[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

pray about what that means

Pray about what "what" means?

Pray about what it means to be a gay christian (and in particular a gay evangelical christian).  Does it mean you should try "conversion therapy"?  Does it mean you should embrace "gay identity and culture"?  Does it mean Jesus wants you to be celibate, or does it mean He wants to you only have gay sex within marriage?

Depends on whether one means Jesus in the sense of the first century Jewish fellow, or Jesus in the sense of the God.

If the former, he'd probably be very muicj against gay sex - first century Jewish culture was pretty gay-unfriendly, as that sort of thing was associated with Greek culture, abhorred by all believing Jews (if pretty widespread nonetheless).

If the latter, it is hard to imagine a veritable God caring one whit about whether one enjoys sucking on cocks or cunts more. 

Well if you're the type of person who goes to TWU, Jesus is both a first century jewish fellow and is God.

[viper37]

Two recent cases of sexual harassment by LPC MPs and one anonymous blogger complaining of the same, 8 years ago, still by an LPC MP.

Could negatively affect Justin Trudeau's aura with the female portion of the electorate, or actually help him since he's seen as taking a firm stance against his MPs?

[crazy canuck]

The odd thing is the two recent ones are complaints made by NDP MPs. 

[Barrister]

The really odd thing is that the MPs are suspended, but no details provided.  As such I can't decide if Trudeau is over-reacting in the aftermath of the Ghomeshi story, or is taking the correct approach and demonstrating strong leadership.

[Malthus]

Had not heard this story. Any details available?

[viper37]

Two Liberal MPs suspended

The other one is an old one:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/11/20131122-103927.html

[viper37]

The really odd thing is that the MPs are suspended, but no details provided.  As such I can't decide if Trudeau is over-reacting in the aftermath of the Ghomeshi story, or is taking the correct approach and demonstrating strong leadership.

Yeah, we don't have any details.  Though suspension of caucus when there are criminal charges, or accusations of misconduct, until a verdict is reached, are the norm, no?

[viper37]

In other news, Canada is moving against forced marriages and polygamy:
Text

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander will introduce legislation later today to ban people in polygamous and forced marriages from immigrating to Canada.​

Alexander says such practices are "incompatible with Canadian values."

He and Status of Women Minister Kellie Leitch made the announcement this morning at a news conference in the Toronto area.

The government also wants to protect women and girls who seek to escape polygamous or forced marriages.

The 2013 speech from the throne promised action on forced marriages and so-called honour killings, an issue that has concerned the Harper government, in light of cases including the multiple murders in 2009 of female members of Montreal's Shafia family.

"Sadly, millions of women and girls continue to be brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage. This barbarism is unacceptable to Canadians," the throne speech said.

A government source says that globally, between 2004 and 2014, an estimated 100 million girls, will have been forced to marry before their 18th birthdays, often in polygamous unions. 

Alexander says the bill, if passed, would eliminate early and forced marriages from Canada's immigration system and the country as a whole.

He says there are "at least hundreds" of cases of immigrants in polygamous marriages in Canada.

I wonder if the Liberals will try to oppose this bill, on grounds of Canadian multiculturalism...

[crazy canuck]

The really odd thing is that the MPs are suspended, but no details provided.  As such I can't decide if Trudeau is over-reacting in the aftermath of the Ghomeshi story, or is taking the correct approach and demonstrating strong leadership.

Hard to tell from the report but it looks like it might be the former rather than the latter.

From the Globe article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-suspend-two-mps-over-personal-misconduct-allegations/article21453310/
 

"I believe strongly that those of us in positions of authority have a duty to act on allegations of this nature," Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau told reporters Wednesday.

He said the "serious" nature of the accusations meant he had to suspend Mr. Andrews and Mr. Pacetti while an investigation continued, but Mr. Trudeau would not elaborate on the nature of the allegations.

Newfoundland and Labrador MP Judy Foote, whose role as Liberal party whip is to manage the activity and discipline of her party's MPs, said in a letter to House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer that she had "taken steps to look into both allegations."

[Malthus]

In other news, Canada is moving against forced marriages and polygamy:
Text

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander will introduce legislation later today to ban people in polygamous and forced marriages from immigrating to Canada.​

Alexander says such practices are "incompatible with Canadian values."

He and Status of Women Minister Kellie Leitch made the announcement this morning at a news conference in the Toronto area.

The government also wants to protect women and girls who seek to escape polygamous or forced marriages.

The 2013 speech from the throne promised action on forced marriages and so-called honour killings, an issue that has concerned the Harper government, in light of cases including the multiple murders in 2009 of female members of Montreal's Shafia family.

"Sadly, millions of women and girls continue to be brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage. This barbarism is unacceptable to Canadians," the throne speech said.

A government source says that globally, between 2004 and 2014, an estimated 100 million girls, will have been forced to marry before their 18th birthdays, often in polygamous unions. 

Alexander says the bill, if passed, would eliminate early and forced marriages from Canada's immigration system and the country as a whole.

He says there are "at least hundreds" of cases of immigrants in polygamous marriages in Canada.

I wonder if the Liberals will try to oppose this bill, on grounds of Canadian multiculturalism...

So, if a woman is forced into marriage in some country, she can't later come to Canada? And this protects her?

Not sure I understand the logic behind this. Would it not make more sense to allow her to come, but state that her "marriage" isn't valid or recognized in Canada, and offer her protection from her alleged 'husband' - if the intent is to protect her?

[crazy canuck]

In other news, Canada is moving against forced marriages and polygamy:
Text

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander will introduce legislation later today to ban people in polygamous and forced marriages from immigrating to Canada.​

Alexander says such practices are "incompatible with Canadian values."

He and Status of Women Minister Kellie Leitch made the announcement this morning at a news conference in the Toronto area.

The government also wants to protect women and girls who seek to escape polygamous or forced marriages.

The 2013 speech from the throne promised action on forced marriages and so-called honour killings, an issue that has concerned the Harper government, in light of cases including the multiple murders in 2009 of female members of Montreal's Shafia family.

"Sadly, millions of women and girls continue to be brutalized by violence, including through the inhumane practice of early and forced marriage. This barbarism is unacceptable to Canadians," the throne speech said.

A government source says that globally, between 2004 and 2014, an estimated 100 million girls, will have been forced to marry before their 18th birthdays, often in polygamous unions. 

Alexander says the bill, if passed, would eliminate early and forced marriages from Canada's immigration system and the country as a whole.

He says there are "at least hundreds" of cases of immigrants in polygamous marriages in Canada.

I wonder if the Liberals will try to oppose this bill, on grounds of Canadian multiculturalism...

So, if a woman is forced into marriage in some country, she can't later come to Canada? And this protects her?

Not sure I understand the logic behind this. Would it not make more sense to allow her to come, but state that her "marriage" isn't valid or recognized in Canada, and offer her protection from her alleged 'husband' - if the intent is to protect her?

I suspect this is in part intended to deal with the bride swapping that occurs between the Mormons* on either side of the border.  But you are right, not sure how this ends up helping the women.


* I know, I know, different sect that may or may not have been part of the Anabaptist movement, or some other sect, at one point.

[Josephus]

Whilst forced marriages is one thing altogether, I wonder why the hatred for polygamy. I mean we allow gay marriages now...I don't really see the argument against it.

[crazy canuck]

Whilst forced marriages is one thing altogether, I wonder why the hatred for polygamy. I mean we allow gay marriages now...I don't really see the argument against it.

Not sure if you are being ironic, but there is was a case in BC testing the constitutionality of the criminal polygamy law.  It was upheld because of the signficant amount of evidence regarding the harm done both to the young (child) brides and also, signficantly, the uwanted male offspring.

[garbon]

Whilst forced marriages is one thing altogether, I wonder why the hatred for polygamy. I mean we allow gay marriages now...I don't really see the argument against it.

Not sure if you are being ironic, but there is was a case in BC testing the constitutionality of the criminal polygamy law.  It was upheld because of the signficant amount of evidence regarding the harm done both to the young (child) brides and also, signficantly, the uwanted male offspring.

Isn't that though less about the actually polygamous act itself and more the things that you see out of polygamous cults (aka child brides, spurning male children)?

edit: I liked my "child bridges" though I don't know what those are.

[Josephus]

Wasn't being ironic, no. Was being serious. Also, as Garbon said, child marriages and polygamy are not the same thing.
Say a reasonbly-aged married man, wanted to marry a second wife...why does the law stop him? I don't really support it myself, but constitutionally, I'm saying, and legally, I'm surprised there haven't been that many challenges.