The Shotgun Blog
« "Crazy people" | Main | We Knew Him When »
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
SSM in the next election
I think that the Conservatives running against same-sex marriage in the next federal election would be wise for many reasons, most of them already stated earlier by others on this blog but I will still highlight two. The second best reason is that with the country, at worst, being evenly divided on the issue and intensity polling suggesting that those opposed to SSM are more likely to vote on the issue than those who support it, and with all the other major parties supporting SSM, there is a potential windfall for championing this cause. My guess is that many Christian Canadians who have long stopped voting because they were never adequately represented by any of the mainstream parties would vote for a Conservative Party that made marriage a major theme of their campaign.
The best reason, though, for making SSM a campaign issue is that the Liberals obviously didn't want it to be a campaign issue and that is why they rammed it through before the summer recess and therefore as long before an election call as possible. As Brent Colbert noted: "The bonus is that this is an issue that has deeply divided the Liberal caucus and an issue that they desperately did not want to campaign on. I say don’t let them get away with it."
Posted by Paul Tuns on June 29, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83423a70e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SSM in the next election:
» We’ve Got Them Right Where We Want Them… from The Wild Duck
…or, we may be small, but we sure are slow!
... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-06-29 10:58:57 PM
Comments
Related post at: http://www.wildduckdiary.com/wordpress/?p=40
Posted by: The Wild Duck | 2005-06-29 11:01:04 PM
I think it should be a campaign issue, not in itelf, but as one of many examples of the abrogation of the rights of the electorate. The key issue in Canada is the loss of democracy. The important issue is that the Liberals have removed the electorate from control over their government...and set themselves up as beyond accountability.
In fact, I think that the key slogan, the key motif, of the next election, should be one thing: Democracy. The restoration to the electorate of their control of the government and the complete accountability of that government - to the people.
What the CPC should do, is list each of the responsibilities of the gov't..and point out:
-the fact that the electorate has no control over the use of their money in this area, and the fact that there is no full auditing and no accountability.
Do this for - health care, transportation, immigration, refugees, defense, foreign services, education...etc, etc.
Point out how most of the key authoritative positions in gov't are appointed, and all from the office of the PM. List them. All the senate, the judges, the CEOs, the deputy ministers. On and on and on.
Make a campaign based on 'It's time for change - Power to the People. Take back government from private control..and give it back to the people. Canada used to be a democracy but has become an oligarchy. ...Power to the People... We want open gov't, we want accountability, no more PMO appointments...and so on.
Harper and the CPC should do an 'Orange Revolution'...
Then...prepare for the vicious Liberal fight against this.
And..this would also mean that they'd have to dump Martin...and put in Ignatieff.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-30 5:23:30 AM
I think you are missing the boat on this one. I'd say Canadian's are relieved this tired debate is over with and the government can now focus on actual issues. We run on SSM and we will lose and lose badly.
Review of Harper's SSM performance. You won't like the source, but maybe you could heed some of the advice.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1119995412370&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-30 6:38:35 AM
I think that Gamblog is a perfect example of our modern brainwashed Canadian. He is young, naive, ignorant of history, ignorant of basic social and political theories, and yet absolutely certain of his own righteousness and his own superiority.
He relies on googling for his data sources and relies on the Liberal Party line for his 'theories'. He ignores that the internet provides anything and everything without evaluation. And he ignores that a political platform is not a theory. Therefore, one cannot function, as he does, as a sponge, but must function as a filter.
That requires critical analysis, it requires a knowledge of historical context, a knowledge of sociopolitical theories, and it also requires a tad, just a tad, of humility. All of these are lacking in the average brainwashed Canadian who has been told that what matters above all, is 'their feelings'.
Therefore, Gamblog, you don't have the right, and I'm using that word with intent, to tell other people to 'heed some of the advice' from some internet site. Why not? Because you lack the awareness that you are not, yourself, a filter and are instead, speaking without knowledge.
Don't google the web and fling posts at us; we can do that ourselves. How about learning the nature of sociopolitical and economic theories and structures...and how about learning some history...and then, critically analyzing what's going on? And don't pontificate and presume to 'know what's best'.
That's called 'hubris'..and you know, or maybe you don't know..the results of that. Read the Iliad and the Odyssey...
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-30 7:32:02 AM
And what researchers at Plymouth University were unable to achieve with their test subjects and Shakespeare, the Liberals have accomplished with many Canadians like Gamblog and their propaganda:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,58790,00.html
P.S. I just passed the course, I Can Google Too 101.
Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-30 7:45:22 AM
Gamblog - why do you say "we" - you're not in the least conservative, libertarian or in favor of individual rights over group rights (your comments betray a statist - Liberal party affiliation) - who do you think you're fooling with your "advice"?
Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-06-30 7:54:48 AM
Canadians look to the loud raucous debate in the US between the 2 parties contesting for power and feel smug because we’re so much more sedate. But in the US it’s as if they are in a constant state of revolution. But a bloodless revolution is a good thing isn’t it? It’s pretty much how Canada was born. But we’ve lost our ability to debate; we tolerate the intolerant and feel superior because of it. We’re so politically correct we walk around like zombies, afraid to comment for fear of being wrong or disliked. We’ve become Stepford Wives and Husbands.
We need a knock 'em down drag 'em out election that doesn’t fear the MSM nor the incredibly powerful Liberal marketing machine that has dominated Canada by skilful patronage for almost a century. It will be a tough fight. The Liberals are the most powerful party in the world; no current party on the planet has dominated a century like they have. But fight them we must and the worst that can happen is that we get better and more honest Liberal leaders like Ignatieff or McKenna
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-06-30 8:02:50 AM
Nomdenet - I'd say the average citizen here in the US is far more politically engaged than the average Canadian citizen (people here are not afraid to voice their opinions, debate, hold their politicians to account, organize and themselves run for office etc). You see it in the far greater presence of persons holding office by election (ie the State Attorney generals are usually elected, the State comptrollers etc etc - the cdn equivalent of the latter would be an elected governance of the CPP! too radical a thought for Cda). Political corrctness is merely a means to escape having to justify an untenable position, it is no surprise that in debate stiffled Canada it is the rule.
In Canada, the citizen's political engagement is very effectively discouraged (speech chilling human rights star chambers, absurd and elite protecting defamation laws that expansively chill criticism of politicians and public figures (see the Grewal affair and the journalists), a monolithically liberal and hostile press unwilling to report dissent (see Mark Steyn's article on the Globe's suppression of reports on anti-gay marriage demonstrations) or outright proscribed (see the law bannong political expression in the form of advettising or limiting political donations in favor of state sponsorship, tied to past electoral performance, and not at all counting the liberals' corrupt subsidy of their campaigns with adscam like funding, which I don't doubt continue s to this day). On and on, while Paul Martin (with a straight face, mind you) says he is distressed at the extent of voter apathy and ever decreasing turnouts at the polls (like Paul Martin wants the apathetic to vote, yeah, he'd really benefit from those who are hostile towards but sense that their last avenue of dissent, the vote is a waste, to actually vote).
While I harbor no delusions about Martin's nature, his conduct or the harm he and the liberals wreak to canada on an almost daily basis, I doubt the solution (ignoring the strucutral changes to the political system, importing checks and balances on the PM and upon other branches) is another liberal backroom coronation since the absolute power wielded by Prime Minister's office is an attractant to the corrupt, who obtain the position of party leader by shady deals and the tacit understanding that all backers will be rewarded (with the public's extorted wealth, of course, directly by subsidy or graft or indirectly by tax loopholes etc), not to mention all dissenters will be punished.
Only the most ruthless wins that race, the federal election is merely an afterthought (changes of gov't transpire by change of the liberal party leadership, not by federal election).
So elevating Ignatieff or McKenna or any other non-martin or non-chretien tainted operative may help to save the Liberal party from having to stoop to ever-lower tactics to retain power (say like ignoring the loss of confidence of the house or buying off the opposition), it does not remedy what ails Canadian "democracy".
Ignatieff may well be a Kim Campbell... the opposition could only wish, but I doubt he'd get the backing he needs to gain control of the Liberal "operation" without the ruthlessness that Campbell clearly lacked.
Or you could be like me, have no faith in the intelligence of the ontario voter (their capacity to return incessantly that band of inept brigands every election despite ever more outrageous errors and corruption) and move to a real democracy (try australia or the US, the rest are compromised, though among western nations I'd say Canada is the worst!). Or you could await the inevitable dissolution of Canada under liberal tutelage, as the west break free of an oppressive and economically ruinous federation (timed after Ontario next installs crooks in office)...you can see the beginnings of Alta's quiet revolution in that it is no longer a social faux pas to averr western independence, the topic is now to be discussed, since it makes political AND economic sense, the west will be free - give it 5 years ...
Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-06-30 8:58:11 AM
I like nomdenet and SEchappe's comments.
Yes, exactly, in the US - there IS debate, while in Canada, dissent and debate have been stifled by brainwashing Canadians to think that debate is an act of 'intolerance'..and 'tolerance'..being some genetic characteristic of Being Canadian, means that one must never, ever, critique, question, analyze, consider...think about..anything.
Stepford Wives is a perfect example..that's what Canadians have become.
Yes, the Liberal propaganda machine is extremely powerful - no communist state could do it better. Notice how if you question and debate, as Harper did...the Liberals say 'Harper is angry'.
Heck- we bloody well are angry, and we have the right to express this anger. NO, say the Liberals. You have no rights. None at all. Not to question, not to debate, not to dissent. You have only one duty - re-elect the Liberals. If you do not elect the Liberals, you are not a true Canadian. That's what they tell us. The electorate has no power; it has the required duty, as Canadian citizens, to keep the Liberals in power. A power they retain only due to the now irrelevant House of Commons. The Liberals have shown us they can ignore the House, they can manipulate its members, bribe them, lie to them, lie to the public...and they get away with it.
So the Liberals, due to this irrelevant every-few-years superficial act of democracy - get to appoint the 2/3 of the authoritative positions in Canada that are appointed by the PMO...and therefore, Canada has moved into a corrupt oligarchy..an oligarchy whose actions are totally beyond the knowledge and control of the electorate.
Yes - it should be a raucous election campaign. But, it has to be more than a rebellion during a campaign. Citizens groups should be writing and complaining about Canada as an Oligarchy, the loss of democracy, the corruption...
Can you imagine.. large populations of Canada are talking about freedom. And the freedom they want, which is every human's RIGHT...lies outside of Canada. Now - if that's not deeply disturbing..what is?
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-30 9:17:20 AM
http://autonomoussource.com/archive/000633.html
Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Swinging in the breeze.
There is dissent. There is hope.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-30 9:20:20 AM
I think Steve Harper stinks. The Liberals should be dead in the water, but Steve is still dying in the polls. He is not going to lead the CPC to anything more then defeat. I don't formulate my opinion of Canadian politicians from the media. I watch CPAC. I guess that live feed is a part of the liberal controlled media as well.
It seems anyone who forms an opinion different then yours is immediately assumed to be brainwashed or from Ontario.
Before Steven Harper I had voted conservative every single time. But the CPC doesn't represent my view of the world or the view of most Canadians. You live in a la la land of conservatism where every policy is perfect because it looks better on paper then in practice.
I am a progressive conservative. You don't like it tough bananas. You ate our party and forced us to vote for the next best thing to Stephen Harper and a social conservative agenda spawned from ignorance and paranoia.
ET, you are an old, stubborn, revisionist of history, ignorant of basic social and political theories, and yet absolutely certain of your own righteousness and your own superiority. You are a dinosaure.
Eat meat, drop babies and pave the world.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-30 9:35:17 AM
Way to go, ET. Now you've turned that trained monkey into an angry monkey. So, angry monkey aka Googleblog aka Gamblog, I'm glad you pointed out that the CPC doesn't represent your view of the world; none of us would have figured that out on our own. As per "most Canadians", I think I have as much right to claim that "most Canadians" think that you're an angry monkey as you do claiming they agree with your view of the world.
And as you spew vitriol at ET who only presents what is painfully obvious (that you supplement your Liberal brainwashing with mindless googling), you may want to consider that ET has likely forgotten more about basic social and political theories than you'll learn in a lifetime of googling.
Nice diatribe though. Truth hurts, don't it?
Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-30 9:58:27 AM
Thanks, Ham.
My god - the language!
Gamblog - Just out of an aberrant curiosity, what does "Eat meat, drop babies and pave the world' mean???
gamblog - the correct spelling is dinasaur. No need for an 'e'....
No, I don't assume that people who have conclusions different than mine are brainwashed; I assume to you, Gamblog are brainwashed, because your opinions are without premises, without reasons, without grounds. You provide only the conclusions..I'm thinking syllogistically now...That is, you lack the major and minor premises..and provide only the conclusion. Anyone who does that on a regular basis - has no capacity to Think For Themselves.
Sometimes you do attempt to provide reasons, but these are always simply google sites..which are not reasons but conclusions.
Here's another conclusion from you, Gamblog: - that I am ignorant of basic 'social and political theories'. Proof? Make it good- and thoroughly grounded.
I'm saying that YOU are ignorant of both - you had no idea what the term 'culture' meant...thinking it had something to do with art galleries and museums!!!!! - and that shows me that you have no idea of social systems. And, you've shown previously, an ignorance of basic political theories.
So...stop with the conclusions and opinions and ground your statements in data. Oh..and logic would also help.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-30 10:26:20 AM
Here's a few facts you'll find uncomfortable Gamblog, with your professed conservatism but stunning ability to parallel liberal talking-points and spin. One is left to discern why you think harper is faring poorly in the Ontario polls. Pray tell why? Your jejeune complaint that your differing opinion is unwelcomed or ridiculed betrays that you think that you are entitled to have the conservative party defer to your views. Weak, really weak. In fact if you look at the conservative platform, its decidedly not a socially conservative document, so you repeat time honored and often repeated liberal slurs. Quite weak. You're no conservative.
Ultimately, the social conservative peril you so inflate is an illusion - look at the liberals - they have a pile of socially conservative MPs, but you never hear a word said about it - for some reason, the Liberals are assumed to be "untainted" by the presence of socially conservative MPs, yet the Conservatives are expected to purify and exclude from their party traditional people. Your petty insults and paranoia lead me to suspect you may be a bigot. You think that people who have a traditional view of things are not entitled to a say in how society is governed, they must be made to defer to your hijacking of a political party in your own image. Spare me, a political party is a mass of competing visions, all are entitled to speak and be heard and the party decides, based upon their sense of the interest of the country and their vision, what platform to advocate. If a socially conservative prescription is in the national interest, it is worthy of inclusion in the party's proposed legislative or executive agenda. if not, then not. In fact, the only parties I know of that are willing to pervert their platform contrary to the interest of the country is the lieberals (manifestly so, a party with no ideology beyond expedient attainment and maintenance of power and distribution of sttae goodies to friends or allies) and now the Layton cursed NDP (prop up the corrupt lieberals upon the hope of gaining a legislative agenda that the public repeatedly declines to endorse, obliteration looms at the next election as the lieberals always steal the NDP's vote - when the NDP could finally have put the liberal party to death. perhaps they don't actually want to have to govern one day...).
I care not what source you have for your distorted opinions (live feed or not) the fact is you relate your PERCEPTIONS of the live feed you've witnessed- the fact is, you neatly parallel the liberal lies and distortions pushed by the Liberals and their analogues dominating the MSM.
Invariably, you neglect to mention the harm and problems the liberals cause in your commentary - its all roses in Canada where the lieberals are concerned. All wrong is blamed on Harper.
And yet you write as if a conservative politically, if not a harper supporter ("we"). I suspect you revel in deluding yourself that you are actually sowing seeds of doubt about the conservative party / Harper but in brutal truth - and it appears you're not sharp enough to know this - the MSM's incessant trashing of Harper (neatly paralleling the lieberal talking points), their studied disinterest in the conservative prescriptions innoculates people who can detect such BS to your far less polished and much more amateurish attempts. You are a figure of ridicule.
Spare your vague and unsupported conclusions about "things not working in practice but on paper" (that's your "conservatism" being expressed there, right?). The last 15 years of liberal mismanagment and corruption and the decline of Canada relative to the US, the UK, NZ and Austrialia who have implemented the conservative prescription reveals you to be monumentally parochial, to an extent that is an achievement even for a liberal.
Know this - you are fooling no one.
Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-06-30 10:46:35 AM
ET: Yikes. When teaching someone how to spell, you should make sure that you have made no errors. I'll quote you:
"gamblog - the correct spelling is dinasaur. No need for an 'e'...."
Actually, ET, the correct spelling is 'dinosaur,' not 'dinasaur'.
And I don't care whether Gamblog is a "true" conservative or not, what matters is whether we should talk about SSM for the next election or not. Paul makes a great point--the Liberals are divided on this, and they probably dread a real out-and-out discussion of the issue.
Still, we, too, are divided on this issue. This is especially so in Quebec and Ontario, places where a large swath of Tories are socially liberal (like me. And gayandright, I guess). There's only so much social conservatism that I can stand.
I think we need to give that some thought too before we jump on this bandwagon too quickly. But I'm open to the suggestion that the Tories may do better with this debate. I just think they would lose a lot of people in the process.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2005-06-30 1:53:54 PM
This isn't a campaign issue if the CPC wants to win. It's an issue to be answered if the question is posed, but it isn't an issue on which to be proactive.
Posted by: lrC | 2005-06-30 2:16:30 PM
Right - Jaworski - my spelling also sucks.
As for the debate on SSM, what I think should be debated is process. I don't think that SSM is an issue with one answer; it's a point-of-view and therefore, is subjective.
But, the process of dealing with points-of-view in a society IS something that should be debated.
That is -I object to the fact that Martin lied to the people and said that the Supreme Court had ruled that SSM was a 'charter right'. The courts rejected the case and said that it was NOT a charter issue but a legislative issue..and sent it back to the House of Commons.
Martin then lied and said that 'the Supreme Court has spoken..and we have to do what the court says'. The Court didn't speak.
Jack Layton, who is an idiot, kept blathering on about how SSM was a 'human right'. Nonsense. Marriage is not a human right; it is a social value.
So- what I think should be debated is the process by which Canadians decide on, and change, social values. The Liberals refused to define it truthfully, as a social value..which meant it ought to be debated..and kept calling it a 'human right'..which cannot be debated. They tried to prevent debate. They shut down debate.
This is what makes me angry - the fact that an important social issue was taken out of the electorate's hands and their RIGHT to debate..and made non-debatable. This is a violation of the electorate's rights to define their own society.
Why? Because Martin was using SSM as an election tactic; the wants the big city and Ontario leftist votes. That's why.
What he did was a terrible violation of the rights of the electorate..to decide on the nature of their society.
In the US - they had a referendum on this issue. Such ought to have been done in Canada.
So- it isn't SSM marriage that ought to be debated..but the process of empowering the electorate to debate and decide on social values. That's vital.
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-30 2:58:11 PM
Well put, ET. The only thing to add is that the very same lieberals in office voted overwhelmingly in 2000 to preserve the marriage as a heterosexual condition. So the libs were willing to debate it then, but now, a scant few years later, the matter is inviolable and un-debatable as a "Charter right" (despite not actually being held such by the SCC)!
Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-06-30 3:35:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.