Rebranding Intolerance

And the best part is, I can't even comment on how intolerant that site is without being slapped for being a homophobe.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Well, I don\'t see them ever governing Canada, so whatever. They may be an alternative for western voters, but I like to beleive westerners are less regressive and hateful than this. I mean, this party goes beyond intolerance. I don\'t think the Liberals really like same-sex marriage either, but Chretien put them in a bind.

And it\'s too bad we don\'t have Orchard as a candidate this election. He would\'ve been a wonderful PM. I disagree with people who say he isn\'t charismatic enough.

Maybe he\'s simply to decent, like the kid at the hockey tryout who\'d so polite he never gets noticed by any of the coaches, despite his obvious talent.

I\'d take a Canadian history-buff over a Christian fundamentalist party, any day. Any form of religious fundamentalism is a very dangerous thing.

That site is intolerant of what, exactly, Dr. Caleb? I don\'t think any same-sex marriage advocates are saying that heterosexual couples have no right to marry, last I checked, or that it\'s a crime against God or other such nonsense.

I did say that Orchard is not charismatic enough, not that he isn\'t decent. I agree that church and state should be separate. The charismatic aspect is the quality that gets the spotlight, it attracts people, I just don\'t see it in David Orchard, I\'m not saying that he doesn\'t have great qualities, or that he isn\'t patriotic. I like him, I would have voted for him! The problem is that people, are very into looks these days, it doesn\'t make it right, it just is. The population at large doesn\'t read the policies or understand what is at stake as much as they listen to a good speaker, and first of all they have to like to look at the speaker. Marketing people know this, that\'s why the most popular people are the \'good\'looking people, not the smartest or the most decent! It\'s the shiits but it\'s the way it\'s working...

I don\'t think Liberals have a problem with same-sex marriage; rather, if they were to choose one way or another on the subject, it would alienate those who disagreed (and hence lose votes).

Leaving it \"to the Courts\" allows the government to avoid political suicide, much like the American \"10-day clause\" allows a President to avoid touchy legislation (Article I, s. 7(2)). No matter what the outcome from the S.C.C., the Martin government can simply say \"Hey, it was them who said it, not us. We can\'t mess with the Constitution.\"

Geoff

Well, if you\'re looking for examples, the site (www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/attack_scc2.htm, in particular) is definitely intolerant of a fundamental part of our Constitution. As mentioned in the BNA Act, Canada imported the principles of British Convention upon its formation. In doing so, we imported the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, which implies that Parliament is the highest authority of the Land.

Section 33 was included in the Constitution Act, 1982 to protect Parliamentary supremacy. The fact that a government is trying to use it is simply an attempt to protect Parliament from an activist Judiciary. That a government wishes to protect Canadian convention from an intruding American one should -- at least on this site -- be seen as a good thing, should it not?

branding anything is futile in an era of declining push-media consumption. The mechanisms for controlling the people is morphing quickly. All politics is reverting to more linear command structure. Don\'t be befuddled by differences in parties, there are few. There is only real change in the wave of time. For the people, there will always be the remnant, those that go in the opposite direction. To wit, the Welfare States\' continued destruction of the heterosexual union will, in the end, weed out the weak, and give power to the worthy, Call it Darwinism if you like. Have a look at dieoff.org for reference.

No, I don't think that ethier. Let me put my next statement in context so people won't have to search for my previous comments on this subject; I firmly believe in equal rights for everyone, I believe in same sex unions, but cannot accept the term 'marriage' applied to them.<p> That being said, I find the site intolerant of those of us who wish for equal rights for everyone, and have this hangup on the word 'marriage'. It seems to have the underlying goal of forcing the majority that equal rights will only be *accepted* with the inclusion of that word, where equal rights are already being *offered* without it. I also get the underlying impression of the 'help! help! we're being repressed' defense if equal rights aren't granted under the terms of the minority.<p> As well, that article in particular seems to brand anyone in or favourable to the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party as intolerant. By using a few quotes from a few members it tries to paint the party as homophobic rednecks from out west. It ignores other comments, such as homophobic ones from Liberal MP's, and anti-semetic ones from New Democrats. It seems that Conservative=intolerant according to that site, instead of a Political Party being fiscally motivated, people focused entities and people being intolerant.<p> Just my humble opinion.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

I just don`t know why people have a problem calling a homosexual couple marriage a \'marriage\'. That`s what it is! To deny all people the right to marry IS discrimination! Plain and simple. Consenting adults define their union, not some religion that we don`t even know is real or not.In many cases, you need \'the word\' to help solidify the equality, although the word alone does not guarantee this. But look at when women were one time not considered \'persons.\' What did this imply?

---
Dave Ruston

A better topic chronicling intolerance is the treatment of Ernst Zundel. Now there is a man with a story to tell, and not getting told. He\'s in court again, and surprise, surprise, the pusher press reminds everyone of the Ottawa synagogue defacement- circa 1999. Funny thing, the culprits were zionists. The JUST US system hard at work in Kangaroo Kourt

Intolerance, whatever stripe, has to stay framed in the news to maintain the covert operations of the new world order, and the parasite class that hope to run it.

Well, tell me if I\'m wrong. Everyone is being vocal about rights...does that really include everyone? If a person has an opinion about same sex union, or calling marriage \"marriage\" or if they think gay marriage is wrong, does their opinion count? Is it important for the tiny percentage of our country that is gay, and feels that marriage is their religious right, should we all stand on our heads to make it OK for them?
What about the guy that watches his dog walk away and thinks \"hmmm, she\'s looking mighty fine...\" are his rights to bestiality next?
Now that I\'ve got you fired up, I think we should be tolerant with people, as hate is NOT an act of decency. I know gay people, and truly it\'s not my place to judge. I will, however, live in this world the best way I know how for me and my kids. Your opinion does NOT equal mine.
There, I\'ve said it.
Now to all you rebuttal-ers, just who is being intolerant?

---
Darren Olson
--
"We shall be Canadians first, foremost, and always, and our policies will be decided in Canada and not dictated by any other country." - Dief

fired up? hardly. gotta laugh though, when you hear the government or the press talk about HATE. They\'ve got a vault of bullsheit ready to rollout, carefully crafted during the pusher media years. Yes, gotta shut up any criticism of Israel, or stiffle people who want to question the historical record. Yes, simply, question the historical record. Y\'know like Galileo? when he said the earth goes around the sun. Oh can\'t have that, the earth is flat and sun goes around us. Gotta understand we\'ve worked hard to corner the market in \'TRUTH\' so we know HATE, not you, Same with the word HOLOCAUST, that\'s our trademark y\'see. No one has suffered like us, so shut up, we control your media, manipulate government policy (to stay on topic), abuse the bank system with debt money, own the degrading porno industry, and on and on. OH, and did I forget the corrupt pharmaceutical industry? yeah, that\'s us too. Now you know why we had to take down the WTC and blame the arabs. Look, look, it\'s them, look over there, not at us.

How do you figure? Many Canadian believe that a politician like Trudeau would have trouble these days. Also, the old PCs could be drab at times, as well.

I DO think that U.S. politics is about looks, especially hair, a la John Kerry, but in Canada, was Chretien attractive?

I think that Orchard is being betaryed by the media, and he has NO great party to run for any more, so he doesn\'t

Give him a shot, yet. He\'s only 52. Is Martin any better-looking at 65?

I think the notion of consenting adults is the key. So no, bestiality would not
come in because animals cannot consent. It would be abuse.

However, same-sex marriage might open the door to polygamy. I doesn\'t
have to, and it doesn\'t mean same-sex marriage still shouldn\'t be legal, but
the argument is there. What right do we have to say how many people
someone can marry anymore that of what sex or gender?