Friday, January 13, 2012

And So it Begins. Harper's anti-Homosexual Agenda

Despite denying his anti-gay stance, Stephen Harper continues to remake Canada by stealth, by nullifying thousands of same-sex marriages:
Thousands of LGBT couples across the world awoke this morning to learn that they are no longer married. A Department of Justice lawyer under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada government has nullified all same-sex marriages performed in Canada in which the couples’ native country does not permit gays and lesbians to marry.
This is only phase one.  They no doubt have already selected the "landmark" case by a right-wing fringe group, who will challenge the ruling by saying that it was descriminatory to their religious beliefs, showing favour to the beliefs of "foreigners."  Harper now controls the Supreme Court, stacked with "social conservatives", so it would breeze through.

If you wondered what a Harper majority would like, wonder no more. 

How about a landmark impeachment since this prime minister lied to get what he wanted?


  1. Here's classic M.O. of our HarperCON...

    Harper SAYS ONE THING, e.g. “We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue.”

    But then HarperCON **DOES THE EXACT OPPOSITE, hoping you're too busy making dinner to notice. And it's pretty much worked last 5 years.

  2. Harper is a terrifying man, I no longer feel safe being a citizen of Canada with that monster in power.

  3. I don't quite see what nullifying people's marriages has to do with Ray whatsisname in the garage. Are you saying the Stornoway garage was just a very large closet? That would be fun, if so, then we could watch the Adam and Eve crowd throw things at Harper.

  4. Harper hasn't nullified any same sex marriages. Harper's not going to nullify same sex marriages. Harper doesn't care about same sex marriage. As long as people keep being either (a) delusional enough to believe that's Harper's goal or (b) continue to think that they can trick the Canadian people by fear-mongering even though they know this isn't Harper's agenda then they're playing into Harper's real agenda. So let's keep up the "Harper secret social conservative agenda" nonsense. Then - when the sky doesn't fall and none of what the fear mongerers or delusionals say is going to happen actually happens - people will say "Oh. Look. Harper's not so bad after all. He's not doing any of the frightening things they say he's going to do." Then he goes along with his real agenda, which goes virtually unnoticed because his opponents focus on things he isn't doing. He's changing the country by using fiscal policy (basically - the total elimination of the federal surplus even before the economic crisis, and huge deficits now that he has an excuse to run them without really being criticized for it) to limit the federal ability to be involved in running social programs (and maybe to cut current federal programs) even when the Conservatives lose office, which he knows they will eventually. So let's keep going on with the nonsense, attacking Harper for things he's not going to do and making people ignore what he really is doing. What he's doing with fiscal policy (creating a very limited federal government) can be supported or opposed. That's an ideological issue. The problem is that it's a big change to the country and it's not even being debated because people are caught up with this nonsense.

    1. heh, you spelled your first name wrong, Mr Harper

  5. I despise the Harper government.

    But I prefer attacks on the government to be based upon evidence, not on a phoney-baloney secret agenda conspiracy theory.

    What happened in this cas is that a government lawyer made a defensible legal argument in response to a Charter challenge by a lesbian couple. The Charter challenge is to the long-standing residency requirement for divorces (which does not distinguish between gay and straight) and it is probably quite a weak challenge.

    The lawyer wanted to avoid the work of responding to a Charter challenge, so he relied upon an simple, neat argument that the couple was not even married; this argument, if accepted, would obviate the need to respond to the Charter challenge.

    The reason the argument was available to the government lawyer is that when the Liberals changed the law, they left unresovled this issue of whether a gay marriage not recognized in a foreign jurisdiction is valid here.

    There is in any case zero evidence that Harper directed the lawyer to make this argument

    I don't know why the Globe and some other media wildly misconstrued this story.

  6. The newspaper accounts in the summer of 2005, have many stories of Harper's platform policy and if you watch the video with the piece I wrote, you'll see how passionate he was. Same-sex partners are well aware of this so live in fear that something like this could happen.

    It turned out to a false alarm, though the government fed the media the same ambigous line they use with everything. "we are not going to reopen the debate". They use this with the abortion issue yet have defunded Planned Parenthood. Not debating and not tampering with are two different things.

    The cartoon of Harper in the same-sex bandwagon is also from 2005.

    1. "we are NOT going to reopen the debate" This is 'ambiguous' how exactly? What part of "NOT" do you NOT understand?

    2. "we are not going to reopen the debate" How is this 'ambiguous' exactly? What part of "NOT" do you NOT understand?

  7. "Not" opening debate is not definitive. It just means that it won't be debated, suggesting input from others