I admit it, Stephen Harper grates on me. It's his sanctimonious bent, his hollow self-righteousness that so often leads straight to 24 Hypocrisy Drive, his spiritual residence.
Yesterday, Harper tried to take away a fundamental right from one section of Canada's population. He did that because he felt it was necessary to set them apart from his constituents by making them just ever so slightly smaller, less entitled. In doing this he showed a certain callous disregard for their rights.
Once he lost that vote, however, he was all about rights - for his constituents, his fellow religious right-wing nutbars. He failed to keep gays out of the wedding chapels but he's quick to ensure the defence of the rights of those who feel threatened by this nonsense:
"If there ever were a time in the future where fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them."
So, Stevie has no problem stripping fundamental freedoms from a minority group but he's damned well going to defend the fundamental freedoms of his own.
That's a prime minister for you. Is gay marriage really safe as Sanctimony Stevie claims? You just watch what these clowns could do if the Canadian people are duped into giving them a majority.
5 comments:
If Harper wins a majority, there is no chance that he would resist the introduction of a private member's bill to make SSM illegal.
He would simply say at the time that he personally was going to vote against it, but allow his party the freedom to vote as they wished.
This issue is not settled yet, as long as there are strong supporters of the new Tories who want to turn the clock back.
Sad that it takes gay journalists like Rick Mercer and Chantal Hebert to expose Harper for blatant politicking with minority rights.
now Libs can move on to the next minority:
''One controversial report commissioned by
the Status of Women,
which was published last year, called for repealing the ban on polygamy in favour of other laws to help women and children.''
Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, October 23, 2006
cont.....Status of Women report:
Chief author Martha Bailey says criminalizing polygamy, typically a marriage involving one man and several wives, serves no good purpose and prosecutions could do damage to the women and children in such relationships.
"Why criminalize the behaviour?" she asked in an interview. "We don't criminalize adultery.
"In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society ... why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?"
Jan. 13, 2006. DEAN BEEBY
CANADIAN PRESS
I think it'd be political suicide for any party to consider decriminalizing polygamy. It ain't gonna happen.
I think cat is right, this issue is dormant but it's not safely dead. Sort of like 'income trusts'.
Post a Comment