Same Sex Marriage – Repeal and Lose
In this continued pursuit of blocking the same sex marriage bill, there have been some pretty outrageous arguments made on both sides of the debate.
Sorry, but suggesting that this is a separatist issue is highly suspect. That children would somehow be hurt by the existence of same sex marriage is a strange argument to wrap my head around, too.
The arguments by the Liberals are almost as compelling. They would like us to believe that this is a “human rights” issue. Please! It’s a symantec argument about redefining a word many people hold sacred for the purpose of scoring cheap political points.
We should have been arguing ALL ALONG that this is not properly a “Government” institution, and should therefore not be up to the Government to define. We could have suggested used an alternative phrase in law (like “civil union”) to define all unions (this, too, is “equality”), and left “marriage” up to churches and other religious organizations to determine for themselves. In this whole country, it seems, the only politican who gets this concept is Ralph Klein (and, even then, only after it appeared to be his last resort).
Thanks to the lack of foresight on this issue, now, it remains to be seen whether or not this law will even sufficiently protect Churches from outside influence in their own definition. The day a Church is told by a court who they marry is a day all Canadians should mourn, and for making the wrong arguments about the issue, the Conservative Party of Canada is as much to blame as the Liberals, the NDP and the separatists.
Politically, it now doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. What matters now is the spin — and when it comes to spin, Liberals win. So, score 3 points for the Liberals.
Finally, it is critical we do not make this a key election issue. We will lose.
This is what will happen:
The Liberal spin doctors will convince Canadians that this an issue about “tolerance”, and use this to suggest the Conservative Party is chock-full of interolerant people. Even the most rational argument to repeal or amend this law will be dismissed as intoler-babble motivated by hatred and/or religious zealousness. In this atmosphere of manufactured fear, Canadians who do not like the new law will also think twice about voting for us, too.
We will know the Liberal spin and the outlandish conclusions they make are ridiculous (and they’ll secretly know it too), but it won’t matter. We will lose.
How do I know all this? It’s happened 4 elections in a row. Let’s not walk right into the line of fire for the 5th!
Parents Need Not Apply
June 14, 2017
The National Globe and Post
Delusional Vancouver Couple Released from Police Custody for Psychological Review
VANCOUVER — The local couple that made national headlines last week by defying the spirit and letter of the Canada Early Child Education Act have been released from police custody today, but will not be permitted visitation with their child until they both complete a thorough psychological review.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Vancouver made headlines by suggesting that they were somehow better qualified to raise their children than the Canadian Child Education Centers, an argument which numerous government and child education union studies have shown is simply untrue.
“This sort of anti-Canadian behaviour is a blow to the national identity,” Prime Minister Scott Brison said in an interview, “we all know that children belong in the care of the Government, parents should not be meddling in their children’s lives.”
“When their 2-year-old son did not show up for class two days in a row, the education workers became very concerned and informed police,” said Constable Adam Jones of the Vancouver Police, “when we discovered that they somehow thought they would keep their child at home, instead of at the education center, we were completely astonished. I hope the counselling helps them realize the error in their judgment. We know that this sort of 20th-century mentality hurts children.”
The couple released their son after an 8-hour standoff with police.
A Thriller of a Court Case
I loath days when celebrity news interferes with real news. It’s kind of like that tune-out signal “And now with sports, here’s Dirk Gimley”.
Yes, the charges are serious, and if he was guilty, then yes, this is a grievous unjust outcome. If he wasn’t guilty, then yes, it is terribly unfortunate to put somebody through all this.
Etc., etc., etc.
But, I’m glad it’s over. Perhaps the media will have more time to focus on real news now. Unlikely, though, since Katie Holmes is converting to Scientology with Tom Cruise.
Three Good Reasons to Keep Stephen Harper
In case you are in a “Let’s Definitely Lose the Next Election by Dumping Harper” mood, I implore you to think about the alternatives, and perhaps more importantly, how to raise their profile sufficiently when they take over.
Here are a few options for you:
Well, love him or not, Stockwell Day is still around. Anybody want to give this pony a ride again? You know, I was no fan of Stockwell Day, but he has done a hell of a job as the Foreign Affairs Critic, and most people I have spoken with (even those from the “PC” side of the equation) hope he’ll stick around for the long haul, but nobody I know wants to make him Leader!
I love Diane Ablonczy! I really do! She is a fabulous MP, and an important part of the Conservative team. But she ran for leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party, and lost to Stockwell Day. I really don’t think she’ll ever lead the party.
They said his political career was over when he signed the “deal with the devil” to become leader of the PC Party. Well, that was a long time ago, and I wouldn’t count him out, but Peter demonstrated his need at the convention to show a little bit more political maturity before he is ready to take over. Definitely a future winner, but certainly not right now!
Well, who else has been around for awhile?
- Jason Kenney, nouveau chic? Probably not.
- Chuck Strahl? Are we over the DRC yet? Hmmm… probably not.
- James Moore? Smart enough, but probably not right wing enough for Party Members.
- Jim Prentice? Too soft-spoken.
- Rona Ambrose? Too new.
- Rahim Jaffer? I think Rahim is great! I’d vote for him in a minute, but I doubt Canadians are willing to accept a Muslim Prime Minister.
So, who would replace Harper?
For now, how about nobody! Let’s get on with the fight, and see how he performs during the upcoming election before we haul out the pitchforks and torches.
And if he loses the election, dear Lord, we can start looking around again.
Whore: Defined
Does the image of Anne Mclellan, our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister, going on television and calling you a sexist (if you are a member of the Conservative Party, that is) send chills down your spine?
Clearly the Liberal strategy was to get a woman and a minority to cross over to the Liberal Party from the Conservatives, so they could demonstrate that the Conservative Party is “sexist and racist”. We know Inky Mark was approached, and we know they were keen on having Gurmant Grewal and his wife.
So, when Belinda crossed the floor, they had to suffice with half of what the spin doctors demanded.
And up first was Anne Mclellan, “official spokesperdaughter for all womynkind”, belting out her shrill “sexist” comments. Give me a break!
Funny thing is, I heard more women refer to Belinda as a whore than men. Although, I seem to recall using the term a fair bit myself when the other two failed leadership candidates crossed the floor (Keith Martin and Scott Brison, both being demonstrably of the male gender).
Of course, I didn’t suspect either of them were selling their bodies in exchange for money or drugs. Rather, that, like those who do sell their bodies, they were “compromising their principles”. Further, in all three cases they were compromising their principles for a taste of power, and providing an extremely weak defense of their own actions.
Thankfully (because my self-worth is directly tied to the faith I have in my command of the English language) dictionary.com defines whore, in the third definition, with the meaning I was implying: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
My first year college English professor would be proud that I did not misunderstand the term, and you should be too!
The Saga Continues
After debating about what to do with this 2005 convention blog, I have decided to keep it going. Todd is going to keep it going with me, and hopefully we’ll have some hard-hitting debates about the future of Conservatism in Canada.
This blog, therefore, is officially “ongoing”.
What has encouraged me to continue?
Let me see … we have the most scandal-plagued government in the history of Canada, Liberal arrogance is at an all-time high, Quebec is seriously considering separation again, our health care system and our proud military are looking more and more like a cruel joke, we are losing our sovereignty in the North, our economy is stagnating, Government spending is ramping up like there is no tomorrow, we have a completely unaccountable Senate, and a Parliament clinging to life on a backroom deal between the corrupt Liberals and the unabashedly socialist NDP.
All this, and the Conservative Party of Canada is at 23% in the polls?
This just doesn’t make any sense!!
Network
