December 13, 2005

Sometimes I forget just how much I dislike Stephen Harper

Dear readers, I hate to interrupt the delightful campaign banter over the "beer and popcorn" gaffe, but in case you were wondering what was ACTUALLY going on in the election, here's a little something I learned yesterday that reminded me, yet again, of why I will NEVER trust Stephen Harper.

Harper yesterday wrote a responsory letter to the The Washington Times, http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051210-090836-6478r_page2.htm, and ended it with,

"And while I have promised a free vote in Canada's parliament to reconsider the recent change of law to allow same-sex marriages in Canada, and will vote myself for a return to the traditional definition of marriage, I have said any changes must protect the existing status of same-sex couples who have been legally married. As well, a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada."

There's just so much that's concerning in these lines. Firstly, Harper, why don't you just quit while you're behind on the issue of same-sex rights? It's bad enough to oppose or block the granting of those rights during in the first place, but to go back and remove them post-facto is not very Prime Ministerial at best and just cruel at worst.

Secondly, although you outline that the government will not initiate or support any legislation to restrict abortion, what about private members bills? Will you allow your caucus, which is set to be a grossly male majority if the gender breakdown of your candidates is any indication, to be free-voting on a woman's autonomy over her body? And Harper, how do you feel personally about the right to choose? We know you want to take away the rights of the queer community, so how do you- as someone who wants to lead our country- personally feel about the rights owed to women?

Conservatives will no doubt turn around and accuse all us concerned about the rights of women and minorities as anti-Conservative fear-mongerers. And that's fine. Because if there's one thing about which I intend to spend the rest of my life "paranoid" (as they so choose to phrase the concern), it's Charter rights.

4 Commentaires:

Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Haven't the last two or three private members bills on abortion originated from Liberal Party members?

12/13/2005 4:14 PM  
Blogger Denise B a dit...

Yup. Luckily, neither the majority of elected officials in the governing party, nor the leader of the governing party supported them.

12/13/2005 5:16 PM  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

In fact, I believe they "opposed" them.

12/13/2005 6:56 PM  
Blogger Adam a dit...

Look, I’m the self-proclaimed “most right-wing person” in Canada, and even I doubt if it would be practical to outlaw all abortion – leaving aside all philosophical arguments about the practice, the cold, hard truth is this – it ain’t going to happen. There might be twenty votes in the Tory Caucus for a total ban. There would be more for more minor restrictions, but that’s about the size of it. It’s a dead letter.

As for the matter of “same-sex rights”, the plain truth is that they aren’t “rights” by any reasonable definition of the term, but rather the public policy preferences of a certain percentage of the Canadian left (though not the people) which have been imposed upon the majority through careful propaganda and judicial action.

If Gay Marriage is a “right”, then why did the overwhelming majority of the Liberal caucus vote against it a few years before they voted for it? Rights are self-evident by nature – things like the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person. These rights are simple and universally agreed upon. It is universally agreed that people should not be detained without cause, arbitrarily punished, or subject to state action against them fueled entirely by personal animus. It is agreed that people have a right to speak freely (though, that is one right which, seemingly, is being eroded in the name of other rights which now take precedence in the Trudeaupian state). We can agree on basic rights. But what makes it a “right” for a man to have his sexual relationship with another man endorsed by the state? What makes that a “right”?

It’s not a “right” by any reasonable definition of the term. It’s a preference by way of policy. Certain people have decided to simply and arbitrarily declare it to be a “right” in an effort to steamroll and stigmatize any objections to their policy preference.

”Rights” don’t spring into existence over night. By this logic, Conservatives ought to discover a fundamental human right to have a maximum of 20% of your income confiscated by the government and declare that anyone who supports taxes which would create higher effective rates is a foe of “human rights.”

Even if one accept the logic that there is a fundamental human right to engage in acts of homosexual sodomy (which, I’ll add, is a dangerous idea for reasons elaborated upon by Sen. Santorum two years ago), that does not extend to a right to have such relations sanctified by law. Marriage, as a legal concept, exists and is facilitated by the state for reasons of public policy – in particular to encourage stable and traditional families – not because the state has any compelling interest in either recognizing or celebrating anyone’s individual love. Love who you want – that’s your business – it’s only the business of the state so far as it concerns the interests of the state.

So far as I can ascertain, homosexual marriage has been deemed to be a “right” in the eyes of some simply because certain judges (though not the Supreme Court, despite its leanings and dysfunctional) have, without basis in law, declared it to be so. But if that is now the standard for deciding what is a right – I fear it is but I hope it is not – that means that we no longer live in a democracy but rather in a judicial oligarchy wherein black-robed judges, sitting high upon their own private Mount Sinai hand down autocratic decrees based entirely upon their private beliefs which we are then supposedly bound to slavishly uphold.

I, for one, do not desire to live under such a system of government.

12/15/2005 3:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home