Tory evasive over comments

[the caracal kid]

Tory evasive over comments
Jan. 12, 2006. 11:16 PM
KEVIN MCGRAN
STAFF REPORTER


Conservative candidate Rondo Thomas refused to answer questions yesterday about his comments that describe same-sex marriage issues as a battle between “righteousness” and “immorality.”

“Show some respect,” Thomas said as he drove away from a Star reporter and photographer, refusing to say whether he stood by the comments captured on video last February, and whether he’d been ordered by Conservative party headquarters to remain tight-lipped.

Thomas, an evangelical minister, missed two all-candidates debates this week in Ajax-Pickering just as Liberal incumbent Mark Holland posted Thomas’s video on his campaign website. On the video, Thomas says: “There is going to be a clash of morality views between those who believe in righteousness and those who believe in immorality and when we collide there is going to be conflict.”

Thomas’s campaign manager, Mike Young, said his candidate missed debates Monday and Tuesday because he was at a funeral in eastern Ontario. Thomas was at his home in Ajax yesterday.

The first time, he slowed to pull into his driveway, but saw the reporter and photographer. He led them on a five-minute slow-speed pursuit through a subdivision. Thomas then returned to his home, refusing to answer the door or his phone.

A few minutes later, Young showed up. A casually dressed Thomas emerged from his home with a woman. The pair drove away, at which point Young said Thomas didn’t want to talk because he had “another funeral to attend.” Earlier this week Young said Thomas would address the issue today.

The Tories have been hurt in the past by allegations of intolerance. Tory campaign chair John Reynolds this week told Canadian Press that Harper has made his position on gay marriage clear — he will allow a free vote in the Commons — and if people go beyond that, they do not speak for the party.

Outside a Kingston Rd. strip mall a few blocks east of Thomas’s home, voters in the riding urged him to answer questions on his comments.

“You shouldn’t be running if you’re not giving your views,” said Pickering resident Mary Woodhouse.

A few cars away, Michael Richards echoed those comments as he packed groceries into his truck. “He must be open,” Richards said. “We have burning issues. We need to know whatever you think to determine what you stand for.”

Todd Stephens, emerging with skates from a sports store with his wife and two children said Thomas’s “dubious” views made it even less likely that Stephens would vote for him.

“I can’t speak for Mr. Thomas, but I know for myself it’s important to answer questions,” NDP candidate Kevin Modeste said. “I think whether you agree or disagree, you have to move on.”

Source Link

(Edit: Source link shorted; Side-scroll)

 

[Jersay]

Perfect. Shows how intolerent some Conservatives are. Hope to hell he doesn't get in.

 

[FiveParadox]

Conservative Evasion of the Past

That seems to be a recurring theme for the Conservative Party of Canada.

:arrow: The Evasion of the Past

During Sunday Sound-off, a bilingual phone-in show on CPAC, a strategist for the Conservatives refused to comment on the comments made by the Honourable Stephen Harper during a past speech (one that discriminated against homosexuals, immigrants, multiculturalism, and indicated that Canadians were content to become a "Northern European welfare state"), claiming that his past speeches and opinions are "ancient history."

I would entirely disagree with his statement; Mr. Harper's past is extremely important, more particularly if he is truly vying for the position of the Prime Minister of Canada. Alleged scandals and corruption are one thing, but a past that may have indicated true and unabridged hatred for any segment of Canadians is not acceptable, in my opinion.

 

[Colpy]

Perfect. Shows how intolerent some Conservatives are. Hope to hell he doesn't get in.

The guy is a minister, for crying out loud.

If he has read the text he is supposed to be promoting, he has no choice but to believe homosexuality is "immoral".

As well, people here seem to forget that thirty-some Liberals voted against the SSM Act.

 

[FiveParadox]

I don't think it's the fact that he opposes same-sex marriage that is considered a "problem" — it's the fact that he considers same-sex marriage a battle against homosexuality; that I am, as a gay person, some immoral defamation of society. He is an affront to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I would feel that I have lost 1/308th of my security and safety were he to be elected to the House of Commons.

 

[Citizen]

The guy is a minister, for crying out loud.

If he has read the text he is supposed to be promoting, he has no choice but to believe homosexuality is "immoral".

I don't buy that argument because it means every religious Canadian who follows the Bible, Torah, Koran would also have "no choice" but to believe homosexuality is "immoral".

Once one enters the political arena, it should be mandatory to check all religious beliefs at the door.

 

[Jay]

Once one enters the political arena, it should be mandatory to check all religious beliefs at the door.

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.

 

[Citizen]

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.

I've never said anyone shouldn't be free to practise their religion, so I don't understand what your point is.

I said that religion and politics should not mix.

Canada is a democracy, not a theocracy. :roll:

 

[Jay]

"it should be mandatory to check all religious beliefs at the door"


I'm just defending his basic rights against calls to end them. He has the right to freedom of expression, and religion.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Tory evasive over comments

I don't think it's the fact that he opposes same-sex marriage that is considered a "problem" — it's the fact that he considers same-sex marriage a battle against homosexuality; that I am, as a gay person, some immoral defamation of society. He is an affront to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I would feel that I have lost 1/308th of my security and safety were he to be elected to the House of Commons.

Send him to watch "Brokeback Mountain", see what his reaction will be

 

[FiveParadox]

Religious Freedom

Religious freedom is a fundamental principle in Canada — insofar as you do not use that freedom to incite hatred toward a minority. On that point, it begins to become hate propaganda, which is strictly illegal in Canada.

There is a proper way to express your opinions, and the one expressed by Mr. Thomas is not that.

 

[Jay]

Well it certainly doesn't fall in to the "hate propaganda" laws.

I'm sure there is a proper way to express every little issue, but not everyone has read the Liberal Red Book.