Canadian Election Tread (part deux)

[KrazyHorse]

True dat.

And you're not an Ontarian.

[notyoueither]

You are like the Asher of the NDP Reds (if they formed a hockey team, that might be their name).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
True dat.

And you're not an Ontarian.

No, but I am of the centre.

[KrazyHorse]

How so? Asher doesn't even believe in voting. I do.

[Ben Kenobi]

The political spectrum for any country needs to be drawn relative to the population of that country.

Why?

If you concede this point, then you concede mine. The political spectrum would always need to be given a grain of salt, and adjusted depending on the country.

doesn't change the fact that relative to Canada's population you are an extremist.

Oh, I don't mind being called an extremist. Sometimes an extremist is what a country needs. Anyone who would want to change society is an extremist of sorts.

Wishing for the majority of Canadians to agree with your views won't make it so.

Yeah, that's why we need laws.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's funny, because the ***** in your avatar is considered an extremist even in the US...

By whom?

Communists?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why?

If you concede this point, then you concede mine. The political spectrum would always need to be given a grain of salt, and adjusted depending on the country.

What would you base it on then? Europe would agree that the NDP isn't that far off centre. Only the US wouldn't...

The point is that in discussing political dynamics it's always necessary to keep things in the context of the population that provides the votes.

The Christian Heritage Party is of the extreme right. The NDP has the support of the moderate left as well as some elements from the extreme left (like me).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


By whom?

Communists?

Yeah, Communists like Bill O'Reilly...

[notyoueither]

I can tell you the thing that scares the hell out of me, is having the same party in power for 20 or 30 years. They've had 10 now, and have been emboldened by the lack of alternative to them. I do not want to see what they would be like if they get off on a very serious rap by switching leaders.

And that's what every Canadian should be thinking about, and what a majority of them will be when they choose which X to mark, or whether to be on holiday and away from the polls when the day comes.

The comments of some Tories (4 of them that the mobs could dredge up) will be a factor for some, no doubt. But I don't think the left can be successful in crying wolf on the right forever.

You should hope the Libs go now, and a minority NCon emerges. If Canadians have to wait and pummel the Grits and return a NCon majority that maybe really could begin breaking things, then we might be in a bit of a pickle.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, Communists like Bill O'Reilly...

That's odd.

She's sold a few best-sellers.

Could it be that Bill O'Reilly does not speak for the people of the US?

[Ben Kenobi]

What would you base it on then? Europe would agree that the NDP isn't that far off centre. Only the US wouldn't...

It has nothing to do with proportions of support, but everything to do with ideology.

One can class certain positions as either on the right or left, with a more extreme party taking more of the positions on one side over the other. The spectrum gives data on how the parties relate to each other and not much else.

[notyoueither]

And the Liberals say, Whoops!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini/CTVNews/1086544294813_3?s_name=election2004&no_ads=

Liberal MPs say party still divided on abortion
Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Two veteran Liberal MPs say there is no difference between their party and the Conservatives on abortion, contradicting Paul Martin's claim that there is a "gulf" between the two parties on hot-button moral issues.

Toronto MP Tom Wappel and Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway also say that Liberals are deeply divided over gay rights, with Gallaway going so far as to predict that a free vote on same-sex marriage would be defeated.

"My view is if it were put to the House, which it will be, it won't pass," Gallaway said in an interview. "I think there's enough people opposed to it to knock it down."

Among those opposed to same-sex marriage is Judy Sgro, the cabinet minister sent by Liberal campaign officials last week to heckle Conservative Leader Stephen Harper over his stand on abortion.

Sgro, who supported an Opposition motion last fall reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage, taunted Harper with the question: "Whose rights are you taking away tomorrow?"

The comments from Wappel and Gallaway puncture Martin's attempts to portray the Liberals as defenders of civil liberties and the Conservatives as a regressive party with a hidden agenda to recriminalize abortion and deny gay rights.

Over the past week, Harper has been dogged by questions about his party's stand on sensitive moral issues.

He has said he has no plans to legislate on abortion but would allow backbenchers to bring forward private members' bills on the matter.

Harper has noted that private members' bills, which must go through a tortuous process, rarely make it to the floor of the Commons but said if they managed to get that far, he would allow a free vote.

Martin countered by saying he would "strongly advise" his backbenchers not to propose private members' bills on abortion because they would be contrary to party policy.

However, Wappel, a staunchly pro-life MP, said Harper's comments were merely "a statement of the obvious" about the way private members' business works and Martin would act no differently.

"I don't think too much should be made of the prime minister's comment," said Wappel.

He said private members' business has never been subject to party discipline.

He noted that Martin has vowed to eliminate the democratic deficit to give backbenchers more power and said Martin would not, therefore, roll back the clock by trying to direct the content of private members' business or deny free votes on it.

"I have no fear that private members' business is somehow going to be attempted to be controlled," said Wappel, who once proposed a private members' bill to recognize that life begins at conception _ a bill that never came to a vote.

Gallaway, Martin's point man on parliamentary reforms to empower MPs, said Martin is entitled to say he won't encourage private members' bills on abortion "but that's not a prohibition either."

"There's nothing that can prevent a member of the House who's not a cabinet minister from bringing in any private members' bill," Gallaway said.

Wappel suggested Martin simply got caught up in the heat of the campaign when he suggested he'd interfere in private members' bills.

Senior Liberal strategist Scott Reid said Martin will not allow parliamentary opinion to overrule a woman's right to choose, or any other "fundamental charter right."

Martin's position on same-sex marriage also seems to have evolved rapidly over the past week as he strives to turn gay rights as a wedge issue against the Tories.

A devout Roman Catholic, Martin initially admitted he was torn on the issue and was lukewarm in his support for former prime minister Jean Chretien's draft legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Anxious to avoid turning it into an election issue, Martin delayed a Supreme Court hearing on the matter by asking the top court also to consider the constitutionality of allowing only civil unions for gay couples, the option favoured by Harper.

By the end of last week, Martin suggested that lower courts have already settled the matter and said "there is no way anybody should be allowed to prevent same-sex marriage."

He denounced Harper for refusing to rule out using the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and deny gay couples the right to marry.

However, seven of his cabinet ministers _ including Sgro and the co-chair of his election campaign, Helene Scherrer _ voted last fall against same-sex marriage.

A total of 52 Liberals joined Harper's party in affirming the traditional definition of marriage and another 19 didn't show up for the controversial vote. The motion was defeated by a razor thin vote of 137 to 132.

Harper has said he'd withdraw the reference to the Supreme Court and put the matter to a free vote in Parliament. He has suggested the court would defer to Parliament's decision on the matter but has refused to rule out using the notwithstanding clause if it doesn't.

[notyoueither]

Apparently the vampire hunters have found some in unexpected cellars.

This is choice:

Sgro, who supported an Opposition motion last fall reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage, taunted Harper with the question: "Whose rights are you taking away tomorrow?"

[notyoueither]

And this is scarey.

Martin's position on same-sex marriage also seems to have evolved rapidly over the past week as he strives to turn gay rights as a wedge issue against the Tories.

A devout Roman Catholic, Martin initially admitted he was torn on the issue and was lukewarm in his support for former prime minister Jean Chretien's draft legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Anxious to avoid turning it into an election issue, Martin delayed a Supreme Court hearing on the matter by asking the top court also to consider the constitutionality of allowing only civil unions for gay couples, the option favoured by Harper.

By the end of last week, Martin suggested that lower courts have already settled the matter and said "there is no way anybody should be allowed to prevent same-sex marriage."

Another man willing to do anything, to say anything, to get or keep power. For how long will Canadians tolerate such crap from the Liberals? Frankly, I'd prefer they eliminate the middleman, put the NDP in for a term, and let's see how much of an appetite for the left Canadians have after that.

[Ben Kenobi]

About time.

Hoist them on their own petard.