(no subject)

[felis_ultharus]

Well, the Tories are finally stalling in the polls. Dropping, even. It may just be that the current polls have a higher sample size. The NDP seems to be picking up more momentum than the Liberals. Good news.

Meanwhile, environmentalists, economists, abortion actvists, the Assembly of First Nations, and the queer-equality group EGALE have all been criticizing Harper this week, reminding people of what this man stands for.

In response, Harper said:

"The reality is we will have, for some time to come, a Liberal Senate, Liberal civil service — at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals — and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals," he said in Levis, Que.

"That's why I say in the true sense of the word, there's no absolute power for a Conservative government and no real true majority. We will have checks on us and limits on our ability to operate that a Liberal government would not face."

In other words, "You can vote for me because I'll have no real power." Yeah, right.

Word has it he's modelled his campaign on that of Australian PM John Howard, who presented himself for a re-election as a moderate until he took office, and then turned around and continued with his neo-con polcies. We don't want a John Howard running Canada.

Meanwhile, this list of candidates endorsed by the anti-equal marriage crowd reminded me that there are a few Bloc MPs who voted against Bill C-38.

Why is Gilles Duceppe -- running in the largest GLBT neighbourhood in the country -- getting a free ride on this? He obviously doesn't consider our equality a human rights issue, or he'd punish those members of his party who voted against.

Comments

[sugar-spun.livejournal.com]

*sniggers*

OK OK it's not funny, but I don't have to live there.

The Irish system is worse, I think. Multiple parties and each one of them is a fuckup and vapid anyway.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

It is funny. But it'd be funnier if he wasn't going to be running the country.

We have four major parties. The Liberals are pretty vapid, and some of them are fuckups, though some of them are cool. The Conservatives are vapid fuckups all around.

[reno-snake.livejournal.com]

"That's why I say in the true sense of the word, there's no absolute power for a Conservative government and no real true majority. We will have checks on us and limits on our ability to operate that a Liberal government would not face."



What Mr. Harper means by this, is that by implementing The Federal Accountability Act, priority one upon his election, the government will not have absolute control over various things like political interference in criminal prosecution, corporate donations (if any), and lobbyist affairs to name a few. Also, to strengthen the power of the Ethics Commisioner and Auditor General. That would mean the public would be able to read what the government spends, and how they spend, like an open book. These were neglected efforts in parliament over the past twelve years. That's what they imply in the message 'Honesty in Government'.


.... Nice sign, too

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

That's not at all what he said, if you'd actually read the quote. He was making it quite clear that residual Liberal institutions would prevent him from exercising the powers a simple majority gives a government in our system.

It is true that a Senate can block a piece of legislation, requiring a 2/3 vote to pass it in the Commons, though senators rarely use this power. They might be reluctant to in the face of a Conservative majority.

As for the Supreme Court, it only requires a simple majority in the Commons to invoke the "notwithstanding clause", according to section 33 of the Charter. So no, I don't think a Conservative majority would be powerless.

As for Harper's platform, I care not one whit. It's all a smokescreen -- I've followed his career a long time and know he's a political deceiver and manipulator of the first order.

His party is hiding a radical, right-wing Christian agenda -- they're all being muffled by Conservative head office. He's even gotten Rondo Thomas and Cherryl Gallant to keep mum, a remarkable feat!

Conservative Party platform is nothing more than the planks of Harper's Trojan Horse. It exists to conceal, nothing more.

[reno-snake.livejournal.com]

Well put. If I may say, though- let's take same-sex marriage, the so called most controversial issue in this election. Only recently has it been brought up and used as ammunition because members of the CPC are against it and for the traditional sense of marriage. It's also known however that just because you're on Harper's side, doesn't necessarily mean that you're opposed to it, and just because you're Liberal doesn't mean you support it.

This will be a free vote issue, whereas a vote in Parliament will decide whether Bill C-38 stays or goes. With a minority, it's not gonna be criminalized. Even with a Conservative majority there still won't be enough votes to ban it, but that will depend on what the results of Monday's final polls tells us.

Of course they'll have power, but what they do with it is a seperate issue, one that won't be a problem in my opinion.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

The overwhelming majority of Conservative candidates are anti-same-sex marriage. They're even running an anti-same-sex marriager person in Montreal's Village, the largest gay neighbourhood in the country.

Worse, many are passionately against. Like Darryl Reid, ex-head of Focus on the Family. Or Rondo Thomas, saying they're at war against us.

As a gay man, I cannot respect anyone who thinks my basic equality as a human being is not a given. Holding a free vote on this would be like holding a free vote on whether blacks should be allowed to marry whites. It's a disgusting concept that implies that basic equality should not be a given.

Your argument is disingenuous. There are plenty of homophobic Liberals, and five homophobic Blocquistes, but even a few more Cons would tip the scale over, and after 12 years of fighting to be an equal citizen in the country of my birth, I'd be back to being a second-class citizen.

an since a simple majority is all that's needed to invoke the "notwithstanding clause", that means they can castrate the courts, too, while they're at it.

"Of course they'll have power, but what they do with it is a seperate issue, one that won't be a problem in my opinion."

You picked the wrong journal to dismiss the importance of this issue, or the impact a pro-Con vote would have.

[reno-snake.livejournal.com]

Mmmm. I'm not attempting to convert anyone, which is a favorite stereotype for the right wing. I'm not even sure if I myself can be considered right wing. I know all well the beliefs here are adamant. I'm simply advocating for certain Conservative platforms. Harper will not whip his party. Plus with Liberals in the Supreme Court still, a Conservative move in the direction of banning gay marriage would be in check.

I doubt any discomfort in the idea of same sex marriage in the CPC is self-religion based. Maybe they're taking into consideration the sort of groups they'll negatively affect if same sex marriage continues, hence the free vote idea.

We'll just...see on the 23rd. My idea is that the Conservatives have a whole lot more on thier plate than same sex marriage like keeping criminals out of the country, rebuilding our national defense that's been neglected with the Liberals, restoring trust and improving health care.

No, i'm not saying same sex marriage is something inferior to these things and i'm not trying to stray from the topic. I'm just voting Conservative for my reasons, which don't include anti-humanistic ideals that we're so notoriously branded as having.

Plus my local Liberal candidate is a douchebag.

Let's close the book on this mini debate.

Fare well, felis_ultharus.

[pink-str8jackit.livejournal.com]

"As a gay man, I cannot respect anyone who thinks my basic equality as a human being is not a given."

Why must you have this view by virtue of your sexual orientation/identity? Does this mean you would not have arrived at the same conclusion had you been straight? Halfway or doubly there if you were bi? It's completely illogical. Destroy the Kloset everyday by viewing yourself as human first. That's what humanists do. And that's how human rights become adopted.

As for those who indeed do not view our basic equality as a given, think more as to why they believe they should or do have control/power over us, because that IS the mentality, more precisely.

As long as there's anti-queer violence and the Kloset continues to exist, we will always be second class citizens, or less. Albeit a start, legislation is not the only yardstick.

The running of anti-same-sex-marriage candidates in the Village is shamefully insulting. What audacity? Maybe they think that gay men (and a few lesbians) are too busy having fun to notice. Clearly, this slap in the face hasn't attracted much attention and there is no large-scale queer movement to get queers to vote intelligently, if at all.

Reason to rally?