CP publishes a story on December 26 about the “alarm” regarding Harper’s remark about homosexual marriage made the day that the writ was dropped. A month later, it is being reported almost as it happened today. Its angle is the reaction by some urban homosexuals in Canada who are admittedly “paranoid,” and who seem not to understand the parliamentary system. One of them, for example, misguidedly claims that Harper has not been elected yet (as though voters elect prime ministers in the Westminster system).
In addition, also by their own admission:
“There are more important issues in Canada, and it’s a real shame that it had to be raised.”
The CP report written by one Greg Bonnell. From it one would think that there are no other issues in the campaign (There aren’t for homosexuals with long-term plans to marry, perhaps).
It would be impossible to know from Bonnell’s report that Stephen Harper later promised to hold a free vote in the House if he were to form a government [governments are formed in Canada, not elected], and that he pledged not to use the notwithstanding clause when it came to homosexual marriage. Simply put, the purpose of Bonnell’s report is not to inform about recent developments on the homosexual marriage question since the beginning of the campaign but to advance a single point of view by painting paranoid and fearful groups reacting to a supposed scary leader. Only by conveniently cutting to the long-past first day of the campaign and ignoring everything in between could Bonnell achieve that. While it is just a little better than digging speeches from four years ago without taking changes into consideration, it is still dishonest.
CP’s complicity in the smearing is obvious in the title of the piece: “Gay community reacts with alarm, vows to fight Harper on same-sex marriage.” Since the piece is published on December 26, a couple days short of a month from Harper’s initial statement, CP and Bonnell are acting retardedly or dishonestly –or both.
One does not have to be a media critic to realise that there is no balance in Bonnell’s story: no attempt at portraying the Conservative position at all. That would be journalism, not to mention the balanced kind. Bonnell and CP seem to be willing mouth pieces for a third party in the election, trying to peddle fear. The conclusion of Bonnell’s piece is clear: using the supposedly frightened subjects of his piece, he’s promoting Liberal and NDP voting.
See here for more on the media’s coverage of the election.
Crossposted from Civitatensis.ca
Lyndon Simmons wrote:
How about this for a fair question? What will become of those same-sex couples who are already legally married? Could this be where the alarm is coming from? Ask yourself how paranoid you would feel if a political leader vowed to have a free vote on a topic that would effectively end your marriage, same-sex, or not.
I agree with the article, there are more important things that this to discuss this election. However, when put in a corner, which is what Harper’s statements do to many same-sex couples in this country, then it should be no surprise to anyone that they would try to fight back for a right that has been afforded to them by a parliamentary process.
Posted on 28-Dec-05 at 10:46 am | Permalink
kaqchikel wrote:
Lyndon: Your question becomes slightly problematic because it assumes that SSM is a right. It is not a right. It’s a legal privilege, however Martin wants to paint it. If Parliament voted against SSM in a free vote, and if Parliament were to grant homosexual couples the status of civil unions, then that would be what they’d have. It’s simple. None of this implies loss of privilege or legal entitlements for homosexuals. The SCC reference has clearly said that it was up to Parliament to decide the question of marriage. If it came to a real case before it, would the court change its mind so soon after the reference?
Liberals who are in the business of deflecting power to the court on thorny political questions already assert that such arrangement would not fly with the Court. That’s prejudging the court’s decision unduly, and wrongly since the Court has already hinted deference to Parliament on this question.
Please notice that I had nothing to say about people fighting back politically. That’s fine; it’s their right. My point was that Bonnell’s alarmist fear-mongering cannot be called journalism; it never presented a different side. Homosexuals may be paranoid for many reasons, but the paranoia-allusion and all that stuff in the article did not raise the question you raise here. That was not the angle of the piece, however generous you wish to be.
Posted on 28-Dec-05 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
Lyndon Simmons wrote:
Following your logic, then, that legislated marriage is a privledge, then would you agree that any marriage under the Civil Marriage Act is also a privledge? And if so, then, following your logic, can (or should, for that matter) a government, in a free vote, change the status of any such union under the Act?
Treating people differently under the law because of their sexual orientation is not acceptable under our Constitution. No matter how fair you try to make it by “granting” homosexual civil unions, it is still creating different classes of people.
If the issue is the word marriage, then, the only solution is to leave marriage to churches (which are free to choose who they marry) and ammend/modernize the Civil Marriage Act to only allow civil unions in this country, thus, getting rid of the legal term marriage all together. This would allow churches to decide whether or not they wanted to perform same-sex marriages or not. It would also effectively make everyone in the country’s marriage a civil union, and no one would be treated differently under the law, which is the true issue afterall, no matter what Bonnell wrote.
Posted on 30-Dec-05 at 7:11 am | Permalink
kaqchikel wrote:
Lyndon: Yes, yes. You have understood the logic.
Marriage was not always a legal term. It has only been the positive province of the State post French Revolution, which is a little over two centuries. Yet, you treat the state involvement in the activity (not just a word) as though it was brought down from the Mountain. A mere two centuries in the horizon of human experience does not constitute the norm.
Let’s be consistent, if not radical. If the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, as the Liberal patron saint is quoted as saying, why should the state have any business in deciding who is married and who isn’t?
Either the separation between Church and state means something or it does not. We agree on that, it seems, but not on what it means. If you remove the state from the picture, if you restore the activity to its proper origin, I don’t see how doing that makes of all “marriages” civil unions. You’ve taken a tumble there; you can’t have it all ways. If there is no civil magistrate involved, what is that will make those “unions” civil?
Different under the law? As an aside –because this legalese stuff is really getting boring, have you heard of the Wheat Board? The Gun registry? Life insurance? Progressive taxation? All of these, just to name some, prescribe different treatment under the law. The Bolshevik dream does not really exist in the real world.
Posted on 04-Jan-06 at 1:42 am | Permalink