Smallc Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 You cannot force someone to vote against their religious conscience. That is also a human right. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 You cannot force someone to vote against their religious conscience. That is also a human right. Religious beliefs don't justify bigotry. As a political party, if you allow those people within your ranks, you should be held accountable. Quote
Smallc Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 They do according to the Constitution. They're both rights that are paramount. Things are not nearly so simple as you're trying to make them. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 You cannot force someone to vote against their religious conscience. That is also a human right. A woman's right to choose what happens to her body trumps anyone else's religious conscience. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 They do according to the Constitution. They're both rights that are paramount. Things are not nearly so simple as you're trying to make them. No one is taking away anyone's right to be whatever religion they wish! What are you even talking about? If it is against your religion to be married to another man, don't marry another man!! Quote
Smallc Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 You can't make an MP vote against their conscience. That's why the vote can't be whipped for something like gay marriage if you want to be honest about civil rights (I'm an atheist who was very in favour of gay rights, before you start). Quote
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 You can't make an MP vote against their conscience. That's why the vote can't be whipped for something like gay marriage if you want to be honest about civil rights (I'm an atheist who was very in favour of gay rights, before you start). Do you think no one in the NDP is religious? Of course votes can be whipped! There is no constitutional right not to have votes whipped. You are broadening religious rights way beyond the scope of anything the SC has ever determined... Quote
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 Please define for me "matters of conscience". Death penalty? Abortion? Gay rights? What about divorce? How about taxation? Some religions have notions about taxation! Prostitution laws? Safe injection sites? How about healthcare bills? JWs don't want blood transfusions, so can they vote against any bills that might provide those to the rest of us? How about war bills? Actually, why not tell me what CAN be whipped, because I have found so many things that may be issues of religious or conscience that I don't know if any vote can be whipped anymore. Quote
overthere Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 You cannot force someone to vote against their religious conscience. That is also a human right. it wasn't a right for Bev Desjarlais Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted September 30, 2014 Report Posted September 30, 2014 but every party had dissenting opinions on same sex marriage. I see you don't have the courage to answer my question. I would make sure that the party that I am with is also on my side Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 Do you think no one in the NDP is religious?. You just made my point, and the point of the poster you were originally responding to. You can't hold up rights with one hand and trample them with the other. Quote
Smallc Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 Please define for me "matters of conscience". Death penalty? Abortion? Gay rights? What about divorce? How about taxation? Some religions have notions about taxation! Prostitution laws? Safe injection sites? How about healthcare bills? JWs don't want blood transfusions, so can they vote against any bills that might provide those to the rest of us? How about war bills? Actually, why not tell me what CAN be whipped, because I have found so many things that may be issues of religious or conscience that I don't know if any vote can be whipped anymore. Again, you're making my point for me. Quote
jbg Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) So sad to know this country is no longer great. I still think the world of it, despite the wrecking ball policies in effect from 1968 through 2006. Granted, I should have posted "in his efforts to wreck Canada as a great nation." Mulroney wasn't much of an improvement. Clark, Turner, Campbell and Martin didn't make a difference. Chretien was perhaps more of a street thug than a wrecker. Edited October 1, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Peter F Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Do you think no one in the NDP is religious? Of course votes can be whipped! There is no constitutional right not to have votes whipped. You are broadening religious rights way beyond the scope of anything the SC has ever determined... It seems many think that the party flag mp's run under has no bearing on how the mp votes. They can vote whatever way pleases them without regard to party policy and should the party decide to eject that member then the party is being a bunch of Nazi's! The position is ridiculous. Edited October 1, 2014 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Smallc Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 No one is actually saying that. If you followed the argument, you'd see that people were simply pointing out that Conservative MPs are just as free as at least their NDP counterparts. Quote
Peter F Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 and at least as free as the Liberal mps too. There is no law that requires any future Lib mp to vote the way he promised to. They too can vote their conscience and there isn't anything more stopping them than is stopping Con mp's or NDP mp's. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
PIK Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 So sad to know this country is no longer great.This country is getting it's greatness back again. We actually stand up for things now ,instead of checking to see the way the wind blows. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 I believe Mulcair is a tough, smart guy. But all the things people dislike about Harper are quite clearly present in Mulcair as well. Neither tolerates much opposition (no pun intended). Both run roughshod over their own caucus. Both are single-minded and focused and don't want to hear quibbles about their intentions. That being said, I could tolerate at least trying Mulcair if he was a Liberal. I don't trust the NDP, though. To me, they're still the party which cares primarily about minorities, gays, immigrants and the poor. Not saying that's a terrible thing, but I'm not in any of those groups. I heartily doubt they give a damn about me except as a wallet to draw on. And I think their environmental policies would do for Canada what Dalton McGuinty did for Ontario.And trudeau. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
overthere Posted October 1, 2014 Report Posted October 1, 2014 No one is actually saying that. If you followed the argument, you'd see that people were simply pointing out that Conservative MPs are just as free as at least their NDP counterparts. In the last same sex marriage vote, which passed the legislation: the NDP whipped all members to vote for and expelled Bev Desjarlais when she did not - the Liberals under Martin whipped the Cabinet to vote for and allowed the rest of caucus to vote their conscience without consequence -the Tories were allowed to vote their consicence Both Chretien and Martin voted against SSM in previous votes. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 - the Liberals under Martin whipped the CabinetThe government has Collective Responsibility. They're normally required by constitutional convention to vote together as a block, regardless of their personal opinions or wishes of their constituents. There are a few rare circumstances where there has been free votes from the cabinet, but as a rule cabinet ministers are required to resign if they do not agree with government policy. Quote
dre Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 You can't make an MP vote against their conscience. Unfortunately you CAN and it happens all the time. I wish you were right but you just arent. All these guys are forced to vote against their conscience on a nearly constant basis... Its a big problem with political systems based on parties. Unfortunately its a hard thing to fix. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Mighty AC Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 No one is actually saying that. If you followed the argument, you'd see that people were simply pointing out that Conservative MPs are just as free as at least their NDP counterparts.The CPC has mandatory pre-committee meetings where MPs are told what their positions will be and what talking points will be repeated. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Mighty AC Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 You can't make an MP vote against their conscience. That's why the vote can't be whipped for something like gay marriage if you want to be honest about civil rights (I'm an atheist who was very in favour of gay rights, before you start).Whose conscience should take precedent, that of the MP, the party or the riding? A CPC MP in my riding voted against equal marriage despite being elected with less than 40% of the vote and a newspaper poll showing the riding was 60% in favour of equal marriage. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Smallc Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 So you want the MP to not vote the way he promised to, then? The constituency always factors into things, but people run as individuals, and should remain true to themselves. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2014 Report Posted October 2, 2014 So you want the MP to not vote the way he promised to, then? The constituency always factors into things, but people run as individuals, and should remain true to themselves.The way he promised to assumes that he ran on that issue and made it clear how he would vote on it. That's highly unlikely. MPs couldn't possibly make it known how they will vote on every last issue that arises. Quote
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.