Almost 42 per cent of Canadian voters say they would bounce their MP from office in the next election if they do not reflect their view on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage, according to a SES poll. The survey of 1,000 voters shows the country evenly split with 46.2 per cent favouring the traditional definition of marriage and 45 per cent who support extending marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
More than 54 per cent of Canadians say they want their MP to vote based on the views expressed in his or her riding. Only 21.8 per cent would respect an MP voting his or her conscience and slightly more than 16 per cent would agree to their MP voting the way their party tells them to.
This quote via Norm Spector;
In reply to federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler’s statement that minority rights are never subjected to majority approval, Citizens Centre chairman Link Byfield commented, “That’s historically untrue and legally ridiculous. This issue, like all others, will be decided by a majority vote. The only question is whether it will be a majority vote of Supreme Court judges, Members of Parliament, or the citizens of Canada. This referendum campaign is just beginning.”
Nicely said.
I wonder how many other Canadians are as insulted as I am by the implication that ordinary citizens are too stupid and bigoted to be trusted with a question so fundamental to the fabric of society.
If this is the case, if the collective intelligence and wisdom of the Canadian people can be replaced by a handpicked panel of Liberal-appointed judges, if the majority of the electorate is so incompetent and ignorant that our views must be categorically rejected – then there really isn’t much argument remaining for preserving the Canadian democratic system.
Why not save ourselves a lot of trouble and money by just allowing the current Prime Minister to appoint future ones, and divest ourselves of the whole “representative government” charade.
They know better, my fellow Canadians. So just shut up and be told what’s good for you.
The tail is securely wrapped around the throat and is slowly throttling its intelligent part. That long tailed creature needs a �bob�.
Kate what do you think of this theory. The B.C. Human Rights commission being pro gay marriage, will not find in favour of the two Lesbian women. Thats right. They will rule in favour of the KofC. Really it would be such a small defeat for the gay activist crowd, but it would loom large in the overall debate. What it would do is say to religious groups, see, we are protecting your religious freedoms so you have nothing to fear from gay marriage. I also think they will release findings before the parliamentary vote, to maximize the influence of their decision. What do you think??
Well, as the primary function of these commissions is to advance the causes of the left, I wouldn’t be surprised if they choose to make a decision based on broader tactical advantage.
I don’t know how much more we can handle stuff being rammed down our throats.
Bilingualism, metrification(in a country that was carved up in miles), kyoto, gay marriage, universal daycare, ad ascam, drug hauling by canada steam ship lines….
Just was told this was the best country in the world…..oh how our eyes are wide shut… guess theres no getting out of this nightmare without a conflict..
Okay, I’m not familiar enough with your system but if I were up there I’d prefer an MP to vote according to the wishes of his consituency. That being said, I’d at least understand one voting according to his conscience.
But 16% perfer the MP’s voting according to what his party tells him to? With that idea, you can’t even pretend that’s a democracy – are 16% of Canadians certifiably insane?
Jay,
One word….Yes…..what’s worse is that they have full control and use suppression techniques on the rest.
I am an American living in Canada and it never ceases to absolutely amaze me how the Canadian people as a whole put up with so much that is seemingly rammed down their throats by a government that purports to represent them but does not.
To date I have no clue why the Canadian people do not rise up and boot politicians who do not represent them out of office.
If this referendum thing is what I think it might be I say touche! Well done. At least some Canadians are doing something about how things are up here.
As a Landed Immigrant I can only stand by and do nothing polically wise. I am stuck her for good by virtue of having fallen in love with and married a Canadian who MUST be up here but I often long for the kind of “I’m mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!” type of attitude that I so often see down in the States compared to here.
Where the people on the whole seem so pacifistic in general that their government is allowed to do what it darn seems to want to do. For the good of the people but certainly not of the people and by the people.
Carlos, if you’re looking for a place where your sentiments will be understood and appreciated, you’ve found it.
The issue of voting by conscience or by constituents’ demands is a difficult one.
The solution, it seems, would be for MPs (or would-be MPs) to campaign on their consciences. But that would also mean that for some, depending on which constituency they desire to represent, winning would be an impossibility. Even if conscience was the basis for the campaign (instead of telling them what they want to hear so that I’ll get elected), it’s not always possible to foresee issues that may come up in the future. But if they do get elected based on their conscience-based platform, they will know that their conscience and the electorate’s are (largely) in line.
On the other hand, from a democracy perspective, if I am elected to represent a consituency, then that is precisely what I should do–represent their wishes, whether I agree with them or not. And if that’s a problem for me (which it would be in my case), I shouldn’t be running in the first place.
Of course, people will only say an MP should represent the views expressed in his or her riding as long as those people adhere to the majority view of that riding.
“I am an American living in Canada and it never ceases to absolutely amaze me how the Canadian people as a whole put up with so much that is seemingly rammed down their throats by a government that purports to represent them but does not.”
Canadians are a passionless people, and really only get worked up over hockey. Anything else is greeted with a shrug. That 42% that claims it will bounce its MP out of office is full of it. Come the next election, they’ll be buying into the whole “hidden agenda” and “too American” slurs* aimed by the media and the Liberals at the Conservatives.
* I personally think the U.S. is a good model for most things. Most Canadians are determined that Canada “independently” chart its own path by doing the exact opposite of whatever the Americans do. Some independence.
Do you believe Queen Elizabeth II, “Defender of the Faith”, will enact legislation that is contrary to the Christian faith?
According to the Christian faith, marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) whereas homosexual relationships (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable.
Also, “he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife” and “she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband” (1 Corinthians 7:33-34).
The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm
“I am stuck her for good by virtue of having fallen in love with and married a Canadian”
Carlos, save yourself, it’s not too late! lol
LOL.. complaints about the metric system and quotes from the Bible. Now my evening is complete.
How about this one:
Leviticus, Chapter 11, 1-8:
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
“Speak to the Israelites and tell them: Of all land animals these are the ones
you may eat: any animal that has hoofs you may eat, provided it is cloven-footed and chews
the cud. But you shall not eat any of the following that only chew the cud or only have
hoofs: the camel, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; 2 the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is
therefore unclean for you; the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig,
which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud
and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you.
Think about your arbitrary choice over which verses to observe and which ones not to the next time you have ham at Easter.
Except we’re not Israelites. Had the new world been discovered back then, for all we know there would have been a “PS: When in Mexico, drink not of the water”.
Oh good. Then you agree that passages in the bible have a ‘Best Before Date’ on them. That’s good because I agree and think that prohibitions on gay marriage and homosexuality have gone sour like milk left too long.
Old Testament dietary prohibitions are not compulsory because they have been explicitly superseded by the new. See Acts X: 9-14: Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that it common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”
Both Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality.
There are many religions that disagree with you as well as many churches that are willing to marry gay people. If we take this to a religious argument, then by denying gays to marry, you are infringing on others freedom of religion.
Todd
By allowing gays to marry you are discriminating against my religion, and a lot of others, so the question then becomes, do we allow discrimination in any form. According to the so called cherished constitution, you cannot discriminate against religion, therefore it fails.
If it�s allowed it now becomes reverse discrimination IMHO.
“…if the majority of the electorate is so incompetent and ignorant that our views must be categorically rejected – then there really isn’t much argument remaining for preserving the Canadian democratic system.”
How true. Most Canadians are liberal/left wing, as our democratic elections demonstrate. Even in western Canada, with the exception of Alberta, a majority of voters are on the political left. Conservatives need to quit whining and listen to the voice of the people.
(Did I miss something?)
Yea, that that majority only represents 30% of the electorate that voted. If you introduce a controversial issue, the turnout numbers will sore. Very similar to what happened in the US. That’s why you lefties are afraid to have a referendum on the subject.
mijnheer: What you missed is this is a conservative blog. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. Canada leans left because the left has done a better job brainwashing the public. This began with leftist academia influencing those who influence: ie. public school teachers, journalists, lawyers, social workers, actors, musicians etc. etc. What this country needs is a conservative reversal of this trend. We need to infiltrate every part of society with conservative views. And we need to patientily stick to it for a generation.
Yes, because there’s nothing better than to force people to behave the way you want them to. Conservative social views = repression. Gay marriage will NOT affect straight people in any way other than to tolerate a group of people they think are looney.
God knows I have to tolerate redneck yokels. I figure you Conservatives owe us.