Comments on: Thoughts on Conservative Ideology and Contemporary Issues http://informedvote.ca/2010/02/04/thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues Informed Vote (informedvote.ca) will keep Canadian voters informed on Canadian Politics such as Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green, as well as foreign issues like the Israel palestine conflict and local issues like the CUPE strike Sun, 04 Dec 2011 07:31:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Travis Martin http://informedvote.ca/2010/02/04/thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-5046 Travis Martin Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:25:44 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2454#comment-5046 Fraser, I second your call of "Clap Trap"! Though it is sad that I must find myself defending conservatives again - I tell myself that really I am just correcting ignorance. Did you really say that Education was a platform for the Conservatives? Really. Gee I though that our Constitution delegated that authority to the Provinces meaning that the Conservatives, the Federal Liberals, and the Federal NDP DONT HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL POLICY BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE! Oh, did I also read (well you know I did) that you thought that Federal parties have the power to strengthen the courts. The aforementioned document that, apparently you have never read again negates that nonsense. Okay but that is just nitpicking, how about your thesis. Well, your thesis is bunk because you fail to understand why a public intellectual and Homosexual, like say Andrew Sullivan ( a Republican and openly gay person) would vote conservative. In Canada, the Conservatives are the closest thing we have to a party that will limit and aim for small government. This is because there is a strong history of Libertarianism and all that jazz that nobody learns in history class any more (which ideologically created the Liberal Whig party and later seeped in and took over the conservative party when the persons calling themselves liberals began to seek to legislate morality which should never be legislated). Either way, Liberalism in Canada, and Socialism always have a general tendency to have government tell you what your rights are and give to government the power to amend them. So when the Liberal Party was campaigning for Gay Rights in the 80s and 90s part of the implications of the Campaign was that the the Liberals insisted on the right to read in and in some cases legislate the right for gays to marry. Now, from a Conservative Libertarian point of view, at a purely political level, (and yes there are evangelicals who believe otherwise but would never have gone as far to stop gay marriage - more on that later) marriage is an inalienable right that stems from the oft-neglected basic human right - freedom to contract. You see if I have the right to make contracts with whomever I like, provided I am of age, then surely I can marry whomever I please and it is not up to the government to tell me who I may or may not contract with, it is simply up to the courts to enforce and recognize the legality of the contract - you see no government, Jesus or otherwise allowed! Under this scenario it is ONLY up to the government to stay the hell out of my way and allow me the freedom to make the contracts that I like. So you see, under a traditional conservative standpoint, while Biblically considered wrong, the political opinion on Homosexuality and gay marriage is that IT IS NOT UP TO GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE WHAT IS AND IS NOT IMMORAL SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM THE FUNCTIONING OF SOCIETY. This is the motivation behind much of the Conservative Opposition to Gay Marriage. I don't deny the existence of stupid Christians who have voiced their opinion about the evil of homosexuality, and who are too illiterate to understand my argument - indeed legion is their name, but a survey of Conservative literature finds far more support for the position that I have laid out than that demented and hack representation that you put forth. You have to ask yourself: "do you really want the government to TELL YOU that gays have the right to get married? By implication this gives them the power to reverse that position. I strongly empathize with the many homosexuals who have been wounded by the bigoted and absurd remarks by certain conservatives (of which I am not) but you do a terrible misrepresentation of political conservatism by painting the Conservative Party as Bigoted by policy. You would do better to point individually to specific bigots, of which there are undoubtably a few an then look to how they have been managed within the party. Now there is a further bit of nonsense to your argument and this is again not only because you do not know or understand our constitution, but because you have no idea of it and its relationships with both the courts and the Parliament. The Supreme Court is the only enforcer, ultimately, of our constitution. While the doctrine of freedom of contract has not been clearly articulated in this country the freedom to contract for the purposes of two people of age getting married has been identified as an inalienable subsection of the freedom to contract. What this means is that is is legally impossible for any party to outlaw gay marriage. It can not be done. When Harper was campaigning years back he openly stated fact this to a bunch of hack socialists who accused him of having an anti-gay family policy. IT IS NOW IMPOSSIBLE, because of recent SCC rulings which are forever binding and can not feasibly be challenged FOR THE RIGHTS OF GAYS TO LIVE COMMON LAW, OR BE MARRIED, to be blocked at a federal level. Now, there may be some political vote-grabbing by way of whether we call it a gay union, a civil marriage or just a marriage, but this is only for the wording of statutes and does not affect the lives of gay people specifically. You are flogging a dead horse, crying war when the battle (and a long battle it was) is over, and making a crude straw-man of your enemy only to knock him down. A sad, pathetic, and ill informed excuse for writing. There are plenty of ideological and political reasons for Canadians to oppose conservatives. The ones that you have mentioned come straight off the worse elements of liberal media and scholarship and are at best fear-mongering and caricaturing. You can get the Conservatives on their use of proroguing parliament, if you like, their failure in the Khadr case, the environment (which is why I oppose them increasingly) but sure as hell not on gay rights. In fact, if properly informed, I believe more gay people would consider the Conservatives to possess the moral high-ground in this debate. Sadly so many of them want to flock to parties who will tell them condescendingly "yes we will LET you be yourselves, rather than to a party that says "freedom and choice, just don't wake the neighbors." Fraser, I second your call of “Clap Trap”! Though it is sad that I must find myself defending conservatives again – I tell myself that really I am just correcting ignorance. Did you really say that Education was a platform for the Conservatives? Really. Gee I though that our Constitution delegated that authority to the Provinces meaning that the Conservatives, the Federal Liberals, and the Federal NDP DONT HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL POLICY BECAUSE THEY DON”T HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE! Oh, did I also read (well you know I did) that you thought that Federal parties have the power to strengthen the courts. The aforementioned document that, apparently you have never read again negates that nonsense. Okay but that is just nitpicking, how about your thesis. Well, your thesis is bunk because you fail to understand why a public intellectual and Homosexual, like say Andrew Sullivan ( a Republican and openly gay person) would vote conservative. In Canada, the Conservatives are the closest thing we have to a party that will limit and aim for small government. This is because there is a strong history of Libertarianism and all that jazz that nobody learns in history class any more (which ideologically created the Liberal Whig party and later seeped in and took over the conservative party when the persons calling themselves liberals began to seek to legislate morality which should never be legislated). Either way, Liberalism in Canada, and Socialism always have a general tendency to have government tell you what your rights are and give to government the power to amend them. So when the Liberal Party was campaigning for Gay Rights in the 80s and 90s part of the implications of the Campaign was that the the Liberals insisted on the right to read in and in some cases legislate the right for gays to marry. Now, from a Conservative Libertarian point of view, at a purely political level, (and yes there are evangelicals who believe otherwise but would never have gone as far to stop gay marriage – more on that later) marriage is an inalienable right that stems from the oft-neglected basic human right – freedom to contract. You see if I have the right to make contracts with whomever I like, provided I am of age, then surely I can marry whomever I please and it is not up to the government to tell me who I may or may not contract with, it is simply up to the courts to enforce and recognize the legality of the contract – you see no government, Jesus or otherwise allowed! Under this scenario it is ONLY up to the government to stay the hell out of my way and allow me the freedom to make the contracts that I like. So you see, under a traditional conservative standpoint, while Biblically considered wrong, the political opinion on Homosexuality and gay marriage is that IT IS NOT UP TO GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE WHAT IS AND IS NOT IMMORAL SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM THE FUNCTIONING OF SOCIETY. This is the motivation behind much of the Conservative Opposition to Gay Marriage. I don’t deny the existence of stupid Christians who have voiced their opinion about the evil of homosexuality, and who are too illiterate to understand my argument – indeed legion is their name, but a survey of Conservative literature finds far more support for the position that I have laid out than that demented and hack representation that you put forth. You have to ask yourself: “do you really want the government to TELL YOU that gays have the right to get married? By implication this gives them the power to reverse that position. I strongly empathize with the many homosexuals who have been wounded by the bigoted and absurd remarks by certain conservatives (of which I am not) but you do a terrible misrepresentation of political conservatism by painting the Conservative Party as Bigoted by policy. You would do better to point individually to specific bigots, of which there are undoubtably a few an then look to how they have been managed within the party.

Now there is a further bit of nonsense to your argument and this is again not only because you do not know or understand our constitution, but because you have no idea of it and its relationships with both the courts and the Parliament. The Supreme Court is the only enforcer, ultimately, of our constitution. While the doctrine of freedom of contract has not been clearly articulated in this country the freedom to contract for the purposes of two people of age getting married has been identified as an inalienable subsection of the freedom to contract. What this means is that is is legally impossible for any party to outlaw gay marriage. It can not be done. When Harper was campaigning years back he openly stated fact this to a bunch of hack socialists who accused him of having an anti-gay family policy. IT IS NOW IMPOSSIBLE, because of recent SCC rulings which are forever binding and can not feasibly be challenged FOR THE RIGHTS OF GAYS TO LIVE COMMON LAW, OR BE MARRIED, to be blocked at a federal level. Now, there may be some political vote-grabbing by way of whether we call it a gay union, a civil marriage or just a marriage, but this is only for the wording of statutes and does not affect the lives of gay people specifically. You are flogging a dead horse, crying war when the battle (and a long battle it was) is over, and making a crude straw-man of your enemy only to knock him down. A sad, pathetic, and ill informed excuse for writing. There are plenty of ideological and political reasons for Canadians to oppose conservatives. The ones that you have mentioned come straight off the worse elements of liberal media and scholarship and are at best fear-mongering and caricaturing. You can get the Conservatives on their use of proroguing parliament, if you like, their failure in the Khadr case, the environment (which is why I oppose them increasingly) but sure as hell not on gay rights. In fact, if properly informed, I believe more gay people would consider the Conservatives to possess the moral high-ground in this debate. Sadly so many of them want to flock to parties who will tell them condescendingly “yes we will LET you be yourselves, rather than to a party that says “freedom and choice, just don’t wake the neighbors.”

]]> By: Jennifer Petryshen http://informedvote.ca/2010/02/04/thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-4957 Jennifer Petryshen Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:06:31 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2454#comment-4957 He's gay? I must have been living under a rock. For an interesting (and unexpected, if we go by stereotypes) perspective on gay rights and gay marriage, check out this Newsweek article about the upcoming Prop 8 lawsuit. http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957 I think he makes a compelling argument. He’s gay? I must have been living under a rock.

For an interesting (and unexpected, if we go by stereotypes) perspective on gay rights and gay marriage, check out this Newsweek article about the upcoming Prop 8 lawsuit.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957

I think he makes a compelling argument.

]]> By: Thoughts on Conservative Ideology and Contemporary Issues … | Canada today http://informedvote.ca/2010/02/04/thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-4947 Thoughts on Conservative Ideology and Contemporary Issues … | Canada today Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:44:38 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2454#comment-4947 [...] Go here to see the original: Thoughts on Conservative Ideology and Contemporary Issues … [...] [...] Go here to see the original: Thoughts on Conservative Ideology and Contemporary Issues … [...]

]]> By: A.R. Colton http://informedvote.ca/2010/02/04/thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-4941 A.R. Colton Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:10:40 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2454#comment-4941 A man who sticks to his opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented and no natter what changes take place in the world around him is considered hard-deaded and stubborn. When a politician does it he is considered stable and reliable. I think the progression from idealogical roots represents the positive evolution of politicians not "selling out for cheap votes." A man who sticks to his opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented and no natter what changes take place in the world around him is considered hard-deaded and stubborn. When a politician does it he is considered stable and reliable.

I think the progression from idealogical roots represents the positive evolution of politicians not “selling out for cheap votes.”

]]> By: Fraser Nelund http://informedvote.ca/2010/02/04/thoughts-on-conservative-ideology-and-contemporary-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-4939 Fraser Nelund Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:39:19 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2454#comment-4939 I call claptrap. Is your point that parties shy from strong ideological positions to garner votes but if they only got "back to their ideological roots" that the "cynicism so many voters have would begin to wear off"? So parties would get votes by doing the opposite of what they do to get votes? Tell me that you see the problem with that position. Where's Travis Martin when you need him (goes the proverbial bat signal)? I call claptrap. Is your point that parties shy from strong ideological positions to garner votes but if they only got “back to their ideological roots” that the “cynicism so many voters have would begin to wear off”?

So parties would get votes by doing the opposite of what they do to get votes?

Tell me that you see the problem with that position.

Where’s Travis Martin when you need him (goes the proverbial bat signal)?

]]>