Saturday, November 14, 2009

Just A Reminder Re That Hidden Agenda

Jim Flaherty at a Defend Marriage rally, probably in 2004 or 2005, bashing the concept of Same Sex Marriage.

51 comments:

Terry 1 said...

Notice how all the reformatory hypocrites are quiet on that front now that they only have a minority mandate.

KC said...

lol... you got a higher-def version of this photo so we can see if any of the Liberal dinosaurs are in the seats?

CanadianSense said...

So it is unfair for MP's to have their own views regardless of party?

Did every Liberal support Cauchon's move?

In the US OBAMA spoke in support of traditional marriage too.

"Grasping at straws" seems to be the official policy of many Liberals.

I don't think it is wise to try to play this as single party issue.

On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative government motion to examine the matter again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

Terry 1 said...

Canadian nonsense you are a twit. The liberal party has been pro SSM right from the get go. And yes there have been some dissenters but no one was muzzled like the reformatorts do to their people.

Tell us again how bad Iggy is and why Herpecrite can't get into majority territory.

Simon said...

On the day little Jimbo presented his first budget his special guest in Parliament was no other than the uber homophobe Charles McVety. This isn't a government it's a Socon conspiracy...

CanadianSense said...

Terry1

insults are not facts.

Facts like the Gun Registry several MP's are going to not be whipped again.

If this wedge issue is introduced to remind the opposition in Canada there is more than "one" voice.

175 vs 123 shows a divided house. What party whipped their votes? It was NOT the Liberals.

Terry1

you forgot to insult OBAMA for his views on traditional marriage.

A shock sly1 got suspended on Nik's blog and you keep getting banned for abusing other blogs.

Gayle said...

"Did every Liberal support Cauchon's move?

In the US OBAMA spoke in support of traditional marriage too."

DOesn't matter.

In Canada, the failure to legalize SSM amounts to a breach of our constitution.

Parliamentarians should respect our constitution. Attending a rally in support of a movement that demands Parliament to ignore the Charter of Rights does not respect our constitution.

You may hold whatever personal views you want - just do not demand our government break the law.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

Canadians don't need a lesson in the consitution.

Anyone can cite examples of our rights in the constitution being ignored or protected.

You can "cherry pick" this example and again DEMAND they follow your personal view.

My personal view is not an issue.

Thousands of Canadians are having their "constitutional" rights impacted over land claims.

We can choose to withdraw support from our MP's for failing to represent and act on our "views" or in the handling of "XYZ" matter.

Feel free to take the government to court.

CanuckRover said...

Thousands of Canadians are having their "constitutional" rights impacted over land claims.

Please clarify. I have a feeling your explanation will be awesome in its wrongness.

Paul S said...

The liberal party has been pro SSM right from the get go. - Terry 1

There sure kept that well hidden from the Canadian public then.

And Liberal supporters definitely are grasping at straws. After WaferGate, BodybagGate, BigChequeGate and DykstraGate, now they are regurgitating the hoary "hidden agenda".

And a final word on SSM. If given a vote, Canadians today would still likely say no to the concept.

The real hidden agenda was the Liberals using the courts to do what the Liberals wouldn't publicly endorse as policy themselves. Such courage.

Gayle said...

"Canadians don't need a lesson in the consitution."

Apparently you do.

"Feel free to take the government to court."

That already happened - which led to the legalization of SSM. How did you miss that?

The rest of your post is yet another attempt to change the subject. I have to wonder why you like to open yourself to so much ridicule? I mean, you walk right into it. over and over again.

Terry 1 said...

Canadian nonsense it was you who was defrocked on that other blog for your stupidity.

The post you made was typical nonsense and not a bit of it was coherent. you are still a twit.
Paul S.
The liberals simply used the courts to make sure that SSM fit their constitutional views of SSM.

I am personally opposed to SSM but not against legalized relationships for same sex partners.

If a poll were held today ssm would definitely be approved by a majority of Canadians.

Gayle said...

"The real hidden agenda was the Liberals using the courts to do what the Liberals wouldn't publicly endorse as policy themselves. Such courage."

I think you forget the way this all happened.

First there were several successful court challenges to the ban on SSM. Then the government of the day responded in a responsible way - it consulted constitutional experts, drafted a law and then referred it to the SCC to ensure it passed constitutional muster.

They could have fought it all the way, but that would have been a huge waste of tax dollars and of time.

You call it hiding behind the courts and the constitution. I call it acting responsibly in light of the inevitable.

I would not say, however, that the liberals have always supported SSM. I would say they have supported the constitution - and on that point Harper and Co could take some lessons.

CanadianSense said...

Land claims

Ti-Guy said...

And a final word on SSM. If given a vote, Canadians today would still likely say no to the concept.

On what evidence do you base that assertion, Mr. Sunstrum?

Paul S said...

The liberals simply used the courts to make sure that SSM fit their constitutional views of SSM. - Terry1

No, the Liberals never ran with SSM on their platform. The whole history of SSM was the abdication to the courts of proper representation by MP's.

If a poll were held today ssm would definitely be approved by a majority of Canadians. -Terry1

Nope, maybe in Quebec but nowhere else, not even Ontario. And it's why the end run around the electorate was done.

You call it hiding behind the courts and the constitution. I call it acting responsibly in light of the inevitable. -Gayle

Please, no more of the "inevitable" rhetoric. SSM advocates use the same language in the US and the only thing "inevitable" so far, has been defeat when presented to the voters.

And it's funny that BCL would run an old photograph claiming a "hidden agenda". When did Conservatives every hide their endorsement of traditional marriage? And when did Liberals ever have SSM in their platform?

Hidden agenda indeed.

The saddest part about this whole issue though, is that even with millions more potential marriage partners, Ti still can't find a mate.

CanuckRover said...

Nope, maybe in Quebec but nowhere else, not even Ontario. And it's why the end run around the electorate was done.

Sorry, you can't just make stuff up. The first poll that came up from a quick google search was by Environics and put SSM support at a fundy crushing 57%.

CanuckRover said...

From only a couple months ago:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canada_more_open_to_same_sex_marriage_than_us_uk/

61% of Canadians support SSM. A conbot just making crap up. I'm shocked.

Gayle said...

"Please, no more of the "inevitable" rhetoric."

Ha ha ha. Very funny.

Oh, were you serious?

Did you perhaps miss the part where the courts already ruled laws prohibiting SSM to be unconstitutional? I don't know what that means to you, but to those of us who are capable of deductive reasoning, it means that the laws would have to be changed either by the government or by the courts.

You can live in your little deluded world where the Charter does not apply when you really really don't want it to. But in this world, it does.

Gayle said...

Or maybe you thought our constitution is exactly like the one in the US?

It's not. The fact challenges in the US failed is completely and utterly irrelevant to the situation in Canada.

See CS, Canadians DO need a lesson in the constitution!

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

The subject is "hidden agenda" some CPC MP is not allowed to attend or disagree with SSM in your Canada?

Gayle this is not your Fascist state. You guys have not held a majority since 2000. Those glory days are long gone.

Your personal views about the constitution or the government for it's failure is still your opinion.

Feel free to tell Canadians how your views are MORE important.

An MP attending a rally who does not share your view is a threat to democracy or our constitution?

Clearly Gayle you feel threatened by a Government that respects their limits and does not wish to follow in the footsteps of previous Liberals promising and doing nothing.

The HOC may introduce another Bill to reopen discussion on SSM. I don't think it will.

If a group of MP's from any party disagree with a Policy they are free to hold that opinion.

As a person who demands BIG STATE control and having their MP's whipped I wish you best of luck again.

Goodluck in demanding everyone share your view or protect your position.

Only 4 countries have adopted SSM.

Like those groups who advocated for Long Gun Registry Only their opinions count facts or dissenting positions be damned!

Gayle democracy is a messy and your "demands" are better suited for China.

CanadianSense said...

Canuckrover, Gayle, TG,

The 308 MP's are free to follow or ignore your opinions and their responsibilities on the constitution.

I am only addressing the "right" for Canadians to not support SSM.

Are you going to take the Canadians who don't support up to the HRC next?

My other point was "grasping at straws" has been a significant activity at Lib blogs and MSM without having any tangible benefit.

Ti-Guy said...

How come there are two commnenters registered with Blogger under the name "Paul. S.", both commenting at BCL?

http://www.blogger.com/profile/00640844117742326726

http://www.blogger.com/profile/14313108762970361402

Ti-Guy said...

Canuckrover, Gayle, TG,

Why is that asshole addressing me?

I'm trying to ignore you, you irritating bitch.

CanadianSense said...

TG

are you still sulking from?

http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-matter-of-character.html

....display elements of their personality that are fundamentally vicious and small.

An interesting case in point is the dedicated miscreant Ti-Guy.

Cheers

Terry 1 said...

the reformatorts here are obviously afraid about running afoul of the party. they must obey!!!

Canadian nonsense you continue to make a fool of yourself. how many times must Gayle tell you jsut how stupid you really are w/o saying it directly as I have.

How are those reformatory majority statistics holding up?

CanadianSense said...

Terry1

I lost count this week how many blogs were you banned from again?

SJ, ST, Nik Nanos or more than 3?

Ti-Guy said...

It's Patrick who's registered on Blogger as "MariaS" (Dodo Can Spell) and used it to troll Canadian Cynic. He already admitted to sock-puppetry here. I'm sure he's been using quite a few other sock-puppets as well.

I used that username over at Red Tory's (A WordPress blog) to mock him, but forgot to clear it when I made another comment in the same thread. I noted the mistake in the very next comment.

Getting around, aren't ya, CanadianSense?

Ti-Guy said...

I lost count this week how many blogs were you banned from again?

If it was a Conservative blog, we've *all* been banned from most of them at some point.

BCL himself was banned from Small Dead Animals several times. It's a badge of honour.

If I trolled your blog, CS, how long would it take for you to ban me? Not that I ever would. Unlike cretins such as yourself, I find it a lot of work to string together disjointed, incoherent and off-topic comments.

CanadianSense said...

SSM related?

Nice try, epic failed excuse TG.

PR post is dead bang on about you!

Vicious and small sums you up perfectly.

You repeated his "subterfuge" and than make excuses for your own behaviour when you are caught.

Nothing on the subject of this post just personal insults TG.

Usually, Ti-Guy limits his contribution to nearly any convsersation to offering third-rate attempts at sophomoric insults of anyone he disagrees with -- particularly when it so happens that he's losing.

But recently Ti-Guy pulled a not-so-new trick out of his bag. He resorted to flagrantly lying:

Terry 1 said...

canadian nonsense/brusmit.....still a twerp I see.

Ti guy has you summed up well and I'll add to it........useless troll.

Why is it you are banned from just about everyuthing in Oakville? And why is it most tories ignore you on their own blogs?

They obviously know idiot content when they see it but the thin skinned at SJ and ST cannot deal with it.

Give us some more stats on herpecrites majority that you've been spewing your garbage about.

Ti-Guy said...

Exclusive! Photo from "CanadianSense's (aka 'Becky') grade 8 science fair.

CanadianSense said...

Terry1,

and you keep returning to those Blogs under different aliases....too funny.

Best of luck with spreading your insults as a member of the "Clown Car brigade" on a fewer blogs.

Nothing but personal insults and nothing about SSM.

Ask Paul Szabo how he will vote on SSM.

CanadianSense said...

TG,

proving once again how small you are. Lying and hiding behind an alias, liquid courage?

SSM related nope. Just more insults.

Patrick Ross nailed you.

Paul S said...

The first poll that came up from a quick google search was by Environics and put SSM support at a fundy crushing 57%. -CanuckRover

Nope. That's combined approval for SSM and civil unions.

61% of Canadians support SSM. A conbot just making crap up. I'm shocked. _CanuckRover

And that's a poll, not a vote by Canadians.

Supporters of SSM always claimed Canadians were too bigotted to be entrusted with the issue but now say polls are on their side.

But never, ever have they believed Canadian citizens should have a vote on the issue and they still don't.

Did you perhaps miss the part where the courts already ruled laws prohibiting SSM to be unconstitutional? -Gayle

The Supreme Court of Canada never ruled on the topic. Supporters of SSM claim to be able to predict the future with claims of "inevitable" but the peer-reviewed science doesn't support this.

SSM (and it is here to stay for a long, long time), did not come about by any force of conviction by Liberals. Liberals can not take credit for SSM because they never championed it. And that is my point.

Paul S said...

How come there are two commnenters registered with Blogger under the name "Paul. S.", both commenting at BCL? -Ti

Beats me Ti. Is somebody imitating me?

Ti-Guy said...

But never, ever have they believed Canadian citizens should have a vote on the issue and they still don't.

And on what evidence do you base that assertion, Mr. Sunstrum?

Christ, you Conservative morons are extra feisty and dumb today.

Gene Rayburn said...

good to see the Ex Mrs Ignatieff found her keyboard hidden behind her lunacy. Wanking as much as usual eh Oakville Crackpot.

Ti-Guy said...

Beats me Ti. Is somebody imitating me?

You tell me. The following comment in this thread (and a number of others in July 2008, as far as I've seen) was written by "Paul S." associated with a different account than the one you're using now:

It will be interesting and entertaining to see how the OHRC stumbles forward with the new powers given to it.

With the Supreme Court's recent decision, methinks the OHRC and other HRC's (Hint, hint: BCHRC) will be a bit less likely to trample willy nilly over our free speech rights.


Do you have/have you had more than one Blogger account?

Terry 1 said...

Canadian nonsense.......i hve no idea what you are talking baout as usual. I still post under my real alias on Nik's blog.

To Gene Rayburn@849PM.....I love your ex Mrs Iggy quote. CS embodies the true meaning of those initials and is truly a well known crackpot. The local Tory MP won't even respond to emails or phone calls from her.

Mark Francis said...

Submit SSM to a vote? Talking a referendum or an election? You can't derive support for or against a single issue from an election. And a referendum doesn't matter. As if your rights and freedoms should be derived from a popularity contest.

SSM is constitutionally required. The onus is always to demonstrate that a freedom or right is not Charter-protected, not the other way around.

Paul S said...

Do you have/have you had more than one Blogger account? -Ti

Not that I know of. I did change my e-mail sometime last year though.

As if your rights and freedoms should be derived from a popularity contest. -Mark Francis

Why not? You don't believe Canadians can decide issues themselves?

SSM is constitutionally required.

Nope. Never been determined. It's a good storyline though.

Gayle said...

CS

Ha ha ha.

I would ask you to let me know when you want a serious discussion, but sadly, I think you think your contribution to this discussion was serious.

If you want some help understanding how the constitution works, let me know.

That goes for you too Paul.

Gayle said...

"Nope. Never been determined."

Paul, Paul, Paul

Several appellate courts ruled on it. It HAS been determined.

Does that trouble you? Does it actually affect your life in some way that gay people can marry each other?

RuralSandi said...

It's obvious that Canadians need to learn our parliamentary system and the Constitution.

Fools believe whatever misinfo Harper sets out on this. Example - the coalition issues. I'm not talking about whether you like the idea or not - but Harper LIED about to Canadians and it certainly showed what little Canadians know in general.

CanadianSense - you are a sad case indeed. Spend all your time arguing and ranting under CS and other names....don't you work?

sharonapple88 said...

It would be refreshing if politicians could appeal to what's in the best in the public instead of pandering to the worst in an attempt to score points. Calls to defend marriage from people of the same sex who want to get married would only appeal to people's prejudices and would pit one group another for potential political gains.

Ti-Guy said...

I love how Paul ignores the parts of other people's responses that demonstrate that he's wrong.

Anyway...

Nope. Never been determined. It's a good storyline though.

You're such a sleazy little liar. The Supreme Court declined to answer the question in its reference to give Parliament the chance to do its job and pass a law that was constitutional, because everyone knew that the current law was not.

By the way, those "nopes" are sounding awfully familiar...

Paul S said...

Nope. Our Supreme Court never ruled on the issue, that remains fact. And it's important to remember that it was an activist Ontario Court of Appeal who may have been unduly influenced by SSM activists who got the ball rolling in the first place.

The government of the day was not compelled to accept that decision and could easily have chosen to appeal it if they wished. That in no way means that if the decisions had been appealed that our Supreme Court would have ruled likewise.

Our Supreme Court merely said that Parliament had the authority to change the defintion of marriage, not that SSM was mandatory. It may have been that civil unions or the like may well have satisfied Charter provisions.

But hats off to BCL. A Saturday post on a now settled issue gets nearly 50 responses. Good stuff.

Gayle said...

Ha ha ha.

"activist Ontario court of appeal"

That's a good one.

Hey - when courts do not rule the way you like, the best thing to do is attack the court and not the ruling.

Tell you what Paul - why don't you tell me what the Ontario Court of appeal did wrong. Please reference the decision and provide sources for your points of law.

Thanks.

Gayle said...

PS - the OCA was not the only appellate court to rule on the issue. In fact, did any court, anywhere, side with making SSM illegal?

Ti-Guy said...

C'mon, Paulie Precious, answer the question. What did the Ontario Court of Appeal do wrong?

You've had two days formulate a response.