Explain this one to me.
Dion did not have the guts to whip his caucus' vote when it came to defending equal marriage.
Now he wants to whip his caucus regarding the opposition of extending anti-terrorism laws?
What does this man stand for? He keeps flip-flopping like a live fish out of water, taking opposite stances on things at seemingly random intervals.
3 comments:
Dion stands for protecting Canadians' rights, and his positions are not flip-flopping, but are concise stands with protecting and balancing our rights.
Dion may have mused about it, but did not whip the caucus on the same-sex marriage motion. The issue of SSM is tricky since there is a balancing act between the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, and the rights of freedom of religion, thought and opinion. By not using the whip, Dion showed that he respects everyones' rights. And if some Liberal MPs didn't vote for SSM, then that is their right- you don't have to like it. Layton on the other hand whipped his caucus, both in this and in the previous Parliament- and had kicked out one of his MPs for not supporting SSM. Even though I wholeheartedly support SSM, the fact that he trampled upon the rights of one of his MPs to get it passed is very worrisome.
Now, opposing the extension of anti-terrorism laws is more clear-cut than SSM since there is no conflict of various rights here- its about protecting our right to a fair trial versus violating that right in the name of fighting terrorism. On this Dion has demonstrated that our rights are paramount. So what, even if the Liberals until recently were in favour of keeping the laws in place, are we allowed to change our stance or opinion on issues to protect Canadian's rights? To be of the mindset that a person and/or party cannot change their stance on an issue after carefully contemplating it is really shallow and small-minded. The world ain't black and white, there are shades of grey all over the place- but then again everything is black and white to the NDP and the neo-Tories.
... there is no conflict of various rights here ...
No conflict of various rights here? How about the right not to be subject here in Canada to a terrorist attack, like in the US in 2001, and London, UK in 2005 (among many other examples)? Believe it or not, the Islamic terrorists regard Canada as a target for attack, even if for no other reason that we sell oil and natural gas to the US.
It would also appear that a significant number of Liberal senators disagree with you.
Drew,
Dion stands for protecting Canadians' rights
Then why is he against protecting the rights of homosexuals to marry like the rest of us? The existing bill already protected freedom of religion rights. The "balancing act" was already achieved. I think it is very clear-cut: you either think that homosexuals have the same rights as everybody else or they don't because of their sexuality. Shame on Dion for not attacking decisively on Harper's attempt to take away human rights.
had kicked out one of his MPs for not supporting SSM
Uh, no he didn't, she was only removed from her critic role. She then lost her nomination race (Unlike the Liberals, NDP MP incumbents are not protected from nomination race).
Post a Comment