Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Well if your 'policy' is to not have a policy, then there aren't an specific issues in your policy. However, there are lots of issues that are provincial jurisdiction that are social issues. E.g. Bill 202, 44 etc. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of WRA policy, I'm just taking what you're saying and pointing out the holes.
|
The joys of arguing on the interwebs. Not having a reasonable understanding about what's being discussed makes an easy time in pointing out the flaws.
Anyway, when a party is called something like "Wild Rose Alliance Party" or "Saskatchewan Party", I think it is reasonable to have a motion creating a statement of where the party officially stands on the political spectrum. Otherwise, others will define it for you. And yet, even though the WRA has defined that position, detractors now state that the definition must've been in place to hold horrible socially-conservative party members in line or to obfuscate the real socially-conservative, religious agenda.
Say nothing = "social-conservative, religious" label
Define as social-moderate = "social-conservative, religious" label
What do you guys want? (Oh, and since when did people subscribing to a religion of any stripe suddenly become evil incarnate and unfit for any public office.)