Friday, December 08, 2006

Harper's claim to fame

Chantal writes today:

With same-sex marriage on the books since 2005, the debate had moved on to a more fundamental terrain: This week, Harper became the first post-war Prime
Minister to ask the Commons to consider taking away the rights of a Canadian minority.

That he failed to garner sufficient support to press on with the plan does not mitigate the fact that he was willing to ask.

No kidding. I hope the Tories are proud today.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

next week MPs will vote on whether french will be allowed to be spoken in quebec and whether woman should able to vote.
what a joke.

Anonymous said...

Take away rights??? Tell me how any rationalle thinking person would take the motion presented by Mr. Harper as a reversal of rights?

The issue was about the word marriage versus civil union...and the same rights would apply to both so your whole argument is absolute opinion....not fact.

But hey...Liberals are now calling conversative supporters nazi's in the house of commons...so why not make up stuff???? As your last election motto states...."we're not allowed to make stuff up"....funny...that's all Liberals have these days...with the lack of ethics, principles, and policy.

Mike B said...

The court has ruled that civil union is not the same as marriage, and to deny use of the term marriage is to deny the right.

The motion raised by Harper asked that the SSM legislation be revisited, with the intent of restoring the original definition of marriage. Thus taking away a minority's right.

So Harper was taking steps to take away a minority's right.

But this line of thinking (it's called logic, look it up) might not be clear to you, oh typical hysterical conservative commenter, with your "Anonymous" name, typos, overuse of punctuation, howls of outrage over Liberal demonization, and de rigueur reminders of Liberal stereotypes, as if corruption had anything to do with an extension of human rights to a minority you quite likely find distasteful.

Anonymous said...

Ok Mike B......I'll bite.

Could you please provide me with evidence on the courts ruling that the rights involved with civil unions are different than those of marriage. May I remind you that it's not the job of the courts to create law...but rather to interpret it. Furthermore...if that is in fact the case, what's stopping the government from changing the law? Oh right...according to the Liberals...Harper is scary. Are you're simply assumming he would revoke rights.

Go ahead and rip me apart for my ""Anonymous" name, typos, overuse of punctuation, howls of outrage".....all this shows is you have nothing valid to debate and would rather resort to belittling....and your talking about rights??? That's rich.

Oh ya...and before you assume I'm against ssm....why don't you ask. You know what happens when you assume right????

Mike B said...

Yeah, you make yourself out to be an even bigger ass.

Anonymous said...

Typical....ask a Liberal fear mongeror to defend their comments and you get an insult. Better get back to defending rights of the minorities while insulting people who have an opinion.

Why am I an ass??? Because I asked you to defend your position? Is that asking too much? In all my posts...I have stated fact. I haven't made mud-slinging accusations...I haven't insulted anyone....I've stated facts. Let us hope that the rest of the Liberal supporters have a little bit more respect for the differing opinions of others....

If a Liberal came to my blog and asked for my opinion...rather than insult, I would present my position and hopefully that would maybe sway the political leanings of the other person. But I guess Liberal supporters don't want that...they want to belittle and insult. Keep up the good work!!!!

Mike B said...

Thanks!!!!

Dean P said...

I'll just add, in respone to the comment that it's not the job of the courts to make the law, that that phrase is the typical right-wing nonsensical comment that demonstrates a) a complete unawareness of the legal system and b) a complete unawareness of the issues at play.

First: Courts do make law, and they make it all the time. Sure--a court can't sua sponte (on its one) say, "we're going to create a new child care benefit program" but they make law through the common law. Before you go on the warpath about making law or not, why don't you try to read up on exactly how common law judges work?

In regards to the second point: this is not an issue of judges making law. This is Constitutional question: whether it violates the Charter that same sex couples are denied exactly what is given to opposite-sex couples: namely, marriage. There is no law being made, merely the Charter being examined. That's the role of the courts. If you don't like it, change the system, but I think you'll find the overwhelming majority of Canadians give far more approval to the charter and to judges than they do to elected politicans.

But this is a senseless debate, because right-wing anonymous nutjobs will neither accept how our system works nor decisions that go against them (though they would LOVE it if a court decided in their favour).