In the comments section back here, Olaf tries to score some rhetorical points regarding the Conservative Party of Canada's odious, proposed "Defence of Religions" Act. After I suggest that I will be "disemboweling that hate-filled, bigoted piece of potential legislative excrement point by point," Olaf replies:
Do you have a copy of the proposed legislation? Because you sure know a lot about it.
One might similarly ask, Olaf, whether you or any of the rest of Canada's wankers have a copy of that proposed legislation. Because most of you folks sure seem to be enthusiastic about it, don't you?
Of course I don't have the text. There is no text yet, which is why I referred to it as "potential" legislation. Or did you miss that very careful wording on my part, Olaf? But that's not really the issue here.
In the first place, one doesn't need to have actual text in hand to slap around the DoRA like a Republican mistress. Even without the actual text, all of the early coverage made it clear that its singular purpose was to allow publicly-funded, Canadian marriage commissioners to be bigots, and all of my writing has been based solely on that. If you have any reason to believe that this universal understanding of that proposed legislation is wrong, let's hear it. 'Cuz I think I'm on fairly safe ground here. But that's not all.
The Conservatives, as is their genetically-programmed wont, have done something predictably sleazy here. In the beginning, they didn't introduce any actual legislation, but instead just floated a trial balloon -- even giving it a name -- that such legislation was a distinct possibility.
However, the instant they came under fire, well ... you can see the semantic backpedaling:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he hadn't personally seen the bill, and called it speculation.
While Mr. Harper reiterated his government's promise to bring a same-sex marriage motion before an open debate in the House, he would not speculate on the nature of the proposed bill.
See how that works? Being careful that you don't have any actual text that could be criticized, you nonetheless present a sufficiently-detailed proposal for legislation that will energize the right-wing, Canadian base. (And by "right-wing, Canadian base," I mean the mentally-retarded devout. But you knew that.)
Then, the instant the criticism starts, you innocently throw up your hands and express shock and amazement that all these people are unfairly jumping the gun and saying nasty things about legislation that doesn't even exist yet. What a great gimmick, except when you start tripping over your own shoelaces:
Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government plan to The Globe Tuesday but refused to discuss specifics. Mr. Toews said Wednesday in the House that anything outside of a motion for an open debate was pure speculation.
"During the election, this Prime Minister and this government made a promise that there would be a free vote on that issue [same-sex marriage], that we would bring a motion forward. That's what we're going to do," Mr. Toews said in the House. "Everything else is simply speculation."
So Toews "confirms" the plan, while dismissing any criticism of it as "pure speculation." Lovely. Great work if you can get it.
So make up your mind, Olaf. If Canada's wankersphere can enthusiastically come out in support of this potential, piece-of-shit legislation, why can't I simultaneously rip it a new orifice? Or was all that "fair and balanced" stuff you folks keep whinging on about just a passing fad?
A little consistency from you folks would be nice but, as they say, I'm not holding my breath.
4 comments:
Chances are that Dora will be based heavily on Ted Morton's bill 208 in Alberta.
I dissected the talking points it's built on here.
Bill 208 is nothing more than legislated bigotry.
CC,
I'm honoured to have triggered a post. I actually wrote a post myself, two actually, opposing the idea of the legislation, on a number of grounds, which I think you might even like.
I was just trying to make the point that you can't exactly disembowel legislation, point by point, when there aren't even points to disembowel, if you follow my reasoning. It was a minor gripe and I agreed with the jist of the post.
If you had just been a bit less specific in your disemboweling, I wouldn't have kicked up such a fuss.
After that's all done, I demand a vote on whether people should be owning both a cat and a dog at the same time. It is only money to add this important, yet often overlooked, moral issue to the ballot.
Olaf has a point, and I should have been more clear. When I said "point by point," what I meant was that I was going to be discussing, point by point (ie., post by post), why such legislation was utter rubbish.
So I stand corrected.
Post a Comment