The Conservative leader, Stephen Harper brought up same-sex marriage on the first day of the election campaign in an effort to get it out of the way early. It was a good try. During last evenings French language debate Harper was asked if he would use the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter of Rights to prevent people of the same sex from getting married.
Harper responded that he would not use the clause for that purpose. Were any of you reassured with his words. I wasn't. Even if Harper is being truthful, somehow I just don't beleive he can keep his caucus from using it. Mr. Reid a candidate in Richmond BC for his party has spent a great deal of his life fighting against gay rights. Cindy Silver a conservative candidate in North Vancouver has fought against gay rights in the courts, making a living doing it for the likes of Real Women and Focus on the Family.
Then think of all those Conservative MP's from Alberta and Saskatchewan. Think of all those Conservatives that voted against same-sex marriage. Yeah Stephen Harper may want us to believe him, may even need us too.
Remember the line, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
7 comments:
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Harper will say anything right now to save his own skin, which means getting elected. This is Harper's last, best chance to beat the Liberals and if he blows it now he's done for. If they lose this time, get used to the sound of PM Peter Mackay.
If the bill to end gay marriage is introduced as a private members bill, and voted on as such, then Harper himself would not have used the NWC. Is that what you're saying?
It is clear that many people don't actually know what the NWC is. Read that, and the actual court decision (you know, the one where they left the decision up to parliamenet), and you'll see that Harper doesn't need to use the clause.
Furthermore, even if they DID vote against same-sex-marriage, the Liberals control the Senate, and they will continue to control the Senate for at least 10 years. It would literally be impossible to take a new direction on social issues within 10 years, as the senate could simply block it.
I know at least 134 law professor who think differently Toronto Tory
http://www.law.utoronto.ca/samesexletter.html
"Read that, and the actual court decision (you know, the one where they left the decision up to parliamenet), and you'll see that Harper doesn't need to use the clause."
You mean the one that says these decisions are binding in these Jurisdictions and that these decisions "flow from the Charter". That one??????
Tornoto Tory,
Is the tory election strategy to be "Vote for us because we won't be able to do the things we believe in?"
I like it, you keep it, you run on that!
Your arguement that the Liberals had a choice to prevent same-sex marriage may have had a slim chance before parliament acted. To reverse it would be impossible without using the "notwithstanding clause".
Harper states that all those currently married would remain so. Again another bit to siften his image. It would create a legal nightmare for his legislation if he opted to let some same sex couples retain the space of marriage and prevent others.
Not a fat chance he can do it without the "notwithstanding clause".
Anonymous said...
"If the bill to end gay marriage is introduced as a private members bill, and voted on as such, then Harper himself would not have used the NWC. Is that what you're saying?"
YEP, Wiggle room eh!
Post a Comment