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
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
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
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Why?
There are those who will blame Tony Blair and the UK foreign policy for the attacks on London, but given the history of Britain when faced with adversity, terrorists couldn't be expecting the British to back down. Perhaps they are all suicidal and were hoping to galvanise Britain's resolve.
On a talk show today I heard someone using the 'root causes' defence. You know the drill . . . 'terrorism is a product of poverty . . . of a marginalized population . . . of the west's greed --- if any of these were reasons that terrorists attack, it would be angry young sub-Saharan Africans blowing things up, but it isn't.
Here in Toronto, TTC Chair Howard Moscoe dismissed concerns that Canada could be a target in terror attacks, saying that 'we don't have troops to pull out of Iraq' and 'first the terrorist would have to find us on a map.'
We do have troops in Iraq, and civilians working on the rebuilding effort. We also have troops in Afghanistan -- and a couple of our sharp-shooters are credited with taking out some important members of al-Qaeda.
His glib response is boorish. Why is it they say Toronto is a 'world class city' when they want the Olympics, but that terrorists couldn't find us when are trying to downplay the threat that exists to all civilised nations?
I doubt Toronto will be a target any time soon, but I wonder if that has more to do with our immigration policies than our foreign policy.
Angry has an interesting perspective on today's tragedy.
Prayers and all that to the people of Britain, but nothing is never enough at a time like this.
canadianna
On a talk show today I heard someone using the 'root causes' defence. You know the drill . . . 'terrorism is a product of poverty . . . of a marginalized population . . . of the west's greed --- if any of these were reasons that terrorists attack, it would be angry young sub-Saharan Africans blowing things up, but it isn't.
Here in Toronto, TTC Chair Howard Moscoe dismissed concerns that Canada could be a target in terror attacks, saying that 'we don't have troops to pull out of Iraq' and 'first the terrorist would have to find us on a map.'
We do have troops in Iraq, and civilians working on the rebuilding effort. We also have troops in Afghanistan -- and a couple of our sharp-shooters are credited with taking out some important members of al-Qaeda.
His glib response is boorish. Why is it they say Toronto is a 'world class city' when they want the Olympics, but that terrorists couldn't find us when are trying to downplay the threat that exists to all civilised nations?
I doubt Toronto will be a target any time soon, but I wonder if that has more to do with our immigration policies than our foreign policy.
Angry has an interesting perspective on today's tragedy.
Prayers and all that to the people of Britain, but nothing is never enough at a time like this.
canadianna
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Courting the Media
Yesterday, publicity-shy murderess Karla Homolka sought out the media -- while trying to get an injunction against the media. Apparently the irony was lost on her.
Upon the 'advice of her lawyers' Homolka, describing herself as 'very private' went on to share her intimate thoughts, feelings and fears with an absolute stranger, before a television audience of at least a million viewers.
Could it be possible, rather than wanting to prevent the media scrutiny, Homolka is actually fuelling the flames of attention? If it weren't for the court challenge scheduled for September, we might just turn our minds away from her -- now, for at least the next few months there will be bits and pieces about her in the news, and then when it finally comes to court, she'll be centre stage again.
That picture of her on the front pages today looked different enough from the Karla we've seen over the past few months in the papers, that if she hadn't run to the TV studios upon her release -- it's likely no one would have recognised her. Good thing she got her mug plastered everywhere, now she's sure to get the kind of privacy she craves.
It's absolutely sickening. This was like a dating service ad for her. Calling all pervs; here I am.
It is shameful that our criminal justice system allows this felon to continue to haunt their victims and force the public to pay for the process.
canadianna
Upon the 'advice of her lawyers' Homolka, describing herself as 'very private' went on to share her intimate thoughts, feelings and fears with an absolute stranger, before a television audience of at least a million viewers.
Could it be possible, rather than wanting to prevent the media scrutiny, Homolka is actually fuelling the flames of attention? If it weren't for the court challenge scheduled for September, we might just turn our minds away from her -- now, for at least the next few months there will be bits and pieces about her in the news, and then when it finally comes to court, she'll be centre stage again.
That picture of her on the front pages today looked different enough from the Karla we've seen over the past few months in the papers, that if she hadn't run to the TV studios upon her release -- it's likely no one would have recognised her. Good thing she got her mug plastered everywhere, now she's sure to get the kind of privacy she craves.
It's absolutely sickening. This was like a dating service ad for her. Calling all pervs; here I am.
It is shameful that our criminal justice system allows this felon to continue to haunt their victims and force the public to pay for the process.
canadianna
Monday, July 04, 2005
God Bless America
America has such gorgeous symbols for the values they hold dear.
And words that resonate still:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Happy Independence Day! canadianna
Sunday, July 03, 2005
The Irish way
There's an article in today's Star by Thomas L. Friedman, about Ireland's improved place in the world over the past 30 - 40 years.
It started me thinking about the current Liberal focus on early childhood indoctrination.
Freidman says:
In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even better educated workforce. . . The results have been phenomenal. Today, nine out of 10 of the world's top pharmaceudical companies have operations here, as do 16 of the top 20 medical device companies and seven of the top 10 software designers.
"We set up in Ireland in 1990," Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computer, explained. "What attracted us? Well-educated workforce - and good universities close by. Ireland has an industrial and and tax policy which is consistently very supportive of businesses, independent of which political party is in power."
Childcare is getting an huge amount of attention because Ken Dryden is pushing it. He has said only regulated care can deliver high standards for health and safety, staff training, ratios of caregivers to kids, and other key elements of early childhood development. His suggestion is that parental care is inadequate, and there has been some talk of negotiations with New Brunswick (where they want greater flexibility for parents who choose to stay home with their kids) According to Andrew Coyne in yesterday's National Post, these talks have suggested that parents would have to receive 'training' in order to benefit from any government support and that they would be 'regulated'. I'm not sure how that would work, but it sounds too weird to me.
Anyway, although Dryden knows most families would prefer to have one parent stay at home with their children, or for a relative to care for them, he says the national daycare program should be like public education or medicare by creating a system that would generate demand from parents -- forcing governments to keep expanding it. "More spaces, higher quality, higher expectations and ambitions, a bigger and growing public appetite, building the pressure on each level of government, to reinforce the commitment implicit in building a system," he said. "We need to paint ourselves into a corner because it's a corner we want to be in and need to be in."
Needless to say I disagree. In a post a couple of months ago I wrote against national public daycare, and more and more I realise how the Liberals are trying to turn this from a debate about babycare to a debate about education. But the fact remains, the government is trying to get into the babyminding business. Call it 'early childhood education' if you like, but it's babysitting. Changing diapers, chasing toddlers, spit up, potty training etc.
Most parents encourage learning during infancy at home, and as Rona Ambrose has pointed out, having a caregiver from within the family enables a child to learn language and culture from his own heritage. Infants and toddlers require a lot of individual and messy attention. Daycare workers might be able to incorporate periods of 'learning' but let's not pretend we're going to be churning out child prodogies as a result of a program like this.
It would seem that Ireland's focus on post-secondary education has been a major factor in the turnaround they've made from a poor, needy country to a rich, productive country.
There are other factors of course. Friedman continues:
By the mid-1980's, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of EU membership -- subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into. But it still did not have enough competitive products to sell, because of years of protectionism and fiscal mismanagement. The country was going broke, and most college grads were emigrating.
"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under." said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."
In a quite unusual development, the government, the main trade unions, farmers and industrialists came together and agreed on a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5% (far below those in the rest of Europe) moderating wages and prices, and agressively courting foreign investment.
An educated populace realises that if you have jobs you won't need public housing and bottomless pit social programs.
Maybe we should be rethinking our education priorities, making post-secondary programs financially feasible to all citizens rather than paying billions to strangers to mind our infants and pretending that it is better for them than parental care. A mom, dad or grandparent can as easily teach their little ones their ABCs. Handing them over to state regulated care is not going to miraculously transform toddlers in to baby geniuses.
canadianna
It started me thinking about the current Liberal focus on early childhood indoctrination.
Freidman says:
In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even better educated workforce. . . The results have been phenomenal. Today, nine out of 10 of the world's top pharmaceudical companies have operations here, as do 16 of the top 20 medical device companies and seven of the top 10 software designers.
"We set up in Ireland in 1990," Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computer, explained. "What attracted us? Well-educated workforce - and good universities close by. Ireland has an industrial and and tax policy which is consistently very supportive of businesses, independent of which political party is in power."
Childcare is getting an huge amount of attention because Ken Dryden is pushing it. He has said only regulated care can deliver high standards for health and safety, staff training, ratios of caregivers to kids, and other key elements of early childhood development. His suggestion is that parental care is inadequate, and there has been some talk of negotiations with New Brunswick (where they want greater flexibility for parents who choose to stay home with their kids) According to Andrew Coyne in yesterday's National Post, these talks have suggested that parents would have to receive 'training' in order to benefit from any government support and that they would be 'regulated'. I'm not sure how that would work, but it sounds too weird to me.
Anyway, although Dryden knows most families would prefer to have one parent stay at home with their children, or for a relative to care for them, he says the national daycare program should be like public education or medicare by creating a system that would generate demand from parents -- forcing governments to keep expanding it. "More spaces, higher quality, higher expectations and ambitions, a bigger and growing public appetite, building the pressure on each level of government, to reinforce the commitment implicit in building a system," he said. "We need to paint ourselves into a corner because it's a corner we want to be in and need to be in."
Needless to say I disagree. In a post a couple of months ago I wrote against national public daycare, and more and more I realise how the Liberals are trying to turn this from a debate about babycare to a debate about education. But the fact remains, the government is trying to get into the babyminding business. Call it 'early childhood education' if you like, but it's babysitting. Changing diapers, chasing toddlers, spit up, potty training etc.
Most parents encourage learning during infancy at home, and as Rona Ambrose has pointed out, having a caregiver from within the family enables a child to learn language and culture from his own heritage. Infants and toddlers require a lot of individual and messy attention. Daycare workers might be able to incorporate periods of 'learning' but let's not pretend we're going to be churning out child prodogies as a result of a program like this.
It would seem that Ireland's focus on post-secondary education has been a major factor in the turnaround they've made from a poor, needy country to a rich, productive country.
There are other factors of course. Friedman continues:
By the mid-1980's, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of EU membership -- subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into. But it still did not have enough competitive products to sell, because of years of protectionism and fiscal mismanagement. The country was going broke, and most college grads were emigrating.
"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under." said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."
In a quite unusual development, the government, the main trade unions, farmers and industrialists came together and agreed on a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5% (far below those in the rest of Europe) moderating wages and prices, and agressively courting foreign investment.
An educated populace realises that if you have jobs you won't need public housing and bottomless pit social programs.
Maybe we should be rethinking our education priorities, making post-secondary programs financially feasible to all citizens rather than paying billions to strangers to mind our infants and pretending that it is better for them than parental care. A mom, dad or grandparent can as easily teach their little ones their ABCs. Handing them over to state regulated care is not going to miraculously transform toddlers in to baby geniuses.
canadianna
Friday, July 01, 2005
Martin's parliament was a success
Paul Martin heads off for the summer gloating over his government's successes this term.
I agree.
I agree.
- In late March, early April, the government, seeing that the Conservatives were ahead in the polls, feared the Conservatives might use this opportunity to bring down the government -- the Bloc and the NDP were against the budget so the only thing preventing a non-confidence vote was the Conservative decision to abstain. Paul knew he'd be facing an election with Gomery still big and the opposition leading in the polls. Clever Paul decided to do what any megalomanic would do -- the government yanked 'Opposition Days' --- thereby removing any threat that the opposition could bring business to the House. He began to filibuster his own budget to prevent it coming to a vote. No one really noticed. Success.
- The three opposition parties were justifiably outraged at their parliamentary rights being arbitrarily revoked. Harper, as the leader of the official opposition decided to call Martin's bluff. The government wasn't going to allow them to bring business to the House so the Conservatives would now vote against the budget rather than abstaining. Bloc and the NDP were already against the budget, if the Conservatives were to vote against rather than abstain this would bring the government down. Paul Martin wasn't about to be outdone. Martin took to the airwaves and whinged, giving rise to the infamous statements: 'Let Gomery do his work!' and Canadians don't want an election! The media came away parroting those lines. Instead of focussing on the government actions that had thwarted democracy and created the acrimony in the House, the media reported that Harper was 'angry' without out hammering the issue of why. The absence of this sort of commentary suggested he was unjustified. Success.
- Not to be left out of the 'movers and shakers' lane, Jack Layton got up that same night and pulled a rabbit out of his hat. He offered that rabbit to Martin and the gang in exchange for being allowed at the big people's table. Jack started the now ritualistically recited mantra that he was committed to 'making this parliament work' . Paul Martin took the bait. Between the two of them, and Union activist Buzz Hargrove they cooked up a deal in a hotel room. The deal would provide vague outlines of where the NDP wanted money directed, but had none of the specifics of a 'real' budget. Layton called for $4.6 billion in new spending after the removal of corporate tax cuts from the original budget. The NDP could lay claim to influence. The Liberals were saved by a hair. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives could be painted as being against post secondary education, against the environment, against foreign aid, against cities, against affordable housing -- all on the back of a budget which will never come into fruition due to conditions of deficit reduction etc. (which can't possibly be known during this mandate). Canadians would be duped into believing that this budget was necessary. Business received a nudge and wink that their tax cuts would stay, and the socialists convinced their constituency that money would begin to flow immediately. For the price of a lie, the Liberals bought 19 votes. Success.
- At the first opportunity (May 10) the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois indicated their lack of confidence in the government by passing a motion in the House, adding an amendment to a bill which called on a parliamentary committee to request the government's resignation. The motion passed, 153-150. Despite the fact that this motion clearly indicated the government did not have the confidence of the majority of MPs, the government ignored it declaring that the motion was a procedural one (without benefit of Opposition Days -- removed in #1 above-- no business could be brought forward by the opposition in the usual manner, the government refused to bring the budget to a vote -- so this route was taken as the only route available). The opposition points out that according to parliamentary conventions, the government is obligated to quickly introduce a formal confidence vote which, if passed, would necessitate the dissolution of Parliament. The government came out the next day with the following statement: On May 17, voters in British Columbia will be going to the polls in a provincial election.Next Tuesday and Wednesday, I will be in Regina to welcome the Queen to Canada. On Thursday, May 19, I will be in Ottawa. And I am proposing that there be, on that day, a vote on the budget bill. This vote will be a matter of confidence. . . By scheduling this vote, I am respecting my obligations to our Parliamentary tradition.I call on Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to respect their obligations – to demonstrate respect for Parliament and for Canadians by ensuring this House is able to function between now and the day of the vote, and by committing to Canadians that they will honour and recognize the outcome of the confidence vote. People didn't take to the streets decrying the assault on democracy. There were no rallies, no protests and very few suggestions that this was in fact wrong. The Liberals used Paul Martin's itinerary, and unrelated events in the country, to grant themselves a full week in which to shore up it's shaky grasp on power. Success.
- May 17 Conservative MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and joined the government. Her principled stand included accepting a plum Cabinet role. Stronach, considered by many to be a 'moderate voice' within the Conservative Party, used this opportunity to slag Stephen Harper, saying: "I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is." She suggested she was uncomfortable with the Conservatives 'working with the Bloc' to bring down the government because it threatened national unity. This confirms Jack Layton's 'in bed with the separatists' suggestion, so the media runs with it (ignoring the fact that without the that the role of the opposition parties is to hold the government to account -- without co-operation on issues of confidence the government could never be toppled). Harper's leadership was questioned by pundits and conservatives. The shadiness of the deal proved less interesting to the media than the subsequent remarks of some provincial Conservative MLAs and the broken heart of her ex-boyfriend Peter MacKay. The one week delay in the confidence vote has benefitted the governing party -- hence the reason behind the unheeded calls for a quick confidence vote. Success.
- Then there were the Grewal tapes, where the borderline criminal behaviour of the natural governing party was dismissed because of questions of 'who approached whom' and whether the taping was 'entrapment'. The charge of tape doctoring put out there by the Liberals was echoed by the media, and 'confirmed' through tests to copies of the tapes. There is still no word as to whether the RCMP will investigate, and they are in possession of the real tapes. This episode caused the Toronto Star to accuse Harper of having provoked the Prime Minister's "seedy vote-buying". At worst, the parties appear to have engaged in criminal behaviour, at best their behaviour had the appearance of being unethical. Only Grewal came away from this scandal bruised. Success.
The Liberals were undoubtedly successful this year. They clung to power at the expense of Parliamentary convention. They muddied the concepts of right and wrong. They made lies into the truth, and truth irrelevant.
Some blame the Conservatives for 'not communicating the message'. Blame Harper, his communications staff, blame anyone you want, but it was you and me. We acquiesced as we watched a government ignore the will of the majority of the House, and decide to stay on anyway. There were mild protestations of a few, familiar with parliamentary custom and procedure. Their observations barely sparked debate beyond conservative blogs.
There was no country-wide outrage. There were no protests. There were no riots in the street. There was public questioning of the Conservative leadership. There were admonitions about the 'angry Stephen Harper' and the 'impatience' of the opposition, and 'power hungry Conservatives.'
The Liberals stole parliament, and most people seem to have decided it belonged to them anyway.
These stories are part of our national heritage now. They are part of what it means to be Canadian.
Happy Dominion Day.
canadianna
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Harper's Bloc comment
I've been reading about how inconsistent Harper is being by suggesting the SSM vote was a result of a deal between the Liberals and the separatists.
The point he's trying to make is that when the Bloc and the Conservatives (and even the NDP various times in this parliament) voted together to hold the Liberals to account, they were doing what a vigorous opposition should. They were making the government accountable, and following the will of their constituents.
The Bloc is not a national party. It is a regional, protest party. The majority of those who voted for the Bloc were not voting in a separatist agenda, they were voting out Liberal corruption. They were not necessessarily voting for the Bloc policies on anything, let alone SSM. They were voting against the Liberal Party. To infer wholesale agreement with the SSM issue based on the outcome of the last election, is taking license.
When the Bloc and the Conservatives voted together against the budget bills, when they attempted to push through non-confidence votes -- each party was acting consistently with its mandate. They were expected by their constituents to challenge government assaults on democracy ( the removal of the opposition days) and then to vote against spending they felt to be either imprudent, or not beneficial to their constituents. They fulfilled that obligation.
When the Bloc voted for closure on C-48 on Thursday, thereby guarenteeing it would pass, they were throwing their principles out the window. Some might say they have no principles because they're separatists, but I disagree. They were also guaranteeing SSM would pass because the numbers were there. But the numbers were only there because of the circumstances leading up the the last election.
Although same-sex marriage has the highest level of support in Quebec (polls show anywhere from 54% to 60% in favour). I didn't see 40% of the Bloc standing up against it.
I realise the numbers are not as simple as that, but I think Harper's point is that the although the Bloc represents the majority of Quebecers in Parliament, they are not uniformly representative of Quebeckers views on anything except Liberal corruption. The Bloc has inferred an endorsement of same-sex marriage by their constituents, but if the polls are to be believed 40% of people in Quebec remain opposed.
If Liberal corruption, and an unestablished Conservative entity had not made Quebeckers feel compelled to purge the corruption by using the Bloc as their means of protest, the SSM vote might have gone very differently. Even if Conservatives remained without a seat in Quebec, if Qiebeckers hadn't had the need to punish the Liberals, they might have voted in Liberal candidates who reflected their views on this kind of issue.
The polling numbers show nationwide are almost a 50/50 split -- sometimes 47/53 one way or another, but the numbers are close.
If the Bloc had accurately reflected their constituents, about from 17 to 21 of their members might have voted against the bill. Add to that the number of Cabinet Ministers who would have voted against if a true free-vote had been allowed by the Liberals, and this bill might well have failed.
canadianna
The point he's trying to make is that when the Bloc and the Conservatives (and even the NDP various times in this parliament) voted together to hold the Liberals to account, they were doing what a vigorous opposition should. They were making the government accountable, and following the will of their constituents.
The Bloc is not a national party. It is a regional, protest party. The majority of those who voted for the Bloc were not voting in a separatist agenda, they were voting out Liberal corruption. They were not necessessarily voting for the Bloc policies on anything, let alone SSM. They were voting against the Liberal Party. To infer wholesale agreement with the SSM issue based on the outcome of the last election, is taking license.
When the Bloc and the Conservatives voted together against the budget bills, when they attempted to push through non-confidence votes -- each party was acting consistently with its mandate. They were expected by their constituents to challenge government assaults on democracy ( the removal of the opposition days) and then to vote against spending they felt to be either imprudent, or not beneficial to their constituents. They fulfilled that obligation.
When the Bloc voted for closure on C-48 on Thursday, thereby guarenteeing it would pass, they were throwing their principles out the window. Some might say they have no principles because they're separatists, but I disagree. They were also guaranteeing SSM would pass because the numbers were there. But the numbers were only there because of the circumstances leading up the the last election.
Although same-sex marriage has the highest level of support in Quebec (polls show anywhere from 54% to 60% in favour). I didn't see 40% of the Bloc standing up against it.
I realise the numbers are not as simple as that, but I think Harper's point is that the although the Bloc represents the majority of Quebecers in Parliament, they are not uniformly representative of Quebeckers views on anything except Liberal corruption. The Bloc has inferred an endorsement of same-sex marriage by their constituents, but if the polls are to be believed 40% of people in Quebec remain opposed.
If Liberal corruption, and an unestablished Conservative entity had not made Quebeckers feel compelled to purge the corruption by using the Bloc as their means of protest, the SSM vote might have gone very differently. Even if Conservatives remained without a seat in Quebec, if Qiebeckers hadn't had the need to punish the Liberals, they might have voted in Liberal candidates who reflected their views on this kind of issue.
The polling numbers show nationwide are almost a 50/50 split -- sometimes 47/53 one way or another, but the numbers are close.
If the Bloc had accurately reflected their constituents, about from 17 to 21 of their members might have voted against the bill. Add to that the number of Cabinet Ministers who would have voted against if a true free-vote had been allowed by the Liberals, and this bill might well have failed.
canadianna
Monday, June 27, 2005
Public funding, public rules?
The right of 'religious freedom' is not a stand alone right. Entangled with it are the rights of freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. Sometimes I think the left forgets this.
My previous post 'Religious bigotry' sparked some interesting debate. Sometimes I think it's important to bring this kind of debate to the front page. When I do this, it is because I believe that the commenter is representative of a lot of people on the other side of whatever issue. In this case, the commenter is not particularly speaking for same-sex marriage, but rather in favour of removing funding for separate schools who teach their religious views on this issue. While I understand his reasoning, the underlying disrespect for the views of religious people is typical and I can't just let it go without pointing out the inconsistencies of the argument that gays should be allowed freedom, but religions should not. Koby tries to make public funding the key, but I respectfully submit that the funding isn't the issue. Gay sex is the issue.
My previous post 'Religious bigotry' sparked some interesting debate. Sometimes I think it's important to bring this kind of debate to the front page. When I do this, it is because I believe that the commenter is representative of a lot of people on the other side of whatever issue. In this case, the commenter is not particularly speaking for same-sex marriage, but rather in favour of removing funding for separate schools who teach their religious views on this issue. While I understand his reasoning, the underlying disrespect for the views of religious people is typical and I can't just let it go without pointing out the inconsistencies of the argument that gays should be allowed freedom, but religions should not. Koby tries to make public funding the key, but I respectfully submit that the funding isn't the issue. Gay sex is the issue.
(Koby, I suggest that you read the 11th comment, by Linda in the 'Religious bigotry' post from yesterday. You might get a better understanding of moral relativity.)
I will be posting the comments along with the answers and I do not correct the spelling and grammar of the commenters. Koby's arguments are in italics. They are in response both to my post, and to replies I made to his initial comments.
Koby's argument started out that no schools should be taking a stand one way or another.
One, should schools recieving public money (many recieve provincial funding in addition to being tax deductable) be taking a stand one way or the other.)
In the next paragraph he said:
(I)t is not the opposition that most people find offensive, but rather the arguments used (e.g., that homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuality is a mental disorder) . . . One of the reasons for providing public money to private schools and the vast majority, some 90% are religious schools, is to keep some control on what is being taught. Public money public rules . . . Of course, if, as some of claimed, religious schools are not playing by public rules, all public funding, in whatever form, should be removed.
I suggested that I agreed, with the proviso that gay advocacy should not be allowed in public schools either. After that, Koby seemed to think schools should be taking a stand -- so long as it was the 'correct' one:
Just so we're clear, sex ed that does not talk about homosexuality is incomplete. For one, gay students have less of a support network and for this and other reasons are more vulnerable then other students.
Name calling or slurs are wrong against anybody and parents and educators have a responsibility to encourage respectful behaviour amongst all students. All teenagers are vulnerable, but I would argue that gay youth have more outreach available to than other marginalised youth-- say fat ones, or kids with acne -- because in today's sex-driven, self-gratifying culture, it's chic to be gay.
Aside from that, talking about homosexuality in school and promoting it are two very different things. Public school sex-education is about learning the anatomical functions, reproduction, and pregnancy & disease prevention. When schools bring in gay activists (which they do), they aren't giving a lesson in anatomy or biology, they are promoting their agenda and expecting acceptance from an impressionable, captive audience.
It used to be that those who pushed for sex-ed in schools were in favour of leaving out the 'morality' issues, but your statement implies you expect the school system to be advocates for 'vulnerable' gay youth.
As for the RC schools teaching the morality side, they do teach the existence of homosexual acts and birth control, with the explanation and rationale for the church's position on them. Nothing in what they teach is intolerant -- unless you equate 'tolerance' with 'approval' in which case I suggest you invest in a dictionary. The Supreme Court allowed separate school funding knowing full-well the implications of that decision.
I could care less what they (parents) think about "gay rights activists". I am not a moral relativist. The arguments allegedly showing homosexuality to be morally wrong are a joke. The same goes for divine command ethics. Recognition of this has laid the foundation for homosexual Canadians having been granted many of the same rights and protections given to other groups and to Canadians as a whole.
The bulging Catholic schools system and the growing private schools system are indicative that parents want a say in what their children are being taught -- whether Koby 'could care less' or not. If school is to teach kids the 3Rs let them do that without imposing on them the post-modern, liberal, secular, morally relative worldview -- then tell me that Catholic schools should be limited in what they can teach their students or have their funding revoked.
You think you and the government know what's best for the nation's children. By what authority do you proclaim that 'homosexuality is not wrong'? You mock and disparage anyone with whom you disagree, but you haven't presented a cogent argument to support anything you say. You just make sweeping statements that have no foundation. The arguments allegedly showing homosexuality to be morally wrong are a joke. If that were true, this would not be a contentious issue. It would be a given.
Explaining to our children that homosexuality exists and that homosexuals should be treated with human respect, is fine. Giving gay activists a forum to present the 'positive' aspects of their lifestyle is inconsistent with not teaching morality. Sexuality and its expression will always be a moral issue. It isn't about accepting the right of homosexuals to live and work along side everyone else in society -- they already have that right, and so they should -- this is about de facto endorsement of their sexual behaviour. The state has never said homosexuality isn't wrong, it has said that homosexuals should not be discriminated against. It is not discrimination to teach that certain behaviours are wrong -- even if the government sanctions those behaviours (abortion, divorce, premarital-sex, promiscuity).
Giving homosexuals the same rights and protections as other Canadians makes sense -- not because they are homosexual, but because they are human. Equating their sexuality with hetrosexuality is disingenuous. As expressions of 'love' a person might believe they are 'equal' but believing that they are not 'equal' acts at their core is just as valid an opinion, biblically based, or not.
The abortion debate, by the way, is infinitely less clear cut once one moves beyond the ridiculous notion that personhood begins at conception.
So it's magic that all of a sudden this fully formed human pops out of a woman after nine months? Before birth, it was just a blob of cells and then it hits the air - and what do you know -- a person.
Anyone who has ever had an ultrasound while pregnant knows that not only is that a living thing inside of you, but it is also a person. The argument that at some point during gestation that it acquires 'personhood' defies logic and science. An embryo has all the criteria to be defined as life. The pro-abortion crowd chooses to ignore evidence against their rationalizations in the name of 'choice' and as a result an entire generation has been indoctrinated with the notion that life begins when the mother (note -- not host-- mother) says it does.
Does it never occur to the pro-abortion side that while a tiny skull is crushed in and suction rips a fetus from the womb in one operating room, in a second, doctors are using all available means of neo-natal care to save a baby of the same gestation period. The only difference in the two is 'choice'. Call it what you like if it makes you feel better; what you call it will never make it right.
The debate with regard to rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is settled. Do not believe me? Step into a first you ethics class in any university in Canada.
Please. Universities are bastions of political correctness and forced conformity. When universities don't struggle with issues like this, you know they've got it wrong. Places of higher learning are supposed to engage in debate, not indoctrination. The fact they you could believe the argument 'settled' because they told you so at school, shows an utter lack of critical thinking skills.
The Catholic Church can pronounce homosexuality a sin all it wants. After all, a sin is simply what the bible says is a sin. It is all a matter of biblical interpretation. However, to pronounce homosexuality a mental disorder is another matter all together and most certainly a bigoted charge, but certainly not unconstitutional.
And in your world, there is no sin, except the sin of thinking differently from what the professors tell you. As for believing that homosexuality is a mental disorder, that's not bigoted -- it might be wrong, but it isn't bigoted.
Instead of being a reactionary, you might consider that the people who believe this are conceding that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, that it is part of a person's innate make up. Your fear that homosexuality might be thought a mental disorder suggests an intolerance of the mentally disordered. How bigoted of you. Besides, it isn't bigoted to note that homosexuality is different from the norm -- they make a big display of that every year at PRIDE. Bigoted is demanding that everyone think the way you learned in uni.
BTW, the American Psychiatric Association never stated that homosexuality isn't deviant or perverse, just that if a person was able to accept it within himself, that is isn't a psychatric issue. Remember too, that they 'delisted' homosexuality as a mental disorder at a time when there was great social upheaval and a push for 'free love', open sex, etc.
I don't hold much esteem for their opinions anyway. They recently issued opinions on paedophilia suggesting that child/adult sex is not really harmful to children. They've since modified their position somewhat, saying that it wasn't quite what they meant, but in 2003 the APA seriously considered delisting pedophilia as a mental disorder too. 'People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill, they argued. Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy, Moser and Kleinplatz stated.' 'However, the APA failed to address whether it considers a person with a pedophile orientation to have a mental disorder. "That is the question that is being actively debated at this time within the APA, and that is the question they have not answered when they respond that such relationships are 'immoral and illegal,'" Nicolosi said.'
A growing number of intellectuals who are chomping at the bit to make this their next project of 'tolerance' with the APA quietly leading the way. I'll give their opinions a pass, thank you.
(From my response to Koby)"Why is it that liberals believe that walking into a public school and teaching my children at the altar of liberal secularism is a-ok, but if a RC school teaches its doctrine it's wrong. Both schools receive public funding. Each is being taught a particular value system. Who decides which one is the right one?"
I suppose if you are moral relativistic you could take such a position. At any rate, the position of the state is clear. Homosexuality is not wrong . . .
The position of the state is not clear. The state says discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. That does not translate to: homosexuality is right and good. You are making the leap that if one teaches against homosexual acts, one is teaching against homosexuals. It is consistent to insist on respect for all humanity while disapproving of certain behaviours.
. . . and for the state to provide money for those who would want to teach otherwise violates one of the main tenants of Canadian society namely tolerance. Supreme Court Justice Clair L’Heureux –Dube drew the appropriate analogy in passing judgment on the Surrey school board: "Parents may be extremely racist, but we don't prevent the school from teaching that racism is bad." If RC wants to teach that homosexuality is wrong, let them do it entirely on their own dime.
Equating race and homosexuality is non sequitur. Race is what you are, not what you do. Homosexuality is who you are and what you do. All churches, all schools, have a responsiblity to teach 'tolerance', but tolerance and approval are vastly different things. While I am with you when you say that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, teaching against homosexual acts is neither intolerant, nor bigoted. Just remember that even Catholic dimes go into the education pot. What are we teaching on their dime?
Now, there are some things that leave one open to ridicule. Believing that the earth is flat is one. Believing that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs roomed the earth with humans is another.
And some would say believing that an orifice designed for eliminating waste is just an alternative to a vagina and is in no way repugnant -- is ridiculous. After all, your finger fits up your nose, but that isn't where it belongs.
***
Those on the pro-same sex marriage side consistently argue that all they want is what is just and fair. In their enlightened view, freedom of thought is okay, so long as it doesn't contain a hint of old fashioned 'morality' and is approved by the state.
In this worldview, the teaching of values becomes the right of the state. Biblically based values are voided by their very foundation. Secular values require no foundational argument but are accepted by virtue of being non-religious (and of course because the universities teach to it).
Citizens are obliged to take guidance on issues of conscience from the state, which derives its 'values' through a thought system whereby all acts or behaviours are equally valid -- a sort of, it's okay, so long as it's not hurting someone -- the 'fun's fun till someone loses an eye' creed.
The state takes its authority from being separate from religion, which it pretends to mean that it is somehow separate from pious dogma. The state orthodoxy is based on self-esteem building without expectation of personal responsibility. It is based on personal freedoms (determined by the state, of the state and for the state) and uniformity of thought, and does not brook dissent. If that seems paradoxical, it doesn't matter; logic and consistency are not part of the debate. Non-adherents are painted as radicals, and against freedom -- which gives the government the right to restrict their freedoms (in the name of freedom).
Koby, to suggest that you are not a moral relativist, is deluding yourself and indulging your vanity. In your assessment of things, we are all moral relativists. Our value systems are the ones we seek to promote and preserve. The difference is where we derive our inspiration.
I believe there are moral absolutes and universal truths. I believe they are part of something bigger than you and me, and governments and nations.
You believe the collective will of the governing party (or the judiciary) is the supreme light by which we should be guided.
You perceive me to be a moral relativist (which you use pejoratively) because you can't accept that there is more than one reality. While I believe in universal truths, I am aware that my beliefs cannot, and will not be accepted by everyone-- so I seek compromise. I will live along side you but teach my children what I know to be true. I will hold my convictions, but accept a middle ground solution. I refuse to endorse same-sex marriage, but will accept civil unions. But your side doesn't accept there having to be compromise. You speak of freedom, but seek to limit mine.
You believe in -- what? The wisdom of the courts? The teachings of your profs? There is no central authority in your orthodoxy -- it comes from you -- what you think, what you feel, what you need. You, and those like you, don't give up when it comes to imposing your worldview on the rest of us. Where I can tolerate your existence -- you cannot tolerate mine. You want to purge the world of those who think like me, and you want to start with state indoctrination from the cradle (national daycare) and continue it in a public school system that won't abide such heresies as personal opinion. The state teaches to its test of correctness -- whatever that happens to be at any given moment.
Koby, you might be right that RC and private schools teaching against homosexuality should not be funded through public money, but if that is so, neither should your brand of (in)tolerance.
Koby insists:
Homosexuality is not wrong and for the state to provide money for those who would want to teach otherwise violates one of the main tenants of Canadian society namely tolerance.
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that not everyone sees the act of gay sex as equivalent with the act of heterosexual sex? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. The value of their respective sexual expression to society is not equal.
If society is going to fund and endorse public schools as being the starting point of gay advocacy, then suggesting that separate schools shut up because they are publicly funded, moves from being a funding issue to a freedom of speech issue.
If you really think separate schools should stop preaching, then start believing that public schools should too. At least be consistent.
canadianna
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Religious bigotry
The same-sex marriage issue has brought the issue of homosexuality to the fore, like nothing before.
Despite the 'in yer face' approach of ardent gay activists, the mainstreaming of gay culture has been a relatively quiet revolution.
A few years ago, you'd have never seen gay people represented on television, let alone representing constituents -- now, not only do we have popular programmes with gay people as positive, likeable characters (John from NYPD Blue, Will from Will & Grace, Sean from Coronation Street, Ellen of the Ellen show) but there are even gay reality shows (Queer Eye, My Fabulous Gay Wedding) intended to appeal to a wider audience. Openly gay politicians like Scott Brison are voted in for their stands on issues, rather than for their gay advocacy (Opinions on Brison's jumping ship are irrelevant -- he wasn't elected as a gay politician, he was elected as a politician who happened to be gay.)
The vast majority of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage, even those who consider homosexuality a sin, also support civil unions and gay rights.
Imagine then my surprise to read this quote by Dr. Miriam Kaufman, a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children, in an article called Growing Up Gay from the Toronto Sun:
While most public school boards have some form of anti-homophobia education and more schools have gay-straight alliances, students in religious schools are getting vastly different message, Kaufman said.
"Within the separate school board, schools are having kids pray that same-sex marriage will be defeated," Kaufman said. "The message is that gay people aren't really people and aren't entitled to loving, committed relationships." (emphasis added)
How does she manage to make the connection between being against same-sex marriage, and believing gays are less than human, and not deserving of happiness?
It is this sort of off-hand analysis of religious opinion on morality questions that creates anger on both sides. There are many in the gay community (Kevin Bourassa and his followers) who would wholeheartedly agree with the doctor's theory and are already suggesting that the tax exempt status of churches be removed should the continue to advocate against same-sex marriage. How long before religious education is threatened for teaching the doctrine of the church?
canadianna
Despite the 'in yer face' approach of ardent gay activists, the mainstreaming of gay culture has been a relatively quiet revolution.
A few years ago, you'd have never seen gay people represented on television, let alone representing constituents -- now, not only do we have popular programmes with gay people as positive, likeable characters (John from NYPD Blue, Will from Will & Grace, Sean from Coronation Street, Ellen of the Ellen show) but there are even gay reality shows (Queer Eye, My Fabulous Gay Wedding) intended to appeal to a wider audience. Openly gay politicians like Scott Brison are voted in for their stands on issues, rather than for their gay advocacy (Opinions on Brison's jumping ship are irrelevant -- he wasn't elected as a gay politician, he was elected as a politician who happened to be gay.)
The vast majority of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage, even those who consider homosexuality a sin, also support civil unions and gay rights.
Imagine then my surprise to read this quote by Dr. Miriam Kaufman, a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children, in an article called Growing Up Gay from the Toronto Sun:
While most public school boards have some form of anti-homophobia education and more schools have gay-straight alliances, students in religious schools are getting vastly different message, Kaufman said.
"Within the separate school board, schools are having kids pray that same-sex marriage will be defeated," Kaufman said. "The message is that gay people aren't really people and aren't entitled to loving, committed relationships." (emphasis added)
How does she manage to make the connection between being against same-sex marriage, and believing gays are less than human, and not deserving of happiness?
It is this sort of off-hand analysis of religious opinion on morality questions that creates anger on both sides. There are many in the gay community (Kevin Bourassa and his followers) who would wholeheartedly agree with the doctor's theory and are already suggesting that the tax exempt status of churches be removed should the continue to advocate against same-sex marriage. How long before religious education is threatened for teaching the doctrine of the church?
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)