Conservatives End Opposition to Same Sex Marriage By Decisve Vote 1036-462

[DonLever]

from CKNW:

 

The Conservative party has voted to do away with its opposition to same sex marriage.

It was a landslide vote to update platform language to be inclusive of same sex marriage doing away with the traditional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

But the debate leading up the vote was heated.

 

“This is really about the right of two consenting adults to love one another without intervention or judgement.”

“The Trinity Western case shows that people in power now actually punish those who don’t agree with their view of marriage.”

“This motion is an attack on our values and principles.”

“It is all about freedom and respect.”

“‘A gay couple come in to demand a cale from Christian bakers they open themselves up for litigation. That is just not right.”

“I support my friends and family who are in this community because it is a fundemental human right.”

“It is all about protecting children against being deprived of either a father or a mother.”

Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel has been a passionate advocate for the party to update its platform and do away with the platform language seen as condemnation of same sex marriage.

“The Conservative party is a party of equality for Canadians.The Conservative party is the party of rights for all Canadian. It is long past time that we passed this resolution.”

In the end of wasn’t even close.

1,036 voted ‘Yes’ and only 462 voted against.

Former Nova Scotia MP Peter McKay says the party had reached a time where this was the right thing to do.

“I think we were respectful of the diversity of views on this and we are at a point in our history now where people are accepting that this is the reality.”

[Down by the River]

45 minutes ago, DonLever said:

from CKNW:

 

The Conservative party has voted to do away with its opposition to same sex marriage.

It was a landslide vote to update platform language to be inclusive of same sex marriage doing away with the traditional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

But the debate leading up the vote was heated.

 

“This is really about the right of two consenting adults to love one another without intervention or judgement.”

“The Trinity Western case shows that people in power now actually punish those who don’t agree with their view of marriage.”

“This motion is an attack on our values and principles.”

“It is all about freedom and respect.”

“‘A gay couple come in to demand a cale from Christian bakers they open themselves up for litigation. That is just not right.”

“I support my friends and family who are in this community because it is a fundemental human right.”

“It is all about protecting children against being deprived of either a father or a mother.”

Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel has been a passionate advocate for the party to update its platform and do away with the platform language seen as condemnation of same sex marriage.

“The Conservative party is a party of equality for Canadians.The Conservative party is the party of rights for all Canadian. It is long past time that we passed this resolution.”

In the end of wasn’t even close.

1,036 voted ‘Yes’ and only 462 voted against.

Former Nova Scotia MP Peter McKay says the party had reached a time where this was the right thing to do.

“I think we were respectful of the diversity of views on this and we are at a point in our history now where people are accepting that this is the reality.”

We were at this point much, much longer. 

[nucklehead]

This was followed by a vote to decide if the party would endorse the theory  that dinosaurs are real.  

[BCNeil]

8 minutes ago, nucklehead said:

This was followed by a vote to decide if the party would endorse the theory  that dinosaurs are real.  

of course dinosaurs are real, men use to ride them like horses 3000 years ago.  The real scam is Australia, hanging on to the bottom of the world....all the people would fall right off.

[luckylager]

Why on earth would the cons want to be less hateable to us weirdo leftists?

 

The only thing they have is the endorsement of sociopathic millionaires, and brain-dead hicks who will willingly vote against their self interest to preserve fascist ideals because, because because. Because "I'm conservative like my father before me, yup! Yeehaw, go flames!"

 

Fricken neocons. I'm super lost now, they even voted in favour for the decriminalization of marijuana possession in small quantities. Who do these aholes think they are, liberal? 

 

When the Liberals are out-lefting the NDP and the neocons are turning Liberal, the Green Party is super weird "righty-lefties" and what the what is going in here? 

 

It's Armageddon, Harper's gonna fly a dragon into parliament and spray everyone with glitter, then call in a leprechaun to molest a breast.

 

[SaintPatrick33]

31 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Why on earth would the cons want to be less hateable to us weirdo leftists?

 

The only thing they have is the endorsement of sociopathic millionaires, and brain-dead hicks who will willingly vote against their self interest to preserve fascist ideals because, because because. Because "I'm conservative like my father before me, yup! Yeehaw, go flames!"

 

Fricken neocons. I'm super lost now, they even voted in favour for the decriminalization of marijuana possession in small quantities. Who do these aholes think they are, liberal? 

 

When the Liberals are out-lefting the NDP and the neocons are turning Liberal, the Green Party is super weird "righty-lefties" and what the what is going in here? 

 

It's Armageddon, Harper's gonna fly a dragon into parliament and spray everyone with glitter, then call in a leprechaun to molest a breast.

 

 

LOL! Political commentary of the week material! 

 

I just stopped voting once I realized that the little people do not count. Its all about special interest groups, and you can bet the LGBT community has gained enough prominence for a conservative party to change their traditional stance. 

[cdubuya]

i find it funny how much smarter all you liberal elitists think you are than a lot of the people that vote conservative...oh the irony

 

...like there aren't fanatical nutjobs on the left

[inane]

“I think we were respectful of the diversity of views on this and we are at a point in our history now where people are accepting that this is the reality.”

 

Note it's not that they actually believe it, but that they recognize they have to accept it. What a bunch of tools.

[Qwags]

Next thing you know, they'll begin to think the Earth is round. Unbelievable. 

[Dral]

5 hours ago, cdubuya said:

i find it funny how much smarter all you liberal elitists think you are than a lot of the people that vote conservative...oh the irony

 

...like there aren't fanatical nutjobs on the left

Of course there are fanatical left wing nut jobs... the difference is they aren't inbred red neck hicks that like to threaten a postmortem mythical fiery land for stuff that's really none of their business or insist that faerie tales should be taken more seriously then scientific studies...

[Ghostsof1915]

7 hours ago, cdubuya said:

i find it funny how much smarter all you liberal elitists think you are than a lot of the people that vote conservative...oh the irony

 

...like there aren't fanatical nutjobs on the left

Of course there's nut jobs on both sides. The fact that you make assumptions that you paint the picture that all liberals are like so-and so, is where the problem is. Try and look at things scientifically. Go with facts. Don't just think that what is good for big business is good for Canada. Or whatever the Conservative party says is right, must be right. All I'm asking is people think for themselves.

 

Like for example the government found no issue in siding with the F-35. At the expense of basic maintenance of services provided by the Canadian Armed Forces (defence bases, radar stations, etc.). And worse the closing down of veteran services. This was not Liberals this was when the Con's were in power. So maybe the Conservative Elitists are just as bad?

[cdubuya]

2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Of course there's nut jobs on both sides. The fact that you make assumptions that you paint the picture that all liberals are like so-and so, is where the problem is. Try and look at things scientifically. Go with facts. Don't just think that what is good for big business is good for Canada. Or whatever the Conservative party says is right, must be right. All I'm asking is people think for themselves.

 

Like for example the government found no issue in siding with the F-35. At the expense of basic maintenance of services provided by the Canadian Armed Forces (defence bases, radar stations, etc.). And worse the closing down of veteran services. This was not Liberals this was when the Con's were in power. So maybe the Conservative Elitists are just as bad?

I'm not making assumptions. I am basing this off of the very sarcastic comments in this thread that have received enough upvotes to be declared 'popular'.

 

I have thought about it for myself and read books, articles, and watched youtube debates on the topics. This notion that the right doesn't like science, data, or facts couldn't be further from the truth. If you look at it more closely, you'll see its the leftist economic policy is built on more fallacious arguments than the right. 

[RUPERTKBD]

Maybe a bit nitpicky, but "ban" isn't really the correct word to use in this context. The Cons neither have (nor did they ever have) the power to "ban" same sex marriage.

 

Perhaps "opposition" would be a better fit.

[nuckin_futz]

2 hours ago, cdubuya said:

I'm not making assumptions. I am basing this off of the very sarcastic comments in this thread that have received enough upvotes to be declared 'popular'.

 

I have thought about it for myself and read books, articles, and watched youtube debates on the topics. This notion that the right doesn't like science, data, or facts couldn't be further from the truth. If you look at it more closely, you'll see its the leftist economic policy is built on more fallacious arguments than the right. 

FAQ: The issues around muzzling government scientists

Federal scientists have been restricted from publicly talking about their research, they claim

For years, the Conservative government has been accused of "muzzling" federal scientists by controlling who they're allowed to talk to and what they can say about their own research.

 

Just this week, recently retired Fisheries and Oceans Canada biologist Steve Campana went public with his own experiences of strict directives, cumbersome approval procedures and arbitrary media rejections while working with the agency. 

 

It's just one of numerous complaints from both scientists and the media about federal scientists being restricted from publicly talking about their research.

 

 

So what is at stake? Here are a few frequently asked questions.

How are scientists being muzzled?

In 2006, the Harper government introduced strict procedures around how its scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media.

 

In the past, journalists were generally able to contact scientists directly for interviews, but after these new directives they had to go through government communications officers.

 

And scientists had to get pre-approval from their minister's office before speaking to members of national or international media, a process that can involve drafting potential questions and answers, which are then scrutinized by a team before the green light is given.   

 

In one instance from 2014, a request from The Canadian Press to speak to federal government scientist Max Bothwell about his work on algae led to a 110-page email exchange to and from 16 different federal government communications officers. 

In the end, Bothwell was not interviewed before the Canadian Press article was published.

 

A 2014 study of media policies from 16 federal departments concluded that current policies place far more restrictions on Canadian scientists when it comes to talking to media than is the case with their U.S. counterparts. 

 

There have also been reports of restrictions on scientists being able to travel to conferences to share their results. Some international scientists have also voiced concerns that working with Canadian scientists will affect their own ability to speak freely about research results. 

 

In other cases, scientists have described a "broader chill" within the scientific community, where they aren't directly prevented from speaking out, but feel pressure to stay quiet. 

 

What are some examples of interference?

 

• In 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about research into a flood in northern Canada 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff in the office of then-Natural Resources minister Christian Paradis. Postmedia News said requests were only approved after reporters' deadlines had already passed.
• In 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristina Miller was blocked from speaking to the media about her research suggesting viral infections may be linked to higher salmon mortality.
• Environment Canada's media office granted no interviews after a team published a paper in 2011 concluding that a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures may be unavoidable by 2100. 
• Postmedia science reporter Margaret Munro requested data from radiation monitors run by Health Canada following the earthquake and nuclear plant problems in Japan. Munro said Health Canada would not approve an interview with one of its experts responsible for the detectors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537

 

I didn't bother posting the whole article but you get the point.

 

[cdubuya]

3 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

FAQ: The issues around muzzling government scientists

Federal scientists have been restricted from publicly talking about their research, they claim

For years, the Conservative government has been accused of "muzzling" federal scientists by controlling who they're allowed to talk to and what they can say about their own research.

 

Just this week, recently retired Fisheries and Oceans Canada biologist Steve Campana went public with his own experiences of strict directives, cumbersome approval procedures and arbitrary media rejections while working with the agency. 

 

It's just one of numerous complaints from both scientists and the media about federal scientists being restricted from publicly talking about their research.

 

 

So what is at stake? Here are a few frequently asked questions.

How are scientists being muzzled?

In 2006, the Harper government introduced strict procedures around how its scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media.

 

In the past, journalists were generally able to contact scientists directly for interviews, but after these new directives they had to go through government communications officers.

 

And scientists had to get pre-approval from their minister's office before speaking to members of national or international media, a process that can involve drafting potential questions and answers, which are then scrutinized by a team before the green light is given.   

 

In one instance from 2014, a request from The Canadian Press to speak to federal government scientist Max Bothwell about his work on algae led to a 110-page email exchange to and from 16 different federal government communications officers. 

In the end, Bothwell was not interviewed before the Canadian Press article was published.

 

A 2014 study of media policies from 16 federal departments concluded that current policies place far more restrictions on Canadian scientists when it comes to talking to media than is the case with their U.S. counterparts. 

 

There have also been reports of restrictions on scientists being able to travel to conferences to share their results. Some international scientists have also voiced concerns that working with Canadian scientists will affect their own ability to speak freely about research results. 

 

In other cases, scientists have described a "broader chill" within the scientific community, where they aren't directly prevented from speaking out, but feel pressure to stay quiet. 

 

What are some examples of interference?

 

• In 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about research into a flood in northern Canada 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff in the office of then-Natural Resources minister Christian Paradis. Postmedia News said requests were only approved after reporters' deadlines had already passed.
• In 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristina Miller was blocked from speaking to the media about her research suggesting viral infections may be linked to higher salmon mortality.
• Environment Canada's media office granted no interviews after a team published a paper in 2011 concluding that a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures may be unavoidable by 2100. 
• Postmedia science reporter Margaret Munro requested data from radiation monitors run by Health Canada following the earthquake and nuclear plant problems in Japan. Munro said Health Canada would not approve an interview with one of its experts responsible for the detectors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537

 

I didn't bother posting the whole article but you get the point.

 

 

We studied the fisheries case in my international business class. The muzzling had to do with protecting the fishing industry in Canada. Right or wrong, there was a lot at stake for Canadians across the country. It's not that simple. 

 

And I was talking about economic policy....

[nuckin_futz]

2 hours ago, cdubuya said:

I'm not making assumptions. I am basing this off of the very sarcastic comments in this thread that have received enough upvotes to be declared 'popular'.

 

I have thought about it for myself and read books, articles, and watched youtube debates on the topics. This notion that the right doesn't like science, data, or facts couldn't be further from the truth. If you look at it more closely, you'll see its the leftist economic policy is built on more fallacious arguments than the right. 

The only post that is marked popular is one with a snide comment about dinosaurs.

 

2 minutes ago, cdubuya said:

 

We studied the fisheries case in my international business class. The muzzling had to do with protecting the fishing industry in Canada. Right or wrong, there was a lot at stake for Canadian's across the country. It's not that simple. 

 

And I was talking about economic policy....

What about the other cases that were mentioned in the article? Not all of them involve fisheries.

 

Did the government have an economic policy regarding dinosaurs?

[cdubuya]

9 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

The only post that is marked popular is one with a snide comment about dinosaurs.

 

What about the other cases that were mentioned in the article? Not all of them involve fisheries.

 

Did the government have an economic policy regarding dinosaurs?

 

I'm not here to say Harper was perfect. I am talking about the pure snobbery and disdain directed to conservative voters from the left. Free market capitalism is driven by science and innovation. Harper was extremely controlling and probably wanted to control what his government scientist employees could say. He wasn't muzzling science, he was muzzling government science. If you work for a company there are things your boss will want to control. I work for a catering company that is currently catering a to professional sports team. We have a company policy 'muzzling' us from us talking to the media... big whoop. Either keep your job and comply or quit.

[nuckin_futz]

13 minutes ago, cdubuya said:

 

I'm not here to say Harper was perfect. I am talking about the pure snobbery and disdain directed to conservative voters from the left. Free market capitalism is driven by science and innovation. Harper was extremely controlling and probably wanted to control what his government scientist employees could say. He wasn't muzzling science, he was muzzling government science. If you work for a company there are things your boss will want to control. I work for a catering company that is currently catering a to professional sports team. We have a company policy 'muzzling' us from us talking to the media... big whoop. Either keep your job and comply or quit.

As a tax payer are you cool with the PMO (either party) muzzling scientists and attempting to control the narrative? That goes against the whole point of science. There is no narrative to be spun. It is what it is.

 

In your case you're working for a private firm. The government is the very definition of a public entity. They should not be muzzling scientists even if they are government employees.

[canuckster19]

7 hours ago, Dral said:

Of course there are fanatical left wing nut jobs... the difference is they aren't inbred red neck hicks that like to threaten a postmortem mythical fiery land for stuff that's really none of their business or insist that faerie tales should be taken more seriously then scientific studies...

THIRD WAVE FEMINISM!

[cdubuya]

12 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

As a tax payer are you cool with the PMO (either party) muzzling scientists and attempting to control the narrative? That goes against the whole point of science. There is no narrative to be spun. It is what it is.

 

In your case you're working for a private firm. The government is the very definition of a public entity. They should not be muzzling scientists even if they are government employees.

 

You're creating a false dilemma that doesn't exist. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. And this is a topic that is very debatable on multiple levels. The fact is that many conservative voters believe in smaller government and lower taxes. And IMO, they are not wrong. And they aren't stupid, inbred, heartless hicks for believing this. Have you ever heard the expression, 'the road to hell was paved with good intentions'