Jump to content

Conservative MP Lukiwski still hasn't reached out to gays


Recommended Posts

I assume nothing. I think he is a bigot until proven otherwise. His contrition at being caught on video told me nothing.

It won't be.

You assume that he is a bigot but claim you assume nothing? Do you presume everyone to be a bigot until they prove otherwise?

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.

This isn't the place to get into a debate about hate crime laws, but there is nothing called "general violence." Violence is violence, regardless of who it's directed at, unless you, like some others, believe Jews, gays, women, etc., to be more special than everyone else.

No, it just means all we know is that the MP had bigoted views.

Heh... well, yes. Had is the key term there. You know nothing about his present views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Paul Martin never made bigoted statements. He did change his mind and it was demonstrated in office. Where exactly has it been shown that the Tory MP has changed his view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume that he is a bigot but claim you assume nothing? Do you presume everyone to be a bigot until they prove otherwise?

You say assume. I don't think everyone is a bigot. I just think someone who makes a bigoted statement is a bigot until demonstrated otherwise.

This isn't the place to get into a debate about hate crime laws, but there is nothing called "general violence." Violence is violence, regardless of who it's directed at, unless you, like some others, believe Jews, gays, women, etc., to be more special than everyone else.

I know that some on the right have that view that violence is violence. The fact of the matter is that violence is classified in many different way and I do think there is a big difference between assaulting someone domestically versus assaulting someone based on their colour.

Heh... well, yes. Had is the key term there. You know nothing about his present views.

And no one else does either. We are just left with the bigotry he displayed in the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Martin never made bigoted statements. He did change his mind and it was demonstrated in office. Where exactly has it been shown that the Tory MP has changed his view?

If he was raised a devout Catholic, he would have believed homosexuality is a sin. That's bigoted. And did he change his view or just change his vote? To my recollection, he never came out and state homosexuality is not a sin. He would only say he was for the Charter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was raised a devout Catholic, he would have believed homosexuality is a sin. That's bigoted. And did he change his view or just change his vote? To my recollection, he never came out and state homosexuality is not a sin. He would only say he was for the Charter.

I'm afraid you are reaching to try and compare Lukiwski's publicly stated bigoted and hateful remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say assume. I don't think everyone is a bigot. I just think someone who makes a bigoted statement is a bigot until demonstrated otherwise.

I guess, then, that is your problem.

I know that some on the right have that view that violence is violence. The fact of the matter is that violence is classified in many different way and I do think there is a big difference between assaulting someone domestically versus assaulting someone based on their colour.

Then you should also know that some not on the right hold the same view. Assault can be carried out with different methods, but always with the same intent: to hurt.

And no one else does either. We are just left with the bigotry he displayed in the video.

Yes, we are. But that is not enough information on which to base an opinion on the person's present character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you are reaching to try and compare Lukiwski's publicly stated bigoted and hateful remarks.

Martin wasn't accepting invitations to gay pride events either. Yet, I'm sure you didn't start a "Martin still hasn't reached out to gays" thread at the time. Did you?

Layton said Martin is "sitting on the fence." He noted Martin has refused to accept his invitation to join him at various gay-pride marches across Canada.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess, then, that is your problem.

And the MP's problem if a lot of other people feel the same way.

Then you should also know that some not on the right hold the same view. Assault can be carried out with different methods, but always with the same intent: to hurt.

I have no doubt that the intent is to hurt. I happen to believe to believe in distinguishing what sort of violence. I happen to think there is a difference between rape from other forms of assault. Likewise, I think a hate crime of vandalism is different from vandalism that doesn't target individuals or groups.

Yes, we are. But that is not enough information on which to base an opinion on the person's present character.

That's your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin wasn't accepting invitations to gay pride events either. Yet, I'm sure you didn't start a "Martin still hasn't reached out to gays" thread at the time. Did you?

He didn't attack gays and his government eventually accepted same sex marriage.

You're still reaching if you think Martin made bigoted statements against gays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the MP's problem if a lot of other people feel the same way.

That a lot of people think that way is not a problem solely for the MP.

I have no doubt that the intent is to hurt. I happen to believe to believe in distinguishing what sort of violence. I happen to think there is a difference between rape from other forms of assault. Likewise, I think a hate crime of vandalism is different from vandalism that doesn't target individuals or groups.

No, you just mean "special" individuals or groups. TTC drivers complain about being assaulted all the time; they are the targets of abuse because of their job. Why, then, are they not protected from these hate crimes when it is clearly violence that targets individuals as representative of a group?

That's your opinion.

No, it's my observation.

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That a lot of people think that way is not a problem solely for the MP.

Isn't it? Since they are hoping to be elected, it seems that how they are perceived means a whole lot.

No, you just mean "special" individuals or groups. TTC drivers complain about being assaulted all the time; they are the targets of abuse because of their job. Why, then, are they not protected from these hate crimes when it is clearly violence that targets individuals as representative of a group?

Seems you are little confused here. Are they being attacked because their job is dangerous or because of who they are? If the attacks are because they are drivers and are hated for it, you might have a case.

No, it's my observation.

And you're welcome to your...opinion/observation. My observation that the Tory MP is a bigot given that this is the only information we have on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it? Since they are hoping to be elected, it seems that how they are perceived means a whole lot.

No, it isn't. People making decisions based on assumptions causes, no doubt, many problems for themselves and/or the rest of us. For too many, image is everything.

Seems you are little confused here. Are they being attacked because their job is dangerous or because of who they are? If the attacks are because they are drivers and are hated for it, you might have a case.

No confusion; they're attacked because of who they are: employees of the TTC. But, when the Criminal Code already covers violence "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on racial group, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor," why do they need a special clause all to themselves? In fact, the Code presently goes on to stipulate punishment for the incitement or expression of hatred against "any section of the public distinguished by skin color, racial group, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation." Sexual orientation would include the personal sexual identities of those who live under the label "gay." So this part of the discussion was wrapped up before it even started.

And you're welcome to your...opinion/observation. My observation that the Tory MP is a bigot given that this is the only information we have on him.

And your observation is flawed; based on insufficient information (unless you actually have more than you're letting on). I wonder if you often make such blanket opinions based on nearly two-decade-old sound bites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't. People making decisions based on assumptions causes, no doubt, many problems for themselves and/or the rest of us. For too many, image is everything.

And people who ignore past evidence of behaviour with no evidence to show that behaviour has not been corrected are a bit naive.

No confusion; they're attacked because of who they are: employees of the TTC. But, when the Criminal Code already covers violence "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on racial group, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor," why do they need a special clause all to themselves? In fact, the Code presently goes on to stipulate punishment for the incitement or expression of hatred against "any section of the public distinguished by skin color, racial group, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation." Sexual orientation would include the personal sexual identities of those who live under the label "gay." So this part of the discussion was wrapped up before it even started.

You'd have to show me that attacks are being made on TTC employees because of who they are. Do you have a cite for these crimes against them for this reason?

If you are opposed to hate crime legislation, you can bring it up with your Tory MP. Start with hate crimes against Jews and see how far that gets you.

And your observation is flawed; based on insufficient information (unless you actually have more than you're letting on). I wonder if you often make such blanket opinions based on nearly two-decade-old sound bites.

Based on the evidence that's there and none that exists contrary (unless you actually have more than you are letting on), the MP has a reputation for bigotry. I wonder if you offer such blanket trust based on apologies after getting caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And people who ignore past evidence of behaviour with no evidence to show that behaviour has not been corrected are a bit naive.

To ignore any evidence is naive. But we're not talking about that.

You'd have to show me that attacks are being made on TTC employees because of who they are. Do you have a cite for these crimes against them for this reason?

The TTC itself is the target of the hostility, but drivers are the ones who interact with the public, and thus receive the brunt of the abuse; I've personally witnessed mild abuse wherein the patron verbally berates the driver. There were recently a couple of articles on the number of, and motivation behind, attacks on TTC drivers (yelling, spitting), as well as fears about escalated attacks because of the latest strike. I could go try to search them out again; however, it actually isn't that important to the discussion. It was just an example of a group being targeted for attack who weren't specifically covered under hate crime legislation.

If you are opposed to hate crime legislation, you can bring it up with your Tory MP. Start with hate crimes against Jews and see how far that gets you.

I don't have a Tory MP.

Based on the evidence that's there and none that exists contrary (unless you actually have more than you are letting on), the MP has a reputation for bigotry. I wonder if you offer such blanket trust based on apologies after getting caught.

But there's the crux of your issue: you're making a decision even while completely aware that you don't even know if there's contrary evidence out there or not. One could rack such conclusion-reaching up there with that of the creation theorists and the Bush administration; "Sadam? Oh, he must have WMDs because he hasn't proven he doesn't." Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the evidence that's there and none that exists contrary (unless you actually have more than you are letting on), the MP has a reputation for bigotry. I wonder if you offer such blanket trust based on apologies after getting caught.

Keeping with that thought, how would you characterize the appointment of Michaelle Jean to the position of G.G. The video of her was 12 years before her appointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ignore any evidence is naive. But we're not talking about that.

I think we are.

The TTC itself is the target of the hostility, but drivers are the ones who interact with the public, and thus receive the brunt of the abuse; I've personally witnessed mild abuse wherein the patron verbally berates the driver. There were recently a couple of articles on the number of, and motivation behind, attacks on TTC drivers (yelling, spitting), as well as fears about escalated attacks because of the latest strike. I could go try to search them out again; however, it actually isn't that important to the discussion. It was just an example of a group being targeted for attack who weren't specifically covered under hate crime legislation.

This is a citation?

I don't have a Tory MP.

You can always write the Tory justice minister to get your changes in.

But there's the crux of your issue: you're making a decision even while completely aware that you don't even know if there's contrary evidence out there or not. One could rack such conclusion-reaching up there with that of the creation theorists and the Bush administration; "Sadam? Oh, he must have WMDs because he hasn't proven he doesn't." Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

You are really reaching now. Both your examples have had plenty evidence to sway people to a conclusion. In the case of creationists, they go to great lengths to downplay or discredit evolution while building little in their case to support creationism or "intelligent design." They make it an article of faith. Likewise, Bush refused to believe evidence from the U.N. that they could not find weapons and concluded that Saddam was hiding them. They took it an article of faith that he had them and according to many former Bush admin people, they went to great lengths to build a case on evidence that was based on that faith.

The Tory MP has let people conclude that he was once a bigot and has not shown that this has changed despite his apology. You would have it on an act of faith that he has changed. I've asked here what evidence there is that he has changed and only gotten an argument that there is no evidence that he still is a bigot. That gets to be a circular augment.

Barring further evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to make a decision to vote for someone without them addressing their past in a meaningful way.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping with that thought, how would you characterize the appointment of Michaelle Jean to the position of G.G. The video of her was 12 years before her appointment.

I thought it was chancey. I have no idea how they vet candidates to the position. I think she has performed well but I don't know what background checks or what questions the PM asks to conclude that the person they ask is right for the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are.

You are wrong.

This is a citation?

No.

The Tory MP has let people conclude that he was once a bigot and has not shown that this has changed despite his apology. You would have it on an act of faith that he has changed. I've asked here what evidence there is that he has changed and only gotten an argument that there is no evidence that he still is a bigot. That gets to be a circular augment.

He hasn't let or not let anyone do anything. You have concluded, by your own volition, that he was "once a bigot" and, because he has not shown to you the "right" evidence to prove to you that he no longer is, you have further concluded that he is still a bigot. To me you say I take his change to be a given on faith; however, and in fact, if you check back through the thread, you'll see I never said if I think he has changed or hasn't changed. This is because I don't have the evidence to prove either possibility. And there's the difference between you and I: you make a decision with only half a story (an old half); I make no decision because I realise that I only have half a story (an old half). The man could have changed in nearly two decades; he could also not have changed. Certainly nothing brought forward so far proves that he has changed; but, equally, nothing shows that he hasn't.

Barring further evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to make a decision to vote for someone without them addressing their past in a meaningful way.

In your case it seems that it's easy to make a decision to vote, or not vote, for someone without them addressing their past "in a meaningful way." I imagine the difficulty would come more for those who see that he did something in the past, and realise that he may or may not have changed, but aren't sure if he has or hasn't. Whether or not the passage of 20 years and an apology sways someone to at least have some inclining that the man may have changed depends on that someone's obstinacy towards the flexibility of the human character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong.

No.

He hasn't let or not let anyone do anything. You have concluded, by your own volition, that he was "once a bigot" and, because he has not shown to you the "right" evidence to prove to you that he no longer is, you have further concluded that he is still a bigot. To me you say I take his change to be a given on faith; however, and in fact, if you check back through the thread, you'll see I never said if I think he has changed or hasn't changed. This is because I don't have the evidence to prove either possibility. And there's the difference between you and I: you make a decision with only half a story (an old half); I make no decision because I realise that I only have half a story (an old half). The man could have changed in nearly two decades; he could also not have changed. Certainly nothing brought forward so far proves that he has changed; but, equally, nothing shows that he hasn't.

In your case it seems that it's easy to make a decision to vote, or not vote, for someone without them addressing their past "in a meaningful way." I imagine the difficulty would come more for those who see that he did something in the past, and realise that he may or may not have changed, but aren't sure if he has or hasn't. Whether or not the passage of 20 years and an apology sways someone to at least have some inclining that the man may have changed depends on that someone's obstinacy towards the flexibility of the human character.

Well said Bambino. Dobbin has beaten this thread to death today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is why people can question whether he has really abandoned being a bigot.

Nonsense, why would he go - so they can jeer and boo him - really. Why should he show his support for something he or anyone else things is immoral - which by the way, is not being a bigot nor is it hate, and it at least shows some integrity on his part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, why would he go - so they can jeer and boo him - really. Why should he show his support for something he or anyone else things is immoral - which by the way, is not being a bigot nor is it hate, and it at least shows some integrity on his part.

I said he didn't have to go to the parade. However, simply keeping quiet will not quell the feeling that he was only contrite when it looked like he might suffer political consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong.

I think the same of you.

No.

Not surprised based on anecdotal information. It was a bit of a reach.

He hasn't let or not let anyone do anything. You have concluded, by your own volition, that he was "once a bigot" and, because he has not shown to you the "right" evidence to prove to you that he no longer is, you have further concluded that he is still a bigot. To me you say I take his change to be a given on faith; however, and in fact, if you check back through the thread, you'll see I never said if I think he has changed or hasn't changed. This is because I don't have the evidence to prove either possibility. And there's the difference between you and I: you make a decision with only half a story (an old half); I make no decision because I realise that I only have half a story (an old half). The man could have changed in nearly two decades; he could also not have changed.

I await to see what the MP will demonstrate as a representative on Parliament in regards to tolerance.

Certainly nothing brought forward so far proves that he has changed; but, equally, nothing shows that he hasn't.

In your case it seems that it's easy to make a decision to vote, or not vote, for someone without them addressing their past "in a meaningful way." I imagine the difficulty would come more for those who see that he did something in the past, and realise that he may or may not have changed, but aren't sure if he has or hasn't. Whether or not the passage of 20 years and an apology sways someone to at least have some inclining that the man may have changed depends on that someone's obstinacy towards the flexibility of the human character.

I think my hardline is the same attitude some on the right take on parole. Has the person really changed? Are they capable of doing what they did again? Do the deserve a second chance? Have they demonstrated that they are different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the same of you.

Not surprised based on anecdotal information. It was a bit of a reach.

I await to see what the MP will demonstrate as a representative on Parliament in regards to tolerance.

I think my hardline is the same attitude some on the right take on parole. Has the person really changed? Are they capable of doing what they did again? Do the deserve a second chance? Have they demonstrated that they are different?

You forgot the one question that really only matters to you: Are they Tory or Liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...