Layton, Gay Rights and Liberals

[kimmy]

So, while B.Max has proven himself to be a frothing at the mouth hate pustule, his lunatic rant raises an interesting question for board members: some of the resident righties and centre-righties here are verrrry quick to jump on anyone who states the anti-SSM crowd is motivated by fear, ignorance, bigotry and hate. Yet here is a shining example of hate in action and the silence is deafening. Why are you giving the haters a pass?

Several reasons.

First off, because Caesar, PocketRocket, and Terrible Sweal had already addressed the issue.

Secondly, because it's off-topic for this thread. This thread was supposed to be about the politics of the SSM debate, not the morality of it. We have a Morality and Religion board on this forum; I believe the morality of SSM has been discussed there ad-nauseum. Why should this discussion get sidetracked by an off-topic argument that's already been beaten to death?

Third, I thought the remarks spoke for themselves; comment wasn't necessary. Same reason nobody bothered to respond to WageSlave's remarks in the "What's an Albertan?" thread: stupid and pointless and didn't require a response.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

The Liberals have never portrayed themselves as the "big tent" party or the "free votes" party or the "more active role for backbenchers" party.

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election.

I disagree. While Martin (after assuming office) did make some talk of more free votes and more active backbenchers in his "Addressing the Democratic Deficit" action plan, those where not campaign issues of any note.

-kimmy

Interesting twist, kimmy, but your original point is belied by the facts.

See?

"democratic deficit" was a clear Martin policy. Whether it was an "issue" is not the issue.

Do you get a paycheck from the Rightista party?

As I said, I acknowledge that he made mention of "Addressing the Democratic Deficit ™" after taking office, however I maintain that it was not a significant issue during the election. If you were to interpret the Liberal election victory as a mandate to do any one thing, it would almost certainly have to be either "defend the Charter", or "defend the Canada Health Act."

I don't recall the exact content of the Liberals' campaign promises in regards to democratic reform, but it seems to me that it revolved around relaxing the rules of what would constitute a vote of confidence. Which is swell, except that one of the first things Martin did after winning the election was have a stare-down with the opposition leaders on the issue of relaxing the rules of what would constitute a vote of confidence.

As well, I believe Martin was in favor of free votes on issues of conscience, not issues of national policy. To hear him talk, "defending the Charter" is an issue of the highest national importance... so why isn't he even bothering to ensure his own backbenchers are onside?

I think if you're being honest, you'll concede that the reason Martin is allowing a free vote for his backbenchers is political expediency, not his enthusiasm for democratic reform.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

As pointed out by August in another thread:

Same-sex marriage law to be introduced

However, Bev Desjarlais, an NDP MP from Manitoba, says she'll be voting against the bill regardless of the party's edict.

So what are you going to do about this Mr Layton?

You do nothing, and you words in the Toronto news paper mean nothing!

NDP=Liberal Lite?

[pioneer]

he s a trader to his own kind!the guy looks like a fruit cake too!some people are repulsed by the idea of gay marriage,and that doesnt make them bad people!

[ndpnic]

I'm tired of the SSM and Pot legalization debates!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if the Canadian government had any BALLS, it would hold a Referendom, let the Canadian people decide for themselves once and for all!!!!!!!!!

[Black Dog]

Dejarlaise should be kicked out of the NDP caucus. If you don't support basic equality rights, you've no business being a NDP member.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if the Canadian government had any BALLS, it would hold a Referendom, let the Canadian people decide for themselves once and for all!!!!!!!!!

I've asked before and got no response, so I'll try again: why should the majority get to decide what rights minorities are entitled to? I just read some stats that showed that mixed race marriages were once illegal and, if left to the will of the majority, would still be today.

[pioneer]

so what!i agree!

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think if you're being honest, you'll concede that the reason Martin is allowing a free vote for his backbenchers is political expediency, not his enthusiasm for democratic reform.

I don't care about his motives. The point is he promised more free votes and here is an example of delivering it. He's doing what he said he'd do. Perhaps as a Conservative you simply don't recognize that when you see it.

[Guest eureka]

More important than free votes is the working of committees, and I believe that some progress has been made there.

[Stoker]

Dejarlaise should be kicked out of the NDP caucus. If you don't support basic equality rights, you've no business being a NDP member.

If Layton doesn't toss here out on her arse, do you think the NDP should have a leadership review? IOW, Should Jack Layton either step down as the Leader of the NDP for his failure control his caucus on a issue of Human rights, or should he stay on as a hypocrite?

Also, if layton does nothing in respect to fairness, should he withdraw his remarks on Paul Martin?

[Black Dog]

If Layton doesn't toss here out on her arse, do you think the NDP should have a leadership review? IOW, Should Jack Layton either step down as the Leader of the NDP for his failure control his caucus on a issue of Human rights, or should he stay on as a hypocrite?

Either Bev goes or Jack goes.

[Stoker]

Either Bev goes or Jack goes.

I can respect that view........

What do the other resident NDPers think?

Also, why has this issue (to my knowledge) not recieved much attention nation wide?

Has there been any cries for Bev to go by the NDP party/caucus?

[kimmy]

I think if you're being honest, you'll concede that the reason Martin is allowing a free vote for his backbenchers is political expediency, not his enthusiasm for democratic reform.

I don't care about his motives. The point is he promised more free votes and here is an example of delivering it. He's doing what he said he'd do. Perhaps as a Conservative you simply don't recognize that when you see it.

I can concede that allowing his MPs a free vote on this issue is a little green check-mark in favor of his "Democratic Reform" promises.

Can you concede that allowing his MPs to vote against this bill is a big fat red "X " against his promises to "defend the Charter" come hell or high water?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Can you concede that allowing his MPs to vote against this bill is a big fat red "X " against his promises to "defend the Charter" come hell or high water?

No, I don't agree at all. He promised to defend Canadian values of civil rights, and he promised more democracy for MPs. So far, at least up to the point of the vote going against the legislation, he's delivering both.

[kimmy]

Can you concede that allowing his MPs to vote against this bill is a big fat red "X " against his promises to "defend the Charter" come hell or high water?

No, I don't agree at all. He promised to defend Canadian values of civil rights, and he promised more democracy for MPs. So far, at least up to the point of the vote going against the legislation, he's delivering both.

Are the two not at cross-purposes?

Has he only failed to deliver on the promise to "defend the Charter come hell or high water" if the bill is defeated? I would think that in a situation where this bill could potentially be defeated, Martin's promises re: the Charter trump his proposals for more free votes.

Incidentally, how close is this vote going to be? So far we know that 1 NDP and about 95 Conservatives will be voting against it. I think I might have read in the Toronto Star that roughly 1/3 of the Liberal GTA caucus of 40 are considering voting against the bill. If that 1/3 figure was true for the whole Liberal backbench, that could be possibly 32 Liberals not supporting the bill. That could be 128 "nays". I have not heard how Chuck Cadman or the BQ caucus are leaning, but this has the potential to be be defeated, I would think. Unless (as rumoured) the Liberal MPs opposed to the bill are being "encouraged" to treat the vote as "attendance optional".

-kimmy

[August1991]

I have not heard how Chuck Cadman or the BQ caucus are leaning, but this has the potential to be be defeated, I would think.

That's an interesting tally, kimmy. To defeat the vote requires 150 some odd MPs. Between dissident Liberals and the odd BQ member, the votes aren't there. This will pass.

I see two possible angles: the Liberals are lowering expectations so that when it passes, PM PM will look like a guy in charge or else, the Liberals are less concerned about a Commons vote and more concerned about how the public perceives this.

Anyone got better numbers on how MPS will vote?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Can you concede that allowing his MPs to vote against this bill is a big fat red "X " against his promises to "defend the Charter" come hell or high water?

No, I don't agree at all. He promised to defend Canadian values of civil rights, and he promised more democracy for MPs. So far, at least up to the point of the vote going against the legislation, he's delivering both.

Are the two not at cross-purposes?

Not at all. So far projections indicate that the free vote will pass the legislation -- ta da! -- both goals met and discharged.

Only if Parliament fails to pass the legislation does it come time for Martin to confront a choice between the two objectives of defending rights and improving MP freedom.

Has he only failed to deliver on the promise to "defend the Charter come hell or high water" if the bill is defeated?

Even if the bill is defeated, depending on what he does next, he can legitimately claim to be defending the Charter. Public policy is not a one-off event. He didn't promise to succeed at every stage in every arena. He promised policy, not outcome.