Confrontational Tories

I am unhappy that the Tories are now prohibiting their staffers from testifying in committees. Doing so in essence goes against House of Commons rules and it creates needless additional conflict. It also prevents committees from getting to the bottom of important questions and is just the same old Tory excessive secrecy that Canadians have noticed but many of whom are not paying enough attention to.

A website on gay rights

Gay rights issues have been swirling in my head again. Personally I am glad that I am pro-gay marriage. I couldn’t live with myself if I were anti-gay marriage. I have come across a site created and maintained by Bill Myers from Ohio. It is called GAY RIGHTS INFO. Bill cares passionately about gay rights believes strongly in the expansion of gay rights. So he has compiled voting records of politicians in the US and around the world on gay rights issues. He also gives the status of gay rights in all US states and various other countries including Canada. Bill’s site includes a page that gives a table of voting records for all MPs in the current Canadian House of Commons, those from the 38th House of Commons, and most of those who were in the 37th House of Commons. The reason I say “most” is because the table does not include MPs like Brian Tobin who resigned mid-way through the 37th House of Commons and whose ridings were filled in a by-election. It DOES, however, include MPs such as Jean Chrétien who resigned near the end of the 37th House of Commons and whose seats were vacant at dissolution. Here is a link to the table: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canhoc.html

This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):

“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.

“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”

Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.

But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.

It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.

More about the Senate

While it is true that the Senate is currently blocking a Senator term limit Bill, the Senate is not blocking the three justice Bills Stephen Harper is citing. These Bills have only been in the Senate for a few weeks and the Senate has not expedited them. This quote from Stephen Harper is patently false. Harper said “Our bail reforms are backed by police, prosecutors, big city mayors, the NDP and the Ontario Liberals. But not by the Liberal majority in the Senate,”. In fact the Bill in question has not been voted down by the Senate. It has, however, received only first reading in the Senate. It is not stalled at committee. The Liberals support this Bill and the Senate will pass this Bill. Parliamentary procedure on Bills is sometimes slow, even in the House of Commons on the government’s own Bills even when not at committee. The Senate simply has not had a chance to move the Bill forward to the next stages to be passed. It is just that the Senate has not gotten around to debating and passing the Bill yet. I can assure Stephen Harper that the bail reform Bill will be passed in the Senate in the fall. Saying that Liberal Senators are against this Bill is incorrect and Stephen Harper should know it.

As far as the mandatory minimum sentences Bill, the Liberal leadership opposed the Bill in the House of Commons, but I’m guessing that as with the budget it will be passed in the Senate. The third Bill that the CTV article mentions is as follows : “The blocked bills would have: Raised the age of consent from 14 to 16”. This is a Bill that the Liberals and Bloc reluctantly supported. The NDP has been split on this issue in the past but those previously opposed to raising the age of consent also reluctantly support this Bill. This Bill passed without there ever being a recorded vote. I’m guessing the Senate will get around to passing the Bill in the fall. The Bill gives a close-in-age exemption of up to four years. The opposition parties would never have agreed to this Bill otherwise. The Bill however now prohibits a 19 year old from having sex with a 14 year old. Even 20 year olds are now prohibited from having sex with 15 year olds. Some have argued that the Bill is a violation of human rights because it unduly restricts who 14 year olds and 15 year olds may choose as sex partners. The problem is that this is a side of the story that nobody really wants to hear because everyone is too caught up in the hype about supposed sexual exploitation of 14 year olds. I don’t doubt that there is some sexual exploitation that has occurred. Such sexual exploitation is already illegal, however. Proponents of this Bill have argued that somehow Canada’s current law is being used by sexual predators in the United States to come and sexually exploit 14 year old girls. The first problem with this is that luring children over the internet is already illegal and so if any sexual predator tries this they are already breaking the law. I think proponents of the Bill had the internet in mind when they were arguing that Canada’s law was being used to exploit. And I don’t doubt that there have been some who have used the current law to exploit 14 year old girls. But any of them who did it over the internet were breaking the law right off the bat. And even if they did not use the internet, the moment that there is a hint of exploitation in the relationship with the girl it becomes illegal under the current law. I do not know how many people actually come from the United States to Canada and hang around to pick up 14 year old girls and have sex with them; because that is the only way they could do it without breaking any laws. I don’t doubt there have been a few who have done this. And maybe the new law will discourage them from doing this and there will be even fewer strange men from the US hanging around trying to pick up young girls. But sadly I expect this Bill will reduce sexual exploitation by very little because those who want to sexually exploit will sadly not let the law stand in their way.

The CTV article seems to imply that the age of consent Bill was a Bill that the Ontario Provincial Liberals (of Dalton McGuinty fame) supported being passed. If the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the federal issue of age of consent its news to me. I do not know if this is what the article meant or if they were only referring to the bail and mandatory minimums reform. But if the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the age of consent issue that is outside their jurisdiction, I must have missed that.

I do not believe that Stephane Dion is as bad a leader as everybody says. I fail to understand why no one likes Stephane Dion. He is such a great guy. And as a leader he often seems to know what he is doing. For example, he reached the recent compromise on the Senate budget Bill standoff all by himself. He diffused a potential storm by allowing a free vote on the budget Bill, opening the door for Atlantic and Saskatchewan Liberal Senators to vote against the Bill but still allowing the Bill to pass the Senate. This was an excellent compromise that has allowed the Bill to pass but now be judged in the court of public opinion. It was an excellent solution and it was all done by Stephane Dion. He is a far better leader than people give him credit for. He’s even getting more effective during Question Period. I am overjoyed to see that in the last few weeks and months, the Liberals have finally been able to, on a regular basis, hold the government to account as is the Liberals’ duty as the Official Opposition. The Liberals have finally found themselves able to effectively oppose the government and effectively hold the government to account and I am overjoyed at this. And as any opposition party does this, it increases their viability as a government-in-waiting, and I’m glad to see the Liberals finally as a government-in-waiting working on being able to eventually replace the Conservatives and become the Government of Canada once more.


Sources:
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n062269A

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070622/kyoto_budget_070622/20070622?hub=CTVNewsAt11