With Vic Toews announcing a "vote" on "reopening the marriage debate" in Parliament, it's time to consider just what that means.
First off, I'll note that the Prime Minister is putting it forward as a "motion" rather than a piece of legislation. That will considerably reduce the length and amount of debate in the house. Second, many observers suspect that there is relatively little chance of the motion passing.
From Stephen Harper's point of view, I'm quite sure he'd be very happy to let this motion fail. That would mean that the next election will likely be fought on other issues, where the Conservatives don't have so many obvious liabilities (other than Rona Ambrose...)
However, I don't think that this motion will be "the end of it" for the SGM discussion - especially if voters give Harper his vaunted majority next election. We've already seen enough intellectual dishonesty from this lot to be pretty confident that the issue will be raised once again by a Conservative majority - but they won't do anything unless they have a majority that would allow them to railroad it through.
On the other hand, I think it would be good to take the muzzles of the CPoC caucus for this debate. I'm quite sure that people like Mr. Vellacott have some words of wisdom they'd dearly like to impart to the public...
A progressive voice shining light into the darkness of regressive politics. Pretty much anything will be fair game, and little will be held sacred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About “Forced Treatment” and Homelessness
I need to comment on the political pressure to force people experiencing addiction into treatment. Superficially, it seems to address a prob...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ...
No comments:
Post a Comment