Before you Liberals blow a gasket...

[CDNBear]

or a rotator cuff, patting yourself on the backs, telling us all you told us so.

Harper is re-addressing the SSM issue because of the will of the people.

The poll, conducted by the CBC. April 2005.

That's more then 50% + 1, so if that is what it takes for Quebec to seperate, then it sure seems fitting that it be enough to re-address the issue. The people have spoken.

 

[the caracal kid]

the problem is that Harps is a panderer. Leaders are supposed to lead, which includes making the decisions for the equality of all even if it offends one majority (or minority).

 

[Tonington]

I'm sure a new poll will be out soon. I couldn't find a newer one, but I did find out that 9 conservatives are voting for it, and currently according to a site tracking members who have said they will or not vote for it that it stands at 167 for, 125 against with 16 unknown.

 

[#juan]

Surely there are more important issues the government could be dealing with. What happened to all the good things Harper was going to do for the military?

 

[Sassylassie]

Good question Juan, I guess all his plans are time stamped 2008 or later that way he won't actually have to spend a dime but the promise of "Equiping" the military will be dragged out over and over (to make his blue followers happy) and in the end the only thing the military will get is the Cyclone which the Liberals ordered and put to tender. Harper is an elite arsepic who only wants to Rule from on high while his minion bow like drones or borgs and obey his every edict. GAG,ukeright:

 

[CDNBear]

As much as I hate to agree with Juan, I gotta here. Good call Juan. But it does not change the fact that the people want it.

 

[tracy]

This is such a waste of time and money. If that wasn't reason enough to oppose this, it is clear that the "majority of the people" have no right to simply deny the rights of others because they don't like them. If tomorrow 52% of the people in Canada said that men shouldn't be allowed to drive, I doubt people would start advocating we take away your car keys.

 

[Tonington]

Good point Tracy. Isn't a democracy supposed to protect the rights of minorities? I really don't get how this changes how heterosexuals feel about marriage. Since when did married couples look to other couples for affirmation of what a marriage is or should entail? I do think it's important to protect the rights of Priests and Pastors who can't perform these ceremonies.

 

[CDNBear]

Good point Tracy. Isn't a democracy supposed to protect the rights of minorities? I really don't get how this changes how heterosexuals feel about marriage. Since when did married couples look to other couples for affirmation of what a marriage is or should entail? I do think it's important to protect the rights of Priests and Pastors who can't perform these ceremonies.

Isn't a democracy supposed to up hold the values and the will of the majority. That is how the elected take office, we don't see the lowest votes taking the big chair. The green party is still the fringe party, not the house majority.

I have long thought this not to be a political issue. Yes it is a collosal waste of time and money. Who cares if Bob and Doug want to get married. It does not effect my life, I do not care. What I care about is, the fact the the looney left spin Doctors will use this as evidence that Harper is a Christian zealot. Which he is not, a dolt and putz? Yes. But lets be realistic, this is the will of the people. That is democracy.

 

[tracy]

Isn't a democracy supposed to up hold the values and the will of the majority. .

That isn't the system of government we have in Canada. The minority rights aren't up for a vote.

 

[CDNBear]

That isn't the system of government we have in Canada. The minority rights aren't up for a vote.

If Harper puts it to a referendum, then yes they are. The will of the people will be loud and clear. If SSM fails to pass the peoples vote, then I guess Canada is full of bigots. Or perhaps it's full of people that do not want to see the degredation of the institution of marriage. I don't know, personaly, I don't care either way.

 

[Tonington]

Elected take office as a result of majority, but that isn't how rights work. Our charter of rights and freedoms defends those who could otherwise be subjugated and trampled by those who do have power, ie. the majority. When is the last time that your MP always acted in your own best interest? I can say that mine hasn't, in fact I can say that about the Liberal and the Conservative. Harper illustrates every day that his own priorities sipercede our own. The only transparency he has brought to Parliament is that fact.

 

[gc]

That's more then 50% + 1, so if that is what it takes for Quebec to seperate, then it sure seems fitting that it be enough to re-address the issue. The people have spoken.

If 50% + 1 say that we should institue the "Jim Crow" laws, for example, I am NOT Ok with that. Sometimes its better that the majority does not get it's way, this is why we have a charter of rights and freedoms.

The poll, conducted by the CBC. April 2005

Show me a poll taken recently, about RE-OPENING the debate on SSM, and I would guess that most people would not be in favour of re-opening the debate. Some people will always go along with the status quo.

 

[Colpy]

RELAX, everyone.

Harper is playing a smart political game. That is all.

You will notice that the question in the House will be whether the MPs wish to re-open the SSM debate.

Obviously, no person who is for SSM will wish to re-open the debate.

There are several anti-SSM MPS who dop NOT wish to re-open the debate, because they know it is divisive and dangerous, and would drag through the courts for years, and might require a use of the "notwithstanding" clause to pass a traditional definition of marriage. A political quagmire. They will vote against re-opening debate. Were I an MP, I would be with these folks.

So, by the manner of asking the question, Harper has in one stroke guaranteed the matter will be laid to rest, the status quo will hold, and a promise to the socially conservative in the CPC will have been kept.

A brilliant move, IMHO.

See if I'm not right.

The vote will not even be close. SSM is here to stay, and Harper not only knows it, he WANTS it that way.

 

[CDNBear]

Elected take office as a result of majority, but that isn't how rights work. Our charter of rights and freedoms defends those who could otherwise be subjugated and trampled by those who do have power, ie. the majority. When is the last time that your MP always acted in your own best interest? I can say that mine hasn't, in fact I can say that about the Liberal and the Conservative. Harper illustrates every day that his own priorities sipercede our own. The only transparency he has brought to Parliament is that fact.

The Charater has been used to degredate our traditions and pick our pockets. It's time to use the "Not Withstanding" clause and some of that.

Personally I would like to see some of the refugees that abuse our system get subjugated a little, on their way back to where ever it was they came from.

If 50% + 1 say that we should institue the "Jim Crow" laws, for example, I am NOT Ok with that. Sometimes its better that the majority does not get it's way, this is why we have a charter of rights and freedoms.

Says who and see my reply to Tonnington.

I think the Liberal mill school system has done a fine job on both of you. A country should be the reflection of the will of the people, period. Be it Capital punishment or SSM.

Making comments like "Sometimes it's better that the majority does not get it's way" is just wrong. That flies in the face of the democratice proccess.

We have democraticly elected terrorist parties running countries in the ME, defended by a couple people on this board, why haven't either of you come and voiced this opinion on the majority shouldn't always get what it wants in those threads?

 

[CDNBear]

RELAX, everyone.

Harper is playing a smart political game. That is all.

You will notice that the question in the House will be whether the MPs wish to re-open the SSM debate.

Obviously, no person who is for SSM will wish to re-open the debate.

There are several anti-SSM MPS who dop NOT wish to re-open the debate, because they know it is divisive and dangerous, and would drag through the courts for years, and might require a use of the "notwithstanding" clause to pass a traditional definition of marriage. A political quagmire. They will vote against re-opening debate. Were I an MP, I would be with these folks.

So, by the manner of asking the question, Harper has in one stroke guaranteed the matter will be laid to rest, the status quo will hold, and a promise to the socially conservative in the CPC will have been kept.

A brilliant move, IMHO.

See if I'm not right.

The vote will not even be close. SSM is here to stay, and Harper not only knows it, he WANTS it that way.

Couldn't agree with you more Colpy.

 

[Tonington]

We have democraticly elected terrorist parties running countries in the ME, defended by a couple people on this board, why haven't either of you come and voiced this opinion on the majority shouldn't always get what it wants in those threads?

It's not my place to deem what another countries democratic system should be made of or how it should work. The democratic process in this country differs from the democratic processes in those new systems. Ours has evolved to a system which not only gives the rights inherent to democracy to our citizens, but one that also respects an individuals rights to be treated as an equal. Our system does not protect the views of the majority when they are in conflict with those rights, and rightly so.

 

[CDNBear]

It's not my place to deem what another countries democratic system should be made of or how it should work. The democratic process in this country differs from the democratic processes in those new systems. Ours has evolved to a system which not only gives the rights inherent to democracy to our citizens, but one that also respects an individuals rights to be treated as an equal. Our system does not protect the views of the majority when they are in conflict with those rights, and rightly so.

Other then SSM, which in my books is simple, NO PROBLEM.

What if the rights of the minority conflict with the traditional Canadian ways of life and continually corrode it away until it is not recognisable anymore?

 

[Tonington]

What rights would those be?

Traditional ways of life are continuosly evolving. This isn't a static country thank god for that. It's great to have tradition within your culture, but not to force that cultures traditions on those Canadians who don't want it.

 

[CDNBear]

What rights would those be?

Traditional ways of life are continuosly evolving. This isn't a static country thank god for that. It's great to have tradition within your culture, but not to force that cultures traditions on those Canadians who don't want it.

You are kidding right?

Tradition pretty much denotes not changing.

I love diversity, but not by force.

Oh I don't know, lets take Xmas, or as it has become "happy holidays". Oh sure the new folk are happy enough to take the paid days off, but cry like a baby when they see a star or ssanta on a public building or hear the words "Merry Christmas"

How about some language equality. In Quebec a student can go through school and never be forced to learn English, yet in most of "English" Canada, it is compulsary for grade 9 students to take french forcibly or not get a diploma.

How about the right to have a fairly safe drive to and from work. People are offered Drivers training and testing in languages other then English or French, do I have to list all the problems this causes? If you can not or will not learn to speak the language, you can not safely opperate a motor vehicle.