funny canadians : OT

[red5angel]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2004/12/15/notes121504.DTL&t


funny article anyway

[David Jamieson]

yep nothing up here but ice, snow and hordes of pot smoking ***gots. :D

[red5angel]

remember, this is the country who's national sport has a "crease" in front of the goal and the goalies try to roughen it up. Not to mention that they use a big stick to get their pucks in the crease to score a goal. ;)

[old jong]

I just saw two male mooses mutually sniffing their butts near by front porsh!...Satan is here!...;)

[Spark]

Oh wait. Maybe we should rephrase. What the hell, we should be asking, is wrong with us?

slam!

[jun_erh]

answer= your whole identity is based on your hatred of another country.

[red5angel]

we hate canada? :confused:

[red5angel]

http://www.icomm.ca/emily/isms.html

for those of you who have a hard time folowing our crazy canadian brothers.....

[Kristoffer]

Legal pot???!!!

[red5angel]

Thats' amsterdam, no where near canada ;)

[Kristoffer]

yeah I never heard Canada havin legalized it. There's a town in Denmark were it is aswell. Kristiania. BUt the cops have started raiding it coz they think it gives the country a bad name.

[red5angel]

I think they legalized for medicinal purposes. I don't think they actually legalized it for entertainment.

[SimonM]

Pot is legal for medicinal purposes and will likely be decriminalized (for simple posession) within the next few years.

That is if the government lives up to it's promises.

As for gay marriage - yeah it's being legalized. so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else if two gay people want to get married. To be blunt, I just can't understand why it's such a big deal.

[David Jamieson]

To be blunt, I just can't understand why it's such a big deal.

First, I am all for people getting married if that's what they want to do, be they gay or be they straight.

We once had a PM who said "the government doesn't belong in the bedrooms of its citizenry" (paraphrase). I agree, even though it was only slightly true and marriage is a legal trapping and not a religious one.

I think it rubs people the wrong way because of fundamentalist interpretation of scripture and of course old habits and ways die hard.

For instance, the comments in the bible regarding ****sexuality as an abonmination are from Leviticus, which is not part of the New testament. leviticus also recommends all sorts of harsh penalties for the most banal of things these days. However, when this is pointed out to these same people harping on about abominations, it is quickly glossed over and no one wants to think about stoning their neighbour to death for eating shellfish.

see what I mean?

In the new testament there is 0, zip and nada in regards to ****sexuality. IN fact Jesus hung out with all sorts of undesirables because he believed, apparently, that each and everyone of us was a child of god regardless of our activities or sexual persuasion.

I fail to understand how people who love each other will undermine the pillars of society. I haven't seen a decent argument against it yet that indicates accurate ramifications of teh allowance of this. All I ever here is yet one more interpretation of some out of date thought penned a couple of thousand years ago.

anyway, I'm for it. Love isn't a criminal act.

As for the pot, well it's less dangerous than alcohol according to pretty much 100% of any comparative study. To legalize it removes it from teh hands of criminals and makes it a taxable and controllable commodity. Which again is ok by me.

and for those who argue it leads to harder drugs I would say that is a socioeconomic condition and not a fortified building towards. By the logic in that argument, mother's milk leads to heroin (ibid George Carlin. :p )

[Spark]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't we decriminalize posession of pot ... or smoking or something like that, this past summer? It was selling or mfging that remained criminal? I seem to remember alot of people tokin up on the streets but then they put an end to that shortly after. This is in Toronto. Other cities like Van and Mtl you can toke up all over the place and nobody gives a s.hit haha

[red5angel]

To be blunt, I just can't understand why it's such a big deal.

that was the point of the article.


so you can buy marijuana, and you can smoke it you just can't sell it or make it?! That has to be canadian!

[mortal]

You know what the best thing is about Canada.

The legal age of concent is 14!!!!! lolol

And you guys want to criticize our great country.

Nambla is building an amusement park up there!!

[David Jamieson]

http://www.ageofconsent.com/canada.htm

and, the legal age of consent is quite low in many states as well.
for instance, Iowa and SC are both the same as canada with the 14/16 deal. many states are 16, if not most.the law is being changed in the next year too to bring up the base to plain old 16yrs.

frankly i think it saves a lot of parents the worries of their teenagers having sex which face it, it happens and not having to go to jail for it which is much worse. remember, we are talking consent here.

[mortal]

That would be saying it is ok for a 14 year old to have sex with a fifty year old as long as she concents.

She is not wise enough at that age to determine that.

As far as I know in the US age on concent is 16.

Even when we agree you make it seem like we don't.

Bottom line is you must have some pretty liberal law makers to ever even consider 14.

Maybe I am from the old school but I don't think teenagers under 16 should be having sex. They should be enjoying there young innocent lives. I guess we could thank MTV and Brittney Spears(pure white trash) for that. Sad.

[David Jamieson]

there are bills in the making that will raise the aoc in canada to 16 across the board.

in the US, teh AOC is dependent on state law.
many states still outlaw being gay and will put you in jail for having gay sex.

It wasn't so long ago our grandmothers time perhaps that they were getting married and having kids at 16!:eek: and younger.

a law doesn't make fact. fact is, more kids are having sex these days. better to educate them than punish them in my opinion.

by the way, it is not an open door for 50 yr olds to have sex with consenting kids, just read the stuff in teh link i posted. that behaviour is covered.

[mortal]

Ok. I didn't have time to read it before. I'll check it.

Just because these little kids are having sex doesn't mean we should condone it. They should think it is wrong not that it is tolerated.

There young minds aren't developed yet to handle the strong feelings that come along with sex. They need to grow up first doing kid things. Then have sex.

These kids aren't ready to be parents. Then again pro abortion people would be like lets just kill "it". And they call us repubs murderers.

Essentially now a days people do what they want and deal with it later. What ****es me off is its all based on pleasure principle and image.

[ZIM]

many states still outlaw being gay and will put you in jail for having gay sex. Haven't heard of a single one. And anyway, being in jail is probably a grea place for finding gay dates.

PS: Gay people are boring. Who the heck really cares?

[old jong]

I will never understand why gay people want to marry!...Nowadays,unmarried couples share the same legal and tax benefits/treatments as married couples anyway. They just have to live together if that's what they want and society is getting more tolerant toward these issues.
The only explaination is that the supreme court and the government must be full of gay people.They also represent a very big economic issue in any country.Lots of potential voters also.

[red5angel]

same reason straight people get married I would imagine. It's representative in some way of a higher commitment then just shacking up.

Of course some people just like to fight the battle. They don't care about the war.

[David Jamieson]

zim-

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

usa is at the bottom. according to that, having gay sex is illegal in several if not many.

[CaptinPickAxe]

so you can buy marijuana, and you can smoke it you just can't sell it or make it?! That has to be canadian!

How the **** do you 'make' marijuana? Are you sure you aren't Canadian....;)

I heard you can go to Coffee shops in Vancouver and partake in libations. The only stipulation being you have to face the window while smoking...like it's a bad thing. I'd do that for the mear fact that I could smoke pot right infront of a cop and he can do nothing about it.

That is freedom....and should be American:D

Personally, I think gays should have the right to marry. The only people this should bother is Bible Huggers, and they really don't matter anyways. The whole sitation violates the separation between church and state. Reasons to ban gay marrage can only be found in the Bible or the books or words of ****phobes. I honestly think, "God Bless America," should be dropped or changed to "The Gods Bless America," as it is more of a generalization and applies to not only religions with one god.



Now, to quote the Human Torch:
"FLAME ON!"

[ZIM]

KL-
I knew about that. You said
and will put you in jail for having gay sex. this is what I'm doubting.

AND! The USA is never a "bottom"! :mad:

[ZIM]

Personally, I think gays should have the right to marry. The only people this should bother is Bible Huggers, and they really don't matter anyways. Ah. Good. Then don't "marry".

The *religious* argument is over the word. The objection is about priests/reverends/ministers doing the ceremony/sacrament in the Churches and sullying the Covenant of the church as a whole.

The *legal* argument is different and your post ignores it, so I will as well.


The whole sitation violates the separation between church and state. Actually, imposing Gay marriage on the churches violates it, not the other way 'round.

[David Jamieson]

I agree with that.

While gays should have the same legal and equal rights as everyone else, this doesn't mean that the act of performing gay marriages should be forced on the churches who do not want to do it because of their belief system.

It is after all the Churches right to not have to do something they would consider against their religion.

[cerebus]

Last I knew, age of consent in the U.S. was 18. There was a really focked up case a few years back where a guy who had just turned 18 got his still 17 year-old girlfriend pregnant. He proposd to her and she accepted and they were going to raise a family and be happy.

Then the girl's focked-up parent's took the guy to court and pressed statutory rape charges. Now, for the rest of his life, wherever he goes, he has to register with whichever community he's living in as a convicted sex offender. The girl's parents should be shot.

[SimonM]

A judge ruled last spring that the law that governs simple posession was unconstitutional. He set a deadline for the government to change the law after which it would be struck down. The deadline was passed and the government was dragging it's heels on the legal changes necessary to bring the law in line with the constitution. The law got struck down. Then the Crown Prosecutor successfully appealed the ruling. The law got un-struck down. In Vancouver where Pot has been a bedroom industry for years it didn't mean much of a change one way or another. In the rest of Canada it meant that people had to go back to smoking Pot in their homes and in secluded areas to avoid Police. Really it's all a bit of a joke considering that something like 50% of Canadians admit to having smoked Pot at least once. The government has promised to change the law but... yet again they are dragging their heels.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by mortal
Ok. I didn't have time to read it before. I'll check it.

These kids aren't ready to be parents.

There is this thing you can buy for a dollar in most highschool bathrooms. It's called a condom. This is why sex ed is important.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by red5angel
same reason straight people get married I would imagine. It's representative in some way of a higher commitment then just shacking up.


The earth must be coming to it't final end. I agree with red5angel. :confused:

My line of reasoning continues: why stop them, two gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by ZIM
. The objection is about priests/reverends/ministers doing the ceremony/sacrament in the Churches and sullying the Covenant of the church as a whole.



And the instructions from the Supreme Court of Canada to parliament explicitly state that while it is unconstitutional to prevent ****sexuals from marrying it is also unconstitutional to force churches to perform services for them. If gay people want to marry they may just have to go to a church other than the Catholic or Pentecostal. That's fine. The United Church, the Unitarian Church and several Anglican ministers are very happy to perform services amoung others.

(There are even some more roguish Catholic priests who are willing to solemnize such weddings provided that they are not officially "Catholic Weddings").

[SimonM]

Originally posted by cerebus
Last I knew, age of consent in the U.S. was 18. There was a really focked up case a few years back where a guy who had just turned 18 got his still 17 year-old girlfriend pregnant. He proposd to her and she accepted and they were going to raise a family and be happy.

Then the girl's focked-up parent's took the guy to court and pressed statutory rape charges. Now, for the rest of his life, wherever he goes, he has to register with whichever community he's living in as a convicted sex offender. The girl's parents should be shot.

My brother told me that exact same story yesterday. I think he has been popping in here too. That's funny, he always *****es at me that I should be practicing instead of talking about Kung Fu whenever he sees me on the forum at home. <lol>

[ZIM]

Originally posted by SimonM
And the instructions from the Supreme Court of Canada to parliament explicitly state that while it is unconstitutional to prevent ****sexuals from marrying it is also unconstitutional to force churches to perform services for them. If gay people want to marry they may just have to go to a church other than the Catholic or Pentecostal. That's fine. The United Church, the Unitarian Church and several Anglican ministers are very happy to perform services amoung others.

(There are even some more roguish Catholic priests who are willing to solemnize such weddings provided that they are not officially "Catholic Weddings"). Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not "fine" for a religious person. One gay marriage, ordained before God, sullies that priest/whatever and probably the church/congregation itself, if not the particular confession.

In fact, because of the various irreligious/objectionable activities of the Anglican/Episcopals in particular, there's a growing Missionary movement from Africa that's come to our continent in order to reform it.

But hey, whatever works for Canada.

[Radhnoti]

Rosie O'Donnell of all people gave me the best explanation for why marriage for gays matters. Apparently, when she got sued her "life partner?" was forced into court to testify against her. Married couples are spared things like this...and apparently there are many legal rights married couples have that folks just "shackin' up" don't have easily available.


I'm all for gay marriage, assuming you don't force religious institutions to do it. Totally legal, binding, non-religious ceremonies should be available to ****sexual and straight couples.

The only other fair thing to do (in my view) would be to do away with the legal concept of marriage and force everyone to completely spell out the exact terms of their relationship. The churches could still marry the people they choose, but it would be a religious/spiritual thing seperate from government.

The former would certainly be easier to institute than the latter.

[MoreMisfortune]

canada rules dude

and i dont know what the hell you people talk about age of consent, like anyone gives a ****
kids will ****, drink and smoke when they want to

[jun_erh]

it's their money. that's my thought on gay marriage. If you aren't giving them the same benefits then it's basically a gay tax.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by ZIM
Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not "fine" for a religious person. One gay marriage, ordained before God, sullies that priest/whatever and probably the church/congregation itself, if not the particular confession.

Zim, you miss my point. If a church feels that gay marriage is irreligious, they will not have to do them. All that has happened is that the courts have ruled that h0mosexuals, under the constitution, have the same right to access the legal institution of marriage as heterosexuals.

As for your perspective concerning the Anglicans, whatever, I am not even Christian so I really don't care if one group of Christians thinks that another group of Christians are blasphemers

[ZIM]

Originally posted by SimonM
Zim, you miss my point. If a church feels that gay marriage is irreligious, they will not have to do them. All that has happened is that the courts have ruled that h0mosexuals, under the constitution, have the same right to access the legal institution of marriage as heterosexuals.

As for your perspective concerning the Anglicans, whatever, I am not even Christian so I really don't care if one group of Christians thinks that another group of Christians are blasphemers You may have missed mine.
I understand what you wrote and it seems very fair.

The problem lies with the congregations guarding their respective confessions against blasphemy. If they believe that a gay marriage affects their entire church, they'll protest it, vote against it, or leave to seek a more conservative one.

And, as I was trying to point out, that is what is happening.

You may not be a Christian, so you'll blithely say 'it doesn't matter'. Great.
But it is odd that you'll take a stand creating rights for one group of which you are *presumably* not a member while discounting the established ones of another you're not a part of.

[David Jamieson]

And, as I was trying to point out, that is what is happening.

yep, the episcopalians(American members of the church of England aka Anglicans) are practically at a point of schism because of these societal changes.

I think there is also a generational perceptual difference. There are far less conservatively minded young folk than there once were and the tolerance and acceptance of alernate lifestyles is much more common these days.

We all have our beliefs though and we are entitled to them. So long as they bring no harm. If law will ensure that no harm comes to any segment of the communal whole, then I am for those laws that do that.

Laws can be changed, belief can be changed, people can change, people do change.

[jun_erh]

I wonder if they allow gay marriage in the Sudan or Cuba

[SimonM]

Originally posted by ZIM

But it is odd that you'll take a stand creating rights for one group...while discounting the established ones of another

Two things:

1) I am not refering to creating rights. I am talking about the fact that law has been brought into line with the already-extant rights guaranteed by the constitution of Canada.

2) Whose rights are being discounted? As I said the freedom of religion right is being preserved. People have the freedom of choice to remain in their church or leave it - on both sides of the issue. Gays who want to get maried have the right to remain in a church that will not perform their marriage or move to one that will. People who oppose gay marriage have the right to remain in a church that performs those marriages or leave it. Since that freedom to stay or leave is maintained and since freedom of religious institutions to chose to perform gay marriages or not is being maintained where are any rights being ignored?

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Kung Lek

We all have our beliefs though and we are entitled to them. So long as they bring no harm. If law will ensure that no harm comes to any segment of the communal whole, then I am for those laws that do that. “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson



There is a right: The right to remain unoffended.

[SimonM]

That is actually not a right. I don't believe that "the right to remain unoffended" is enshrined in the US constitution and I KNOW that it is not in the Canadian constitution. Sory Zim but a "right" is a legal construct.

[ZIM]

It was a flip comment. :)

[SimonM]

And there are risks in making flip comments during serious discourse. Such as looking a fool.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by SimonM
Two things:

1) I am not refering to creating rights. I am talking about the fact that law has been brought into line with the already-extant rights guaranteed by the constitution of Canada.

2) Whose rights are being discounted? As I said the freedom of religion right is being preserved. People have the freedom of choice to remain in their church or leave it - on both sides of the issue. Gays who want to get maried have the right to remain in a church that will not perform their marriage or move to one that will. People who oppose gay marriage have the right to remain in a church that performs those marriages or leave it. Since that freedom to stay or leave is maintained and since freedom of religious institutions to chose to perform gay marriages or not is being maintained where are any rights being ignored? Hmmm.
OK- In my consideration, I view the establishment of gay marriage in law to be creating a right. You may not and I'm not familiar enough with Canadian law to say whether my view is accurate. If you say it isn't, then I'll abide with that unless someone with more knowledge corrects either of us.

Fair?

As to the second, we're in trickier territory. You're claiming a position of "if they don't like it they can leave" and saying that's respecting their rights, yet I'm saying otherwise.
You're right in that being free to leave [or not] is a right, but so is- in the US, at least- the *free exercise* of religion. That's the reason we have allowances for, say, Santeria priests doing animal sacrifices when in other circumstances it wouldn't be allowed.

But if I passed a PETA-style law outlawing it and said, "if they don't like it, they can leave Santeria", I fail to see how I'm respecting their beliefs.

Do you see where my doubts lie?

[ZIM]

Originally posted by SimonM
And there are risks in making flip comments during serious discourse. Such as looking a fool. Simon. I said I wasn't picking a fight with you. :)
And anyway, it was to KL.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by red5angel
http://www.icomm.ca/emily/isms.html

You guys don't have Smarties or Butter Tarts!!??

Dear god... that would drive me north way faster than any Bush victory could.

[David Jamieson]

You guys don't have Smarties or Butter Tarts!!??

This alone explains a lot!

[SimonM]

Originally posted by ZIM

the *free exercise* of religion...
Do you see where my doubts lie?

I understand your concern but the Supreme Court of Canada addressed this issue in the same ruling that they addressed the issue of rights of gays to participate in the legal institution of marriage.

No church is forced to participate. The law is not to be worded "churches must allow gay marriage" but rather "gays may not be legally prevented from marrying". If a h0mosexual couple are members of a congregation that does not allow gay marriage their church does NOT have to perform the ceremony or involve its self in the process in any way. The couple will either have to move to a different congregation or seek a civil marriage. As a result, people are still free to exercise their religion in any way they see fit short of trying to block people from marrying outside the confines of their congregation. And that last stipulation is in fitting with section 1 of the charter of rights and freedoms which says that all rights are valid only so long as they are reasonable.

I will see if I can find the relevant passages of the Canadian constitution.

[Christopher M]

There seems to be some confusion on the current state of Gay Marriage in Canada. This is not surprising, because reporting on it has been very poor -- probably resulting from how controversial an issue it is.

What happened is that the government asked the supreme court to make a decision on the matter, and the supreme court essentially refused, saying it was up to the government. The only specific mandate they made was to state it was unconstitutional to force any religion, priest, jurisdiction, etc. to conduct a gay marriage. They did not say that the complete absence of gay marriage was unconstitutional -- they said that was up to the government.

What is going to happen now is that there will be a vote by Canadian federal MPs (members of parliament) on the issue of gay marriage. The only catch is that our (Liberal party) Prime Minister claims he is making it a semi-forced vote -- meaning that members of the Cabinet (ie. a group of the MPs in his party) must vote according to his wishes (in favor of gay marriage), and only non-Cabinet MPs may vote freely (according to their personal wishes, which in theory accord to the wishes of their constituency).

This is a very contentious decision for a number of reasons. The opposition party (Conservative party) made a big deal of saying that any moral issue must have a free vote, which has raised the issue into public consciousness. Also, many of the Cabinet members got elected on a platform that included an anti-gay marriage stance and so are claiming that they will refuse to submit to the forced vote procedure.

In any case, the issue of gay marriage is very much up in the air in Canada until that vote has happened. This event with the Supreme Court was essentially a hand-off to the government, and did not decide much.

... as for marijuana, simple possession has been decriminalized in practice for a long time. Police finding someone smoking marijuana will typically only ask them to smoke in private and/or confiscate the joint.

[SimonM]

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

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.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

From what I can gather it was based on these sections of the Canadian constitiution, specifically the charter of rights and freedoms. I believe the judges felt that gay marriage should be allowed under the spirit of section 15. Not 100% on that but I think that is the case.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by Christopher M
They did not say that the complete absence of gay marriage was unconstitutional -- they said that was up to the government.

What I heard from CBC seemed to suggest that they did view it as unconstitiutional to prevent any gay marriage but that they chose to allow to government to act in this regards. That back-and-forth hot potato act between Supreme Court and Parliament is pretty common on contentious issues up here.

As for the issue of the semi-forced vote, yeah the conservatives and some back-bench MP's in the Liberal side will probably vote against. It's not uncommon for the PM to instruct his cabinet to vote as a block so the whining from Harper is just so much bluster. The NDP will vote as a block in favor of gay marriage. The Bloc will probably try to see where their main chance lies, they only really care about Quebec. Still, if the government makes a few concessions they will probably fall in line and vote for gay marriage. The Bloc is all over the map as far as left wing/right wing goes though so regardless, some will vote for and some will vote against. I imagine that since the Joe Clarke style Conservatives split off from the new Conservative party the Torries will probably vote as a block with Harper.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Christopher M:

They did not say that the complete absence of gay marriage was unconstitutional -- they said that was up to the government. Or put another way: The Consititution didn't explicitly *say* that, so if you want to add it in, vote.

That's what it sounded like. ;)

Gotta go. l8r

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by SimonM
What I heard from CBC seemed to suggest that they did view it as unconstitiutional to prevent any gay marriage but that they chose to allow to government to act in this regards.

My feeling is that you are picking up the reporter's attitudes and confounding them with the Supreme Court's decision. It is nonsensical to say that the Supreme Court decided X but mandated Y -- as an official juridical body, what they decide and what they mandate are precisely identical. To see what the Supreme Court felt about something, we need simply assess their mandate -- anything not in that mandate is, by very definition, not something that the Supreme Court, as Supreme Court, feels.

Unfortunately, reporting here has been extremely shoddy. For instance, the MSNBC headline (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685653/) reads "Canada Supreme Court rules for gay marriage" while the actual claim in the text reads "Canada’s Supreme Court said Thursday the government can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples." That's not in any sense a ruling "for gay marriage" -- it's a hand-off on that issue to the government, who, as far as the Supreme Court are concerned, are no less free to oppose gay marriage than they were before the ruling. This misleading approach to the reporting the issue has been fairly consistent across media sources.


That back-and-forth hot potato act between Supreme Court and Parliament is pretty common

Definitely.


As for the issue of the semi-forced vote... It's not uncommon for the PM to instruct his cabinet to vote as a block

Right. I didn't say it was uncommon. Indeed, it's not particularly uncommon for him to instruct his entire party to vote as a block.


so the whining from Harper is just so much bluster.

No. The "whining" from Harper is precisely a fundamental and overwhelmingly important difference on democratic process. Even if you disagree with Harper's position on entirely informed grounds, it seems unreasonable to dismiss the debate on democratic process as "so much bluster." The process of democracy is probably the single most important issue in politics, as it defines how every other issue will be resolved.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Even if you disagree with Harper's position on entirely informed grounds, it seems unreasonable to dismiss the debate on democratic process as "so much bluster."

I am not trying to dismiss debate on democratic procss as "so much bluster" I am simply being a realist. Harper is no more likely to force an open vote on this issue than Layton is to push through Proportional Representation legislation. I happen to think PR is a great idea but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by SimonM
Harper is no more likely to force an open vote on this issue than Layton is to push through Proportional Representation legislation.

You mean because of the strong resistances against open votes and proportional representation? (Harper is pro-proportional representation as well, btw)

[MoreMisfortune]

Originally posted by Christopher M
and/or confiscate the joint.

lol :D
we know all about confiscation, its cool man

[SimonM]

Seeing as the reform party was a populist Conservative party I am not surprised that the current Conservative party (which is mostly the old reform crowd) would be in favor of a highly populist suggestion such as PR. It isn't really a right/left thing after all. The thing is that although I am occasionally a bit of a populist, I am always a democratic socialist so I rarely see eye to eye with the Torries. :D

That being said, if Layton manages to push a PR vote into the Parliament and if the Torries decide to vote in favor of it nobody in the NDP is likely to try and stop them. ;)

What I was refering to was the fact that block voting in parliament is such an entrenched activity that it is unlikely to cease simply because Harper speaks against it. Also if the Conservative caucus has a whip than it's a little bit hypocritical, the main role of the whip is to keep the caucus in line on party policy.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by SimonM
block voting in parliament is such an entrenched activity that it is unlikely to cease simply because Harper speaks against it.

For sure. I just think that we should support his speaking against it, because it is such an important issue. I think he has raised it more into public consciousness already.


if Layton manages to push a PR vote into the Parliament and if the Torries decide to vote in favor of it nobody in the NDP is likely to try and stop them. ;)

There's alot of potential between the BQ, post-Reform Conservatives, and NDP to push through grassroots reform, if people are able to see past their other ideological differences.


if the Conservative caucus has a whip than it's a little bit hypocritical

Yes and no: it's relative. Unless the party system is dissolved completely, there is some role for a whip; the question is -- how much of a role?

[SimonM]

For sure. I just think that we should support his speaking against it, because it is such an important issue. I think he has raised it more into public consciousness already.

The thing is (being bluntly honest) I don't trust his motives.

I don't believe that Harper has chosen this particular contentious issue as a test case for an end to block voting because block voting is bad so much as to cash in on Catholic and Evangelical Liberals whose vote would weaken the push to allow Gay marriage. If Harper wants to make a test case for this, he should pick some entirely non-contentious issue where block voting is all but assumed and then go after it. Picking a hot-button issue is... well... it seems more like he just wants to draw attention away from what it is he is really going for - the "traditional one man, one woman definition of marriage".

[Christopher M]

But free votes have been an ideological issue for him since the beginning of the Reform days -- as part of the "populist" tradition you observed the current Conservatives have inherited.