August 22, 2006

Discrimination is bad...All Discrimination is bad

It was quite unfortunate that it turned out this way but a 17 year old was run out of the party for writing his mis-informed opinions. Rather than sitting the guy down and explaining to him that the NDP has filled his head with propaganda, we ran the kid straight out of the party.

I spoke to Jason Cherniak, who has done a good job exposing Anti-Semites in the Liberal Party lately. (Sorry Michelle, I passed)

I DO NOT IN ANY WAY ENDORSE OR AGREE WHAT THOMAS HAS SAID ON MY BLOG OR ON OTHERS.

Let’s make that clear first.

Jason gave me this statement. (All quotes are Jason verbatim)

"I can never support an anti-Semite in any representative position in the Liberal Party. Indeed, anti-Semitism is contrary to the principles that all Liberal Party members are supposed to subscribe to."

I asked him to substitute discrimination against Jews for discrimination against homosexuals. Jason agreed.

“I can never support a person who discriminates against homosexuals in any representative position in the Liberal Party. Indeed, discrimination against homosexuals is contrary to the principles that all Liberal Party members are supposed to subscribe to.”

I then asked Jason if opposing my right to pledge my love for another man in civil matrimony was discrimination against homosexuals. He said yes it was.

I then asked him if 32 Liberal MPs were no longer allowed to hold a position in the Liberal Party of Canada following their vote on Bill C-38.

"While I might argue in five years that people who oppose same sex marriage don't belong in the Party at all, we are not yet at that stage."

When I pointed out the irony in that, he said more…

"We all need to recognize that the right to same sex marriage is a very new concept. We need to give people time to get used to it."

It is right to fire those who are discriminate against Jews but not right to fire those who discriminate against homosexuals…for now.

Mr. Brison, care to make another statement?

19 Commentaires:

Blogger Jay a dit...

I would have thaught that a commonality between Jewish people and homosexuals existed as they were both subjected to the same atrocities in Germany. Yet I am not as good as a Jew yet. Thats a pretty caustic comment, I am not only enraged but deeply hurt as well. Am I to believe that It's not my time to be a real person? So my right to be respected in a secular country is contingent on people with beliefs in sky gods coming first. How about a little action on something that affects Canadians no matter what dogma you were stupid enough to buy into. Please.

I will be following this attitude from some bloggers. I have yet to receive my membership card in the mail but if this is what I am to expect from the Liberal Party, I will be tearing it up shortly after receiving it.

I know one thing for sure, before their were irrational beliefs in such things as christianity, judaism, and islam there were homosexuals. So I am NOT a "new concept".

8/22/2006 10:50 a.m.  
Blogger cat mutant a dit...

Jay,

As much as I sympathize with you, attacking people's religious beliefs is irrational and not very constructive to the arguement. Stick to the issue... sure, many people base some of their judgements on religious beliefs. But we live in a democracy, and having a difference of opinions is healthy and normal... if everyone always agreed on everything, than I'd be worried. Disagreeing on something like same-sex marriage is normal. A vast majority of Canadians are religious, and the same-sex issue is something that runs contrary to certain religious beliefs. Some people have a problem with it and others don't/ But those that are against same-sex marriage shouldn't be chastised for having a difference of opinions on an issue as fundamental as marriage, which is often a fundamental aspect of religion.

Also, I'm pretty sure that a majority of homosexuals practice the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths.

8/22/2006 11:03 a.m.  
Blogger Jay a dit...

I must disagree with you on that one, Cat Mutant.

Religious groups have rights and frequently use them to stop or halt the extention of rights to those they oppose. This can be seen right now with charities taking political stances through the utilization loopholes. You cannot deny that. Religious beliefs are many and are always polarized and are used to control people whose lifestyles they do not agree with. This is based on ancient texts taken out of context.

Many Canadians have a very "relaxed" belief in that they don't take it all literally.

Currently their are groups campaigning under religion in Canada with tax exempt status that are trying to annul my marriage because the old man with a beard in the sky gave me a cold look, or so they say. They really don't know. I work with a charity and I am not permitted to advocate on my organizations behalf which is why you will never see my organization listed on my blog nor details about what I do. Lets extend that to religious groups as well. Seeing thats what the law mandates.

Hypothetically speaking I would have no problem with Rondo Thomas telling me he does not agree with my interacial marriage because he thinks its wrong. I would have a problem with Rondo Thomas telling me I'm a sinner, a sodomite who will die a fiery death and the christians will march against me. Notice how the two comments achieve the same fundamental message, except the last one would make me shit myself. Notice the subtle difference between both comments: both are underpinned by religious views but the second attempts to demoralize the innocent person. This is the dialogue we are seeing out of religious folk who are fervent in their beliefs.

Now I am hearing from within the party people saying its not my time to be accepted yet.

Call it for what they are Religious BELIEFS and not Religious Fact. They muddle our view of the world and other people.

I would like to question with your assertion that a majority of homosexuals practice religion. It would be like me embracing Ann Coulter as my personal hero(excuse me, I threw up a little bit).

8/22/2006 11:44 a.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

Antonio,

There is a difference between voting against SSM, which should not have been allowed by the Liberal Party btw, and supporting an organization that advocates the death of all Jews. If a Liberal MP marched in a rally with an organization that advocated the death of all homosexuals, which interestingly enough Hezbollah and radical Muslims do, then they should be removed from caucus. This is as valid a reason as the other for calling on Coderre to be disciplined and possibly removed from caucus by The Liberal Party. Hezbollah hates homosexuals too.

If you want to have Coderre removed, based on publicly supporting an organization that wants to anihilate Gays, I will fully support you.

8/22/2006 11:47 a.m.  
Blogger Joshua Fraser a dit...

Discrimination is bad in any form. But there is some difference between Hezbollah wanting to wipe-out Jewish people and Liberal MPs who don't support equal marriage for gays and lesbians. Jason is right in that the marriage aspect is relatively new idea and that people do need a little time to get used to it. We know through polls and opinion surveys, that each year more and more people are accepting equal marriage. Now if Liberal MPs were advocating removing hate-crimes legislation that protects gays and lesbians, that I would absolutely agree with your position. But the difference here is that Hezbollah is promoting violence against Jewish people, whereas the Liberal MPs are voting against equal marriage for religious reasons. In any regard, I think the more socially conservative Liberal MPs (ie. Pat Obrien) will slowly realize they really don't fit with in our party anymore...

8/22/2006 12:47 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

guys my point is anti-semitism is just as bad as homophobia and neither should be tolerated.

8/22/2006 1:27 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

guys my point is anti-semitism is just as bad as homophobia and neither should be tolerated.

Absolutely, but defining homophobia as taking a position against gay marriage is a real stretch. One is not necessarily a homophobe because one is opposed to gay marriage. Of course, many who hold that position are homophobes, just as, apparently, many Liberals are anti-semites. It's just not fair to characterize all Liberals or all anti-SSMers that way.

8/22/2006 2:53 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

The vote on SSM should have been whipped Antonio, absolutely. I didn't vote for my Liberal MP after that vote because she voted against The Charter and equal rights for Gays and Lesbians. I would prefer she were replaced by someone who did support The Charter. Depending on whom becomes Leader, this will also be a factor in my decision on whether or not to vote Liberal in the next general election. If I support the leader, my MP's intolerance doesn't matter as much. If I don't support the leader, then who is running for the Liberals in my riding becomes an issue. A homophobe and a leader I don't support would tip the balance.

8/22/2006 2:56 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

btw, homophobia means fear of gays and Lesbians and opposing SSM ceerttainly qualifies as fear. MP's who opposed SSM are definately homophobic.

8/22/2006 2:58 p.m.  
Blogger Clear Grit a dit...

I don't think Scott's going to be making any statements - just as I wrote here (http://thewhatdoiknowgrit.blogspot.com/2006/08/homosexual-discrimination-is-ok.html) that it's in Cherniak's best interests to maintain a good relationship with his MP (Byron Wilfert), it's in Brison's best interests not to pick a fight with the owner of Liblogs.

8/22/2006 3:57 p.m.  
Blogger cat mutant a dit...

The Rat has a point. People who are against same-sex marriage shouldn't all be painted with the same brush. Sure, some who oppose it are homophobes. However, many who oppose it, oppose it because it runs contrary to their religious beliefs.

Whenever someone holds a difference of opinion, should they be labeled as intolerant sub-humans? NO. Their opinons should be respected, and constructive debate and democratic votes should be held on it. Whatever the outcome is the will of the people.

SSM has become a double-edged sword. Polarisation has happened on both sides. Some supporters of SSM have become very intolerable of other opinons, and paint those who don't support SSM as people who aren't tolerant of others. But in becoming so polarized, they have become the thing they despise the most. They are intolerable of people who hold a different opinon then theirs.

All I'm saying is that difference of opinions on something as fundamental as SSM is normal and there's nothing wrong with it. Like I said earlier, if everyone always agreed on everything, I'd be worried and our democracy would be gone. We should be weary of extremists on both sides. I have no respect for those who claim homosexuals will rot in hell, and I have no respect for those who say that moderate people against SSM are automatically homophobes.

8/22/2006 4:33 p.m.  
Blogger Kyle Carruthers a dit...

I tend to fall on the "opposition to equal marriage implies a degree of homophobia" side of the debate, and would never support an MP or official who did not support it. It is homophobia because opposition to it means that one fears the effects of homosexual families on society. We would never give an individual who says "I have nothing against Jews, as long as they remain separate and dont change our society" a pass just because they claim to have nothing against jews right?

That being said I wouldn't put opposition to same sex marriage at the same level of bigotry as calling gays/jews "vile", or marching in support of an organization that seeks to wipe them out.

8/22/2006 4:39 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/22/2006 5:43 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

btw, homophobia means fear of gays and Lesbians and opposing SSM ceerttainly qualifies as fear.

No, it means that perhaps there are two groups who have very different definitions of the word "marriage". The union of two people can be defined without the word marriage, and many people of many faiths could have been happy with a compromise on that. That doesn't make them fearful of homosexuals, and it doesn't make them homophobes. But it does show exactly how tolerant some Liberals are of values other than their own.

Frankly, equating anti-semitic writings with undertones of blood-libel with opposition to SSM is a little much.

8/22/2006 5:44 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

I never made that equation rat

other people are

"I then asked Jason if opposing my right to pledge my love for another man in civil matrimony was discrimination against homosexuals. He said yes it was."

I said civil matrimony. Which is what the law was proposing? I can equate homophobia and anti-semitism

Jason is ready to do so in 5 years

8/22/2006 6:06 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

I reaize you didn't say that, Antonio. I can agree that it is reasonable to equate homophobia with anti-semtism. I don't agree that opposition to SSM is equal to anti-semetism, and I was responding to other comments on that.

It's too bad there aren't more Liberals like you, Antonio. I might even be able to vote Liberal one day, if there were.

8/22/2006 6:21 p.m.  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/22/2006 8:18 p.m.  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with my position on this after rereading this. While I personally believe that denying same sex marriage is discrimination, I don't think it is reasonable yet to expect all or even the vast majority of Canadians to agree.

Also, I don't think Brison has proposed kicking Liberals out of caucus for opposing SSM. Did I miss something?

8/22/2006 8:18 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

I never said he did Jason

I also am happy that I did not misquote you.

Many people have been putting words in my mouth today

8/23/2006 12:07 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home