Letter to my M.P.

[pbreak]

I just wrote this to my M.P. - obviously it won't change anything but I felt I needed to at least get it off my chest.. what do you guys think about all this?

edit: regarding gay marriage FYI

"I just wanted to write and indeed inform the Honourable Mr. Forseth that he is voting against a bill that honours our Charter of Rights in lieu of denying it as he would have, and helps move Canada in a direction of actual equality. Indeed he is out of step with what his constituents actually want and is either simply to weak to go against his quasi-fundamentalist Christian leader Mr. Harper, or is simply unaware of what religious freedom actually entails. This is a religious controversy for it was certain religions that originally set up the boundaries of what we now know "marriage" to be, but to deny people of other faiths than his own, or of no faith at all, their rights under the Charter, which the Supreme Court has already verified as being protected by said Charter, is ignorant, unlawful and against the wishes of the forward thinking, sensible people of this country."

[Cdn_Brdr]

According to the paper, my MP is 'UNDECIDED'

He's a conservative so I know he'll follow party lines and vote NO on the bill which is a damn shame. In fact he most likely isn't undecided at all, he just doesn't want his vote to be known to the public at this moment. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that I didn't vote for him.

As for your letter Bryan.... thumbs up. It may not make a difference in the long run but you are getting your opinion to him which is a lot more than most people do.

[pbreak]

Originally Posted by Cdn_Brdr

According to the paper, my MP is 'UNDECIDED'

He's a conservative so I know he'll follow party lines and vote NO on the bill which is a damn shame. In fact he most likely isn't undecided at all, he just doesn't want his vote to be known to the public at this moment. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that I didn't vote for him.

As for your letter Bryan.... thumbs up. It may not make a difference in the long run but you are getting your opinion to him which is a lot more than most people do.

I think your MP is my MP too, actually, I know he is... I guess I shouldn't have assumed that he was necessarily voting NO, but he is conservative and there's only 1 consertive MP in BC that has actually said he would vote YES, thus my assumption.

[b0ld]

I'm not a homosexual and personally would not swing that way (thats just my personal preference and my right), but I do respect other people's rights. And if there are 2 people of the same sex and they want to get married then I say why the hell not? Members from the opposition don't seem to realize that Canada is associated with the human rights commission with the United Nations. Thats right "Human Rights" not "Religious Theory". Human Rights meaning that each and every human is entitled to whatever, including having a relationship with the opposite sex. The Canadian Charter includes sections of "Human Rights" and thats why Paul Martin is standing by them. If Harper were prime minister he would changing the charter in a heartbeat. I see nothing but pure HATE when I see those who is against for gay marriages. Hate being equivalent being a racist and what not.

The reason why I vote liberal simply is because they are there for the people and there rights and they won't enforce an ideaology such as religion and use it to control others. If the the government were under the Progressive Conservatives then Canada would be a totally different place.

[wum]

so yer gay?

[b0ld]

No I'm not gay. I just believe in other people's rights

[pbreak]

Originally Posted by b0ld

. I see nothing but pure HATE when I see those who is against for gay marriages. Hate being equivalent being a racist and what not.

Wum, shut up.

In this case b0ld, I don't think it's really hatred as much as deep underlying christian, islamic or jewish beliefs that most people in the country have, and same sex marriages simply go against their beliefs. The problem arises when these religious people don't recognize the religious (or "non"-religious) rights of others. If this bill doesn't pass, then in a way we're kind of living in a multi-religion fundamentalist nation because we are being governed by the texts/beliefs of certain religions.

Here's my response from Mr. Forseth, MP, by the way - now I feel like a bit of an ass assuming that he was voting NO - apparently he says he voting for whatever his constituents want, apparently at least, so if you live in New Westminster/Coquitlam riding then please write and let him now your stance.

"Feb. 2 2005

Dear Mr. Bryan Holland:

The government Bill C-38 (Civil Marriage Act)to change the definition of
marriage has been tabled in the House of Commons. The outcome of this
landmark sociological proposal remains far from certain. On Feb.1st, just
139 members of the 308 Parliament surveyed, said they would vote in favour
of the Bill. Another 117 MPs said they would vote against the
legislation, while 50 MPs are undecided or would not state a position. To
pass into law, the Bill needs the votes of 154 MPs.

There will be a vote after second reading debate to send the Bill to
Committee. If it gets passed onto Committee, there will be several
amendment votes and there will be a final Committee vote to possibly send
the Bill back to the Commons. The Committee will likely have public
hearings and travel the county. Then there will be a report stage vote in
the Commons, and perhaps some further amendment votes at report stage.
Then there is third reading debate and a vote on the final version. If
the Bill gets that far, it would go to the Senate for its consideration
and votes. Certainly this matter will before the country for some months
to come.

Over the next while, the Liberals will try to persuade those on the fence
to rally to their cause. The NDP and the Liberals are officially
promoting the Bill as their party policy. The Conservatives are giving
all their MPs a free vote, and officially the leadership will be trying to
introduce amendments to find some half-way ground.

My position is that I should give the utmost respect to all points of view
and provide the best representation possible, and simply vote the
constituents wishes. I believe that all Canadians should be able to
examine their own conscience and then vote. Since we will not have an
election on this issue, and since the government will not permit voters to
have their say directly at the ballot box, then it is up to me to survey
the community and strongly engage. I provide advice and information and
promote respect rather than rancour.

We need more democracy in Canada. Voting is the civilized way for our
country to make basic structural decisions about how the community may
want to be organized. The nation is having a conversation, and we must be
respectful and sensitive to all views. Then in conclusion, we must vote
and accept the democratic result gracefully. I have committed to vote the
majority view within my electoral district. I am making extra effort to
ensure that I am correctly reading the democratic will of my electoral
district.

Please provide your residential mailing address to be included in our
survey records. Thank you for contacting me.

Paul Forseth MP"

[Cdn_Brdr]

Originally Posted by pbreak

I think your MP is my MP too, actually, I know he is... I guess I shouldn't have assumed that he was necessarily voting NO, but he is conservative and there's only 1 consertive MP in BC that has actually said he would vote YES, thus my assumption.

Nope... Paul Forseth is not my MP. My MP is James Moore. I think I'm going to get a hold of my MP on ths one too. You've inspired me to speak out! If/when I get a response I'll post it up too.

[wum]

a little offtopic, but i had a debate in class in Democracy today in class.

basically, i think it's destined for self-implosion. all politicians have to do is promise mo' money to its constituents and they will win votes. then the next politician will do the same. eventually, this oneupmanship gets out of hand and bankrupts the state.

no?

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by wum

a little offtopic, but i had a debate in class in Democracy today in class.

basically, i think it's destined for self-implosion. all politicians have to do is promise mo' money to its constituents and they will win votes. then the next politician will do the same. eventually, this oneupmanship gets out of hand and bankrupts the state.

no?

Hmm, good theory..BUT.

1. Democracy has existed for a long time, it surely would have happened by now.

2. Politicians make promises, but don't always keep them

3. We don't have elections very often

4. I think without adjusting/reviewing fiscal policy once every few years, it would be worse for the economy


but then again, I could be wrong. It's all imho, of course.

[wum]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Hmm, good theory..BUT.

1. Democracy has existed for a long time, it surely would have happened by now.

2. Politicians make promises, but don't always keep them

3. We don't have elections very often

4. I think without adjusting/reviewing fiscal policy once every few years, it would be worse for the economy


but then again, I could be wrong. It's all imho, of course.

Doesn't it seem to be the case that as soon as the state grants luxuries like social services they soon become synonymous with inalienable "rights" and are therefore very hard to take back? Verily, not only do they become precedents in themselves, but like all State sponsored monopolies they become stagnated, bloated, and inferior.

We're becoming a culture of intractable Socialists. Already it's possible for the unproductive members of society to vote the rights away of the productive. Just look at how your wages are garnished to keep life long day care brats in some government school for "the good of society."

The whole argument behind mass immigration is that there needs to be something like 5 workers to every pensioner. Obviously this is unsustainable, just like every other government (dis)service.

We're finished. :(

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by wum

Doesn't it seem to be the case that as soon as the state grants luxuries like social services they soon become synonymous with inalienable "rights" and are therefore very hard to take back? Verily, not only do they become precedents in themselves, but like all State sponsored monopolies they become stagnated, bloated, and inferior.

We're becoming a culture of intractable Socialists. Already it's possible for the unproductive members of society to vote the rights away of the productive. Just look at how your wages are garnished to keep life long day care brats in some government school for "the good of society."

The whole argument behind mass immigration is that there needs to be something like 5 workers to every pensioner. Obviously this is unsustainable, just like every other government (dis)service.

We're finished. :(

You're the one that is always giving bigups to Scandinavian nations that are A LOT more to the left than we are here. Sweden is a socialist democracy, people pay A LOT of taxes, but Swedes also enjoy life, they've got the highest standard of living in the world.

Now, you're already fairly clear on the fact that by no means am I a socialist, but Canada really has its toe in the water as far as socialism goes, and I'm not too worried about that. You seem to forget that despite these existing social programs, Canada's as capitalist as they get, so relaaaaaax! I don't think it's going to make Canada bankrupt anytime soon.

[wum]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

You're the one that is always giving bigups to Scandinavian nations that are A LOT more to the left than we are here. Sweden is a socialist democracy, people pay A LOT of taxes, but Swedes also enjoy life, they've got the highest standard of living in the world.

those weren't the reasons i said Sweden was good. I think you were telling me once that we needed tons of immigrants to bolster the economy, but then I used the Scandinavia example to show that it's usually the smallest countries that have the highest standards of living. I don't recall saying much about their social democracy, and i'm actually quite against it.

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Now, you're already fairly clear on the fact that by no means am I a socialist, but Canada really has its toe in the water as far as socialism goes, and I'm not too worried about that. You seem to forget that despite these existing social programs, Canada's as capitalist as they get, so relaaaaaax! I don't think it's going to make Canada bankrupt anytime soon.

it would be easier if you just believed everything i said :(

Before WWII, welfare recipients were commissioned to do public works, like digging sewers or paving roads. Now they just have to land here. One has to realize that government intervention and bondage to the state have been steadily increasing over time. Were there things like government indoctrination (public education), health care, government subsidized housing, food stamps, day care, etc. a hundred years ago? Of course not. I can't imagine what next people will be demanding from their government, but we probably won't last that long.

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by wum

it would be easier if you just believed everything i said :(

Aww Wumbles, I don't like making things easy, and I actually really like arguing with you :)

ps- you forgot about that whole 'great depression' thing that happened before the 2nd world war

[wum]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Aww Wumbles, I don't like making things easy, and I actually really like arguing with you :)

ps- you forgot about that whole 'great depression' thing that happened before the 2nd world war

okay fine. so you're happy with the state of things then?

[~TidyFreak~]

marriage is sumthing really religous and is meant for a man and a woman i personally think that gay ppl shudnt get married.. my opinion though

[pbreak]

Originally Posted by ~TidyFreak~

marriage is sumthing really religous and is meant for a man and a woman i personally think that gay ppl shudnt get married.. my opinion though

again, whether or not you personally think gay people should get married isn't really the point.. you are completely entitled to that opinion and so is your religious group who would not be forced to recognize any union that they don't consider appropriate. The point is Canada always has had many different religions, and there is a little thing called separation of church and state. Therefore only the State (meaning the federal government) and whichever religious groups that want to, would sanctify the marriage. Point is your religious beliefs should not outweigh someone elses. It's really a clear cut case of human rights according to our Charter.

[krisamata]

i was thinking of doing the same thing, i just havent had time to sit down and write it yet.



mr stupid mark warawa can kiss my fucking ass. i didnt vote for the fucker. and theres a reason why. hes stupid



how are these people representing our communities properly?!? they;re not...they're only inflicting their own hatrid and criticism


fuckers.

[decypher]

I for one am happy our country has made it this far in promoting this. Would you rather your leader appeal to evangelic politics? The Church should not influence the state.

[Cdn_Brdr]

Here is the response I FINALLY got back from my MP:

Thank you for your email, I appreciate you taking the time to write. My full perspective on the issue of same-sex marriage can be found at www.jamesmoore.org/ssm.htm

This issue is one of great importance to all Canadians and I can assure you that I have given, and will continue to give, measured and thoughtful analysis to this issue to ensure that the values that are important to my constituents are represented in the House of Commons.

I am a firm believer in the family as the central building block of our society, and I believe strongly in the need to support families through government policy.

I am proud to stand with and support Stephen Harper and my Conservative colleagues as we work together to ensure religious freedom is protected in Canadian law, and to ensure that religious institutions are protected from having to perform same-sex marriages if they don’t want to.

I believe same-sex and opposite-sex couples should have the same rights, privileges and obligations under the law.

I will continue to oppose the cavalier attitude the Liberals have shown toward Canadian families, the needs of families, and their crucial role in our society.

I will continue to oppose the NDP and their reckless policies and disregard for Canadian families as the foundation of our values.

I am a proud conservative who will represent the right values in Ottawa.

James Moore MP
Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam

www.jamesmoore.org

[pbreak]

Originally Posted by Cdn_Brdr

Here is the response I FINALLY got back from my

I am proud to stand with and support Stephen Harper and my Conservative colleagues as we work together to ensure religious freedom is protected in Canadian law, and to ensure that religious institutions are protected from having to perform same-sex marriages if they don’t want to.

WTF?!? Stephen Harper is now supporting same sex marriage then? Is this what your retarded MP is saying? Cause if he is, what a flip-flop, that guy's a bigger moron than even I gave him credit for.

Originally Posted by Cdn_Brdr

I believe same-sex and opposite-sex couples should have the same rights, privileges and obligations under the law.

Good to see, but you know he doesn't want it, you know he's just caving.

I will continue to oppose the cavalier attitude the Liberals have shown toward Canadian families, the needs of families, and their crucial role in our society.

I will continue to oppose the NDP and their reckless policies and disregard for Canadian families as the foundation of our values.

I really hate politicians and their partisan bullshit. The conservatives are the worst for this too - they bash every other party NO MATTER what, even when they do things right, the "opposition" feels the need to oppose. In this case this MP appears to be supporting a bill proposed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP all along - his reason for supporting the bill? Because he "believes in the family, blah blah blah...", which logically follows that both the liberals and NDP must also have the same values or they would not be supporting this bill. Yet he goes on to trash talk both other parties' for their attitude toward the "Canadian Family"... not only is this simply bullshit, cheezy political rhetoric with no evidence whatsoever for his claims, but he completely contradicts himself. Fucking moron.

[miss.myra]

That's not really a firm enough answer. He'll vote against it.

[pbreak]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

That's not really a firm enough answer. He'll vote against it.

Probably right, it seems like he's trying to sidestep the issue - now that I read it again he quite clearly states that "...same-sex and opposite-sex couples..." should have the same right under Canadian law, he doesn't say anything about actual marriage; and he certainly doesn't seem like he would back ANY liberal or NDP idea, no matter how much sense it made.

As well, from this statement:

"I am proud to stand with and support Stephen Harper and my Conservative colleagues as we work together to ensure religious freedom is protected in Canadian law..."

I can see that he is interested either in the protection of his religious freedom as law or that religious freedom through law should not include marriage, or at least the term 'marriage'.

[miss.myra]

yeah he's just a politician that isn't giving a real answer.

Shawn, ask him for a YES or NO answer. See what he says!

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

a little offtopic, but i had a debate in class in Democracy today in class.

basically, i think it's destined for self-implosion. all politicians have to do is promise mo' money to its constituents and they will win votes. then the next politician will do the same. eventually, this oneupmanship gets out of hand and bankrupts the state.

no?

it only bankrupts the state if they follow through on their promises of mo' money though, and we all know how often politicians keep promises...