There has been a media stir this week about 'uniting the Left'. And superficially that makes sense. After all, in a hockey game you have two teams -- why not in Federal politics?
The trouble is the assumption -- that the "Left" is pretty well united on most issues and so the Party differences are merely one of tone and not substance. And that assumption is demonstrably not true.
The real distinction in Canadian politics is not between the chimera of Right and Left but rather between individual liberty and group rights.
Consider marriage; the liberty to marry whoever you want can run contrary to social expectations and history. The individual's choice of self determination as opposed to a societal view as to appropriate morality. So is Gay marriage more properly a Left or Right issue?
Criminal law is another area where the old Right/Left dichotomy fails. Except where there are direct victims, for example assault, most criminal law enforces societal mores. The drug laws for example make no sense at all except as enforcing a social belief that tobacco and alcohol are ok but marijuana is bad. But is legalising marijuana and increasing individual liberty a cause for the Right?
Historically, the political terms for Right and Left originate from the French Revolution when deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right in France was between supporters of the Republic and those of the Monarchy.
At best, the term right-wing has come to be associated with preserving the status quo in the form of institutions and traditions. But having had seventy five years of a social welfare state, what's the status quo? Who's the radical?
9 comments:
I'm getting tired of everyone talking about "uniting the left" and "Fox News North" and ignoring the fact that Harper is spending ONE BILLION DOLLARS on a photo-op; and sending soldiers out in the night doing practice night raids, without waring citizens.
This is why Harper has managed to stay in power for so long--we're prattling on about trivialities, while he does as he pleases.
Harper wants a united left--so we DO NOT give him one. Never give your enemy what they ask for.
Let Kory Whatshisface start up a right-wing news channel, and laugh when it crashes and burns. Then we will have further proof that the right cannot succeed in Canada.
Isn't it strange to find the Liberal party coming down on the side of collective rights rather than individual rights? And the gay marriage thing, if it were really about what individuals do it wouldn't have stirred such a hornet's nest. What it was about was the government defining a word that for millenia was the province of religion and about government sanctioning those unions. A true individual rights position would be that government has no business defining personal relationships whatsoever and individual religions can define marriage as they please. That's why both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives could make common cause against what the Liberal party imposed.
The "left" and the "right" are actually united already in such things as the 'libertarian left' (right wing ?) and that part of the anarchist movement that is sane ( left wing ? ). The problem is that both fusions have little public support. All the problems that you mention are non-entities amongst the libertarian left and the saner parts of anarchism.
Rat, your opinion on equal marriage couldn't be further from logic, but I will try to steer you on to a sensible course.
For the word marriage to be the sole property of religion to define, you will need to define which religion coined the word, and which religion defined what the ceremony would be.
By the simple fact that every religion has its own ceremony, customs, and edicts, you've trounced your own argument.
We need to decide if you meant the word "province", or providence. The former regarding a magistrates authority, and the latter referring to God acting within man's world.
If you meant the former, than clearly you feel that marriage is a government regulated ceremony, and the Liberal party acted correctly in making marriage equal for all Canadian citizens.
If you meant the latter, then again, you need to define which god, and which religion the foundation of modern marriage is based on. Christian; Hindu, Sikh; Native; Taoist, etc.
Now, as far as whom may define relationships, or marriage, you must realize that if only religious institutions may define marriage, you must be willing to give up all the benefits accorded you by the government, who recognizes your religious ceremony as marriage--tax privileges; inheritance privileges; the right to not testify against a spouse. You must also be willing to give up the universality of your marriage. Just because your marriage was recognized by the Catholic church, doesn't mean any other denomination must recognize it. Portability is also removed--don't expect to be considered "married" in Texas, if you were married in the NWT.
Lastly, there was no "hornets nest" stirred up. Anti-gay Canadians who opposed equal marriage were full of sound and fury, but the majority of Canadians supported the government recognizing the marriages of gay and lesbian Canadians.
God, Paul, even after glasses of wine I can still make a fool of you. Read my post again and realize that I didn't mention any religion and for a reason. I don't care which religion "defines" marriage because each defines it as they see fit. The United church has no problem with gay marriage and I say good on them, as do my Wiccan friends. It shouldn't be government that defines it nor should it be government that recognizes it. What two people do is not government's business. Up until the new definition by parliament we already had law allowing gays to make decisions for spouses in medical need, allowing benefits for gay spouses, allowing gays to adopt and so on. All Chretien;s marriage law did was change a definition of an institution in such a way as to imply that the government was right on matters of morality and followers of religions that disagreed were somehow wrong.
As for all Canadians supporting the definition, that's pretty weak. A majority of Canadians support gays, and consenting adults in general, doing as they will. They weren't asked if they would support government getting out of the marriage business. And just because a majority think it's right doesn't make it right All Russians supported pogroms against the Jews, as did the voters of Nazi Germany. In fact, that's why the Liberals opposed the Reform party's populist support for referendums. You can't vote someone's human rights away, and high on that list, even in Trudeaupian Canada, is freedom of religion. Right would have been stopping recognition of any marriage at all and leaving to each individual to defines it as they saw fit through their church, their friends, or themselves.
Rat, clearly you had too much wine, if you really believe you could post a coherent rebuttal.
You certainly did mention religion:
What it was about was the government defining a word that for millenia was the province of religion...
I challenged you to explain which religion held ownership of the definition of marriage, and I explained why you needed to define which religion.
As far as your trumpeted law that gave decisions for spouses in medical need, allowing benefits for gay spouses, allowing gays to adopt and so on... this was a patchwork law of provincial and municipal laws that had no universality across Canada.
What Chretien and the Liberal party did was make federal law granting equal marriage to all citizens,not just a select few.
As for you ridiculous comment that the equal marriage law somehow condemned followers of religions that disagreed were somehow wrong. please show me where in the law this was stated. Please show me where in the law that churches will lose their tax status, or religious leaders will be stripped of their ordination by the government for disapproving of equal marriage.
And yes, almost a majority of Canadians supported the government granting equal marriage to all Canadians:
2002-OCT: Centre for Research and Information on Canada poll
The results were:
*53% of Canadian adults supported SSM
*41% opposed it
*6% were unsure or refused to answer.
You may try to prove your point by stating that Canadians were not asked if the government should "get out" of the marriage business, but that is a moot point, because that was not the question, and that was not what the federal government asked the SCOC to rule on, Rat.
As far as your bringing up Russians and Germans supporting the murder of Jews, you demonstrate your ignorance on two points--the Russian citizens and German citizens had no say in what happened to their Jewish countrymen--Stalin and Hitler did what they wanted, with, or without the support of their citizens.
Secondly, Godwin's Rule explains why you fail, Rat.
To compare the murder of Jews, to the Liberal government granting equal marriage to all citizens demonstrates exactly what you think of Canadian LGBTQ's, your argument is invalid.
No where in Canada, has anyone's freedom of religion been voted away, Rat.
As far as your Utopian view that government should not recognize any marriage, I will repost what I wrote in my original reply:
Now, as far as whom may define relationships, or marriage, you must realize that if only religious institutions may define marriage, you must be willing to give up all the benefits accorded you by the government, who recognizes your religious ceremony as marriage--tax privileges; inheritance privileges; the right to not testify against a spouse. You must also be willing to give up the universality of your marriage. Just because your marriage was recognized by the Catholic church, doesn't mean any other denomination must recognize it. Portability is also removed--don't expect to be considered "married" in Texas, if you were married in the NWT.
Now go back to the bottle, Rat, you make a better drunk, than you do a political wonk.
Paul, reading comprehension isn't your strong point. Here is my statement:
"Read my post again and realize that I didn't mention any religion and for a reason. I don't care which religion "defines" marriage because each defines it as they see fit.
You do understand that the term "religion" is a generic term we use to describe all faiths world wide, right? So there you have it and you can now read the rest of my post and understand what I said.
As to the rest of your post, what "benefits" of marriage might you be talking about? You seem to think that somehow government sanctifying your marriage makes it so much more special than the one that simply occurs under the common law definition. But if you really feel the need for a government pat on the head why not simply register the person you wish to have those benefits at the local government agent? Why even restrict it to people you have sex with? Why can't your brother or sister gain the automatic inheritance rights? (Of course I'm assuming your inability to read is because of lack of education and not inbreeding). Why should a spouse have special privilege of not testifying? Lets just ditch that one. Tax benefits? What tax benefits? Do you mean claiming a spouse as a dependent? My spouse works for a living and why should we only be able to claim dependency for someone we have sex with (excluding children, but that's just me, maybe you don't exclude children from your potential partner list, so open minded and all as Liberals are)? If the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms why is it every Liberal definition boils down to who puts what body part where?
"But is legalising marijuana and increasing individual liberty a cause for the Right? "
It isn't a cause for either the left or the right. It's an issue for pragmatists. Substantial steps need to be taken soon and Temporance mentality is simply not a logical choice in this situation.
Time to make some lemonade.
Rat, I read your comment, and it did not invalidate the fact that until you define which religion's ceremony will be recognized as owning the word marriage--a point you seem to feel valid enough to make it a point in your original comment--that no religion owns the word marriage, and therefore no religion can define what marriage should be.
If every church defines marriage it's own way--as it does--then every religion is free to decide who is married and not; as I pointed out in my reply.
If the government did not make a federal law explaining what marriage is, then no one could really be married, simply because no one will have to view their marriage as either sanctioned, nor lawful. What don't you understand about that, Rat?
I already stated which benefits, Rat. Clearly you don't bother to read comments, before posting spurious replies.
The fact that you consider government recognized marriages as "special" compared to common law marriage, shows you know very little about government, or law. Common law marriages are government marriages, simply because the government decided that when two people are together for five years, they are a common law couple.
The church did not decide that--the federal government did, Rat. And they did so for tax purposes, one of the privileges accorded lawfully married couples.
Your argument is going off the rails, and you don't even see that, Rat. Every marriage that occurs in Canada, is a federal government recognized marriage. Whether it happens in a church, at the city clerks office, or only happens because people are together for a certain number of years.
As far as inheritance rights, I can leave what ever I own to whom ever I want, Rat.
As far as the rest of your frothing, paranoid comment, that you accuse me of pedophilia speaks volumes about your mind, Rat. I certainly wouldn't trust you with any child, including the one you've adopted, considering heterosexual males make up close to 100% of child abusers. That you would immediately jump to that sort of accusation, shows clearly child services--and your wife--need to keep an eye on you around your child.
Now, if you'd like marriage to be some sort of free love commune, screw whomever accord, then you are welcome to it, just don't taint my marriage with your rampant sex addiction, and abuse, Rat. I'm glad the federal government, and Canadian churches say marriage is between two consenting adults.
If you teach the way you debate, the children of Vancouver will be woefully unprepared for the real world. Go back to your drinking, Rat, it's all your good for.
Post a Comment