As I argued above, I think the scenario Harper has planned is this:
1)Bring the bill to the ouse of Commons
2)Having counted, as we did, and found the number of homophobes is higher than the sane MPs, he'll huff and puff about it being a free vote, and grab the moral high ground -- his usual tactic -- declaring that anyone who whips the vote is undemocratic.
3)Appealing to bigotry (not a rational force and one that cannot be analysed in the usual terms of political self-interest) he'll convince people to "vote with their conscience."
4)If he can get it passed, the courts will say "No way."
5)Then Harper starts talking about "activist judges". He'll wrap himself in the flag and declare it a battle for democracy. In other words, grabbing the moral high ground again. In this way, he'll try to make use of the "nothwithstanding clause" politically correct.
Harper's got a talent for this kind of obfuscation. It's the reason we're calling him Prime Minister, after all.
no subject
1)Bring the bill to the ouse of Commons
2)Having counted, as we did, and found the number of homophobes is higher than the sane MPs, he'll huff and puff about it being a free vote, and grab the moral high ground -- his usual tactic -- declaring that anyone who whips the vote is undemocratic.
3)Appealing to bigotry (not a rational force and one that cannot be analysed in the usual terms of political self-interest) he'll convince people to "vote with their conscience."
4)If he can get it passed, the courts will say "No way."
5)Then Harper starts talking about "activist judges". He'll wrap himself in the flag and declare it a battle for democracy. In other words, grabbing the moral high ground again. In this way, he'll try to make use of the "nothwithstanding clause" politically correct.
Harper's got a talent for this kind of obfuscation. It's the reason we're calling him Prime Minister, after all.