There has been tempered praise around the blogs at the decision of the Liberals not to allow Carolyn Parrish back into the fold.
At first appearance, this seems a principled decision -- they have chosen to forgo stronger numbers rather than take back a person who at the very least, has a knack for making insensitive comments at sensitive times.
The truth is, while she remains outside of the Liberal caucus, Carolyn Parrish is an asset to the Liberals, and they know it -- which is why she'll happily remain on the outside, while continuing to vote with her 'former' party.
Carolyn Parrish can say anything about anyone -- getting a Liberal message out there, without technically representing the Liberals. She is an unofficial spokesperson from whom they can distance themselves when the rhetoric gets too over-the-top.
It's brilliant really. Whether it's by design is anyone's guess. But I believe they know that with Parrish just on the periphery of the party, they can have their cake and eat it too. Parrish can continue with her diatribes, and because she is not a member of the party, they have no authority, nor any reason to reign her in. She'll be like a trial balloon -- if her rants have traction they can go with them, and if they are unpopular, they can shrug and say 'she's not one of us.'
It is the perfect Liberal set up and typical of the duplicity of their leadership.
crossposted to Civitatensis.
canadianna
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
al-Qaida Cherie
The US has their Hanoi (now Baghdad) Jane, we have our Carolyn Parrish -- but they have nothing on Cherie Blair, wife of British PM Tony.
Cherie Blair says that courts have to "act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics". This statement, this sentiment, in and of itself is not a bad thing -- but when this kind of statement is made with terrorism as a backdrop, it implies that the government has not shown due diligence when drafting, implementing and acting upon legislation. It is the sort of cautionary statement made when a society impinges on the rights of its citizens for no other reason than because it can.
Cherie made clear that judges must resist pressure to convict on the proposed new laws -- inciting or glorifying terrorism -- in order to preserve British civil liberties. "The important task of reviewing executive action against the benchmark of human rights. . . In our troubled times where terrorism, division and suspicion of others are the order of the day, this role for judges is perhaps more vital than ever before."
While Cherie's assertions are perfectly reasonable when a country is not at war, or there is no threat of imminent attack from within, these comments were made yesterday in Malaysia. All the while her husband is on the homefront fighting for stronger powers to detain, convict and deport the terrorist suspects in their midst.
So far, Britain has tried 20 cases with people charged under their terrorism laws. Nineteen of those cases have been unsuccessful because judges are so reluctant to convict. This has resulted in international condemnation of Britain, with Tony Blair trying to defend against critics who call the nation's capital 'Londonistan' because of its reputation as Europe's centre of Islamic extremism.
Tony Blair says when trying to remove suspected terrorists the government has been prevented by judges .
"We have been trying to get rid of these people," he said at his monthly press conference. "Now I am afraid occasionally what has happened is we have tried to get rid of them, and we have been blocked."
When asked how he was blocked, he said only: "You can go back over the court cases and read them."
How does that square with what Cherie is saying?
Jane Fonda spoke for Jane Fonda. Carolyn Parrish speaks for herself and her constituents. Who does Cherie Blair speak for? I realise the woman is a 'respected human rights lawyer' -- but beyond her last name -- what else about her compels anyone to listen?
The Scotsman (linked in title) has the article, at the end of which is this interesting little piece:
DISCORD at DOWNING STREET
She says
An independent judiciary has the important task of executive action against the benchmark of human rights
He says
The independence of the judiciary is a principle of our democracy, but I hope that recent events have created a situation where people understand that it is important that we do protect ourselves
She says
It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines our commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions
He says
I think it perfectly reasonable for us in circumstances of great difficulty to have a greater detention, in order that there can be the interrogation of people who are suspected of doing this
She says
Courts have to act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics
He says
I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them
She says
As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress - Speaking about a suicide attack in Israel where a Palestinian bomber killed 40 people -- JUNE 2002
He says
It is just a lie when they say that people have got no option but to engage in terrorism. They do have an option
Blair is publically defending his wife's comments again -- as I suppose he must to keep peace in the house -- but when you read the Scotsman article, you'll see where he directly contradicts what she's said.
Their dinnertable conversation must be electric.
canadianna
Cherie Blair says that courts have to "act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics". This statement, this sentiment, in and of itself is not a bad thing -- but when this kind of statement is made with terrorism as a backdrop, it implies that the government has not shown due diligence when drafting, implementing and acting upon legislation. It is the sort of cautionary statement made when a society impinges on the rights of its citizens for no other reason than because it can.
Cherie made clear that judges must resist pressure to convict on the proposed new laws -- inciting or glorifying terrorism -- in order to preserve British civil liberties. "The important task of reviewing executive action against the benchmark of human rights. . . In our troubled times where terrorism, division and suspicion of others are the order of the day, this role for judges is perhaps more vital than ever before."
While Cherie's assertions are perfectly reasonable when a country is not at war, or there is no threat of imminent attack from within, these comments were made yesterday in Malaysia. All the while her husband is on the homefront fighting for stronger powers to detain, convict and deport the terrorist suspects in their midst.
So far, Britain has tried 20 cases with people charged under their terrorism laws. Nineteen of those cases have been unsuccessful because judges are so reluctant to convict. This has resulted in international condemnation of Britain, with Tony Blair trying to defend against critics who call the nation's capital 'Londonistan' because of its reputation as Europe's centre of Islamic extremism.
Tony Blair says when trying to remove suspected terrorists the government has been prevented by judges .
"We have been trying to get rid of these people," he said at his monthly press conference. "Now I am afraid occasionally what has happened is we have tried to get rid of them, and we have been blocked."
When asked how he was blocked, he said only: "You can go back over the court cases and read them."
How does that square with what Cherie is saying?
Jane Fonda spoke for Jane Fonda. Carolyn Parrish speaks for herself and her constituents. Who does Cherie Blair speak for? I realise the woman is a 'respected human rights lawyer' -- but beyond her last name -- what else about her compels anyone to listen?
The Scotsman (linked in title) has the article, at the end of which is this interesting little piece:
DISCORD at DOWNING STREET
She says
An independent judiciary has the important task of executive action against the benchmark of human rights
He says
The independence of the judiciary is a principle of our democracy, but I hope that recent events have created a situation where people understand that it is important that we do protect ourselves
She says
It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines our commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions
He says
I think it perfectly reasonable for us in circumstances of great difficulty to have a greater detention, in order that there can be the interrogation of people who are suspected of doing this
She says
Courts have to act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics
He says
I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them
She says
As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress - Speaking about a suicide attack in Israel where a Palestinian bomber killed 40 people -- JUNE 2002
He says
It is just a lie when they say that people have got no option but to engage in terrorism. They do have an option
Blair is publically defending his wife's comments again -- as I suppose he must to keep peace in the house -- but when you read the Scotsman article, you'll see where he directly contradicts what she's said.
Their dinnertable conversation must be electric.
canadianna
Monday, July 25, 2005
It's all about sex
They said that changing the definition of marriage was an equality issue, and would not change the nature of the institution -- but it has.
The opposite-sex component and the procreative potential of the typical marriage is what defined the institution. (Note: typical not universal -- laws are not made for individual situations, but in recognition of the general situation). If recognition of marriage is no longer about couples having and raising their children within a committed unit, then sexual intimacy has to be the defining criteria for marriage.
There are many non-sexual, intimate, co-habitational, committed relationships that still don't qualify as marriages. These relationships provide mutual comfort, support and companionship -- yet are not allowed the special benefits, privileges and status of marriage -- and the only thing absent from these unions is sex.
Peter Worthington wrote yesterday about Veterans who are considering using the new marriage law in order to qualify for survivor benefits in situations where two heterosexual Vets live together in order to share expenses. As it stands now, when one of these people dies, the other must find a way to continue paying the bills alone. They are not entitled to death benefits by virtue of the fact that their relationship is non-conjugal. Some feel uncomfortable with 'marriage' because it implies a sexual relationship -- but one has to wonder -- why should it? Now that we have dispensed with the notion that a couple must be of the opposite gender, why must the government be in the bedroom at all? Why must we insist that the relationship must include sexual intimacy in order to fit the criteria for marriage. Formerly, we were glorifying the special function and role that opposite-sex couples fill through their ability to increase society -- now we are glorifying sexual intercourse.
It is truly discriminatory that the only relationships recognised by the government are those where people are having sex -- I mean, what about those who are paralysed? or impotent? frigid? or ill in some other way that inhibits their ability to express themselves sexually? Does that mean their marriages are invalid? If the government has no place in the bedrooms of the people -- why do they care if the married relationship is platonic?
By making the defining criteria for marriage sexual, rather than procreative, the government has not only changed the institution from a child-centred institution to an adult-centred one -- it has changed it to an institution that is solely defined by sexual intimacy.
When marriage means everything, it means nothing -- but at least if the marriages of non-conjugal couples are allowed -- Vets, family members or friends caring for loved ones would qualify for governmental recognition and support of their relationships.
If not, then it appears that we have created an institution where sex is the reason d'etre.
canadianna
The opposite-sex component and the procreative potential of the typical marriage is what defined the institution. (Note: typical not universal -- laws are not made for individual situations, but in recognition of the general situation). If recognition of marriage is no longer about couples having and raising their children within a committed unit, then sexual intimacy has to be the defining criteria for marriage.
There are many non-sexual, intimate, co-habitational, committed relationships that still don't qualify as marriages. These relationships provide mutual comfort, support and companionship -- yet are not allowed the special benefits, privileges and status of marriage -- and the only thing absent from these unions is sex.
Peter Worthington wrote yesterday about Veterans who are considering using the new marriage law in order to qualify for survivor benefits in situations where two heterosexual Vets live together in order to share expenses. As it stands now, when one of these people dies, the other must find a way to continue paying the bills alone. They are not entitled to death benefits by virtue of the fact that their relationship is non-conjugal. Some feel uncomfortable with 'marriage' because it implies a sexual relationship -- but one has to wonder -- why should it? Now that we have dispensed with the notion that a couple must be of the opposite gender, why must the government be in the bedroom at all? Why must we insist that the relationship must include sexual intimacy in order to fit the criteria for marriage. Formerly, we were glorifying the special function and role that opposite-sex couples fill through their ability to increase society -- now we are glorifying sexual intercourse.
It is truly discriminatory that the only relationships recognised by the government are those where people are having sex -- I mean, what about those who are paralysed? or impotent? frigid? or ill in some other way that inhibits their ability to express themselves sexually? Does that mean their marriages are invalid? If the government has no place in the bedrooms of the people -- why do they care if the married relationship is platonic?
By making the defining criteria for marriage sexual, rather than procreative, the government has not only changed the institution from a child-centred institution to an adult-centred one -- it has changed it to an institution that is solely defined by sexual intimacy.
When marriage means everything, it means nothing -- but at least if the marriages of non-conjugal couples are allowed -- Vets, family members or friends caring for loved ones would qualify for governmental recognition and support of their relationships.
If not, then it appears that we have created an institution where sex is the reason d'etre.
canadianna
Friday, July 22, 2005
Uncomforatable Profiling
Yesterday Arabian Dissent had an interesting post on racial profiling. When I read things from a Muslim perspective, like this post or a Salim Mansur column, I'm never surprised by the rational approach taken by the writer.
I think many of us who aren't members of minority groups pause over the keyboard, lest we write something that might be offensive to others. I know I do. When I've written on same-sex marriage, I've been careful not to use inflamatory language, and I try to make my arguments specific to the issue.
The above editorial cartoon from today's National Post is a perfect example of political correctness. I like Gary Clement and I think his approach to the issue of terrorism has always been matter-of-fact. This particular cartoon was a disappointment.
I tried to look for irony -- thinking perhaps Clement was trying to show how terrorism can have the affect of causing irrational fear of all things, but given the general malaise amongst Canadians about security issues, it just doesn't read that way.
The cartoon is dishonest. Pretending that race or religion is not an issue in terrorism or in the fear it creates, is disingenuous.
canadianna
cross-posted to civitatensis
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Journalistic truth --and-- how do you spot a terrorist?
Calgary filmmaker Garth Pritchard, writes in the Toronto Sun today about the lack of insight and understanding we in Canada have about 'human bullets' as he calls them. He talks about the radical madrassas, where young boys are indoctrinated into the culture of hate, and notes that interpretation depends on the cleric, not the geographical location.
He talks about the myopia of North American news outlets, and slams the CBC for failing to present the realities of the war in Afghanistan. He takes them to task for airing the likes of Gwyn Dyer, one of the pontificating "'experts' who have never been there." (Dyer is the fellow who noted that 400 people die of natural causes in London every day -- and that on 7/7 that number was 450 -- implying the extra fifty-odd deaths were negligable.)
Pritchard notes that the "CBC coined the term 'docudrama' to explain away questions about truth and accuracy, or lack thereof" . . . "CBC will not take real journalism from areas of conflict, on grounds that it is propaganda (. . .) Recently, the $270-million slush fund known as Telefilm (the money behind documentaries, movies, children's programming and drama) made it very clear: Footage shot in real-time, in particular, the scratchy old grainy stuff -- will no longer be on your screens. The reason? "We can write it and reproduce it better in studios and on computers.""
Is it any wonder the CBC can't bring themselves to say 'terrorist' -- they have an aversion to reality.
and . . . Yesterday I wrote that I didn't believe suicide bombing would catch on in the West because most people could scarcely find something to live for, let alone something to die for. Today, in the National Post, Richard Cohen warns against projecting our own value system onto other cultures. (Update: link to the same article in the Washington Post)
Cohen noted the Western habit of assuming everyone wants what we want . . . peace on earth, health and security for our families, the material trappings of the consumer culture . . .
He went on to illustrate how these misconceptions allow us to project our own feelings on people who have been raised with very different ideas and ideals, and he used the attitudes of the Japanese during WWII as an example of this sort of mindset. Like militant Islam, the Japanese culture glorified suicide and honoured those who would fight to the death -- but unlike the newest brand of militant Islam, those who died by kamikaze, hit military targets, and did not live and die amongst the general population of the enemy. This twist on 'honourable death' makes our situation particularly unsettling.
It's too hard. How do you look into the eyes of a person who lives in your city, who has a family, ties to the community, a job working with children -- someone who has visited your home -- how do you look at that person and see that he is capable, willing even, to murder people like you in the name of some religious/political agenda?
We judge people we know by their own merits. We see ourselves in other people --- we see people who came to this country for a better life, whose kids go to the same school as our own, who work beside us. No matter how vigilant they tell us to be, how do we start looking for hatred in the eyes of our neighbours, and how do we know when we see it?
The Scotsman today talks of a Labour MP taking one of the London terrorist on a tour of the House of Commons after he'd they'd determined not to put him on a terrorist watch list. I might not be able to tell a terrorist when I see one, but I don't have access to their travel history, or lists of their associates. How did they miss this one? Could it be they projected their own values onto him? If our governments can't spot a impending threat in their midst -- how will we?
canadianna
He talks about the myopia of North American news outlets, and slams the CBC for failing to present the realities of the war in Afghanistan. He takes them to task for airing the likes of Gwyn Dyer, one of the pontificating "'experts' who have never been there." (Dyer is the fellow who noted that 400 people die of natural causes in London every day -- and that on 7/7 that number was 450 -- implying the extra fifty-odd deaths were negligable.)
Pritchard notes that the "CBC coined the term 'docudrama' to explain away questions about truth and accuracy, or lack thereof" . . . "CBC will not take real journalism from areas of conflict, on grounds that it is propaganda (. . .) Recently, the $270-million slush fund known as Telefilm (the money behind documentaries, movies, children's programming and drama) made it very clear: Footage shot in real-time, in particular, the scratchy old grainy stuff -- will no longer be on your screens. The reason? "We can write it and reproduce it better in studios and on computers.""
Is it any wonder the CBC can't bring themselves to say 'terrorist' -- they have an aversion to reality.
and . . . Yesterday I wrote that I didn't believe suicide bombing would catch on in the West because most people could scarcely find something to live for, let alone something to die for. Today, in the National Post, Richard Cohen warns against projecting our own value system onto other cultures. (Update: link to the same article in the Washington Post)
Cohen noted the Western habit of assuming everyone wants what we want . . . peace on earth, health and security for our families, the material trappings of the consumer culture . . .
He went on to illustrate how these misconceptions allow us to project our own feelings on people who have been raised with very different ideas and ideals, and he used the attitudes of the Japanese during WWII as an example of this sort of mindset. Like militant Islam, the Japanese culture glorified suicide and honoured those who would fight to the death -- but unlike the newest brand of militant Islam, those who died by kamikaze, hit military targets, and did not live and die amongst the general population of the enemy. This twist on 'honourable death' makes our situation particularly unsettling.
It's too hard. How do you look into the eyes of a person who lives in your city, who has a family, ties to the community, a job working with children -- someone who has visited your home -- how do you look at that person and see that he is capable, willing even, to murder people like you in the name of some religious/political agenda?
We judge people we know by their own merits. We see ourselves in other people --- we see people who came to this country for a better life, whose kids go to the same school as our own, who work beside us. No matter how vigilant they tell us to be, how do we start looking for hatred in the eyes of our neighbours, and how do we know when we see it?
The Scotsman today talks of a Labour MP taking one of the London terrorist on a tour of the House of Commons after he'd they'd determined not to put him on a terrorist watch list. I might not be able to tell a terrorist when I see one, but I don't have access to their travel history, or lists of their associates. How did they miss this one? Could it be they projected their own values onto him? If our governments can't spot a impending threat in their midst -- how will we?
canadianna
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
'Dupes' 'Terrorists' --- what's the difference?
There is conjecture that the London terrorists might have been 'unwitting' suicide bombers.
The evidence (this is John O'Sullivan from the Chicago Sun-times)
They bought return railway tickets. Their bombs were not strapped to their bodies but carried in knapsacks as if to be left behind on the trains. None of them was heard to shout the customary ''Allah Akhbar'' before the bombs exploded. Unusually for suicide bombers, they left identification on their bodies. And surveillance videotapes show them laughing and joking casually -- rather than grimly determined or prayerful -- as they caught the Underground train.
The suggestion by some, almost sounds sympathetic:
"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an official said. "The stakes were too high, so they could have lied to them and deliberately sent them to their deaths."
But the most dizzying suggestion comes from the family of one of the terrorists. From the National Post (subscribers only):
Forgive me for being insensitive, but exactly how would not wanting to kill himself make him any less vile, any less guilty, any less of a terrorist?
Apparently the British and American governments worry more about suicide bombers than the run- of-the-mill terrorist. They are more determined, more radical, less easily deterred etc.
I don't see it. Even within radical Islam, I suspect that fewer people are willing to blow themselves up, than to dump a bomb somewhere and make haste. Neither takes any great amount of courage -- one is a coward who murders innocent people, the other is a coward who murders innocent people and believes he will be rewarded -- doesn't take a lot of guts to do something when you figure your god is going to see you as a hero. Either way, their victims are maimed and dead -- so who cares?
Anyone who plans to murder other people -- whether they are IRA or al-Qaida is a shell without a soul. If they happen to decide to eliminate themselves in the process, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
canadianna
The evidence (this is John O'Sullivan from the Chicago Sun-times)
They bought return railway tickets. Their bombs were not strapped to their bodies but carried in knapsacks as if to be left behind on the trains. None of them was heard to shout the customary ''Allah Akhbar'' before the bombs exploded. Unusually for suicide bombers, they left identification on their bodies. And surveillance videotapes show them laughing and joking casually -- rather than grimly determined or prayerful -- as they caught the Underground train.
The suggestion by some, almost sounds sympathetic:
"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an official said. "The stakes were too high, so they could have lied to them and deliberately sent them to their deaths."
But the most dizzying suggestion comes from the family of one of the terrorists. From the National Post (subscribers only):
The wife of Germaine Jamal Lindsay, 19, the Jamaican-born Muslim convert who killed 26 people on the Piccadilly Line near Russell Square, insisted he was not a suicide bomber.
"Lindsay would never have killed himself and left me alone to bring up our children," said Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, who has a 15-month-old son and is eight months pregnant with the couple's second child.
So, Lindsay would have boarded a crowded train, dropped off a knapsack filled with explosives and blown up as many innocent strangers as he could -- but he was too decent a fellow to leave his wife and children widowed and orphaned.Forgive me for being insensitive, but exactly how would not wanting to kill himself make him any less vile, any less guilty, any less of a terrorist?
Apparently the British and American governments worry more about suicide bombers than the run- of-the-mill terrorist. They are more determined, more radical, less easily deterred etc.
I don't see it. Even within radical Islam, I suspect that fewer people are willing to blow themselves up, than to dump a bomb somewhere and make haste. Neither takes any great amount of courage -- one is a coward who murders innocent people, the other is a coward who murders innocent people and believes he will be rewarded -- doesn't take a lot of guts to do something when you figure your god is going to see you as a hero. Either way, their victims are maimed and dead -- so who cares?
Anyone who plans to murder other people -- whether they are IRA or al-Qaida is a shell without a soul. If they happen to decide to eliminate themselves in the process, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
canadianna
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Same-sex, the RC church, the UN and so on . . .
When I respond to a commenter it's because the comments they've made deserve to be answered - and sometimes the comments section is just too small.
Todays comments are in response to my post "How did we get here?" and are courtesy of NDP Nadine, who is a regular commenter at Either Orr. As per usual, quotes from NDP Nadine are in italics. They are unedited, except for placement.
SSM is all about the right to belong, the right to be equal; therefore, I consider it to be a human right.
One does not have to be married to be equal or to belong, in our society – in any society. Human rights are available for all humans. Marriage is not -- even now that the definition has been changed in Canada, there are whole segments of society ineligible because they don't meet the criteria. Human Rights are 'individual rights' -- marriage does not fall into that category.
As for equal coupling – one doesn’t have to be married in Canada to enjoy equal status in terms of taxation, housing, adoption -- common law couples enjoy most of the same rights and benefits, hetero or same-sex.
Whether gays like it or not, they didn’t fit the definition of marriage as understood by all cultures and religions. Proof: the definition had to change. Marriage is defined by its criteria. Changing the criteria is changing a fundamental component of the institution. It doesn’t make the relationships equal, it only makes them ‘fair’ which could have been done through a parallel form of registration. Legislation calling same-sex relationships 'marriages' will never make them so in the minds of many people. Don't say they are wrong, or bigots -- Bill C-38 says they are allowed to believe that because of their relgion.
In fact, so does the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Canada is a signatory. Article 16 of the Declaration states: "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Sounds very inclusive to me.
You’re dreaming in technicolour Nadine. I don’t hold the UN in high enough regard to care what they think, but think of cultural and political make up of the UN. This wording was put in place specifically to rule out same-sex marriage. Had they been inviting gay-coupling to be justified through this, the wording would have been ‘Men and/or women . . .’
And why the big rush to defend churches anyhow?
And why your big rush to bash them?
Throughout the world Christian churches have done more to support and sustain marginalised people than any other ‘group’. It was Christianity (the Papacy in fact) that created appeals courts for people accused of crimes. It was Judeo-Christian values that lead to our current understanding of ‘human rights’. I’m not going to give you a history lesson here, but the Catholic church and nations influenced by Catholicism were pioneers in the arts, technology and science. The church itself has been a champion of freedom during times when the secular world was brutal and violent in the name of the state. Don’t get me started on the Crusades or the Inquisition – two of the most misunderstood, mythologised eras in history. Churches by far, have done, and continue to do --- more good for society than any government or state that has ever existed.
Church history is full of discrimination, violence, bigotry, the spilled blood of millions of people.
Secular nationhood is filled with the same. It is the nature of man, not the nature of Christianity that makes it so. No one kills in the name of God or Christ. Those who do are in error. Their error does not make the church culpable. It is insupportable theologically and biblically for people to kill in the name of Christianity. People do kill as agents of their state, nation, or in self-interest -- and with full sanction of their motivators.
As for discrimination and bigotry– the values of justice and equality of all people, which we take for granted, are the products of centuries of Christian discernment and freedom.
Not to forget residential schools either.
The churches acted as instruments of the state. Some of what happened at these schools was shameful and the churches have accepted responsibility for their role. Unfortunately the problems of our Native communities continue, and there are no simple solutions. Blaming the churches for their part in this tragedy is fair, but keep in mind the residential schools were designed, mandated and created by the government. Although we tend to impute malice to the people who created and worked within these places, I would suggest that when they started, it was with grand ideals and lofty intentions but as often happens -- misguided, paternalistic, governmental do-gooders thought they knew better for these people than they could figure out for themselves. They were wrong.
These are things not to be forgotten because clearly, discrimination is a mainstay in religion.
In societies where there is no religion, or where religion has been forced out of the mainstream, how have things been?
Jesus would be appalled at how people treat each other in his name.
On this point we agree.
I think he would support SSM anyway.
I think you’re mistaken.
Jesus understood the nature of humanity. Although Jesus never speaks of marriage, he does speak of divorce. Matthew 19 says: "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave His father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (. . .) "His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man and his wife, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."
Jesus’ thinking on marriage doesn’t reflect the values of his times. The Pharisees believe they have the right to divorce, Jesus is telling them that Moses only told them they had that right because mankind had become so hard-hearted. His quote on the nature of marriage, and celibacy in the event that marriage is for some reason not in the cards, is unmistakable.
It seems to me, it's simply because of latent bigotry.
It seems to me that support of SSM is because of blatant ignorance and arrogance. Both of our opinions in this regard are irrelevant to the discussion.
Homosexuality is genetic, no one choses to be social outcasts. So why do people think it's ok to discriminate on things people have no control over?
There is no scientific consensus as to the reasons for homosexuality, but let me ask you this – if in fact it is genetic, or some sort of pre-birth anomaly ---- if science could invent a cure, how many gay people would take it?
As for being social outcasts – don’t pretend this is 19th century, Nadine. Gays are no longer social outcasts – they are prominent leaders in many aspects of society. They are not, and quite frankly, they never have been at the back of the bus. They had to hide their predilections in the past, but unlike other marginalised groups – they could choose to do that.
(this was in response to a reply from nicol of The War Room -- for context, you should read the comments section of yesterday's post) --- nicol, haha, read some history dude. Being left of centre does not make one a Marxist. Way back in the 30s, keep in mind that the Communist party wanted nothing to do with the CCF. Opponents of the CCF back then tried to associate it with Communism including PM Bennett but it was never the case. The CCF banned dual party membership so no communists could have possibly infiltrated it. The CCF is rooted in social democracy, labour, agrarianism, populism and social gospel. Hardly Marxist.
Your comparison of the CCF and the NDP is faulty. The ‘root’ of the NDP might be the CCF, but the two parties are hardly the same. You and the NDP are much farther left than simply ‘left of centre’ ---or at least you were, until this Parliament.
And about homosexuality, do you remember chosing heterosexuality? I sure don't. Gay people know they're different from a very young age because they are indeed born that way. Have you been in a school recently and seen how suspected gays are treated? It's truly tragic.
Oh please. It’s chic to be gay. I’ve got four kids in public school in Toronto. Smokers and fat people are treated with more derision and contempt. And say what you like – yes, people choose to smoke and overeat, but some people also choose to flaunt their gayness. Get off the gay-as-victim bit. Gays have never been an ‘oppressed’ minority. They have been a closeted minority, they have been scorned and despised – but oppression means subjugation – they don’t fit the definition of an ‘enslaved’ segment of society. Don't tell me they want to change that definition now.
I'm convinced that people who appear sincere about their concern for gay oppression yet oppose gay marriage are hiding at least some prejudices.
We all have prejudices, Nadine. Some of us are able to admit to them, and others lie to themselves that they are perfect. I believe that gays are equal to me, but I don’t believe they fit the criteria to be ‘married.’ If you think that makes me a bigot, I can live with that.
You see your views on religion and religious people, and your simplification of complex issues in order to dismiss adversaries as ‘latent bigot(s)’ as justified. Dear, your bias is showing.
Otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal.
So all things that are important to a person are the result of prejudice? Perhaps. But that includes your prejudices and your bigotry – this is a big deal to you – why? Because you are altruistic? Or because you have some deep hatred of religion, and people who follow a code of morality and value system that you reject?
It is a big deal to me because I believe I don’t have a right to impose my morality on you. You have a right to live as you see fit. You have a right to believe that I am a bigot, and you have a right to teach your children that I am a bigot.
You believe that I don’t have the right to teach my children that homosexual activity is against nature and that it is immoral – or that if I do, you and your ilk have the right to ‘correct’ my teaching in the public realm through the normalisation of homosexuality in the public school system.
Who in this equation is against freedom of thought, against individual rights, against the autonomy of the family?
And those examples of the UN are not representative at all of the entire body. The UN is a product of its parts, so when they don't care, it appears the UN doesn't care. You can't blame the UN for the actions of a few.
It’s funny how you believe this when it comes to the UN, but you don’t give the same consideration to churches and religious people.
My goodness, it seems that someone has double standard on their shoulder. But then, that’s okay, because crying discrimination and bigotry while simultaneously practising them, ‘is a mainstay’ of the left.
* * *
I think the difference between the left and the right is this --
I neither want, nor expect my religion to change your opinion on anything -- but you believe your legislation should change mine.
canadianna
Todays comments are in response to my post "How did we get here?" and are courtesy of NDP Nadine, who is a regular commenter at Either Orr. As per usual, quotes from NDP Nadine are in italics. They are unedited, except for placement.
SSM is all about the right to belong, the right to be equal; therefore, I consider it to be a human right.
One does not have to be married to be equal or to belong, in our society – in any society. Human rights are available for all humans. Marriage is not -- even now that the definition has been changed in Canada, there are whole segments of society ineligible because they don't meet the criteria. Human Rights are 'individual rights' -- marriage does not fall into that category.
As for equal coupling – one doesn’t have to be married in Canada to enjoy equal status in terms of taxation, housing, adoption -- common law couples enjoy most of the same rights and benefits, hetero or same-sex.
Whether gays like it or not, they didn’t fit the definition of marriage as understood by all cultures and religions. Proof: the definition had to change. Marriage is defined by its criteria. Changing the criteria is changing a fundamental component of the institution. It doesn’t make the relationships equal, it only makes them ‘fair’ which could have been done through a parallel form of registration. Legislation calling same-sex relationships 'marriages' will never make them so in the minds of many people. Don't say they are wrong, or bigots -- Bill C-38 says they are allowed to believe that because of their relgion.
In fact, so does the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Canada is a signatory. Article 16 of the Declaration states: "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Sounds very inclusive to me.
You’re dreaming in technicolour Nadine. I don’t hold the UN in high enough regard to care what they think, but think of cultural and political make up of the UN. This wording was put in place specifically to rule out same-sex marriage. Had they been inviting gay-coupling to be justified through this, the wording would have been ‘Men and/or women . . .’
And why the big rush to defend churches anyhow?
And why your big rush to bash them?
Throughout the world Christian churches have done more to support and sustain marginalised people than any other ‘group’. It was Christianity (the Papacy in fact) that created appeals courts for people accused of crimes. It was Judeo-Christian values that lead to our current understanding of ‘human rights’. I’m not going to give you a history lesson here, but the Catholic church and nations influenced by Catholicism were pioneers in the arts, technology and science. The church itself has been a champion of freedom during times when the secular world was brutal and violent in the name of the state. Don’t get me started on the Crusades or the Inquisition – two of the most misunderstood, mythologised eras in history. Churches by far, have done, and continue to do --- more good for society than any government or state that has ever existed.
Church history is full of discrimination, violence, bigotry, the spilled blood of millions of people.
Secular nationhood is filled with the same. It is the nature of man, not the nature of Christianity that makes it so. No one kills in the name of God or Christ. Those who do are in error. Their error does not make the church culpable. It is insupportable theologically and biblically for people to kill in the name of Christianity. People do kill as agents of their state, nation, or in self-interest -- and with full sanction of their motivators.
As for discrimination and bigotry– the values of justice and equality of all people, which we take for granted, are the products of centuries of Christian discernment and freedom.
Not to forget residential schools either.
The churches acted as instruments of the state. Some of what happened at these schools was shameful and the churches have accepted responsibility for their role. Unfortunately the problems of our Native communities continue, and there are no simple solutions. Blaming the churches for their part in this tragedy is fair, but keep in mind the residential schools were designed, mandated and created by the government. Although we tend to impute malice to the people who created and worked within these places, I would suggest that when they started, it was with grand ideals and lofty intentions but as often happens -- misguided, paternalistic, governmental do-gooders thought they knew better for these people than they could figure out for themselves. They were wrong.
These are things not to be forgotten because clearly, discrimination is a mainstay in religion.
In societies where there is no religion, or where religion has been forced out of the mainstream, how have things been?
Jesus would be appalled at how people treat each other in his name.
On this point we agree.
I think he would support SSM anyway.
I think you’re mistaken.
Jesus understood the nature of humanity. Although Jesus never speaks of marriage, he does speak of divorce. Matthew 19 says: "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave His father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (. . .) "His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man and his wife, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."
Jesus’ thinking on marriage doesn’t reflect the values of his times. The Pharisees believe they have the right to divorce, Jesus is telling them that Moses only told them they had that right because mankind had become so hard-hearted. His quote on the nature of marriage, and celibacy in the event that marriage is for some reason not in the cards, is unmistakable.
It seems to me, it's simply because of latent bigotry.
It seems to me that support of SSM is because of blatant ignorance and arrogance. Both of our opinions in this regard are irrelevant to the discussion.
Homosexuality is genetic, no one choses to be social outcasts. So why do people think it's ok to discriminate on things people have no control over?
There is no scientific consensus as to the reasons for homosexuality, but let me ask you this – if in fact it is genetic, or some sort of pre-birth anomaly ---- if science could invent a cure, how many gay people would take it?
As for being social outcasts – don’t pretend this is 19th century, Nadine. Gays are no longer social outcasts – they are prominent leaders in many aspects of society. They are not, and quite frankly, they never have been at the back of the bus. They had to hide their predilections in the past, but unlike other marginalised groups – they could choose to do that.
(this was in response to a reply from nicol of The War Room -- for context, you should read the comments section of yesterday's post) --- nicol, haha, read some history dude. Being left of centre does not make one a Marxist. Way back in the 30s, keep in mind that the Communist party wanted nothing to do with the CCF. Opponents of the CCF back then tried to associate it with Communism including PM Bennett but it was never the case. The CCF banned dual party membership so no communists could have possibly infiltrated it. The CCF is rooted in social democracy, labour, agrarianism, populism and social gospel. Hardly Marxist.
Your comparison of the CCF and the NDP is faulty. The ‘root’ of the NDP might be the CCF, but the two parties are hardly the same. You and the NDP are much farther left than simply ‘left of centre’ ---or at least you were, until this Parliament.
And about homosexuality, do you remember chosing heterosexuality? I sure don't. Gay people know they're different from a very young age because they are indeed born that way. Have you been in a school recently and seen how suspected gays are treated? It's truly tragic.
Oh please. It’s chic to be gay. I’ve got four kids in public school in Toronto. Smokers and fat people are treated with more derision and contempt. And say what you like – yes, people choose to smoke and overeat, but some people also choose to flaunt their gayness. Get off the gay-as-victim bit. Gays have never been an ‘oppressed’ minority. They have been a closeted minority, they have been scorned and despised – but oppression means subjugation – they don’t fit the definition of an ‘enslaved’ segment of society. Don't tell me they want to change that definition now.
I'm convinced that people who appear sincere about their concern for gay oppression yet oppose gay marriage are hiding at least some prejudices.
We all have prejudices, Nadine. Some of us are able to admit to them, and others lie to themselves that they are perfect. I believe that gays are equal to me, but I don’t believe they fit the criteria to be ‘married.’ If you think that makes me a bigot, I can live with that.
You see your views on religion and religious people, and your simplification of complex issues in order to dismiss adversaries as ‘latent bigot(s)’ as justified. Dear, your bias is showing.
Otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal.
So all things that are important to a person are the result of prejudice? Perhaps. But that includes your prejudices and your bigotry – this is a big deal to you – why? Because you are altruistic? Or because you have some deep hatred of religion, and people who follow a code of morality and value system that you reject?
It is a big deal to me because I believe I don’t have a right to impose my morality on you. You have a right to live as you see fit. You have a right to believe that I am a bigot, and you have a right to teach your children that I am a bigot.
You believe that I don’t have the right to teach my children that homosexual activity is against nature and that it is immoral – or that if I do, you and your ilk have the right to ‘correct’ my teaching in the public realm through the normalisation of homosexuality in the public school system.
Who in this equation is against freedom of thought, against individual rights, against the autonomy of the family?
And those examples of the UN are not representative at all of the entire body. The UN is a product of its parts, so when they don't care, it appears the UN doesn't care. You can't blame the UN for the actions of a few.
It’s funny how you believe this when it comes to the UN, but you don’t give the same consideration to churches and religious people.
My goodness, it seems that someone has double standard on their shoulder. But then, that’s okay, because crying discrimination and bigotry while simultaneously practising them, ‘is a mainstay’ of the left.
* * *
I think the difference between the left and the right is this --
I neither want, nor expect my religion to change your opinion on anything -- but you believe your legislation should change mine.
canadianna
Friday, July 15, 2005
How did we get here?
Canadians are proud of their moderate tendencies. We are peacemakers, looking for conciliation rather than confrontation. Traditionally, the Liberals have been seen to hold the centre of the political spectrum -- able to straddle the fence on tricky issues and come to some consensus. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, that is the common perception -- they represent moderate thinking Canadians, or did, until now.
With most political issues, disparate voices can be brought together through compromise and negotiation. Each side concedes some ground and a workable solution can be found. Gay 'coupling' and the legal form it should take, used to be one of those issues.
Same-sex marriage is not a dead issue judging from the blogs. Morality issues are always hot button topics, but as Debris Trail has said a few times, it could be a wedge issue come an election.
The most noticeable thing to me about the whole debate, is how fixed the debaters have become. There is a rigidity to the positions that wasn't there a couple of years ago. There is antipathy of all things Roman Catholic/Christian amongst many advocates of gay marriage, and more strongly worded anti-gay rhetoric used by many opposed.
It used to be there was a common middle ground on gay rights. This mutual understanding between the two conflicting views prevented extremists from taking root -- reasonable people agreed that gays had the right to live, and work, and be -- just as any other citizen -- free from persecution or harassment for their 'differences'. The thinking expanded, and gays began to fight for and assume rights that once belonged exclusively to heterosexuals -- pension rights for their partners for example. Many companies freely offered this kind of benefit, without the need for legislation to force the issue.
This modernization of thinking about gay rights allowed people with religious objections to 'gay sex' to feel both fair and principled. They could understand a person being entitled to receive their dead partner's pension benefits, without having to agree with (or even consider) the morality or validity of the 'gay lifestyle'. All of the main political parties agreed that government recognition of the 'unions' of same-sex couples was inevitable. Even the majority of those who are personally opposed to homosexual activity on a religious or moral level, were willing to make this concession.
At some point, it stopped being reasonable and moderate to respect the right of gay people to live their lives and go about their business -- it stopped being enough to believe that they were entitled to an institution, parallel to marriage, but different. Not different because they are unequal with heterosexuals, but different because they do not fit the one universal criteria for marriage understood for thousands of years. You had to do more -- you had to think their committed, conjugal relationships hold the same social value, and deserve the same societal support as heterosexual marriages. You had to believe that marriage should yield it's definition to accommodate their special circumstances.
The Liberals have annihilated the centre. They have taken the position they themselves recently vacated and have labelled it 'extreme'. It didn't happen because the Liberals thought it was the right thing to do - enlightenment doesn't affect a vast number of people simultaneously. Progress amongst moderates is deliberately slow -- only extremists want change with speed -- and that's only so they can't take in the damage they're doing.
For those who argue that it was a long arduous struggle -- think again. Marriage might have been on the gay agenda for 35 - 40 years, but for the average person, it only popped onto the radar seriously in the past 4 -5 years. Most struggles for 'equality' and 'recognition' take centuries -- women have been around since the dawn of time, and we were only granted the right to vote in the last eighty years. Anyway, I started to wonder how this happened so quickly, and why.
The Liberals and Conservatives both have their share of social conservatives. Both parties had moderate fiscal policies -- one favouring corporate welfare, the other tax cuts -- but not too dissimilar for the general public to really understand or care. Both parties were in favour of maintaining public healthcare and promised they'd improve the system. Both said they would address the democratic deficit and restore accountability to government. The Conservatives were untested, the Liberals tainted. There were no significant policy issues on which the parties differed enough to become an election winner, so it became a matter of trust -- The Liberals may have squandered the public trust, but the Conservatives were a new entity and public trust is not a given.
When the Conservatives latched on to Adscam to show the Liberals as corrupt, the Liberals realised they could say they'd clean up government but people were bound to be skeptical since they had made the mess in the first place. So, they had to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives on policy issues. Their record of 'fiscal responsibility' (as dubious as it might be) was not worth tossing aside, so they seized upon a strategy that would portray themselves as the champions of minority rights (we're a nation of minorities) and simultaneously set up the Conservatives as religious fanatics or ignorant bigots.
Because we had reached a point as a nation where most people expected and accepted that gay unions would receive recognition by the government, and because the Conservative Party had already said that it was for keeping the traditional definition of marriage (while accepting the compromise solution of civil unions) -- the Liberals knew that in order to make a clear distinction between themselves from the Conservatives, they would have to be bold. It was all or nothing. They chose to redefine marriage, and realigned political boundaries in the process.
The Liberals framed gay marriage as a human rights issue, making any opposition to it automatically 'anti-Charter'. They appeased the critics by offering protections for religions unwilling to yield the traditional definition. The protection was fallacious because it is not within their jurisdiction, and it is paradoxical because if marriage is a 'human right' how does the government justify using religious freedoms to deny a human right on the basis of sexual orientation?
Marriage is not a human right, but the government needed people to buy into this vision. Human rights are regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons. They are seen as being universal, applying to all people everywhere, and as intrinsic, referring to essential or basic human needs. By framing the marriage issue as a 'human rights' issue, it becomes increasingly impossible to oppose same-sex marriage without being painted as a bigot or a homophobe.
There can be no middle-ground on human rights issues. They aren't the same as other rights, which are granted based on criteria set out by the government -- human rights are granted to all of us by virtue of being human.
Reading C-38, I'm not sure if the law is set out that way (as a human right) but throughout the debates this is the message being driven home by the 'centerist' Liberals. The soft middle latched on, and allowed the boundaries to shift -- setting an extreme and radical ideology in place of middle of the road sensibilities.
The middle is now unwalkable for people who until recently, were confident they held a fair and legitimate view of gay rights. The Liberals can call it what they like, but same-sex marriage is not a moderate position. By framing the question as they did, the Liberals have annihilated the centre for political gain.
canadianna
With most political issues, disparate voices can be brought together through compromise and negotiation. Each side concedes some ground and a workable solution can be found. Gay 'coupling' and the legal form it should take, used to be one of those issues.
Same-sex marriage is not a dead issue judging from the blogs. Morality issues are always hot button topics, but as Debris Trail has said a few times, it could be a wedge issue come an election.
The most noticeable thing to me about the whole debate, is how fixed the debaters have become. There is a rigidity to the positions that wasn't there a couple of years ago. There is antipathy of all things Roman Catholic/Christian amongst many advocates of gay marriage, and more strongly worded anti-gay rhetoric used by many opposed.
It used to be there was a common middle ground on gay rights. This mutual understanding between the two conflicting views prevented extremists from taking root -- reasonable people agreed that gays had the right to live, and work, and be -- just as any other citizen -- free from persecution or harassment for their 'differences'. The thinking expanded, and gays began to fight for and assume rights that once belonged exclusively to heterosexuals -- pension rights for their partners for example. Many companies freely offered this kind of benefit, without the need for legislation to force the issue.
This modernization of thinking about gay rights allowed people with religious objections to 'gay sex' to feel both fair and principled. They could understand a person being entitled to receive their dead partner's pension benefits, without having to agree with (or even consider) the morality or validity of the 'gay lifestyle'. All of the main political parties agreed that government recognition of the 'unions' of same-sex couples was inevitable. Even the majority of those who are personally opposed to homosexual activity on a religious or moral level, were willing to make this concession.
At some point, it stopped being reasonable and moderate to respect the right of gay people to live their lives and go about their business -- it stopped being enough to believe that they were entitled to an institution, parallel to marriage, but different. Not different because they are unequal with heterosexuals, but different because they do not fit the one universal criteria for marriage understood for thousands of years. You had to do more -- you had to think their committed, conjugal relationships hold the same social value, and deserve the same societal support as heterosexual marriages. You had to believe that marriage should yield it's definition to accommodate their special circumstances.
The Liberals have annihilated the centre. They have taken the position they themselves recently vacated and have labelled it 'extreme'. It didn't happen because the Liberals thought it was the right thing to do - enlightenment doesn't affect a vast number of people simultaneously. Progress amongst moderates is deliberately slow -- only extremists want change with speed -- and that's only so they can't take in the damage they're doing.
For those who argue that it was a long arduous struggle -- think again. Marriage might have been on the gay agenda for 35 - 40 years, but for the average person, it only popped onto the radar seriously in the past 4 -5 years. Most struggles for 'equality' and 'recognition' take centuries -- women have been around since the dawn of time, and we were only granted the right to vote in the last eighty years. Anyway, I started to wonder how this happened so quickly, and why.
The Liberals and Conservatives both have their share of social conservatives. Both parties had moderate fiscal policies -- one favouring corporate welfare, the other tax cuts -- but not too dissimilar for the general public to really understand or care. Both parties were in favour of maintaining public healthcare and promised they'd improve the system. Both said they would address the democratic deficit and restore accountability to government. The Conservatives were untested, the Liberals tainted. There were no significant policy issues on which the parties differed enough to become an election winner, so it became a matter of trust -- The Liberals may have squandered the public trust, but the Conservatives were a new entity and public trust is not a given.
When the Conservatives latched on to Adscam to show the Liberals as corrupt, the Liberals realised they could say they'd clean up government but people were bound to be skeptical since they had made the mess in the first place. So, they had to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives on policy issues. Their record of 'fiscal responsibility' (as dubious as it might be) was not worth tossing aside, so they seized upon a strategy that would portray themselves as the champions of minority rights (we're a nation of minorities) and simultaneously set up the Conservatives as religious fanatics or ignorant bigots.
Because we had reached a point as a nation where most people expected and accepted that gay unions would receive recognition by the government, and because the Conservative Party had already said that it was for keeping the traditional definition of marriage (while accepting the compromise solution of civil unions) -- the Liberals knew that in order to make a clear distinction between themselves from the Conservatives, they would have to be bold. It was all or nothing. They chose to redefine marriage, and realigned political boundaries in the process.
The Liberals framed gay marriage as a human rights issue, making any opposition to it automatically 'anti-Charter'. They appeased the critics by offering protections for religions unwilling to yield the traditional definition. The protection was fallacious because it is not within their jurisdiction, and it is paradoxical because if marriage is a 'human right' how does the government justify using religious freedoms to deny a human right on the basis of sexual orientation?
Marriage is not a human right, but the government needed people to buy into this vision. Human rights are regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons. They are seen as being universal, applying to all people everywhere, and as intrinsic, referring to essential or basic human needs. By framing the marriage issue as a 'human rights' issue, it becomes increasingly impossible to oppose same-sex marriage without being painted as a bigot or a homophobe.
There can be no middle-ground on human rights issues. They aren't the same as other rights, which are granted based on criteria set out by the government -- human rights are granted to all of us by virtue of being human.
Reading C-38, I'm not sure if the law is set out that way (as a human right) but throughout the debates this is the message being driven home by the 'centerist' Liberals. The soft middle latched on, and allowed the boundaries to shift -- setting an extreme and radical ideology in place of middle of the road sensibilities.
The middle is now unwalkable for people who until recently, were confident they held a fair and legitimate view of gay rights. The Liberals can call it what they like, but same-sex marriage is not a moderate position. By framing the question as they did, the Liberals have annihilated the centre for political gain.
canadianna
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Are any rights sacrosanct?
Is a law constitutional if it allows you to deny me a legitimate service, because you are morally or religiously opposed to my receiving that service?
Alberta is hoping to:
"develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans, who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious, will be free to express opposition to the traditional definition of marriage or a change to the traditional definition of marriage and will not be required to advocate, promote, or teach about marriage in a way that conflicts with their beliefs.”
I think we can all agree, that regardless of what we may believe on a religious or moral level -- legally and constitutionally we don't have the right to refuse a service to a person based on their sexual orientation.
Substitute 'wedding' for other services -- a lawyer refusing service to handle a gay couple's adoption or divorce; a marriage counsellor refusing to provide counselling to a gay couple; a hotelier refusing to provide a gay couple accomodation . . .
Will the moral or religious rights of a person who is against same-sex marriage, outweigh the right of a gay couple to have a service performed?
When there are conflicting rights (the right to be married vs the right to freedom of religion/free speech) someone's rights are going to have to take precedence. The courts have consistently sided with the rights of gays over the right of Christians to express themselves, and I see no reason why this would change.
A law permitting conscientious objection to gays and lesbians having access to an institution that is available to the rest of the population, would be challenged in a heartbeat.
If anyone can make a coherant argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
canadianna
Alberta is hoping to:
"develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans, who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious, will be free to express opposition to the traditional definition of marriage or a change to the traditional definition of marriage and will not be required to advocate, promote, or teach about marriage in a way that conflicts with their beliefs.”
I think we can all agree, that regardless of what we may believe on a religious or moral level -- legally and constitutionally we don't have the right to refuse a service to a person based on their sexual orientation.
Substitute 'wedding' for other services -- a lawyer refusing service to handle a gay couple's adoption or divorce; a marriage counsellor refusing to provide counselling to a gay couple; a hotelier refusing to provide a gay couple accomodation . . .
Will the moral or religious rights of a person who is against same-sex marriage, outweigh the right of a gay couple to have a service performed?
When there are conflicting rights (the right to be married vs the right to freedom of religion/free speech) someone's rights are going to have to take precedence. The courts have consistently sided with the rights of gays over the right of Christians to express themselves, and I see no reason why this would change.
A law permitting conscientious objection to gays and lesbians having access to an institution that is available to the rest of the population, would be challenged in a heartbeat.
If anyone can make a coherant argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
canadianna
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
When leftists misread . . .
Those of you who read my blog frequently know that I don't trash other bloggers. I do challenge my commenters, but even then, I try to remain respectful and civil.
Imagine my surprise at finding links to my page from no less that four lefty blogs, each with comments totalling more than a dozen commenters -- and all of them use my blog as a starting point to shred apart the collective intellect and acumen of the entire Blogging Tories blogroll.
When I opened my previous post by noting the hostility eminating from some of the lefty blogs, with regard to some priests refusing communion to MPs who advocated for same-sex marriage -- I thought even the dimmest amongst them would understand that I was throwing their extreme reaction back at them, with similarly extreme rhetoric.
Even in my comments section -- long before the lefty blogs wrote about how 'irrational' I am -- when someone commented about Charter protections applied to laws, not people, my response was: "I wasn't really thinking this would happen BTW. It was more just a way to point out how silly some of the blogs have been about this."
Some of these blogs say that I'm 'frothing at the mouth' or 'foaming at the mouth' -- yet with all that attention to my mouth, they never noticed my tongue, firmly planted in cheek. These lefty bloggers take themselves so seriously that the light from their own brilliance blinds them to reality.
For the record -- I 'get' the Charter. I realise that one could not 'charter challenge' Jack Layton's punishment of Bev Desjarlais, because Jack Layton was not making a law violating her rights. I should have said 'Human Rights Code' rather than 'Charter of Rights' but it is fair to say that Canadians understand their rights to be the ones guaranteed by the Charter. Since they guarantee similar protections, and since I implicitly said the recourse for the affected MPs would be a Human Rights tribunal, I fail to see how it confounded my leftist detractors to such a broad extent. I said 'Charter' instead of 'Human Rights Code'. So, sue me. At least I know Canadians didn't storm the beaches at Norway, and I don't think there was a big battle at Vichy.
My reasoning was correct, if I used the wrong document to support it.
That said -- after reading this paragraph from early on in the post:
Many of them have repeated the calls for yanking of the tax-exempt status of the church. Some have had the effrontery to ask 'who does the Catholic Church think it is?' --- as though, by enforcing its doctrine, the church has overstepped its authority.
Do they really think that I would believe a political leader should be hauled in front of the Human Rights commission for enforcing his doctrine? Get a grip, people.
My point with that post was that when you belong to an organisation, you agree to abide by the rules of that organisation. If you fail to live up, you take your lumps. Period. That goes for Comartin and Desjarlais. They each knew the rules of the game before they started playing. If the left feels Jack Layton has the right to punish Desjarlais, then surely they can understand the church's right to do the same.
Maybe this will make it more clear:
The Catholic church is an organisation with rules.
The NDP is an organisation with rules.
Catholics are aware of those rules.
NDP MPs are aware of those rules.
Catholics publicly advocated against those rules.
MPs acted against those rules.
Catholic MPs should face the consequences of publicly and unrepentingly teaching against a sacrament.
NDP MPs should face the consequences of voting against the politicy of the party on same-sex rights.
When the lefty blogs started calling for action against the church for enforcing their doctrine within their own congregations . . . I made a similar call for action against politicians. The lefties take both calls seriously -- but they support the first and deplore the latter.
I see both calls as fallacious -- and am floored by the slow-wittedness of their bloggers.
I notice none of them commented on my other points in that post - First, that if ever action is taken against churches for being 'political', all churches should be treated equally -- regardless of the government's position on their 'politics'.
And second, that churches should register as political parties so they could be political, keep their tax-exempt status and be free from state interference.
I meant the first point -- and I figure the lefties didn't address it because they would support politically active churches so long as they go along with the liberal-secular worldview.
And I was being facetious with the second point -- why do you suppose they didn't touch that one?
canadianna
Imagine my surprise at finding links to my page from no less that four lefty blogs, each with comments totalling more than a dozen commenters -- and all of them use my blog as a starting point to shred apart the collective intellect and acumen of the entire Blogging Tories blogroll.
When I opened my previous post by noting the hostility eminating from some of the lefty blogs, with regard to some priests refusing communion to MPs who advocated for same-sex marriage -- I thought even the dimmest amongst them would understand that I was throwing their extreme reaction back at them, with similarly extreme rhetoric.
Even in my comments section -- long before the lefty blogs wrote about how 'irrational' I am -- when someone commented about Charter protections applied to laws, not people, my response was: "I wasn't really thinking this would happen BTW. It was more just a way to point out how silly some of the blogs have been about this."
Some of these blogs say that I'm 'frothing at the mouth' or 'foaming at the mouth' -- yet with all that attention to my mouth, they never noticed my tongue, firmly planted in cheek. These lefty bloggers take themselves so seriously that the light from their own brilliance blinds them to reality.
For the record -- I 'get' the Charter. I realise that one could not 'charter challenge' Jack Layton's punishment of Bev Desjarlais, because Jack Layton was not making a law violating her rights. I should have said 'Human Rights Code' rather than 'Charter of Rights' but it is fair to say that Canadians understand their rights to be the ones guaranteed by the Charter. Since they guarantee similar protections, and since I implicitly said the recourse for the affected MPs would be a Human Rights tribunal, I fail to see how it confounded my leftist detractors to such a broad extent. I said 'Charter' instead of 'Human Rights Code'. So, sue me. At least I know Canadians didn't storm the beaches at Norway, and I don't think there was a big battle at Vichy.
My reasoning was correct, if I used the wrong document to support it.
That said -- after reading this paragraph from early on in the post:
Many of them have repeated the calls for yanking of the tax-exempt status of the church. Some have had the effrontery to ask 'who does the Catholic Church think it is?' --- as though, by enforcing its doctrine, the church has overstepped its authority.
Do they really think that I would believe a political leader should be hauled in front of the Human Rights commission for enforcing his doctrine? Get a grip, people.
My point with that post was that when you belong to an organisation, you agree to abide by the rules of that organisation. If you fail to live up, you take your lumps. Period. That goes for Comartin and Desjarlais. They each knew the rules of the game before they started playing. If the left feels Jack Layton has the right to punish Desjarlais, then surely they can understand the church's right to do the same.
Maybe this will make it more clear:
The Catholic church is an organisation with rules.
The NDP is an organisation with rules.
Catholics are aware of those rules.
NDP MPs are aware of those rules.
Catholics publicly advocated against those rules.
MPs acted against those rules.
Catholic MPs should face the consequences of publicly and unrepentingly teaching against a sacrament.
NDP MPs should face the consequences of voting against the politicy of the party on same-sex rights.
When the lefty blogs started calling for action against the church for enforcing their doctrine within their own congregations . . . I made a similar call for action against politicians. The lefties take both calls seriously -- but they support the first and deplore the latter.
I see both calls as fallacious -- and am floored by the slow-wittedness of their bloggers.
I notice none of them commented on my other points in that post - First, that if ever action is taken against churches for being 'political', all churches should be treated equally -- regardless of the government's position on their 'politics'.
And second, that churches should register as political parties so they could be political, keep their tax-exempt status and be free from state interference.
I meant the first point -- and I figure the lefties didn't address it because they would support politically active churches so long as they go along with the liberal-secular worldview.
And I was being facetious with the second point -- why do you suppose they didn't touch that one?
canadianna
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Layton in violation of the Charter
The 'progressive' blogs are filled with righteous indignation that some Roman Catholic Priests have withheld communion from MPs who openly denied the church's teaching on the sacrament of marriage.
Many of them have repeated the calls for yanking of the tax-exempt status of the church. Some have had the effrontery to ask 'who does the Catholic Church think it is?' --- as though, by enforcing its doctrine, the church has overstepped its authority.
In light of the negative yap about the Roman Catholic Church by those on the left, I would like to remind people of two things:
Jack Layton violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by disciplining Bev Desjarlais after she voted her conscience, and said 'nay' to Bill C-38.
Section 2 of the Charter reads:
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Bev Desjarlais exercised her Charter rights of 'freedom of conscience and religion', and 'freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression' when she voted against the Civil Marriage Act. Jack Layton subsequently demoted and publicly humiliated her for her stance on this issue of conscience. His actions could be described as punitive and vindictive. His reasoning seems to be that Bev knew the rules going into the vote, and yet she chose to buck the party line. Bev has taken her lumps without complaint and has not pleaded her case for victimhood in the media despite such strong arm tactics by Layton. Regardless of his justification, his actions go against the protections given all citizens under the Charter.
Paul Martin is also guilty of violating the Charter. Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister, Joe Comuzzi was forced to resign from Cabinet in order to be allowed to vote his conscience. When he refused to allow a free-vote on SSM, the Prime Minister cherry-picked which Charter rights he was willing to uphold. His blatant disregard of this sacrosanct document with regard to Cabinet Ministers, exemplifies Martin's willingness to ignore the charter when it suits his ends.
Now, as to the churches losing their tax exempt status for being 'political'.
One would hope the left is including all churches in this demand ---- not just those with whom they disagree.
Will they insist that Metropolitan Community Church lose its tax-exempt status for playing politics with marriage?
You'll recall the first same-sex 'marriage ceremony' was performed there in 2001 -- less than 18 months after Parliament had affirmed by an overwhelming majority that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This was more than four years before same-sex marriage became the law of the land. Political, no?
Where was the left then? Religious interference in politics wasn't a problem when it suited their political agenda.
In our increasingly secular society, people often donate their time and money to the political party of their choice, rather than to a religious institution. Since the left believes both churches and political parties advance political causes -- taxing churches would give political parties an unfair financial advantage.
If the left wants churches to lose tax-exempt status for being 'political' - perhaps the churches should register as political parties instead. They'd continue receive tax free donations; they'd still be allowed to issue income tax receipts; and they would be part of the political infrastructure -- and free from interference by the state.
The left is going to continue to whinge -- when I see Jack Layton and Paul Martin hauled in front of human rights tribunal -- that's when I'll start to listen.
canadianna
Many of them have repeated the calls for yanking of the tax-exempt status of the church. Some have had the effrontery to ask 'who does the Catholic Church think it is?' --- as though, by enforcing its doctrine, the church has overstepped its authority.
In light of the negative yap about the Roman Catholic Church by those on the left, I would like to remind people of two things:
Jack Layton violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by disciplining Bev Desjarlais after she voted her conscience, and said 'nay' to Bill C-38.
Section 2 of the Charter reads:
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Bev Desjarlais exercised her Charter rights of 'freedom of conscience and religion', and 'freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression' when she voted against the Civil Marriage Act. Jack Layton subsequently demoted and publicly humiliated her for her stance on this issue of conscience. His actions could be described as punitive and vindictive. His reasoning seems to be that Bev knew the rules going into the vote, and yet she chose to buck the party line. Bev has taken her lumps without complaint and has not pleaded her case for victimhood in the media despite such strong arm tactics by Layton. Regardless of his justification, his actions go against the protections given all citizens under the Charter.
Paul Martin is also guilty of violating the Charter. Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister, Joe Comuzzi was forced to resign from Cabinet in order to be allowed to vote his conscience. When he refused to allow a free-vote on SSM, the Prime Minister cherry-picked which Charter rights he was willing to uphold. His blatant disregard of this sacrosanct document with regard to Cabinet Ministers, exemplifies Martin's willingness to ignore the charter when it suits his ends.
Now, as to the churches losing their tax exempt status for being 'political'.
One would hope the left is including all churches in this demand ---- not just those with whom they disagree.
Will they insist that Metropolitan Community Church lose its tax-exempt status for playing politics with marriage?
You'll recall the first same-sex 'marriage ceremony' was performed there in 2001 -- less than 18 months after Parliament had affirmed by an overwhelming majority that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This was more than four years before same-sex marriage became the law of the land. Political, no?
Where was the left then? Religious interference in politics wasn't a problem when it suited their political agenda.
In our increasingly secular society, people often donate their time and money to the political party of their choice, rather than to a religious institution. Since the left believes both churches and political parties advance political causes -- taxing churches would give political parties an unfair financial advantage.
If the left wants churches to lose tax-exempt status for being 'political' - perhaps the churches should register as political parties instead. They'd continue receive tax free donations; they'd still be allowed to issue income tax receipts; and they would be part of the political infrastructure -- and free from interference by the state.
The left is going to continue to whinge -- when I see Jack Layton and Paul Martin hauled in front of human rights tribunal -- that's when I'll start to listen.
canadianna
Saturday, July 09, 2005
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
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
Friday, July 08, 2005
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)