Harper's socially moderate image under attack

[takeanumber]

So I guess in your mind anybody who wants to lower immigration, is pro-life, supports the traditional definition of marriage, and supports values such as community and family are all holocaust deniers, or support holocaust deniers.

I never implied that.

Holocaust deniers are holocaust deniers.

Pro-lifers are pro-lifers.

Those who desire lower immigration are those who desire lower immigration.

Xenophobes are Xenophobes.

Francophobes are Francophobes.

Homophobes are Homophobes.

Traditional definiton of Marriagers are Traditional definition of Marriagers.

Somebody who is Francophobic is often xenophobic, but not always.

Somebody who is homophobic is often a Traditional definition of Marriager.

Somebody who is a francophobe, xenophobe, homophobe, traditional definition of marriager, and pro-lifer is often a holocaust denier, but not always.

I've noticed these tendencies. Hell, I've even been able to link up demographic data to attitudes on immigration and homophobia.

There are always exceptions, but there are often correlations that hold quite often.

Those who make xenophobic statements are at risk of being confused for somebody who agrees with the whole package.

[DAC]

Let it be a free vote. What's wrong with that?

What would be wrong would be a leader, knowing the leanings of MPs, and the electorate, chosing to submit legislation under a "whatever will pass" system, using either free votes, public opinion, or - as a last resort - "showing leadership".

I think we're sliding over an important point here. Perhaps important enough to be worth starting a new thread, but as newcomer to this forum, I'm a little hesitant to do that.

Premise: ALL votes in parliament, without exception, should be free votes.

Why? Because the design of our system requires free votes for the checks and balances to be effective. Unlike the US, in which the executive and legislative bodies are separate and therefore serve to check one another, in our system the executive, the cabinet, is embedded in the legislature.

By design, the government (that is the executive) falls, if it cannot maintain the confidence of parliament, that is, if it loses a vote on a government measure. But that only works if votes are free.

If the PM can command his majority troops to vote for any measure the cabinet proposes, he is functionally a dictator until he chooses to call an election or his term expires. The practice of party votes, votes in which the troops are required to toe the party line, undermines our whole system, because it removes the fundamental check on the power of the cabinet.

[Argus]

Holocaust deniers are holocaust deniers.

Pro-lifers are pro-lifers.

Those who desire lower immigration are those who desire lower immigration.

Xenophobes are Xenophobes.

Francophobes are Francophobes.

Homophobes are Homophobes.

As is often the case the problem lies in the definition.

I defend the right of holocaust deniers to speak and you imply I'm a Holocaust denier. I assert that present day Official Bilingualism is discriminatory and you call me anti French. I don't like the though of being outnumbered in my own city by foreign born people and I'm a xenophobe. If I oppose including sexual orientation in human rights legislation no doubt you'll term me a homophobe.

Some people use terms like racist or xenophobe far, far too easily.

Beat up and murder gays you're a HOMOPHOBE

Tell a gay joke and you're a HOMOPHOBE

Doesn't seem to be much of a difference to the PC types.

[takeanumber]

I love the fact that some people call others, who believe in respect, PC'ers, as though it's somekind of derogatory term.

Funny.

Let's take a closer look:

As is often the case the problem lies in the definition.

I defend the right of holocaust deniers to speak and you imply I'm a Holocaust denier.

I may have implied that you're a holocaust denier, I certainly never outright called you one. I made quite a few implications though. Those who desire the freedom though, often want to use it. You've said that you don't desire to use the freedom, but you're worried about the slipperly slope.

I showed to you that arguement by inductive reasoning does not work because it is checked by reason.

In conclusion, in spite of your false belief in the said inductive reasonsing, I don't believe you want the freedom to use it.

I assert that present day Official Bilingualism is discriminatory and you call me anti French.

I believe that all of your statements, including the ones about French assimilation, constitute accute Francophobia. Don't be ashamed though. It's a malignant condition that affects hundreds of thousands across this country. Thankfully there is a cure.

I don't like the though of being outnumbered in my own city by foreign born people and I'm a xenophobe.

You said it.

If I oppose including sexual orientation in human rights legislation no doubt you'll term me a homophobe.

If you don't want homosexuals to enjoy human rights...if not homophobe, than what?

Some people use terms like racist or xenophobe far, far too easily.

You make it easy.

Beat up and murder gays you're a HOMOPHOBE

Tell a gay joke and you're a HOMOPHOBE

Alright, if you beat up and murder gays, I'm pretty sure that makes you a homophobe.

Depends on the gay joke, and the crowd. It's almost like the jokes that homosexual women themselves make when men arn't around. Light humour stuff.

Same applies to straight men when they think homosexuals arn't around.

It depends on intent. I've heard some pretty nasty anti-semetic 'jokes' that were deliberately anti-semetic, just as I've heard anti-gay jokes that were deliberately so.

Doesn't seem to be much of a difference to the PC types

There's a difference, but true, not much.

If you're implying that because you merely oppose human rights for homosexuals, but don't beat them in the streets, it doesn't mean that you're not a homophobe.

It's almost like murder. Murder is murder, but there are degrees of murder.

[Argus]

This speaks well for his consistency in his beliefs, but the fact of the matter is he still has control over his MPs and can control the agenda.  We've already seen him discipline his MPs over remarks on homosexuality and bilingualism so it's clear he's not going to give them completely free reign.

Who did he discipline over remarks on homosexuality?

The question is: when does he decide, and when does he let the MPs vote freely ?  Well, the choice is ultimately his...

According to what he said if there is no party policy they can give their opinion. The only discipline I saw was the guy who suggested Official Bilingualism be changed, and that was because he was speaking against policy.

[Black Dog]

Beat up and murder gays you're a HOMOPHOBE

Tell a gay joke and you're a HOMOPHOBE

Seems to be that's what I'd call homophobic behavior.

It's not the bugbear of political correctness at work: It's common sense.

[Argus]

I love the fact that some people call others, who believe in respect, PC'ers, as though it's somekind of derogatory term.

Generally speaking PCers have little enough respect for anyone, and are usually the most intollerent people around.

I assert that present day Official Bilingualism is discriminatory and you call me anti French.

I believe that all of your statements, including the ones about French assimilation, constitute accute Francophobia.

Whatever that is!

But thanks for demonstrating why I so distrust these kinds of laws. The interpretation depends on the mind of the person making the judgement, and if the mind is narrow, lacks experience and maturity, then it hasn't got the judgement to make a reasonable interpretation. You therefore open up society to any manner of dangerous interpretations depending on what kind of a loony or zealot is sitting in judgement of you.

[Argus]

Beat up and murder gays you're a HOMOPHOBE

Tell a gay joke and you're a HOMOPHOBE

Seems to be that's what I'd call homophobic behavior.

It's not the bugbear of political correctness at work: It's common sense.

Homophobia, first of all, is a dumb-ass word. It was meant to be a take on psychological conditions, thus homophbics are "afraid" of gays.

In point of fact almost no one is afraid of gays. A lot of people don't like them generally because they find what they do to be disgusting. I'm not sure fear really enters into it. Disgust maybe, bigotry, perhaps, dislike, contempt, whatever. But fear? I doubt it.

In any event, what I'm trying to get at is the narrow politically correct mindset doesn't seem capable of making a distinction between a hard core hater of gays who goes to parks looking to beat up fags, and someone who merely has some degree of discomfort with the thought of men having sex together. Or even someone who tells the occasional gay (or ethnic) joke.

[DAC]

(Black Dog @ Jun 7 2004, 01:48 PM)

Tell a gay joke and you're a HOMOPHOBE

Seems to be that's what I'd call homophobic behavior.

It's not the bugbear of political correctness at work: It's common sense.

By that strange reasoning, if I tell a joke about Scots, or about Presbyterians, I'm a hater of Scots or Presbyterians. [Homophobic is commonly interpreted as hating rather than fearing gays.]

The idea that you cannot say something is wrong without hating the person who does makes every parent a child-hater. let's not be stupid.

That's the problem with addition of sexual orientation to the hate crimes legislation. People today engage in the kind of illogic which makes disagreement into hatred.

[Michael Hardner]

Who did he discipline over remarks on homosexuality?

I think it was a member of caucus who was removed earlier this year, the family issues critic or somesuch.

QUOTE 

The question is: when does he decide, and when does he let the MPs vote freely ?  Well, the choice is ultimately his...

According to what he said if there is no party policy they can give their opinion. The only discipline I saw was the guy who suggested Official Bilingualism be changed, and that was because he was speaking against policy.

So it would be easy for him to effectively introduce legislation - tacitly through one of his MPs - without making it party policy then.

This sounds like something Chretien would have thought up. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[takeanumber]

Keep on deflecting the thrust of the arguement.

It just confirms my point of view.

[Argus]

 

The question is: when does he decide, and when does he let the MPs vote freely ?  Well, the choice is ultimately his...

According to what he said if there is no party policy they can give their opinion. The only discipline I saw was the guy who suggested Official Bilingualism be changed, and that was because he was speaking against policy.

So it would be easy for him to effectively introduce legislation - tacitly through one of his MPs - without making it party policy then.

This sounds like something Chretien would have thought up. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And what would be the advantage in that? The obvious disadvantage is that it would have to be a free vote, else it would be clear the government was behind it. And in a free vote, even if he had a majority, he would stand a large chance of losing any vote.

[Argus]

Keep on deflecting the thrust of the arguement.

It just confirms my point of view.

I think your point of view is confined to a long length of bowel on one side or a small, wrinkled opening on the other.

[Michael Hardner]

And what would be the advantage in that? The obvious disadvantage is that it would have to be a free vote, else it would be clear the government was behind it. And in a free vote, even if he had a majority, he would stand a large chance of losing any vote.

The advantage is being able to pass... let's say... unpalatable... legislation without having to take responsibility for it beforehand. This is what the other side calls "the hidden agenda".

So Harper can say truthfully that his government will not pass abortion legislation in the first term, but he can also decide in the backrooms what his MPs will or will not be allowed to do, and he knows what is likely to pass, what is likely to fail, and what falls in between.

[Goldie]

A general consensus would imply that it is not divisive as per COYNE. I agree, so let them who wish for restrictions be defeated in a democratic way. What are you affraid of?