Visionseeker

Well played... Oh so well played. For the record, I've been looking to sacrifice to Wottan. I just haven't found a compliant subject. I think my ethics are getting in the way.

I agree with the boycott w/o reservation. But I also believe that if left unchecked, Zionism will be the undoing of the world's only Jewish state. Times have changed greatly since Herzog, it's time for Zionism to do the same.

Public support grew with each court decision. The question in 1980 was repulsive, in the 90's it beacmae plausible and in the our present decade, it became a fore-gone conclusion. But it only came to that because the Court instructed us of our folly.

And Harper, man of the people, has worked in Ottawa (on the taxpayers dime) almost entirely since 1984. Want to personally fire a career civil servant, the next election is your chance to do so.

Thank you, I'll take this as a compliment. Uh, really!? Did a political forum inspire some kind of political grass-roots movement that ultimately led to the legalization of SSM? No, it didn't. SSM was gained by systematically eroding barriers regardless of wider public opinion. Real change, real justice, real progress has always come from the judiciary. The judicial branch pulls our heads out of the sand and says: "look here, this is wrong and we must change". And faced with such a challenge, society takes its head out of the sand and starts to come to grips with, and accept the issue as decided. Yes, most people "argue from the perspective of tastes and personal morality" and that is why the legal reasoning of the courts is so important in helping us overcome our own prejudice.

First problem with your analysis that Harper had cozyed with Mulroney not so long ago. The public sees them as part of the same team. Then a bus pulls up... Harper can't finesse himself out of this any more than Martin could following the sponsorship enquiry. If Mulroney come out of this with egg on his face, Harper is tied to the yolk; if Mulroney is completely exonerated, the old PC side of the party starts to ascend. The Dion would make a bad PM meme worked because nobody could understand the guy. But Iggy seems to have that snakeskin salesman touch. Smears can't overcome an awed public. I sense we are headed for an early winter election where the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

I'll give you this: you are consistent. But a massive deficit is unavoidable when your entire economy is based on the value of the by-product of decaying dinosaurs. Alberta’s economy is even more dependent on a singular primary commodity than it was thirty years ago. Maybe this current implosion will finally open Albertan’s eyes to the fact that NEP had little to do with the economic calamity that played-out in the eighties and early nineties.

This cartoon is military propaganda. My knowledge of the Sri Lankan civil war is comparable to my grasp of quantum physics. I never gave much effort to either endeavour. But the purpose of propaganda is something I know a little more substantively, and this cartoon makes me wonder if I shouldn't be morally obliged to look into the Tamil's history. Propaganda ultimately bites its promoters in the ass. Once your liberties with the truth are exposed, you lose all legitimacy. That the Sri Lankan military is “bolstering” its military success with propaganda campaigns suggests that they known that their aims are illegitimate.

Wow! The National Post is really tripping over itself to be a partisan rag. I mean really, a Sri Lankan political cartoon. Is it any wonder why CanWest is in such financial trouble?

If you accept arguments of religious exceptionalism, the law finds itself buried in exceptions and contradictions that are unsustainable and quite possibly contradictory. You cannot have one law of marriage for followers of one religion and another for the followers of other faiths. One law for all, as fair as it can be. The kirpan argument didn't have to go that far because the case centred on comparable behaviour: if a Christian can wear a cross, a Sikh can wear a kirpan. It never was a section one issue. But polygamy will have to overcome that test and the only way it can is by demonstrating that the limitations are unreasonable. Like I said before, I like ducks. My personal preferences have nothing to do with my reasoned view of the matter at hand. And if you must know, I find nothing distasteful with the CONCEPT of consensual plural marriage. And even media exposure of its most deeply flawed practitioners doesn't change this opinion. But I also recognize the state's need to place reasonable limitations on freedoms. And I simply don't see a proper argument that could have polygamy overcome section one of the Charter.

Well, I give you the first 2 bullets above, but "The state can't afford to pay more benefits" didn't weigh into the opponent argument because that ship had already sailed. From 1995 (Vogel v. Manitoba) onward, a series of court decisions had acknowledged that the denial of benefits to same-sex couples amounted to discrimination under section 15 of the Charter. In 1999, the federal government settled with two gay applicants for CPP survivors’ benefits and later that year ended the practice of predetermined exclusion of benefits for same-sex claimants. Again in 1999, the case of M v. H overturned provisions of Ontario's Family Law Act that prevented same-sex partners from applying for spousal support upon relationship breakdown. Meanwhile, the provinces of BC and Quebec were making sweeping changes to numerous statutes to amend the definition of "spouse" to include "marriage-like" or de facto spouse status; thereby eliminating any exclusions to workers’ compensation, occupational health and safety, labour standards, insurance, tax, trust and savings companies, pension benefits, public-sector retirement plans, social assistance and other benefits to which same-sex partners had hitherto been excluded. For all intents and purpose, the question of same-sex benefits was largely settled by 2000. All that remained was to gain the right to formally, and legally marry. Having progressively gained the rights to all benefits of married peoples, homosexual couples had everything but the right to a formally recognized marriage. With all the ancillary issues of benefits resolved, the argument came down to a simple one: does the "man and woman" provision for marriage violate the rights of homosexual persons under section 15? At this point, the question was really a no-brainer. Now it's true that opponents to polygamy say "it's not normal" and "why can't they just live together". But that's were the parallel to SSM ends and, quite frankly, those are not terribly compelling arguments. But I digress... SSM was attained through a systematic erosion of all the barriers to equivalent to spouse benefits. Having attained the status of de facto marriage, it was a simple and logical conclusion that the status might as well be de jure if and when the parties should seek it. I don't see polygamy taking this progressive path and, as a result, I don't see an analogous legal argument. Further, even if polygamists strive to follow the same example, I don't think they'll successfully free themselves of the restrictions of Section 1.

You make an excellent point.

Oh the irony! In the next campaign, the Conservatives will try to make an issue of Iggy's prolonged tenure outside the country and, if and when they lose, their leader will pack-up and head south to earn a living. Just think of the kids of tomorrow being thought this piece of history; nothing like a good laugh to stimulate interest in the curriculum.

Hey, coming to common understanding is what dialogue is for. But I don't think you've brought a useful precedent here. The kirpan decision, like the RCMP turban decision, recognized the individual right to display and keep the symbols of their religion in their daily lives. If a Christian can wear a cross to school or work, then a Sikh can carry a kirpan and wear a turban. In short, these were decisions supporting the individual's FREE EXPRESSION of their religious identity - not a defence of their religious freedom. Showing the practice as part of their religion isn't enough; for if that were the standard, Catholics would be unable to divorce and sharia and rabbinical law would have sovereignty over marital disputes within their own flock. IMO, trying to challenge the state's domain over marriage by citing religion is a non-starter. Rather, the plaintiff has to find some vehicle to demonstrate that depriving everyone in society of the right to legally recognized plural marriages is wrong. I just don't see how they can accomplish that.

Um, the recognition has to be earned Michael. As their practices have not been recognitized/legitimized by the state, they seek to earn such recognition from the courts (just like gay marriage and countless other causes managed to do through the courts). It's abhorent, but not ridiculous. The point is that religious freedom can be used to defend many actions. Religions must defend practices that contravene the laws of the state. The truth is that questioned religious practice is guilty until proven innocent under the Charter. As it should be.

Ready! Circle! FIRE!

Indeed, just as you should prepare yourself to be stripped of your rights because someone at the UN put you on a list.

And if my right foot were my left, I'd have to change shoes. Choice was available regardless of PT's offers of support. When you bend an argument too far, you only find yourself getting bent.

The thing with labels is that there must be sufficient plausibility for them to stick - be they launched by the "politically correct" or some other interest. In Canada, impressions of conservatism by self-identified non-conservatives increasingly view it as a reactionary philosophy. This makes it ever so difficult to draw additional support and should give conservatives pause for thought: is this label maybe earned, if only a little? The fact is that the CPC is not an ideologically sound body of conservative principles, but a merger of interests comprised of right-leaning libertarians, social conservatives, traditional conservatives, and angry white males. While some of these constituencies overlap, they do not do so in a manner that produces an ideologically cohesive set of principles that can appeal to a majority, or even a large plurality of Canadians. Like any party occupying a pole, the Conservatives are held back by their fringe.

The Liberals managed to reduce the Bloc to 38 seats in 2000 while taking 36 for themselves. Why can't the CPC do the same or better? Because they're too far from centre for most Quebeckers perhaps?

Their distance from the centre is best measured by their electoral results. They've failed to win a majority in 3 elections since the sponsorship scandal broke. What lesson do you learn from this?

Well aren't we a cynic? Could be. But you haven't put forth any arguments to demonstrate how this recognition would be earned. How would this religious tradition be defended any differently from say, forced female circumcision? Going to the Court and saying "it's my religion" isn't enough. One has to demonstrate how state restrictions are unreasonably depriving the faithful of rights enjoyed by others. The state doesn't recognize ANY plural marriages and limits marriage to one current spouse for ANYONE. I don't see the opening here. Can you point it out to me?

Out or in power, the influence of the Conservative "fringe" is what keeps them too far away from the centre. And yes, many an ox have been executed at the hand of hypocrites, just as many a fair butcher have been wrongfully maligned while acting in good faith.

My post discounted the notion that Conservatives are, by definition, intolerant while accepting the premise that intolerant Conservatives have a significant influence over the party. Hate can be found in the corridors of every party. But in the Conservative party, some of those corridors are the one's wielding power.

Because they are being used "as directed" perhaps?