Harper's Minister for Democratic Reform and gay men

[MarchHare]

Indeed. We should never forgive or forget past transgressions. On that vein, the enterally corrupt Liberal party should never hold power again.

Don't you agree?

Agreed!

And we should never vote for the Conservatives either since Mulroney was a crook, and Diefenbaker scrapped the Avro Arrow, and Sir John A was a drunk!

[EddyBeers]

Well if you want something more recent regarding the Conservative stance on homosexuality, how about Minister Finley's response to a request to prevent the deportation of a gay man to Malaysia, where he would face torture for being a gay man.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...e-fef732830739

Finley refused to even consider using her Ministerial powers to protect a gay man from pending torture and imprisonment. That is an abdication of duty and an insight as to the mentality of the party in my opinion. It is also an insight into the failings of the Immigration and Refugee Board, but for a political party to deny an individual such as this man Ministerial discretion, when it is clear as day that the man will be discriminated against based on being a member of a social group is quite sad.

That example is from last month for what it is worth......

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Well if you want something more recent regarding the Conservative stance on homosexuality, how about Minister Finley's response to a request to prevent the deportation of a gay man to Malaysia, where he would face torture for being a gay man.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...e-fef732830739

Finley refused to even consider using her Ministerial powers to protect a gay man from pending torture and imprisonment. That is an abdication of duty and an insight as to the mentality of the party in my opinion. It is also an insight into the failings of the Immigration and Refugee Board, but for a political party to deny an individual such as this man Ministerial discretion, when it is clear as day that the man will be discriminated against based on being a member of a social group is quite sad.

That example is from last month for what it is worth......

Well, there's two issues here and really neither one really deals with homophobia.

1) The man is being deported. This is a legal matter.
2) The Minister will not secede, most likely on legal grounds.

Do you think that the law should be overruled in certain circumstances in cases of moral compassion?
I say, yes, and I'm a conservative. Nothing to do with my opinion of his homosexuality.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I wouldn't be surprised if the OP/Blaster/MH or half the liberal caucus didn't agree with him back then. Hell I would have.

Uhhh... I was 5 and was unaware of what a "gay" person was.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, there's two issues here and really neither one really deals with homophobia.

1) The man is being deported. This is a legal matter.
2) The Minister will not secede, most likely on legal grounds.

Do you think that the law should be overruled in certain circumstances in cases of moral compassion?
I say, yes, and I'm a conservative. Nothing to do with my opinion of his homosexuality.

Ministers always have the power to intervene, it is their prerogative, that is the beauty of a Westminster Parliamentry system. The fact she refrained from doing so is indicative in my opinion of a policy direction of her ministry. The fact that she did not even recognize that the man seems to clearly be a protected person under IRPA and the UN Convention Relating to the Status on Refugees seems to indicate at best incompetence, at worst discrimination. The fact that she did not at least view this video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1172940415 (warning, the video is quite graphic) to see what corporal punishment is like in Malaysia, or if she did view it, felt that it was not cruel and unusual punishment is well almost unbelievable. That is what the guy could expect to receive for being "gay" in Malaysia.

The lady is at best incompetent for flat out refusing to consider the case and at worst questions have to be seriously raised about bias in the Minister's office. And the day that Thomas Mulclair rose to speak to this issue, the catcalls from the government side were completely uncalled for and provided interesting insight, in my humble opinion.

To answer your final question, yes I beleive the "law" should be overturned on cases of moral compassion. The "law" actually allows moral compassion to be grounds for a Minister to overturn a deportation order.

[Resolute 14]

Actually, Conservative ministers have generally not used their ministerial powers. Several levels of the refugee board have denied that man's claim, why should the minister be any different?

Oh, wait, consistency and equality in standards isn't all that important when you are looking for a way to trash the Conservatives. Liberal hypocricy at its finest.

[Slava]

A lot of responses in this thread are interesting to say the least. I guess since a lot of people agreed with the Nazis then there were no transgressions there and we can't criticize them?

Its funny how someone makes dergatory comments, videotapes them and keeps a copy of that (in his office no less!!?) but the voting public should let it go because he apologized.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Slava

A lot of responses in this thread are interesting to say the least. I guess since a lot of people agreed with the Nazis then there were no transgressions there and we can't criticize them?

Its funny how someone makes dergatory comments, videotapes them and keeps a copy of that (in his office no less!!?) but the voting public should let it go because he apologized.

I was in the "it's 16 years old, let it rest people..." camp till you posted. Keeping such a tape at least demonstrates a sense of mental deficiency for an elected official. He has shown us that he's not up to the task of being a minister for sure.

Harper should ditch this idiot in the next re-shuffle.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

A lot of responses in this thread are interesting to say the least. I guess since a lot of people agreed with the Nazis then there were no transgressions there and we can't criticize them?

Its funny how someone makes dergatory comments, videotapes them and keeps a copy of that (in his office no less!!?) but the voting public should let it go because he apologized.

That's a good point. However, I think some people are just saying given the stigma behind HIV/AIDS and homosexuals in the early 1990s, the attitudes do make sense. Still doesn't excuse them.

And keeping the tape is just bizarre.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

However, I think some people are just saying given the stigma behind HIV/AIDS and homosexuals in the early 1990s, the attitudes do make sense.

I was around in the early 90's (although this guy is a lot older than me and I didn't live in Saskatchewan) but these attitudes don't make sense. A normal person in 1991 knew that you didn't get AIDS or anything else from dirty fingernails.

A drunk 40-year-old man ranting about how "effin A" he is and how much better he is than homosexuals was an idiot then and is now.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I was around in the early 90's (although this guy is a lot older than me and I didn't live in Saskatchewan) but these attitudes don't make sense. A normal person in 1991 knew that you didn't get AIDS or anything else from dirty fingernails.

A drunk 40-year-old man ranting about how "effin A" he is and how much better he is than homosexuals was an idiot then and is now.

Yeah, I wasn't saying it was normal or acceptable. I meant that times change.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I wasn't saying it was normal or acceptable. I meant that times change.

No no I didn't think you thought it was ""acceptable" at all. And times do change. I'm just saying they haven't changed that much.

If this video was from 1981 then a point could be made that "everyone thought that way", but by 1991, really I don't think they did.

They were teaching about AIDS in high school before 1991. In 1992 Kurt Cobain was wearing a dress on stage and Nirvana was the biggest thing since Bread.

Bla bla bla... The guy does seem genuinely sickened that this got out. Usually when something embarrassing happens politicians give out some insincere sounding crap about "time to reflect" or "we need privacy" but, if I'm reading it correctly, this guy got ambushed by this and pretty much said "this makes me sick and I'm embarrassed and ashamed" without some speechwriter or stoic wife standing on his arm. Good for him on that at least.

It would be interesting to hear from an actual gay person on this issue. I think "geez what an idiot this guy is" but if he was talking about me I'd probably feel a lot stronger about it. Maybe even threatened -- you know, with the Cabinet Minister for Democratic Reform saying I'm a diseased second class citizen and all.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

No no I didn't think you thought it was ""acceptable" at all. And times do change. I'm just saying they haven't changed that much.

If this video was from 1981 then a point could be made that "everyone thought that way", but by 1991, really I don't think they did.

They were teaching about AIDS in high school before 1991. In 1992 Kurt Cobain was wearing a dress on stage and Nirvana was the biggest thing since Bread.

Bla bla bla... The guy does seem genuinely sickened that this got out. Usually when something embarrassing happens politicians give out some insincere sounding crap about "time to reflect" or "we need privacy" but, if I'm reading it correctly, this guy got ambushed by this and pretty much said "this makes me sick and I'm embarrassed and ashamed" without some speechwriter or stoic wife standing on his arm. Good for him on that at least.

It would be interesting to hear from an actual gay person on this issue. I think "geez what an idiot this guy is" but if he was talking about me I'd probably feel a lot stronger about it. Maybe even threatened -- you know, with the Cabinet Minister for Democratic Reform saying I'm a diseased second class citizen and all.

No, you're right. I can't imagine how hurtful these words were if I were someone even remotely affected by what he was saying. If he's honestly contrite and apologetic, then move on. If there's any sort of spin or cover-up by the Conservative Party, then that really needs to be addressed.

[flamey_mcflame]

"Let me put it to you this way -- there's As and Bs. The As are guys like me. The Bs are homosexual fa----- with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases."

And now he doesnt feel that way?? Wow, what a remarkable turn around. I think maybe he realized that he was a public figure, put his feelings of hatred into the closet along with his many other shames. But he said he was sorry, so that makes everything alright. I didn't know saying sorry was a way to get out of everything. I'm surprised criminals don't use that as a defense at their trials.

Judge: Mr. Doe, you are on trial for killing and mutilating 5 women.

Mr. Doe: I'm sorry your honor, it was 6 years and it was a stupid thing to do.

Judge: Case dismissed.

I won't charge for that legal advice.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

A sixteen year old recording? Is this really how desperate the opposition is to trash the Conservatives?

Oh, wait, I just read the OP again...

The thing is that anyone who would even consider voting conservative wouldn't give a 16-17 year old recording serious attention. For those who already don't support them it's a recording that can help them try to smear the 'hidden agenda' dirt all over them again. That 'hidden agenda' smear campaign has won them less and less votes with every election since 1997. It's a case of fighting yesterday's fight today.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, Conservative ministers have generally not used their ministerial powers. Several levels of the refugee board have denied that man's claim, why should the minister be any different?

Oh, wait, consistency and equality in standards isn't all that important when you are looking for a way to trash the Conservatives. Liberal hypocricy at its finest.

Exactly. He has gone through the process to determine if he is a REfugee. So when the people who have the expertise decide he is not, then why should the minister get involved?

[killer_carlson]

I'm concerned about another move towards American style politics (attack ad politics).

I don't want to be involved in a political process that is more about whos PI's can dig better dirt than the other guy.

I find it repugnant.

The NDP felt it had no problem letting Sven Robinson repent, pay his dues, and be a candidate again after being convicted of stealing, so if this guy changes his mind within the past 16 years, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt. He campaigned against this kind of belief in more recent years, so again, he should be given the benefit of the doubt, not cast in some sort of opposition "Hidden Agenda" net.

[mykalberta]

Cons should cut him before the day is out so you start the weekend with a good news cycle.

Doesnt matter if its taken out of context or was meant as a joke, cut his a$$ now.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, Conservative ministers have generally not used their ministerial powers. Several levels of the refugee board have denied that man's claim, why should the minister be any different?

Oh, wait, consistency and equality in standards isn't all that important when you are looking for a way to trash the Conservatives. Liberal hypocricy at its finest.

I am assuming that by several levels you mean one level, you mean a one-person adjudication panel. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...6f2e29&k=65806

But hey, do not let the facts get in your way.

So basically, one level denied the man his claim, why should Finley get be any different.

Oh, wait, factual evidence is not all that important when you are trying to defend an incompetent Immigration Minister. Conservative ignorance at its finest

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Exactly. He has gone through the process to determine if he is a REfugee. So when the people who have the expertise decide he is not, then why should the minister get involved?

What is the point of having elected officials if the experts can just handle all the relevant matters?