Throne Speech et al
The Conservative throne speech had some good ideas, but it generally lacked detail. Since it is a minority government and almost all legislation will have to be modified if Harper wishes to get anything pass, it was probably a wise idea to make it vague and open ended. If there was a majority government, then that would be a different story. I like the part on apologizing for the Chinese head tax. The rest of the speech pretty much summarized what we already knew. Some complained about inviting outside guests was going against the traditions of British parliamentary system to an American system for the state of the unions, but I see nothing wrong with inviting guests provided all parties are granted this opportunity.
Since then, Stephen Harper has said he plans to put the Gay Marriage issue to another vote. While it likely won't past, I think Stephen Harper should just drop it. The issue is a divisive one that has been decided so it is best to move on. I also believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and minority rights must be supported at all times and anyone who doesn't support them is unfit to be prime-minister. He may be trying to do this to appease his social conservative base, but I would rather he forget about appeasing them. They are entitled to their views, but not entitled to impose their views on others.
Since then, Stephen Harper has said he plans to put the Gay Marriage issue to another vote. While it likely won't past, I think Stephen Harper should just drop it. The issue is a divisive one that has been decided so it is best to move on. I also believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and minority rights must be supported at all times and anyone who doesn't support them is unfit to be prime-minister. He may be trying to do this to appease his social conservative base, but I would rather he forget about appeasing them. They are entitled to their views, but not entitled to impose their views on others.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 9:27 PM
2 Comments:
They are entitled to their views, but not entitled to impose their views on others.
See, that's a circular argument, since social conservatives would say that pro-SSM forces are pushing their view on others.
Personally, I'm what you would call agnostic about the issue. The fact that most pre-merger PC MP's voted against it didn't make me quit the PC Party; I could've lived with the concept of civil unions; I don't think the sky will fall now that SSM is here (though I submit that provincial & federal governments have to remain vigilent to ensure that religious freedoms aren't curtailed). Were I a Member of Parliament today, I'd almost certainly vote to keep SSM as-is.
The fact is, Harper made a commitment to have a free vote on the issue. I think it's one that he has to keep.
My view is simply that if one's actions do not harm another, then the government has no right to intervene. Since SSM does not harm others then those opposing it have no right to intervene.
I agree that I wouldn't quit the party simply because most MPs were against it, but I think one needs to look at the context. It is one thing to oppose it being introduced, it is quite another thing to get rid of it once it is implemented. Many Canadians who opposed SSM would like the issue dropped.
I agree Harper made a promise to have another free vote, but it is a promise I would like him to break. Here in BC, the BC Liberals promised not to privatize BC Rail, but I all along advocated they break it and I was glad they didn't follow it (now true technically they didn't privatize it since they still own the rail tracks and rail bed, but it is no longer operated by the government, although personally I think they should have sold the rail tracks and rail bed too). I also agree the Liberals were right in 1993 to break their promises to scrap the GST and abrogate NAFTA. Sometimes what is popular and what is right aren't the same so I believe there are times when politicians should break their promises.
Post a Comment
<< Home