision to abstain. Paul knew he'd be facing an election with Gomery still big and the opposition leading in the polls. Clever Paul decided to do what any megalomanic would do -- the government yanked 'Opposition Days' --- thereby removing any threat that the opposition could bring business to the House. He began to filibuster his own budget to prevent it coming to a vote. No one really noticed. Success.
2. The three opposition parties were justifiably outraged at their parliamentary rights being arbitrarily revoked. Harper, as the leader of the official opposition decided to call Martin's bluff. The government wasn't going to allow them to bring business to the House so the Conservatives would now vote against the budget rather than abstaining. Bloc and the NDP were already against the budget, if the Conservatives were to vote against rather than abstain this would bring the government down. Paul Martin wasn't about to be outdone. Martin took to the airwaves and whinged, giving rise to the infamous statements: 'Let Gomery do his work!' and Canadians don't want an election! The media came away parroting those lines. Instead of focussing on the government actions that had thwarted democracy and created the acrimony in the House, the media reported that Harper was 'angry' without out hammering the issue of why. The absence of this sort of commentary suggested he was unjustified. Success.
3. Not to be left out of the 'movers and shakers' lane, Jack Layton got up that same night and pulled a rabbit out of his hat. He offered that rabbit to Martin and the gang in exchange for being allowed at the big people's table. Jack started the now ritualistically recited mantra that he was committed to 'making this parliament work' . Paul Martin took the bait. Between the two of them, and Union activist Buzz Hargrove they cooked up a deal in a hotel room. The deal would provide vague outlines of where the NDP wanted money directed, but had none of the specifics of a 'real' budget. Layton called for $4.6 billion in new spending after the removal of corporate tax cuts from the original budget. The NDP could lay claim to influence. The Liberals were saved by a hair. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives could be painted as being against post secondary education, against the environment, against foreign aid, against cities, against affordable housing -- all on the back of a budget which will never come into fruition due to conditions of deficit reduction etc. (which can't possibly be known during this mandate). Canadians would be duped into believing that this budget was necessary. Business received a nudge and wink that their tax cuts would stay, and the socialists convinced their constituency that money would begin to flow immediately. For the price of a lie, the Liberals bought 19 votes. Success.
4. At the first opportunity (May 10) the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois indicated their lack of confidence in the government by passing a motion in the House, adding an amendment to a bill which called on a parliamentary committee to request the government's resignation. The motion passed, 153-150. Despite the fact that this motion clearly indicated the government did not have the confidence of the majority of MPs, the government ignored it declaring that the motion was a procedural one (without benefit of Opposition Days -- removed in #1 above-- no business could be brought forward by the opposition in the usual manner, the government refused to bring the budget to a vote -- so this route was taken as the only route available). The opposition points out that according to parliamentary conventions, the government is obligated to quickly introduce a formal confidence vote which, if passed, would necessitate the dissolution of Parliament. The government came out the next day with the following statement: On May 17, voters in British Columbia will be going to the polls in a provincial election.Next Tuesday and Wednesday, I will be in Regina to welcome the Queen to Canada. On Thursday, May 19, I will be in Ottawa. And I am proposing that there be, on that day, a vote on the budget bill. This vote will be a matter of confidence. . . By scheduling this vote, I am respecting my obligations to our Parliamentary tradition.I call on Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to respect their obligations – to demonstrate respect for Parliament and for Canadians by ensuring this House is able to function between now and the day of the vote, and by committing to Canadians that they will honour and recognize the outcome of the confidence vote. People didn't take to the streets decrying the assault on democracy. There were no rallies, no protests and very few suggestions that this was in fact wrong. The Liberals used Paul Martin's itinerary, and unrelated events in the country, to grant themselves a full week in which to shore up it's shaky grasp on power. Success.
5. May 17 Conservative MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and joined the government. Her principled stand included accepting a plum Cabinet role. Stronach, considered by many to be a 'moderate voice' within the Conservative Party, used this opportunity to slag Stephen Harper, saying: "I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is." She suggested she was uncomfortable with the Conservatives 'working with the Bloc' to bring down the government because it threatened national unity. This confirms Jack Layton's 'in bed with the separatists' suggestion, so the media runs with it (ignoring the fact that without the that the role of the opposition parties is to hold the government to account -- without co-operation on issues of confidence the government could never be toppled). Harper's leadership was questioned by pundits and conservatives. The shadiness of the deal proved less interesting to the media than the subsequent remarks of some provincial Conservative MLAs and the broken heart of her ex-boyfriend Peter MacKay. The one week delay in the confidence vote has benefitted the governing party -- hence the reason behind the unheeded calls for a quick confidence vote. Success.
6. Then there were the Grewal tapes, where the borderline criminal behaviour of the natural governing party was dismissed because of questions of 'who approached whom' and whether the taping was 'entrapment'. The charge of tape doctoring put out there by the Liberals was echoed by the media, and 'confirmed' through tests to copies of the tapes. There is still no word as to whether the RCMP will investigate, and they are in possession of the real tapes. This episode caused the Toronto Star to accuse Harper of having provoked the Prime Minister's "seedy vote-buying". At worst, the parties appear to have engaged in criminal behaviour, at best their behaviour had the appearance of being unethical. Only Grewal came away from this scandal bruised. Success.
   

The Liberals were undoubtedly successful this year. They clung to power at the expense of Parliamentary convention. They muddied the concepts of right and wrong. They made lies into the truth, and truth irrelevant.

Some blame the Conservatives for 'not communicating the message'. Blame Harper, his communications staff, blame anyone you want, but it was you and me. We acquiesced as we watched a government ignore the will of the majority of the House, and decide to stay on anyway. There were mild protestations of a few, familiar with parliamentary custom and procedure. Their observations barely sparked debate beyond conservative blogs.
There was no country-wide outrage. There were no protests. There were no riots in the street. There was public questioning of the Conservative leadership. There were admonitions about the 'angry Stephen Harper' and the 'impatience' of the opposition, and 'power hungry Conservatives.'
The Liberals stole parliament, and most people seem to have decided it belonged to them anyway.

These stories are part of our national heritage now. They are part of what it means to be Canadian.

Happy Dominion Day.

canadianna

Harper's Bloc comment

I've been reading about how inconsistent Harper is being by suggesting the SSM vote was a result of a deal between the Liberals and the separatists.

The point he's trying to make is that when the Bloc and the Conservatives (and even the NDP various times in this parliament) voted together to hold the Liberals to account, they were doing what a vigorous opposition should. They were making the government accountable, and following the will of their constituents.

The Bloc is not a national party. It is a regional, protest party. The majority of those who voted for the Bloc were not voting in a separatist agenda, they were voting out Liberal corruption. They were not necessessarily voting for the Bloc policies on anything, let alone SSM. They were voting against the Liberal Party. To infer wholesale agreement with the SSM issue based on the outcome of the last election, is taking license.

When the Bloc and the Conservatives voted together against the budget bills, when they attempted to push through non-confidence votes -- each party was acting consistently with its mandate. They were expected by their constituents to challenge government assaults on democracy ( the removal of the opposition days) and then to vote against spending they felt to be either imprudent, or not beneficial to their constituents. They fulfilled that obligation.

When the Bloc voted for closure on C-48 on Thursday, thereby guarenteeing it would pass, they were throwing their principles out the window. Some might say they have no principles because they're separatists, but I disagree. They were also guaranteeing SSM would pass because the numbers were there. But the numbers were only there because of the circumstances leading up the the last election.

Although same-sex marriage has the highest level of support in Quebec (polls show anywhere from 54% to 60% in favour). I didn't see 40% of the Bloc standing up against it.

I realise the numbers are not as simple as that, but I think Harper's point is that the although the Bloc represents the majority of Quebecers in Parliament, they are not uniformly representative of Quebeckers views on anything except Liberal corruption. The Bloc has inferred an endorsement of same-sex marriage by their constituents, but if the polls are to be believed 40% of people in Quebec remain opposed.

If Liberal corruption, and an unestablished Conservative entity had not made Quebeckers feel compelled to purge the corruption by using the Bloc as their means of protest, the SSM vote might have gone very differently. Even if Conservatives remained without a seat in Quebec, if Qiebeckers hadn't had the need to punish the Liberals, they might have voted in Liberal candidates who reflected their views on this kind of issue.

The polling numbers show nationwide are almost a 50/50 split -- sometimes 47/53 one way or another, but the numbers are close.
If the Bloc had accurately reflected their constituents, about from 17 to 21 of their members might have voted against the bill. Add to that the number of Cabinet Ministers who would have voted against if a true free-vote had been allowed by the Liberals, and this bill might well have failed.

canadianna

Public funding, public rules?

The right of 'religious freedom' is not a stand alone right. Entangled with it are the rights of freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. Sometimes I think the left forgets this.

My previous post 'Religious bigotry' sparked some interesting debate. Sometimes I think it's important to bring this kind of debate to the front page. When I do this, it is because I believe that the commenter is representative of a lot of people on the other side of whatever issue. In this case, the commenter is not particularly speaking for same-sex marriage, but rather in favour of removing funding for separate schools who teach their religious views on this issue. While I understand his reasoning, the underlying disrespect for the views of religious people is typical and I can't just let it go without pointing out the inconsistencies of the argument that gays should be allowed freedom, but religions should not. Koby tries to make public funding the key, but I respectfully submit that the funding isn't the issue. Gay sex is the issue.

(Koby, I suggest that you read the 11th comment, by Linda in the 'Religious bigotry' post from yesterday. You might get a better understanding of moral relativity.)

I will be posting the comments along with the answers and I do not correct the spelling and grammar of the commenters. Koby's arguments are in italics. They are in response both to my post, and to replies I made to his initial comments.

Koby's argument started out that no schools should be taking a stand one way or another.

One, should schools recieving public money (many recieve provincial funding in addition to being tax deductable) be taking a stand one way or the other.)

In the next paragraph he said:

(I)t is not the opposition that most people find offensive, but rather the arguments used (e.g., that homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuality is a mental disorder) . . . One of the reasons for providing public money to private schools and the vast majority, some 90% are religious schools, is to keep some control on what is being taught. Public money public rules . . . Of course, if, as some of claimed, religious schools are not playing by public rules, all public funding, in whatever form, should be removed.

I suggested that I agreed, with the proviso that gay advocacy should not be allowed in public schools either. After that, Koby seemed to think schools should be taking a stand -- so long as it was the 'correct' one:

Just so we're clear, sex ed that does not talk about homosexuality is incomplete. For one, gay students have less of a support network and for this and other reasons are more vulnerable then other students.

Name calling or slurs are wrong against anybody and parents and educators have a responsibility to encourage respectful behaviour amongst all students. All teenagers are vulnerable, but I would argue that gay youth have more outreach available to than other marginalised youth-- say fat ones, or kids with acne -- because in today's sex-driven, self-gratifying culture, it's chic to be gay.

Aside from that, talking about homosexuality in school and promoting it are two very different things. Public school sex-education is about learning the anatomical functions, reproduction, and pregnancy & disease prevention. When schools bring in gay activists (which they do), they aren't giving a lesson in anatomy or biology, they are promoting their agenda and expecting acceptance from an impressionable, captive audience.

It used to be that those who pushed for sex-ed in schools were in favour of leaving out the 'morality' issues, but your statement implies you expect the school system to be advocates for 'vulnerable' gay youth.
As for the RC schools teaching the morality side, they do teach the existence of homosexual acts and birth control, with the explanation and rationale for the church's position on them. Nothing in what they teach is intolerant -- unless you equate 'tolerance' with 'approval' in which case I suggest you invest in a dictionary. The Supreme Court allowed separate school funding knowing full-well the implications of that decision.

I could care less what they (parents) think about "gay rights activists". I am not a moral relativist. The arguments allegedly showing homosexuality to be morally wrong are a joke. The same goes for divine command ethics. Recognition of this has laid the foundation for homosexual Canadians having been granted many of the same rights and protections given to other groups and to Canadians as a whole.

The bulging Catholic schools system and the growing private schools system are indicative that parents want a say in what their children are being taught -- whether Koby 'could care less' or not. If school is to teach kids the 3Rs let them do that without imposing on them the post-modern, liberal, secular, morally relative worldview -- then tell me that Catholic schools should be limited in what they can teach their students or have their funding revoked.

You think you and the government know what's best for the nation's children. By what authority do you proclaim that 'homosexuality is not wrong'? You mock and disparage anyone with whom you disagree, but you haven't presented a cogent argument to support anything you say. You just make sweeping statements that have no foundation. The arguments allegedly showing homosexuality to be morally wrong are a joke. If that were true, this would not be a contentious issue. It would be a given.

Explaining to our children that homosexuality exists and that homosexuals should be treated with human respect, is fine. Giving gay activists a forum to present the 'positive' aspects of their lifestyle is inconsistent with not teaching morality. Sexuality and its expression will always be a moral issue. It isn't about accepting the right of homosexuals to live and work along side everyone else in society -- they already have that right, and so they should -- this is about de facto endorsement of their sexual behaviour. The state has never said homosexuality isn't wrong, it has said that homosexuals should not be discriminated against. It is not discrimination to teach that certain behaviours are wrong -- even if the government sanctions those behaviours (abortion, divorce, premarital-sex, promiscuity).

Giving homosexuals the same rights and protections as other Canadians makes sense -- not because they are homosexual, but because they are human. Equating their sexuality with hetrosexuality is disingenuous. As expressions of 'love' a person might believe they are 'equal' but believing that they are not 'equal' acts at their core is just as valid an opinion, biblically based, or not.

The abortion debate, by the way, is infinitely less clear cut once one moves beyond the ridiculous notion that personhood begins at conception.

So it's magic that all of a sudden this fully formed human pops out of a woman after nine months? Before birth, it was just a blob of cells and then it hits the air - and what do you know -- a person.

Anyone who has ever had an ultrasound while pregnant knows that not only is that a living thing inside of you, but it is also a person. The argument that at some point during gestation that it acquires 'personhood' defies logic and science. An embryo has all the criteria to be defined as life. The pro-abortion crowd chooses to ignore evidence against their rationalizations in the name of 'choice' and as a result an entire generation has been indoctrinated with the notion that life begins when the mother (note -- not host-- mother) says it does.

Does it never occur to the pro-abortion side that while a tiny skull is crushed in and suction rips a fetus from the womb in one operating room, in a second, doctors are using all available means of neo-natal care to save a baby of the same gestation period. The only difference in the two is 'choice'. Call it what you like if it makes you feel better; what you call it will never make it right.

The debate with regard to rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is settled. Do not believe me? Step into a first you ethics class in any university in Canada.

Please. Universities are bastions of political correctness and forced conformity. When universities don't struggle with issues like this, you know they've got it wrong. Places of higher learning are supposed to engage in debate, not indoctrination. The fact they you could believe the argument 'settled' because they told you so at school, shows an utter lack of critical thinking skills.

The Catholic Church can pronounce homosexuality a sin all it wants. After all, a sin is simply what the bible says is a sin. It is all a matter of biblical interpretation. However, to pronounce homosexuality a mental disorder is another matter all together and most certainly a bigoted charge, but certainly not unconstitutional.

And in your world, there is no sin, except the sin of thinking differently from what the professors tell you. As for believing that homosexuality is a mental disorder, that's not bigoted -- it might be wrong, but it isn't bigoted.

Instead of being a reactionary, you might consider that the people who believe this are conceding that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, that it is part of a person's innate make up. Your fear that homosexuality might be thought a mental disorder suggests an intolerance of the mentally disordered. How bigoted of you. Besides, it isn't bigoted to note that homosexuality is different from the norm -- they make a big display of that every year at PRIDE. Bigoted is demanding that everyone think the way you learned in uni.

BTW, the American Psychiatric Association never stated that homosexuality isn't deviant or perverse, just that if a person was able to accept it within himself, that is isn't a psychatric issue. Remember too, that they 'delisted' homosexuality as a mental disorder at a time when there was great social upheaval and a push for 'free love', open sex, etc.

I don't hold much esteem for their opinions anyway. They recently issued opinions on paedophilia suggesting that child/adult sex is not really harmful to children. They've since modified their position somewhat, saying that it wasn't quite what they meant, but in 2003 the APA seriously considered delisting pedophilia as a mental disorder too. 'People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill, they argued. Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy, Moser and Kleinplatz stated.' 'However, the APA failed to address whether it considers a person with a pedophile orientation to have a mental disorder. "That is the question that is being actively debated at this time within the APA, and that is the question they have not answered when they respond that such relationships are 'immoral and illegal,'" Nicolosi said.'

A growing number of intellectuals who are chomping at the bit to make this their next project of 'tolerance' with the APA quietly leading the way. I'll give their opinions a pass, thank you.

(From my response to Koby)"Why is it that liberals believe that walking into a public school and teaching my children at the altar of liberal secularism is a-ok, but if a RC school teaches its doctrine it's wrong. Both schools receive public funding. Each is being taught a particular value system. Who decides which one is the right one?"

I suppose if you are moral relativistic you could take such a position. At any rate, the position of the state is clear. Homosexuality is not wrong . . .

The position of the state is not clear. The state says discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. That does not translate to: homosexuality is right and good. You are making the leap that if one teaches against homosexual acts, one is teaching against homosexuals. It is consistent to insist on respect for all humanity while disapproving of certain behaviours.

. . . and for the state to provide money for those who would want to teach otherwise violates one of the main tenants of Canadian society namely tolerance. Supreme Court Justice Clair L’Heureux –Dube drew the appropriate analogy in passing judgment on the Surrey school board: "Parents may be extremely racist, but we don't prevent the school from teaching that racism is bad." If RC wants to teach that homosexuality is wrong, let them do it entirely on their own dime.

Equating race and homosexuality is non sequitur. Race is what you are, not what you do. Homosexuality is who you are and what you do. All churches, all schools, have a responsiblity to teach 'tolerance', but tolerance and approval are vastly different things. While I am with you when you say that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, teaching against homosexual acts is neither intolerant, nor bigoted. Just remember that even Catholic dimes go into the education pot. What are we teaching on their dime?

Now, there are some things that leave one open to ridicule. Believing that the earth is flat is one. Believing that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs roomed the earth with humans is another.

And some would say believing that an orifice designed for eliminating waste is just an alternative to a vagina and is in no way repugnant -- is ridiculous. After all, your finger fits up your nose, but that isn't where it belongs.

***
Those on the pro-same sex marriage side consistently argue that all they want is what is just and fair. In their enlightened view, freedom of thought is okay, so long as it doesn't contain a hint of old fashioned 'morality' and is approved by the state.

In this worldview, the teaching of values becomes the right of the state. Biblically based values are voided by their very foundation. Secular values require no foundational argument but are accepted by virtue of being non-religious (and of course because the universities teach to it).

Citizens are obliged to take guidance on issues of conscience from the state, which derives its 'values' through a thought system whereby all acts or behaviours are equally valid -- a sort of, it's okay, so long as it's not hurting someone -- the 'fun's fun till someone loses an eye' creed.

The state takes its authority from being separate from religion, which it pretends to mean that it is somehow separate from pious dogma. The state orthodoxy is based on self-esteem building without expectation of personal responsibility. It is based on personal freedoms (determined by the state, of the state and for the state) and uniformity of thought, and does not brook dissent. If that seems paradoxical, it doesn't matter; logic and consistency are not part of the debate. Non-adherents are painted as radicals, and against freedom -- which gives the government the right to restrict their freedoms (in the name of freedom).

Koby, to suggest that you are not a moral relativist, is deluding yourself and indulging your vanity. In your assessment of things, we are all moral relativists. Our value systems are the ones we seek to promote and preserve. The difference is where we derive our inspiration.

I believe there are moral absolutes and universal truths. I believe they are part of something bigger than you and me, and governments and nations.

You believe the collective will of the governing party (or the judiciary) is the supreme light by which we should be guided.

You perceive me to be a moral relativist (which you use pejoratively) because you can't accept that there is more than one reality. While I believe in universal truths, I am aware that my beliefs cannot, and will not be accepted by everyone-- so I seek compromise. I will live along side you but teach my children what I know to be true. I will hold my convictions, but accept a middle ground solution. I refuse to endorse same-sex marriage, but will accept civil unions. But your side doesn't accept there having to be compromise. You speak of freedom, but seek to limit mine.

You believe in -- what? The wisdom of the courts? The teachings of your profs? There is no central authority in your orthodoxy -- it comes from you -- what you think, what you feel, what you need. You, and those like you, don't give up when it comes to imposing your worldview on the rest of us. Where I can tolerate your existence -- you cannot tolerate mine. You want to purge the world of those who think like me, and you want to start with state indoctrination from the cradle (national daycare) and continue it in a public school system that won't abide such heresies as personal opinion. The state teaches to its test of correctness -- whatever that happens to be at any given moment.

Koby, you might be right that RC and private schools teaching against homosexuality should not be funded through public money, but if that is so, neither should your brand of (in)tolerance.

Koby insists:

Homosexuality is not wrong and for the state to provide money for those who would want to teach otherwise violates one of the main tenants of Canadian society namely tolerance.

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that not everyone sees the act of gay sex as equivalent with the act of heterosexual sex? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. The value of their respective sexual expression to society is not equal.

If society is going to fund and endorse public schools as being the starting point of gay advocacy, then suggesting that separate schools shut up because they are publicly funded, moves from being a funding issue to a freedom of speech issue.

If you really think separate schools should stop preaching, then start believing that public schools should too. At least be consistent.

canadianna

Religious bigotry

The same-sex marriage issue has brought the issue of homosexuality to the fore, like nothing before.

Despite the 'in yer face' approach of ardent gay activists, the mainstreaming of gay culture has been a relatively quiet revolution.

A few years ago, you'd have never seen gay people represented on television, let alone representing constituents -- now, not only do we have popular programmes with gay people as positive, likeable characters (John from NYPD Blue, Will from Will & Grace, Sean from Coronation Street, Ellen of the Ellen show) but there are even gay reality shows (Queer Eye, My Fabulous Gay Wedding) intended to appeal to a wider audience. Openly gay politicians like Scott Brison are voted in for their stands on issues, rather than for their gay advocacy (Opinions on Brison's jumping ship are irrelevant -- he wasn't elected as a gay politician, he was elected as a politician who happened to be gay.)

The vast majority of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage, even those who consider homosexuality a sin, also support civil unions and gay rights.

Imagine then my surprise to read this quote by Dr. Miriam Kaufman, a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children, in an article called Growing Up Gay from the Toronto Sun:

While most public school boards have some form of anti-homophobia education and more schools have gay-straight alliances, students in religious schools are getting vastly different message, Kaufman said.
"Within the separate school board, schools are having kids pray that same-sex marriage will be defeated," Kaufman said. "The message is that gay people aren't really people and aren't entitled to loving, committed relationships." (emphasis added)

How does she manage to make the connection between being against same-sex marriage, and believing gays are less than human, and not deserving of happiness?

It is this sort of off-hand analysis of religious opinion on morality questions that creates anger on both sides. There are many in the gay community (Kevin Bourassa and his followers) who would wholeheartedly agree with the doctor's theory and are already suggesting that the tax exempt status of churches be removed should the continue to advocate against same-sex marriage. How long before religious education is threatened for teaching the doctrine of the church?

canadianna

Gomery hires Martin's pal . . .

From the Globe. Hat tip: Grandinite

Former Liberal MP and Martin chum Raymond Garneau has been hand-picked by Justice John Gomery to be the guy who's going to make sure Adscam isn't repeated. From the Globe:

The fact that Mr. Garneau is a former provincial Liberal minister and a former Liberal MP, as well as a strong supporter of Prime Minister Paul Martin in the last Liberal leadership race, is causing concern in the opposition.

I haven't caught much tv the past day or two, and I only scanned the Post this morning, but I didn't see anything about this.

Is it because it's just so typical that it doesn't seem to be news?

The Bloc Quebecois said that Garneau's presence on the committee initially raised eyebrows, but the fact that Judge Gomery remains the sole author of the final report is reassuring.

So, it's comforting that the guy who is going to write the final report of the inquiry is the same guy who hired a Martin sympathizer to head a committee related to the scandal.

I don't know whether Gomery is fair and impartial. Even if I would like to believe that his is, this doesn't look good.

But apparently no one really cares. I did a google news search and a yahoo news search, and only the Globe has the questionable appointment in the headline, and some major news outlets aren't even carrying the story.

Is the media afraid of questioning Gomery's judgement? Am I wrong that this is a bad development, or does it just not matter?

canadianna

Slinging arrows

I think what bothers me about this Parliament, and the media coverage of it is the focus by pundits about what the Conservatives aren't doing right.

Has there ever been so much scrutiny of an opposition party, even within a minority government?

I'm not suggesting that the Conservatives shouldn't be looked at, it's just the lengths commentators are willing to go . . . for example --

Last night on CPAC after the vote a reporter went around guaging reaction from Monte Solberg, then Stephen Harper. Harper seemed frustrated, but answered a few questions politely.

When Harper had moved away from the press, this reporter found a Liberal (forget his name) and chatted with him a few minutes, giving him puffball questions about the Conservatives. Finally the reporter told the MP about a scenerio he'd heard which he described as Machiavellian in nature. The scenerio had the Conservatives intentionally telegraphing their plans for the budget vote, and then deliberately having members absent so they vote would pass. Their reasoning would have been to be able to paint the Liberals as in bed with the Bloc and ready to make deals with anyone, blah, blah, blah.

The reporter suggested he didn't believe it, and even the Liberal sort of shrugged and seemed confused as to why this was being asked.

Once suggestions like this are made publicly, there are people watching who will just remember the words Conservative and Machiavellian being linked in a budget vote.

On another note -- I dropped by Rick Mercer's blog yesterday expecting something interesting or funny.

Isn't it hilarious that Rick Mercer bought JasonKenney.org to 'show' Jason Kenney. Remember Kenney suggested that Don Boudria was at fault that his name was taken for a website by an anti-same-sex marriage group. Kenney said Boudria should have remembered to register his domain name.

Mercer, with his usual scintillating wit, decided to turn the tables . . . only JasonKenney.com and JasonKenney.ca are both registered -- to, guess who -- that's right, Jason Kenney.
So Mercer with extra eager cleverness, went the extra mile registered JasonKenney.org -- why that silly Jason Kenney, he only registered two variations of his name. It might never have occurred to him that someone looking for an MP would use the 'org' extention, but then he doesn't have Mercer's rapier sense of humour. Wow, that clever Rick Mercer showed him.

Mercer is the same guy who started a petition to change Stockwell Day's name to Doris.

He gets a government paycheque to be funny. Maybe that explains why he's not.

canadianna

An answer for everything

I think it's important to reply to the people who commented, and disagreed with or questioned my post on same-sex marriage. I think short answers in the comments section are not really enough.
All who disagreed with me did so respectfully, and in a debate that can become so emotionally charged, I want to thank them. Thanks to all those who answered supporting my POV.

Question Period said...
You've stated what the "true meaning and intention" of marriage is not ("to legally recognise the relationships of people who love each other") but you haven't told us what the meaning is (other than that it is discriminatory). Can you tell us what the true meaning and intention of marriage is?

As stated by a couple of my commenters, the purpose of marriage is the procreation and nurturing of a new generation. The only interest the state has for promoting (supporting or legislating) with regard to marriage is for the protection of children. If marriage were a purely adult institution, based entirely on sexual intimacy, the government would have no business in it at all . . . lest we forget the famous advice of PET -- the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

The state's interest in marriage is as the starting point of the family. That some people never have children is irrelevant -- the potential for children is always there in any opposite-sex relationship and is never there in any same-sex relationship.

VF said... Indeed, what is the true purpose of marriage and why do you think this discrimination is justified? You never answer either question in this post.You point out reasons for discrimination based on age being valid and I agree with them, but you point out no reasons for discrimination based on gender here being justified.

I have answered part of your question above.

Not allowing same-sex marriage is not discrimination on the basis of gender. It is exclusion based on not having met the criteria -- the criteria being an opposite-sex component. I have used the word discrimination in the broadest sense, meaning 'choosing' rather than the commonly assumed meaning of prejudice which implies 'bigotry'. Gay people are not prohibited from marriage, but in order to conform to the definition, they probably wouldn't be very happy.

What reason does the state have to support or promote gay marriage?
For the betterment of society? No. Society is not better for it (argue if you will that it is not worse for it either, but even if it's effects are neutral, the state has no obligation or motivation to support it.)
So gay people will feel better about their relationships? The state should not be in the business of self-esteem building.
To give same-sex couples the same benefits as opposite-sex married couples? In most ways, gay couples already have the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. The compromise solution would be civil unions, but gay-rights activists have rejected this.

Rights are subject to restrictions but there should be a justification for the restrictions, as there is with age.

The restriction on marriage is based on an opposite-sex requirement. The opposite-sex component is the one universal requirement -- it crosses cultures and religions. While cultural and religious differences allow for polygamy, child marriages, arranged marriages or marriages of close family members -- the one constant has been that those who are to be the spouses must be of opposite gender.

This is justified because marriage is, and should be child-centred institution. What you're really trying to say is that you don't see that as a valid requirement.
Well, what are valid restrictions? Number of people? A person can be sexually intimate with and in fact can love more than one person at a time -- if marriage is about love and copulation what difference does the number make?
Familial relationship? That restriction is based on religious prohibitions, not secular ones. The secular arguement is based on inbreeding and genetics -- but with the advent of effective birth control, one could argue that in a progressive society birth defects are no longer an issue. And what about same-gender familial relationships -- they can never procreate, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
What about age? In the Catholic church, a child takes his first communion at seven. The church presumes the child to be old enough to know right from wrong. Okay, that's too young? Why not ten then. Many children go through puberty at this tender age, isn't that an indication that they are old enough? Well, why not twelve -- that's the age at which society acknowledges a person can be held accountable should they commit a crime. Still not comfortable? Okay fourteen. The age of consent for sex is fourteen. If marriage is about love and sex, then fourteen should be reasonable.

If we are going to change the definition to include same-sex couples, what justification do we have to stop there? None. Any reasons we could use to justify the limitation of marriage to two people, of a certain age, not of close familial relationship -- these are all arbitrary, cultural rationalizations.
My point is that you can justify any position. If there is not just one, right, proper, true meaning of marriage, than any meaning is just as valid as its presenter makes it appear. Suggesting these truths are invalid because it's a 'slippery slope' argument is just laziness.

What about couples that know they are infertile, should they be allowed to get married? Or couples with no intention of ever having children? As these couples are allowed to get married, to draw the line that same sex couples are not allowed to get married for this reason would be arbitrary and inconsistent.Bob - You say that it minimized the role of creating families, but same sex couples can adopt children and raise them. Is this not creating a family? Should opposite sex couples who adopt be allowed to get married? If so, then why not allow same sex couples to get married when the situation is, for all intents and purposes, the same? Same sex couples have been shown to be as good at parenting as opposite sex couples in several studies by credible organizations, so the argument that they are inferior parents is not backed by any evidence that I have seen.

Almost everyone would agree that whenever possible, a child's best interests are served by being raised within a family consisting of both biological parents. Nature it seems is the biggest discriminator. It takes people of both genders to make a baby. Whether you believe in God, or evolution, or both -- the opposite sex requirement for procreation is natural.

Most societies share the belief that the responsibility for children should rest with natural parents. Who would or wouldn't be a good parent is not the point. The state has the obligation to support natural parents whenever possible. It isn't always possible, and the state intervenes. Should opposite-sex couples who are infertile be allowed to adopt? Of course. They reflect the natural, biological origins of the child.
But by enshrining gay marriage into law, the state is creating a class of children who will -- by design -- not be raised by at least one of their natural parents. Government endorsement and facilitation of 'legal' rather than 'natural' parenthood, is state sponsored social engineering.

Rhetoric said... You make an interesting argument. I feel though that I should point out that:1. Slippery slope arguments like "...the government has not only opened the door for the definition to altered again and again as various groups argue their rights are being violated by exclusion..." are a logical fallacy. Policy choices (e.g. SSM) should be made on their merits alone not based on the preceived likelihood that they might make another less-palatable choice more possible;

My pointing out a logical consequence of allowing same-sex marriage is not the same as using that as an argument against same-sex marriage. I have made my case against same sex marriage by stating that I believe people should be required to fit the definition, the definition should not be altered to fit the special needs of a specific group.

2. I think that the religious nature of marriage puts it in the realm of natural rights (freedom of religion). Would you not object if the government refused to recognise religious marriage ceremonies? Obviously natural rights can be limited where they are over-ruled by the common interest (e.g. jailed criminals loose their right to freely associate) but I think this requires a much higher standard.

I have difficulty answering this one because I'm not quite sure what you mean. It would seem that you are saying that marriage is essentially a religious thing and therefore a natural right. I would have to disagree with that because not all religious rites are also 'human rights'. Nothing of what I have said is based on the bible or any religion. As for the state not recognising a religious marriage - most worries about state recognition are financially motivated.

Your premise is that marriage is a natural right. If that's true, then unlike other human rights or natural rights, marriage is not necessary to live a full and satisfying life.

This bill is likely going to pass, if not now, then in the fall. The government has drawn on the equality provision of the Charter, and I believe the rights of individuals to voice dissent might be at risk because teaching against same-sex marriage, if one does so from a secular perspective, might be perceived as 'hate speech'. Also, the protection this bill offers to religions and clergy who refuse to marry same-sex couples will be at the mercy of the judiciary. Which will be the more important right -- the right of a priest to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, or the right of two congregants to fully participate in the rites of their religion? Freedom of religion cuts two ways. Whose religious rights will be upheld?

I don't think this debate is over yet and the questions on both sides are important. This is societal changing legislation. For politicians to say that we've talked enough, devalues the concerns of those on the opposing side. Let's stop putting timeframes on it, and strive to get it right.

canadianna