nicky10013 Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-minister-pulled-gay-rights-from-citizenship-guide-documents-show/article1486935/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Well that's very small minded of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Well that's very small minded of him. You bet. Only reinforces the notion of a secret agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Well you know, Gays cannot reproduce so the only way to increase their numbers is through immigration.... *ducks* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Well you know, Gays cannot reproduce so the only way to increase their numbers is through immigration.... *ducks* Meh, I'll save the bricks for later. That was pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) I don't think there's any secret agenda here. I just think we have a Bible-thumping tool for an immigration minister. This is part of what I hate about the CPC. All they do with this crap is marginalize themselves trying to prevent something they can't do anything about. Edited March 2, 2010 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 I don't think there's any secret agenda here. I just think we have a Bible-thumping tool for an immigration minister. I would agree with that. I doubt Harper has a secret agenda. He doesn't scare me at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 At first blush it l;ooks like a petty move. Maybe there is more to it than what's apparent at 1st blush. My only guess if I was defend it would be there were (for arguments sake) 120 entries for things that make canada unique and opnly 100 spots to put them in.... Gay rights doesn't make Canada unique.... On the otherhand, gay rights as a marquee item ould keep the undesirables out.... Yes Welcome Al-Abama, you will love Canada and the opportunity it gives to your sons to explore homosexual love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 I don't think there's any secret agenda here. I just think we have a Bible-thumping tool for an immigration minister. This is part of what I hate about the CPC. All they do with this crap is marginalize themselves trying to prevent something they can't do anything about. I don't necessarily think so either, it's just really bad optics. What can the CPC say if it's brought up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 At first blush it l;ooks like a petty move. Maybe there is more to it than what's apparent at 1st blush. My only guess if I was defend it would be there were (for arguments sake) 120 entries for things that make canada unique and opnly 100 spots to put them in.... Gay rights doesn't make Canada unique.... On the otherhand, gay rights as a marquee item ould keep the undesirables out.... Yes Welcome Al-Abama, you will love Canada and the opportunity it gives to your sons to explore homosexual love Meh, it was in the first draft and only that was specifically cut out while the military was given more space so clearly the room was there. It's not like an extra page is going to break the bank. They already spent $400,000 coming up with this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 You guys are missing the bigger picture. The citizenship guide referencing so-called gay rights could be very offensive to several immigrant groups, such as Muslims applying for Canadian citizenship. Why do you people wish to offend immigrants! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 You guys are missing the bigger picture. The citizenship guide referencing so-called gay rights could be very offensive to several immigrant groups, such as Muslims applying for Canadian citizenship. The citizenship guide already says several things that could offend religious extremists of all stripes....I find it interesting that you're choosing to defend Kenny over this though. Perhaps it was simply because there wasn't enough room, but that's not what this article says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 From the article: Mr. Kenney's spokesman reiterated that the 1995 guide "produced by the Liberals" did not mention gays and lesbians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 1995 was a very, very long time ago. The rest of the world has progressed. The conservatives are obviously still caught up in their ancient prejudices. Oh well. It will only hurt them in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 From the article: And? The whole reason for changing the article was because so many things were missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 To follow up on Shady's comment, here is what the aricle says in full: "We can't mention every legal decision, every policy of the government of Canada," he said. "We try to be inclusive and include a summary. I can tell you that if you were to read the old book, you wouldn't even know that there are gay and lesbian Canadians." He then noted the caption under Mr. Tewksbury's photo. Mr. Kenney's spokesman reiterated that the 1995 guide "produced by the Liberals" did not mention gays and lesbians. "We can endlessly debate what was included or not included," Alykhan Velshi said in an email last week. "Unavoidably, choices had to be made about content because we had to ensure the guide did not become encyclopedic." Mr. Velshi also noted the new guide does not refer to marriage at all, whether opposite sex or same sex. There are two groups that are going to jump on this: partisan hacks who hate Stephen Harper and people who think gay issues should be front and centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) To follow up on Shady's comment, here is what the aricle says in full: There are two groups that are going to jump on this: partisan hacks who hate Stephen Harper and people who think gay issues should be front and centre. So let's get this straight. Removal of statements about gay rights from a citizenship guide is okay because? Edited March 2, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) What a waste of money, when you need to market a country it shows how little you have to offer in terms of global presence. Why not let the news do the talking. Eg. 1 page - Interested in Canada - LEARN ABOUT IT ON YOUR OWN DON'T READ GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA - THEY LIE ANYWAY. A MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY CIC.GC.CA - Got a degree or money, apply today, otherwise Go home. BTW ITS COLD HERE 9 MONTHS OF THE YEAR, WAKE THE HELL UP! Edited March 2, 2010 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 To follow up on Shady's comment, here is what the aricle says in full: There are two groups that are going to jump on this: partisan hacks who hate Stephen Harper and people who think gay issues should be front and centre. So what's the real reason behind the policy? I don't think a lot of people feel that gay rights should be front and centre. The question is why was this and only this specifically deleted from the pamphlet? The only excuse given was that there wasn't enough space to articulate all the government's policies. That would make sense if people were just complaining that gay rights wasn't there in the first place. Everyone has seen the first draft. It was there, it's not in the second draft. Why? Spin all you want about partisan hacks and gay activists, the Conservatives can't get out of this one that easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) So what's the real reason behind the policy? I don't think a lot of people feel that gay rights should be front and centre. The question is why was this and only this specifically deleted from the pamphlet? The only excuse given was that there wasn't enough space to articulate all the government's policies. That would make sense if people were just complaining that gay rights wasn't there in the first place. Everyone has seen the first draft. It was there, it's not in the second draft. Why? Spin all you want about partisan hacks and gay activists, the Conservatives can't get out of this one that easily. Does the pamphlet say anything about polygamous marriages? Or polygamous peoples rights? Edited March 2, 2010 by MontyBurns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Does the pamphlet say anything about polygamous marriages? Why should it? They aren't protected by law...yet anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 So what's the real reason behind the policy? I don't think a lot of people feel that gay rights should be front and centre. The question is why was this and only this specifically deleted from the pamphlet? The only excuse given was that there wasn't enough space to articulate all the government's policies. That would make sense if people were just complaining that gay rights wasn't there in the first place. Everyone has seen the first draft. It was there, it's not in the second draft. Why? Spin all you want about partisan hacks and gay activists, the Conservatives can't get out of this one that easily. Oh I don't know, probably because gay people enjoy the same rights as everybody else. It would be redundant to print it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Oh I don't know, probably because gay people enjoy the same rights as everybody else. It would be redundant to print it. Not really considering that those rights don't exist more places in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontyBurns Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Maybe the pamphlet should state that Jewish transexuals have rights in Canada as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 No, it only has to state that people can't be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. One line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.