Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Lukiwski doesn't have to 'do' anything, all he has to do is make sure that he doesn't denigrate gays, which as far as we know he hasn't done since the original scoop and following apology. Why should he have to, they certainly aren't going to vote for him anyway. There you have it - the Conservative ethos. "Why should he have to do what he SAID he'd do, if it won't help him anyway ?" Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 "Why should he have to do what he SAID he'd do, if it won't help him anyway ?" Good point, folks like you would just call him ingenuous if he did. He should have just apologized and promised nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I agree that he should have promised nothing if that's what he was going to do. I might have suspected him of being disingenuous if he had only apologized, but I wouldn't have had any proof of it. I do now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think conservatives and "Conservatives" are missing the reason why many people who are ideologically close to their views, are suspicious of conservative motives: on an issue like gay marriage, conservatives will publicly use "defense of marriage" for their objections and claim that they bear no malice towards homosexuals -- and then, when you scratch a little deeper, you find these people, like Tom Lukiwski, doing the same fag-bashing that their more uncouth supporters do! It's similar to the "school choice" and "separate, but equal" arguments used by George Wallace, Lester Maddox and other notorious segregationists used when they had to take off their hoods and clan robes and pretend to be arguing for racial separation for non-racist reasons. Richard Nixon jumped on the bandwagon using these same excuses to oppose the federal busing programs, and he tacked on his own code word - "urban crime" to inform the vast majority of white voters that he was going to seal the blacks into their inner city neighbourhoods and build new prisons to protect white suburbia from any further civil rights demands by blacks. There are many libertarians and fiscal conservatives who feel suspicious of tax-cutting conservative agendas. The tax cut starts to look like a carrot to be thrown out to bring middle class voters in to a pro- big business agenda; and defense of marriage, protecting our borders, and defending our Christian values etc. etc., also start to look like appeals to bring people onside for selfish reasons! The one thing missing from conservative political appeals are positive messages that could provide a little unity, instead of dividing the public in to warring factions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Oh, I don't know! I'm considered rightwing in many circles and I couldn't care less if someone's gay. You haven't been accused of being intolerance and bigotry. The MP has. He said he would do better. Since he is a public official, I think it won't be enough to show he different in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Lukiwski doesn't have to 'do' anything, all he has to do is make sure that he doesn't denigrate gays, which as far as we know he hasn't done since the original scoop and following apology. Why should he have to, they certainly aren't going to vote for him anyway. And that is why people can question whether he has really abandoned being a bigot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 (edited) So one should attend some thing that makes them feel uncomfortable in order to demonstrate "tolerance"? Sounds more like hypocrisy to me. Didn't say he should attend a parade. I do think as a public official he needs to do something to show he isn't a bigot. A private citizen who changes his views can do it as privately as he wants. A public official will be judged on what they do. Edited June 2, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Didn't say he should attend a parade. I do think as a public official, he needs to do something to show he isn't a bigot. A private citizen who changes his views can do it as privately as he wants. A public official will be judged on what they do. One doesn't need to do anything to show they aren't a bigot other than not act like a bigot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 One doesn't need to do anything to show they aren't a bigot other than not act like a bigot. And once demonstrated to act like a bigot, the assumption that a bigot remains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 And once demonstrated to act like a bigot, the assumption that a bigot remains. Which just goes to highlight the point that one shouldn't make decisions based on assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Which just goes to highlight the point that one shouldn't make decisions based on assumptions. The Conservative MP expects us to assume that he has changed and make the decision to vote for him based on that. It's a big a leap of faith for something that has not been demonstrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 The Conservative MP expects us to assume that he has changed and make the decision to vote for him based on that. It's a big a leap of faith for something that has not been demonstrated. How would he demonstrate it to your satisfaction? What would it take for you to vote for him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 How would he demonstrate it to your satisfaction? What would it take for you to vote for him? Support for same sex marriage. Making violence against homosexuality a hate crime. Clear demonstration by a lawmaker for tolerance and acceptance without the parade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 The Conservative MP expects us to assume that he has changed and make the decision to vote for him based on that. It's a big a leap of faith for something that has not been demonstrated. He does? Why would he want anyone to assume anything about him? Assumptions are what always lead to misinformation and poor judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Support for same sex marriage. Making violence against homosexuality a hate crime. Clear demonstration by a lawmaker for tolerance and acceptance without the parade. There's a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Support for same-sex marriage and making the redundant step of designating violence against homosexuality a hate crime is not the penultimate demonstration of intelligence, noblesse, or even tolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 There's a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Exactly, that is the essence of living in a free society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 There's a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. True. One can be tolerant but not necessarily accept. I tolerate same sex marriage but to be honest I don't accept it. I suppose that makes me a bigot in the eyes of the likes of dobbin. If my view on this matter is unacceptable to some, I really don't care. First, I won't run for public office and second, I believe we are still free enough to accept or reject that which we don't agree with. I feel like I have moved into the closet (there's more room in there these days), keeping my non-acceptance in check and invisible to the outside world. I have two women friends married to each other. Outwardly, I treat them like any other couple but secretly I disapproved of their marriage. Gay relationships are another matter. I tolerate and accept them without reservation. Maybe I'm just half-bigoted? Support for same-sex marriage and making the redundant step of designating violence against homosexuality a hate crime is not the penultimate demonstration of intelligence, noblesse, or even tolerance. Redundant and I would add excessive from a law and order perspective. Is violence against children and elders any less than violence against members of the gay community? I don't think so. It's a cruel world. Everyone needs equal protection of their person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 He does? Why would he want anyone to assume anything about him? Assumptions are what always lead to misinformation and poor judgement. If he seeks election again, I'm sure he wants us to assume he is different from what was portrayed on the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 There's a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Support for same-sex marriage and making the redundant step of designating violence against homosexuality a hate crime is not the penultimate demonstration of intelligence, noblesse, or even tolerance. If the Tories believe it is redundant to designate hate crimes against groups, I am sure they will remove such against the Jewish community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Exactly, that is the essence of living in a free society. However, the Tory MP said he was going to somehow do better. Not getting caught on further videos does not demonstrate tolerance in a public official. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) If he seeks election again, I'm sure he wants us to assume he is different from what was portrayed on the video. So, you're actually making an assumption about what he wants you to assume. If the Tories believe it is redundant to designate hate crimes against groups, I am sure they will remove such against the Jewish community. I'm not sure how you interpreted my comment as one on behalf of Tories, but if there is a special designation for Jews, then yes, it should be repealed. Otherwise there would have to be special clauses for every conceivable group, which, besides being impossible, would just lead back around to everyone being given the same protection, which is the way it should be. However, the Tory MP said he was going to somehow do better. Not getting caught on further videos does not demonstrate tolerance in a public official. But nor does it demonstrate that he isn't "doing better." Edited June 2, 2008 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 True. One can be tolerant but not necessarily accept. I tolerate same sex marriage but to be honest I don't accept it. I suppose that makes me a bigot in the eyes of the likes of dobbin. You are not a public official and you have not said intolerant things about gays here. I don't call people who don't accept gay marriage bigoted unless it comes some sort of deeper intolerance. What the Tory MP showed was intolerance. He said he was ashamed but didn't really indicate why. Did his views change? How? Why should anyone believe him? Is it only because he was caught? If the MP doesn't want to accept gay marriage or a law to make violence against gays a hate crime, what public level of tolerance will he show? Because failing that, the lasting impression of him is drunk, bigoted and rather hateful. His silence is not a clear sign of tolerance. If he had said the same thing about Jews, he probably would have been tossed from caucus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 So, you're actually making an assumption about what he wants you to assume. I assume nothing. I think he is a bigot until proven otherwise. His contrition at being caught on video told me nothing. I'm not sure how you interpreted my comment as one on behalf of Tories, but if there is a special designation for Jews, then yes, it should be repealed. It won't be. Otherwise there would have to be special clauses for every conceivable group, which, besides being impossible, would just lead back around to everyone being given the same protection, which is the way it should be. Hate crimes were introduced to ensure that federal punishments would come into play rather regional ones. The specific hate had to fall outside the normal parameters of general violence. In other words, it was directed at a particular group or person for who they were as a primary cause. But nor does it demonstrate that he isn't "doing better." No, it just means all we know is that the MP had bigoted views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 No, it just means all we know is that the MP had bigoted views. I guess if Paul Martin, a Catholic, can reverse his position on same-sex marriage in only a few years, we should give Lukiwski the benefit of the doubt. 17 years is a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) Didn't say he should attend a parade. I do think as a public official he needs to do something to show he isn't a bigot. A private citizen who changes his views can do it as privately as he wants. A public official will be judged on what they do. Then the whole point of this thread is - not surprisingly - utterly useless. The little things that Lekiewski might do in daily life to "improve himself" will never be reported. If he tries too hard, he will be accused of photo-opping. For example, who's to say he hasn't made substantial donations to some Gay support groups....but if he advertized it, he'd be accused of paying lip service through his wallet. Damned if you do, damned if you don't......and all because somebody with a grudge decided to dig up a video from 1991. Great. Edited June 2, 2008 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.