Intolerance
I wasn't able to watch the English Language debate, but I did see some of the news coverage.
I know that this is one of the prices of watching a campaign unfold (especially a campaign in which you think one side is clearly superior to the other), but Stephen Harper's talking points on same-sex marriage are incredibly weak. Every time I hear him repeat what he says, I'm frustrated with what he does *not* say.
Same-Sex marriage is usually brought up in order to make Harper look intolerant, and yet it appears that it hasn't occurred to Conservative strategists to turn right around and make the Liberals look intolerant instead.
I'm not even personally opposed to SSM... but there are a number of good arguments Harper could make anyway - arguments that would sound rational to most people.
By enforcing cabinet solidarity on consience issues, Martin is either doing one of the following 2 things: a) he's putting a litmus test on all his members of cabinet - that they must support SSM. Can that not be portrayed to be a divisive position? Since it doesn't even recognize that people who disagree with SSM might do so in good faith? And b) Martin is making (some of) his cabinet ministers vote against their beliefs in order to maintain a position of power.
Why doesn't Harper bring up both of those two points?
Also, on Harper's end, would it kill him to even concede that it's reasonable to have the opposite position? The other side never concedes such a position, but why can't Harper? Three prominent members of his caucus support SSM and yet Harper never mentions that fact. He doesn't try to create any impression of inclusiveness or a variety of views on that specific issue. Why? How could it hurt? He's the only leader who *personally* opposes SSM, but I imagine that dozens of his candidates are in favour of that option (mostly candidates in unwinnable ridings).
Yes, Harper has promised a free vote for his cabinet, and that makes him more tolerant than either the NDP, the Libs or the Bloc, but Harper still hasn't created the impression of inclusiveness on this issue, and he's actually in a far better position to make such a case.
I know that this is one of the prices of watching a campaign unfold (especially a campaign in which you think one side is clearly superior to the other), but Stephen Harper's talking points on same-sex marriage are incredibly weak. Every time I hear him repeat what he says, I'm frustrated with what he does *not* say.
Same-Sex marriage is usually brought up in order to make Harper look intolerant, and yet it appears that it hasn't occurred to Conservative strategists to turn right around and make the Liberals look intolerant instead.
I'm not even personally opposed to SSM... but there are a number of good arguments Harper could make anyway - arguments that would sound rational to most people.
By enforcing cabinet solidarity on consience issues, Martin is either doing one of the following 2 things: a) he's putting a litmus test on all his members of cabinet - that they must support SSM. Can that not be portrayed to be a divisive position? Since it doesn't even recognize that people who disagree with SSM might do so in good faith? And b) Martin is making (some of) his cabinet ministers vote against their beliefs in order to maintain a position of power.
Why doesn't Harper bring up both of those two points?
Also, on Harper's end, would it kill him to even concede that it's reasonable to have the opposite position? The other side never concedes such a position, but why can't Harper? Three prominent members of his caucus support SSM and yet Harper never mentions that fact. He doesn't try to create any impression of inclusiveness or a variety of views on that specific issue. Why? How could it hurt? He's the only leader who *personally* opposes SSM, but I imagine that dozens of his candidates are in favour of that option (mostly candidates in unwinnable ridings).
Yes, Harper has promised a free vote for his cabinet, and that makes him more tolerant than either the NDP, the Libs or the Bloc, but Harper still hasn't created the impression of inclusiveness on this issue, and he's actually in a far better position to make such a case.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
11:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home