NDs lose MP Desjarlais.

[tml12]

True. However, I think we can be very sure that only overwhelming opposition from her constituents would have caused her to endanger her political career and standing with the NDP in order to vote no. I'd suggest the only reason she voted as she did was she didn't think she could get re-elected otherwise.

You can imagine it if you wish... If she is more interested in her own skin than representing the party whose banner got her elected, then maybe she should run as an independent.

If you're going to teach at a Catholic school, you better not be saying "Catholicism is wrong"... or you'll lose your job...

The NDP is basically saying that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a racist scumbag. And since her constituents appear to not support gay marriage, well, are they likely to vote for a party which calls them moral inferiors?

I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple.

It is you who is falsely projecting the NDP party position.... The term "scumbags" came from you ... that terminology must come from ...well, a homophobe party...

Further, your point that her constituents "appear to not support gay marriage"... is it based on some kind of fact or did it come out of your bag of "Conservative facts"... Has a poll been taken, or should we just wait for the next election.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When your the Liberals or the Conservatives (or even, at this point) the Bloc you can afford a free vote.

In other words, when your party has 19 members there must be party discipline on EVERY issue...

[Argus]

True. However, I think we can be very sure that only overwhelming opposition from her constituents would have caused her to endanger her political career and standing with the NDP in order to vote no. I'd suggest the only reason she voted as she did was she didn't think she could get re-elected otherwise.

You can imagine it if you wish... If she is more interested in her own skin than representing the party whose banner got her elected, then maybe she should run as an independent.

If you're going to teach at a Catholic school, you better not be saying "Catholicism is wrong"... or you'll lose your job...

I don't believe she ever said "Socialism is wrong". She said her constuents did not support gay mariage, and she was going to vote as they wanted. Nor can you compare a teacher with a public political representative.

And she IS going to run as an independant.

The NDP is basically saying that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a racist scumbag. And since her constituents appear to not support gay marriage, well, are they likely to vote for a party which calls them moral inferiors?

I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple.

Yes, simple and wrong. In fact, it is what's wrong with Canadian politics, why so many have turned away from the political process. She is NOT supposed to be the party's representative to her people but her constituent's representative in parliament. Too many of them forget that, as do the parties, all too often.

Further, your point that her constituents "appear to not support gay marriage"... is it based on some kind of fact or did it come out of your bag of "Conservative facts"...  Has a poll been taken, or should we just wait for the next election.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It came from her, you know, the NDP MP who couldn't vote with the party because of the overwhelming opposition of her constituents.

[err]

I don't believe she ever said "Socialism is wrong". She said her constuents did not support gay mariage, and she was going to vote as they wanted. Nor can you compare a teacher with a public political representative.

And she IS going to run as an independant.

Good for her...

However, I doubt she took a poll of her constituents to get a realiatic perspecive of the percentage that were for or against. A few squeaky wheels, who incidentally, probably did not vote NDP may be all she heard.

As I pointed out earlier, the constituents voted NDP based on the NDP platform... and she went against that platform, and one of the key policies of the NDP... so she effectively went against the wishes of her constituents in favour of the opinion of herself, perhaps her pastor/priest, and a few homophobic right-wing conservatives in her riding.

The NDP is basically saying that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a racist scumbag. And since her constituents appear to not support gay marriage, well, are they likely to vote for a party which calls them moral inferiors?

I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple.

Yes, simple and wrong. In fact, it is what's wrong with Canadian politics, why so many have turned away from the political process. She is NOT supposed to be the party's representative to her people but her constituent's representative in parliament. Too many of them forget that, as do the parties, all too often.

If she has actual poll data from her riding, this may be the case, but in nearly every single instance, it is the election poll that expresses the constituents wishes... during the term, if the politician shifts stance, it is usually a personal whim, or steering by a lobby group... If she has poll data, more recent then the election poll, she should show it... otherwise the election poll should stand, and she should do as promised to her constituents when elected under the NDP banner.

[Black Dog]

But I looked through that link you provided to the NDP's platform (thanks, it deserves a thread to itself), and excepting something about steel, brief bromides about the family farm and standing up to the US on trade matters, the bulk of the platform is addressed to young urban people - yups. It appears that they want to be free to choose but they want the government to tell other people how to choose.

Frankly I think your characterization of both the NDP and its target audience smacks of a strawman. is the NDP an urban-oriented party? Well, yeah: between 67 and 78 per cent of Canada's population lives in urban areas. Doe sthe NDP target yuppies? Not exclusively: if you look at the platform again, there's pensions and prescription drugs, affordable housing, aboriginal issues and a host of others addressed to people who aren't your VW driving, new-media working yuppies.

As for the last statement, I can only give that a big: ?

It is naive to believe that Desjarlais's situation is not related to her vote against SSM.

I don't think it has absolutely nothing to do with it, of course. But I think the characterization of the NDP as being closed to any different ideas is false.

Err, that's a Young Urban Person issue - it matters for YUPs.

Actually, it's an issue that matters most to two groups: some gays and the religious right, who made the biggest fuss. Last I checked, they didn't vote NDP anyway.

NDP members rejected Layton Legalization of marijuana stance, therefore Layton should  be rejected by the party according to Err.

Nope. That's a question of determining policy, not policy set by the party.

And the NDP will likely be rejected by the voters of that riding next election. Their rigid, absolutist ideology which regards anyone who doeesn't support it as an evil heretic insults too many people. For what they're saying is everyone who doesn't wholehearetedly support homosexual rights is a racist, and since she clearly voted only because of the strong wishes of her constituents, the NDP is saying her constituents are racists. Good luck to the new would-be NDP MP who won the party's nod trying to win with that around her neck.

Pfft. Bev Dejarlais signed a document stating she would support equal rights for all Canadians, which included SSM, when she ran as a candidate. Jack Layton signed those documents with the understanding that Bev would abstain during the SSM vote, not vote actively against it. She had a choice, she chose to spit in her parties' face, when she could have sat out the issue and emerged with her conscience (and her position) intact.

[Melanie_]

Rape is, by and large, an impulse crime largely driven by alcohol or drugs, and is largely physically harmless to the victim (in terms of other physically violent crime).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can someone post a link to the origin of this statement? I want to read it in context before I say anything.

[err]

Rape is, by and large, an impulse crime largely driven by alcohol or drugs, and is largely physically harmless to the victim (in terms of other physically violent crime).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can someone post a link to the origin of this statement? I want to read it in context before I say anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=72004

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=72814

[August1991]

This is the full quote of Argus' comment, along with a link to the original post:

If a woman is raped do hundreds of thousands of men across the country jump up and thrust their fists in the air in delight on hearing about it? Do they then drop to their knees and praise God for the success of their fellow rapist? Do men gather in groups discussing ways of raping many hundreds or thousands of women at once through new methods and weapons? Do they curse women and pray to God to destroy them?

Rape is, by and large, an impulse crime largely driven by alcohol or drugs, and is largely physically harmless to the victim (in terms of other physically violent crime). Blowing up a building, on the other hand, tends to be fatal to a lot of people. Poisoning water supplies or using biological, chemical or nuclear weapons can be fatal to far more, and we know terrorist groups have sought such weapons.

Maple Leaf Web

Melanie, I was surprised by that comment too, so here's my take:

The comment was in the context of comparing "All men are potential rapists" and "All Muslims are potential terrorists" - so you can imagine where that comparison can lead.

----

Since this thread about Bev Desjarlais is so far gone, I'll make some comments of my own about this specific topic.

IMV, the comparison above has some merits. If the police are looking for a rapist in a community, it makes sense to "profile" men. If the police stop more men than women in their search for the rapist, would anyone accuse them of sexism?

As to Argus' specific comment, I would hope that murder carries a higher penalty than rape. I would prefer to survive being raped, and somehow deal with the consequences, rather than be dead.

I lived in Sri Lanka during "communal disturbances" and it is then that I realized that rape is a crime of fundamental violence.

In a diverted thread comparing rape and terrorism, it seems appropriate to note that in the Muslim world, the family honour resides between the legs of its women. IOW, rape carries an unfortunate stigma beyond its physical violence.

In this, I'll quote a writer, Emily Hahn, and specifically her book, China to Me. (Hahn died recently, and she lead a long and fascinating life. If you have never heard of her, I suggest you check both links.)

My suggestions to alleviate the misery caused by war rape are not very  practical. They would take too long to put into effect. I want us to lift the guilt burden from the minds of the victims. To do this we would have to uproot centuries of diametrically opposed ideas. We would have to bring up our daughters not to fear rape with the superstitious terror with which we have always instilled them. We would have to teach them that rape is simply a physical hazard, one of the penalties of war which might possible happen to anyone. Do you think it could be done? If so, a lot of miserable little girls would be much happier, and I have never seen why they should have been made miserable in the first place, aside from the misery than naturally accompanies rape on a virgin. I realize that I am trying against nature. We don't scare the girls deliberately; we are scared ourselves, and we just pass it on. But my idea ought to be tried out. Really, it ought. I saw the women of Hong Kong and I know.  I was infuriated by the unnecessary suffering we cause ourselves.

[Melanie_]

Thanks for the links.

Argus, I think your statement was made in the context of trying to make a very different point, and it was brought into this thread just to be inflammatory. But regardless of the context, it marginalizes the physical trauma of rape, and completely discounts the more far reaching emotional trauma that often results. If it were just a result of drugs and alcohol we could doubt all the men out there who drink and smoke up; in reality alcohol and drugs just lower the inhibitions of men who already are capable of the crime. You sound like you are making excuses for rape, Argus, which I hope was not your intent.

August, I will look for that book, but I don't expect to be converted. We may be able to change the guilt many rape victims experience, and I'm all for that - they did nothing wrong. But the physical and emotional pain, and the loss of trust, the loss of power, the loss of security, would not be balanced out by saying, "oh well, that's the hazard of being a woman living in a war zone." If we could educate women not to fear rape, could we not also educate those men who become rapists to prevent it from happening in the first place?