c9 | Go Andy Scott!

You're viewing

c9's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Canadians for Equal Marriage, the newish lobby group for equal marriage rights in Canada, has started a new campaign which lists specific candidates to support or defeat in the upcoming federal election. There's only three people so far, but they are planning to add more MPs as they continue their research.

Andy Scott, Liberal MP in Fredericton, and (straight) victim of gay-related-issues bashing, is on the good list! Fun.

Why should you care?

I'm gay, and getting married. leapfish and I have to travel to do it legally. Maybe you don't want to get married, but everybody should get to make the choice themselves, instead of having the government decide for you.
Conservative groups like Focus on the Family are going to spend millions of dollars on this one issue, trying to prevent equality from gaining ground in Canada.

Fun links:

Current Mood: political

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From: (Anonymous)

Is this website run by the NDP?

Every NDP candidate who has not made their opinion public on the issue gets a rating of +5 ("supports equal marriage"), simply because "NDP party policy requires that this candidate vote for the equal marriage legislation and CEM has no information indicating that he/she does not agree". Candidates from other parties who have not made their opinion public gets a rating of NYR ("not yet rated").

The site reviews the policies of each party. Based on voting record, Liberals get 64%, while the NDP gets 100%. (It's much easier to get 14 MPs to agree on something then 170, don't you think?)

They also review the leaders. For Paul Martin:
"Martin seems to be struggling with this issue. He has not said that he personally thinks it’s the right thing to do, despite repeated calls to do just that. Instead he has couched his support by saying he will uphold the Charter and relying on the courts to say whether or not the Charter requires equal marriage."

For Jack Layton:
"Layton unabashedly supports equal marriage. He has stated that he will not allow a free vote. On September 5, 2003, in response to reports that Bev Desjarlais intended to vote against equal marriage, CBC quoted Layton as saying: “We have a party policy and it is to support this legislation and that's the way it's going to be.”

This has enlightened me. I now have more respect for the Liberals and Paul Martin, as he seems ready to put aside his personal views and govern based on the will of the courts and people. The idea of having Jack Layton, who seems intent on governing solely on what Jack Layton wants, without discussion or debate, worries me. Stephen Harper seems to oppose same-sex marriage as strongly as Layton supports it, but at least he isn't forcing all Conservatives to follow his lead (at least, not publicly). Harper seems slightly less scary than Layton for that reason.

From:

c9.livejournal.com

>Is this website run by the NDP?

No. Though there are many common members.

>Candidates from other parties who have not made their opinion public gets a rating of NYR ("not yet rated").

This is because the *party* has decided (not Jack Layton, but the party caucus and party governing members) that human rights are not negotiable, and not a popularity contest. The Liberal Party has decided to sit on the fence by allowing a free vote, and the Conservative Party is pretending to allow a free vote while courting far-right anti-equality supporters and allowing them to infer anti-equality guarantees.

>I now have more respect for the Liberals and Paul Martin, as he seems ready to put aside his personal views and govern based on the will of the courts and people.

Martin wants to be Prime Minister. If he thought that rushing through the equal marriage legislation would win him a majority, he would do it in a second. But he doesn't. So when he took office, he immediately put it on the back burner, and forced the Supreme Court to take longer to answer the reference. The last thing he wants is an election fought on this -- which would, logically, be closer to figuring out "the will of the people," right?

I don't think Jack Layton is God or anything, but he's far more open about his intentions than Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, and he's more consistent about them than Martin too. Finally, he can't be judged based on governing since he hasn't governed federally, but he has in fact announced more action plans and concrete ideas than Martin has in the past six months.

From:

nihilicious.livejournal.com

I basically agree with you on the free vote issue. On the concept of free votes, Paul Martin comes out ahead, at least on paper. In practice, it may be a different story. Based on his record of appointing nominees and Cabinet Ministers, Paul Martin has his own techniques of ensuring caucus solidarity.

But come on, you can't seriously disagree that the NDP come out ahead of the Liberals on the issue of gay rights?

And as for respecting Martin? I have more respect for a Grant Hill or a Larry Spencer, who at least are clear on their beliefs and act consistently. Someone who is evasive and wants the courts to decide the issue so he doesn't have to? Politician of the worst sort.

And you jump to conclusions way too quickly about Jack Layton. Just because he's willing to pull rank on an issue which is a core plank in the party platform, and which has overwhelming party support, does not make him dictatorial. I'd say he's far more of a consensus-builder within the party than any of the other leaders are in theirs.

And as for your suggestion that the NDP's numbers are misleading because they only have 14 members vs. the Liberals' 170--well, that's why we break these things into percentages for the sake of comparison.