Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« On The Matter Of The German Built Yossarian Electro Diesel Engine | Main | The Liberals would *never* do this »

Monday, December 12, 2005

Rights R us

Paul Martin didn't make much noise today, other than to try once again to label the Tories as anti-human rights, because of the party's commitment to allowing a free vote on same-sex marriage.

But Martin's reasoning was rather weak. Consider this quote:

"I believe that the prime minister of Canadashould not be choosing which rights he will support. He needs to support all rights of Canadians."

All rights of Canadians? The right right to own handguns, perhaps? Or maybe just the right to throttle idiot politicians.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on December 12, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8349a33ed69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rights R us:

Comments

Exactly. I thought the Charter was supposed to protect us minorities, no matter how politically incorrect, from the tyrannity of the majority.

Posted by: Joel | 2005-12-12 5:42:23 PM


It's sad, really. "Rights" was once a useful word for describing things the state couldn't take away from you. Now it's become a useless word that means something like whatever any random group of freeloaders manages to convince the state to take away from you. It's just such a senseless waste of vocabulary.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-12-12 6:46:31 PM


Wrong. It reads:

I believe that the President of the United States should not be choosing which rights he will support. He needs to support all rights of Americans.>>>

Yours fooly,

Dubya >>>

From: Paul Martin's Booke of Mangled Sin Tax, Health Cures, Tax Evasion, SSM Spewings, AdScam Memoirs: True Tale$ of the Librano$, Orval's Fave Recipes Popcorn & Beer (Edition, 2005) Ed., Reid & Duffy, Autographed by Gag & The Gang on flyleaf of brown envelope, Trust Moi-Income Tiplets included. Send no stamps. GG excluded. Merci, Paul yer Paypal. BS, er P.S.The above was cribbed from D's Bushisms ( Moi does not admit plagiarism; only, socialism).

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-12-12 6:52:48 PM


Another Martinism:

The Economy:


By AdScam Martin:. "One of the reasons for having a strong economy in Canada is
to be able to help people who lose their jobs." Paul Martin quote>>

Voodoo/doodoo economics by P. Martin, Jr.

P.S. Paul, bet you there is a job waiting for you at CSL ships.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-12-12 8:08:08 PM


What is supposed to be achieved by a 'free vote' in parliament? Didn't the majority who voted on SSM in parliament last time pass the SSM bill with a Liberal minority?

What is needed is a national referendum.

Joel the charter exists to protect an individual's basic rights from infringement by the state. You're confusing that with the granting of new rights which previously never existed.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-12-12 10:39:34 PM


I just a quick thing to point out. I know that Martin is now trying to flush out Stephen Harper on the "Not Withstanding Clause of the Constitutional" regarding same-sex marriage, but wonder if the Conservatives shouldn't slam-dunk the Liberals on the same issue.

Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that Private healthcare is a right and would Paul Martin enact the "Not Withstanding Clause" to overturn a basic right in Canada?

The issue I think would put the Liberals in a bit of a pickle. Of course, Harper better be ready to address the same issue since I know that the MSM will go after him just as hard.

Just thought I'd ask....

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2005-12-12 10:42:42 PM


"All rights of Canadians? The right right to own handguns, perhaps? Or maybe just the right to throttle idiot politicians."

I will take one of each, please. Thank you. :)

Posted by: Dishwasher | 2005-12-13 12:05:59 AM


Thought the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that SSM was not a human rights issue?

Posted by: Bert Mulder | 2005-12-13 11:24:36 AM


Yup, you are right. But the Liberals (and not knowledgeable public) don't portray it in that way. This is only an election ploy to make Harper look like a bad man who would take away your rights, by invoking the not withstanding clause. It is all to win votes in the larger urban centres where there is a support for gay marriage, as well as playing on minorities' fears that their rights might be the next to be taken away.

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2005-12-13 12:30:56 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.