|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allegory
Getting back to my earlier post regarding the letter that was written and backed by several law faculties in Canada, I think he realises it's it's the law of the land, and therefore, a dead issue.
Harper has more pressing issues to urge, first and foremost the sponsorship scandal to all Canadians and how he will not betray them.
I am not a liberal, I am a Leftist.
By request, speaking of conservative scandals, here is one for you to read:
Critics shocked by hydro deals |
Meanwhile thats a completely different party under a provincial government. Nothing to do with federal conservatives. You wont see me using dalton's lying record to defame the feds although they do seem to have a lot in common.
As for the hydro business. Yes that was a definate black mark on the harris days. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i think it was the media that insinuated that more than harper. Remember the left leaning media likes to paint him as a bogeyman. I honestly cant see any changes to the present state of marriage other than that it will have been endorsed by parliament |
One more thing about putting it to a free vote:
Many gays probably don't want their now established right to marriage to be put on the line. A liberal gov't would probably leave them and let them get married :)
Chretien said something like human rights of a minority should not be decided in a referendum by the majority.
I do agree however, that the left-wing media can be pretty biased in their representation.
But anyways, as I was saying, if Harper loses, it could well be because he lost most of the gay vote. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| On a side note, I was reviewing footage at a Docmunetary company I used to intern at. It was of the filmmaker asking the party leaders if they thought Canada was 'cool'. Harper was the only one who replied about the weather. lol |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chiclet
Because Chretien and Martin never hinted at using the notwithstanding clause to remove rights to same-sex marriage. |
lol the only reason they have these rights is because martin forced the vote, which was bull. If it was done properly by the liberals in the first place, it would never have come to this and would be a non issue for harper. But martin wanted to be known as the PM that legalized it so it was done undemocratically. |
|
|
| Allegory |
I realise what you're saying Jayx1, but whether it's provincial, municipal, or federal, they are part of the conservatives.
Let us recount the lies told by Ernie Eves about how deeply in deficit we were before the last provincial election. I will not get the articles because I'm sure that if you follow politics, it will be fresh in your memory, and is accessible online.
Stephen Harper may not have caused scandal yet, but the conservatives are notorious for bad spending in Ontario under mike harris, in saskatchewan in the 80's and before the NDP made it's mark, and under mulroney. I can also point to the MFP scandal under mayor lastman.
anyway, I've had my fill of this discussion. Political issues will always have points of contention, and I've exhausted my interest. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Let's not forget the main purpose of media is to make money.
Nothing gets people to pay attention to media like controversial issue. I think some reporter decided to put gay marriage issue up front, even if Harper didn't say it.
Haven't heard other party leaders say much about gay marriage either, other than some non response to a reporter asking. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Let's not forget the main purpose of media is to make money.
|
...and it shouldn't be. It's amazing how a country which prides itself on it's so-called freedom has such biased, self-interested media, as compared to a country like Poland, or many other Eastern European nations, where the media is usually on the people's side. And they do what they're supposed to do: report news. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chiclet
One more thing about putting it to a free vote:
Many gays probably don't want their now established right to marriage to be put on the line. A liberal gov't would probably leave them and let them get married :)
Chretien said something like human rights of a minority should not be decided in a referendum by the majority.
I do agree however, that the left-wing media can be pretty biased in their representation.
But anyways, as I was saying, if Harper loses, it could well be because he lost most of the gay vote. |
The problem is that this was determined by the courts. The whole charter system is fundementally flawed and undemocratic. I think this is the surface of a much deeper problem. Unfortunately its the gay marriage debate that so clearly illustrates it.
ANd by redefining marriage as a civil union nobody's rights would be violated. The union would have exact same weighting as marriage except that the union could not be forced upon a church to perform the ceremony like same sex marriage has the potential to be.
Some people are already taking churches to court because they refuse to marry gays citing the charter for their rights. This is mainly where most canadians oppose gay marriage. Its not that they oppose gays being married, its the justified worry that it will lead to a loss of freedom of religion. Of course the media will never give you that angle of the story. All they want to project is fear. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allegory
I realise what you're saying Jayx1, but whether it's provincial, municipal, or federal, they are part of the conservatives.
Let us recount the lies told by Ernie Eves about how deeply in deficit we were before the last provincial election. I will not get the articles because I'm sure that if you follow politics, it will be fresh in your memory, and is accessible online.
Stephen Harper may not have caused scandal yet, but the conservatives are notorious for bad spending in Ontario under mike harris, in saskatchewan in the 80's and before the NDP made it's mark, and under mulroney. I can also point to the MFP scandal under mayor lastman.
anyway, I've had my fill of this discussion. Political issues will always have points of contention, and I've exhausted my interest. |
If thats the case then and we are linking provincial to federal politics, then lets talk about lying Dalton McGuinty's track record.
I'll take good ole Ernie any day of the week. |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allegory
I realise what you're saying Jayx1, but whether it's provincial, municipal, or federal, they are part of the conservatives.
Let us recount the lies told by Ernie Eves about how deeply in deficit we were before the last provincial election. I will not get the articles because I'm sure that if you follow politics, it will be fresh in your memory, and is accessible online.
Stephen Harper may not have caused scandal yet, but the conservatives are notorious for bad spending in Ontario under mike harris, in saskatchewan in the 80's and before the NDP made it's mark, and under mulroney. I can also point to the MFP scandal under mayor lastman.
|
lol |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
The problem is that this was determined by the courts. The whole charter system is fundementally flawed and undemocratic. I think this is the surface of a much deeper problem. Unfortunately its the gay marriage debate that so clearly illustrates it.
ANd by redefining marriage as a civil union nobody's rights would be violated. The union would have exact same weighting as marriage except that the union could not be forced upon a church to perform the ceremony like same sex marriage has the potential to be.
Some people are already taking churches to court because they refuse to marry gays citing the charter for their rights. This is mainly where most canadians oppose gay marriage. Its not that they oppose gays being married, its the justified worry that it will lead to a loss of freedom of religion. Of course the media will never give you that angle of the story. All they want to project is fear. |
Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. They afford some of the same rights, but not all. And it's not just to do with religion. If you really want, I can find the definition for you... but I'm lazy :p
And, about the whole "freedom of religion" thing: this echoes the times of interracial marriages not being accepted by religion. Ask Annie, she even has an old Christian teachings book that said that races shouldn't mix! I believe it was published only about 40 years ago...
Allowing gays to be married does not have to take away from "religious freedom". People sue for all sorts of things. As well, allowing gays to marry does not take away from anyone else's rights... in any way.
Oh, and fear mongering goes both ways. I went to an anti-same sex marriage rally and one of the speakers said "You know what happened with the Tsunami? Well, what do you think will happen to us if we let gays marry?! God is trying to tell us something!"
And I saw an full page ad in the Sun saying:
"IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOUR M.P. KNOWS WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL C-38!
*The danger is imminent that politicians will force this anti-marriage legislation through a second reading immediately!
*Our greatest Canadian treasure is about to be dumped into the garbage can of history.
*Tampering with the definition of marriage will spell disaster for the moral and social welfare of our country.
*The suicidal rush to fundamentally change a 6,000 year old institution is the canker that will destroy the roots of Canada�s �living tree�." - Concerned Canadian Parents
I tried looking them up, but the only contact they had was a PO Box. If you really stand by what you say, then why not make yourself open for feedback?
Garbage can of history? Suicidal rush? lol
Anyways, I didn't post here to argue my point of view on this specific issue, but rather one of the reasons why I think Harper might not win the election (the original topic of this thread!): many gays don't agree with him and they have a big enough portion of the vote to make a difference.
As I said before, IMHO, I don't think that the individual rights and freedoms of a group of people should ever be decided in a referendum. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| ^So it's better if it's arbitrarily defined in a court by few guys? (and girls)? |
|
|
|
|
