09.09.2016 11:59 AM

Adler-Kinsella Show: values, and why Kellie Leitch’s suck



15 Comments

  1. Francis says:

    In an interview with CBC Radio’s “The House”, Kellie Leitch references the persecution of gays and lesbians as a motivating factor for a screening test.

    Problem:

    – The Conservative party membership only recently voted in favour of recognizing LGBT rights within their platform. The vote came down to 1,036 to 462 (for-against) at the convention. That means 462 delegates on the CPC currently oppose gay marriage.

    – Also at the convention, the CPC delegation voted 990 to 496 in favour of a motion that supported the rights of doctors and nurses to “refuse to participate in or refer their abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia.” That is to say, the CPC is officially against a women’s guaranteed right to access to safe abortion. Which also happens to be Kellie Leitch’s personal opinion and very much a minority opinion in the context of Canadian values.

    – The notion of a “screening test” assumes that a) people who have differing opinions can’t/won’t change once living amongst progressive Canadians, and b) that one won’t simply answer the questions in a manner they think is deemed acceptable in order to attain citizenship.

    Kellie Leitch’s screening would establish a double standard system by which immigrant Canadians are not entitled to their own opinions on the very matters that social conservative Canadians (mainly white) adamantly assert their right to hold and believe.

    Canadian value screening is a red-herring for a segment of dumb conservatives who think Muslims are coming to Canada in droves to stone people. Ironically, the very people that people like Brad Trost don’t like. Kellie Leitch clearly hasn’t thought this whole thing out and I’m glad to see her Conservative colleagues push bash on her idiocy. However, Leitch is doing irreparable damage to the CPC image in the eyes of Canadians by perpetuating an already common opinion of that party.

    • Matt says:

      That’s simply not true.

      The vote at the convention was to officially remove the section of the policy platform that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, not finally recognising gay rights as you claim.

      The CPC had 10 years in power and did nothing to remove of hinder the rights of LGBT Canadians. Are there those in the CPC membership who are anti gay? Sure there are, but the are clearly in the minority. And provincially, it was the Progressive Conservative under Harris in Ontario that extended spousal benefits to same sex couples.

      As for a doctor or nurses right to not participate in abortions or assisted deaths, they SHOULD have that right. And at least on assisted suicides, the Supreme Court of Canada agrees. And nowhere in Canadian law does it say a women has a RIGHT to abortion. Just because Justin says there is doesn’t make it true.

      • Francis says:

        So what you’re saying is that the CPC officially (and proudly) adopted the new position of “we don’t know” on marriage equality?

        Perhaps you struggle with semantics so allow me to explain to you what the CPC’s position on gay-marriage is:

        – The membership of the Conservative Party of Canada voted 1,036 to 462 in favour of removing a section of their constitution that exclusively defined marriage as between a man and a women. Noteworthy, is the utter absence of any wording that insists marriage equality for same-sex marriages. Officially, the Conservative Party has now adopted the position of “individuals seeking nomination with the CPC are entitled to their own belief on marriage”. Therefore, making the entire exercise a complete fucking waste of time because people like Ted Falk and Brad Trost are still guaranteed the right to champion anti-homosexual causes within the CPC because they are entitled to their personal belief, despite the party now being less averse to same-sex marriage.

        – Who the hell said anything about the CPC hindering the rights of LGBT Canadians while in government? You’re pulling arguments out of your own ass; I made no mention of the CPC’s actions while in government. Nor did I make any mention of the Progressive Conservatives. Jesus Christ, learn how to focus your rebuttals.

        – I don’t give a shit what the fuck you think they “should” or shouldn’t have. This discussion is about “Canadian values”. As it stands, the vast majority of Canadians — supported by a plethora of polling — support the right of women to have access to safe abortion. Doctors denying that access to women is a backchannel for limiting and hindering that very right. Nevertheless, Kellie Leitch has come out categorically against abortion; as a healthcare provider she may have a differing opinion but for one to seek leadership of the country, that opinion is diametrically opposite to a widely held Canadian value. We don’t currently have any laws on assisted-dying, so anything regarding its implementation is pure conjecture.

        If Kellie Leitch is interested in riding up the “Canadian values” mountain on the asshole train, then she needs to answer for the incongruences and logical fallacies of her proposition. You acknowledge that there are a minority of social conservatives within the CPC who oppose gay marriage — the size of their contingency is irrelevant; the point is they exist. Through Kellie Leitch’s screening, those conservatives do not deserve a citizenship in Canada to live amongst Canadians. Brad Trost, for example, would not hold a Canadian citizenship by Kellie’s standards.

        The inherent idiocy in trying to block certain people out for holding the same opinions that people within your own party hold adamantly is indefensible.

        • Matt says:

          You stated the CPC just now recognized gay rights at their recent convention. That is a false statement. Your insinuation being the CPC would reverse/restrict gay rights. My point was they were in power for ten years and made no attempt to do such a thing.

          Again, show me where Canadian law says women have a RIGHT to abortions. Of course if a woman wants an abortion she should have access to the facilities and professionals to carry it out.

          That isn’t the same as her having a RIGHT. Trudeau claimed it is a right under the law. It isn’t. there are no laws on the books regarding abortion in Canada.

          We don’t have a law on assisted dying? Really? The Parliament and Senate of Canada seem to disagree with you. The Liberals assisted dying legislation was passed by the Senate before summer break.

          http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/assisted-dying-bill-senate-approval-1.3640195

        • Matt says:

          “You acknowledge that there are a minority of social conservatives within the CPC who oppose gay marriage — the size of their contingency is irrelevant; the point is they exist.”

          And the Liberals have a number of people who oppose abortion.

          A woman having ACCESS to an abortion should she choose to have one safely and a woman having the RIGHT to abortion enshrined in law are two different things.

          • Francis says:

            Holy god, you are a train-wreck of debater.

            A women having the right to access = right to abortion should she choose. The difference between the two that you are insisting is a false assertion and one wholly made up in attempt to buttress a woefully weak argument.

            Conservative Party’s unofficial stance on gay-marriage: “Neither for nor against; one may hold their own beliefs.”

            You’re inability to maintain this discussion on the matter of contention at hand is incredibly saddening; for some reason, you’ve deemed it necessary to incessantly reference Trudeau in this discussion when the matter doesn’t concern him in the slightest.

            You are proving my point exactly: Canadians within Canada hold opinions, as per their rights, that are contrary to what are widely held Canadian values. Ergo, the Leitch Test would establish a double-standard that would punish one class of Canadians over the other.

            Perhaps you’d like to articulate a coherent argument in favour of an immigrant screening test like Leitch is proposing as opposed to desperately bloviating on any further?

          • The Doctor says:

            Matt, I don’t know that I agree with you on the right to abortion statement. I realize that there’s a lot of simplistic stuff in the media and social media about the constitutional and legal status of abortion in Canada. That said, given the Supreme Court of Canada’s Morgentaler decision in 1988 and the makeup of our Supreme Court — both now and going forward — I think women in Canada can now be said to have a constitutional right to safe access to abortion. Any Canadian legislature would face a shitstorm of opposition if they tried to meaningfully restrict access, and anything such a legislature passed would likely be struck down on constitutional grounds (with the possible exception of some law that only very lightly nibbled at the margins, such as some late-term restriction). In Canada, whether anti-abortion activists like it or not, this ship pretty much sailed in January of 1988.

  2. Pipes says:

    I was at one of the Royal Canadian Legion Branches today. Most of those grumpy old people like me, didn’t think there is anything wrong with screening immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values.

    Me arguing against it, did nothing but create a terrible thirst and consequent rush to the bar.

    • Elsie Marley says:

      Most of the grumpy old people at my Legion are still pissed about turbans – in the Legions & the RCMP – and STILL piss/moan about it between meat draws and ordering rounds. They are often the same grumpy old people like me who are equally pissed Harper and his ideologues crushed the Progressives right out of the Progressive Conservatives while Reforming Canada. Apparently change is what you get back from a $10 bill.

      These same grumpy old people, friends & neighbours, are often first generation Canadians themselves where some support refugees from Syria and some support the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and some happily attend their grandson’s gay wedding and brag about gaining a new grandson-in-law.

      The self-promoting, manipulative political slimebuckets who pander to & legitimize the worst of human nature – rather than the best – are relegating themselves to a political wilderness enervated by the howls of the barren and bereft. Apparently Canada chooses not to live there anymore.

      Dogwhistle politics that value immigrants only long enough to devalue their values for political traction. Curious position to take when most Canadians are immigrants or come from immigrant stock, including this first generation Canadian.

      Now excuse me. I’m going down to the Legion for a drink and a lively discussion (or two!!).

  3. Wolfer says:

    Did you know that Poland still exists? With your help we can make it stop. For the price of a small cup of coffee a day we’ll buy Panzer tanks and dive bombers. Call now: 1-800-Blitz-Ouf-Poland

  4. smelter rat says:

    I believe Francis and Pipes have summed up the Canadian psyche in only two posts.

  5. Matt says:

    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/10/canadians-favour-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html

    New Forum poll (yes, yes, I know it’s Forum) 67% of Canadians want immigrants screened for anti canadian values.

    Majority of all parties supporters, CPC 87%, LIB 58%, NDP 59% support the idea.

  6. bluegreenblogger says:

    Leitch is a real worm. And she thinks she is being clever emulating Ford and Trump, because if you are outrageous enough, nutbars will worship you. It won’t win her the leadership, because most Conservatives do not relish being labelled racists for the rest of time. In fact, I am guessing that the eventual leadership victor will make a special point of booting Leitch to the curb, thus ‘exorcising’ the intolerant. She probably IS damaging the Conservatives right now, but have you ever seen a Conservative Leadeship contest that was NOT at odds with Canadian Values?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*