By arthur Weinreb
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Stphane Dion has come a long way since the Liberal leadership race began last February. at the outset Dion was one of the few people, if not the only person who thought that he had a chance of succeeding Paul Martin. Dismissed out of hand with the notion that the Liberals would not choose another leader from Quebec this time, Dion was never seen as a serious contender for the throne until after the 2nd ballot when Gerard Kennedy took himself out of the race and threw his support to the Quebec MP.
If there was any justice the new Liberal leader would be allowed to bask in his glory until at least after the Christmas season. But alas, it is not to be. This week the Conservatives will table a motion that calls for the traditional definition of marriage to be restored. The motion doesn't have a hope of passing and even the Tories admit that they are only introducing it because they promised they would do so during the last election campaign (keeping their promises – are you getting this Dalton?). Despite the fact that the results are a forgone conclusion, the way the Liberal Party will handle it will tell us a lot about the country's new Liberal leader.
To no one's surprise, Stphane Dion is in favour of same sex marriage. He, like Martin before him, takes the position that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry because it is a matter of human rights. They have the "right” to marry. and therein lies the problem for Dion. although there is a dispute as to whether or not the right of gays and lesbians to marry is in fact a human right, many people have a genuine belief that it is. It's hard to know whether Dion's belief is genuine but he should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. We should accept the fact allowing same sex marriages is a matter of human rights for the new Liberal leader.
Dion now has a decision to make. Will he allow his caucus to vote their consciences on the motion or will he force them to toe the party line and vote to defeat it? There are some Liberals who oppose same sex marriage and want to vote to restore the traditional definition of marriage. Liberal MP John Godfrey has already made noises about voting with the government and if he gets thrown out of caucus then he gets thrown out of caucus.
When same sex marriage was voted on in the House of Commons in July 2005, then Prime Minister Paul Martin forced his cabinet to vote in favour of it while allowing his backbenchers to vote how they wished. There was something extremely hypocritical about allowing that. Either something is a fundamental human right or it isn't. If someone truly believes (as Dion does and Martin said he did) that ability to enter into a same sex marriage is a human right, how can they allow those who would deny the human rights of fellow Canadians to be members in good standing of their caucus? It makes no sense. a human right is a human right. If someone tabled legislation that prevented certain minorities from driving automobiles (for the noble purpose of cutting down greenhouse gas emissions of course – the Liberals couldn't seem to find another way of doing that) would party MPs be allowed to vote their conscience? Not likely. Of course to Paul Martin Jr., same sex marriage was more of a human right of convenience than it was an actual human right.
If Stphane Dion does allow his caucus a free vote on the motion he will show that he is nothing more than another political opportunist who uses the term "human rights” when it suits his purpose. He will show that he is following Paul Martin Jr. in more ways than one.
Many of those on the left throw around the term "human rights” so much that it means everything and of course, nothing.
There is no doubt; how he handles this motion will be Stphane Dion's first big test as leader.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement