CBC has put a very interesting segment on it’s website about how Canada is following in the footsteps of the United States and the role that religion plays in their politics.
Given all the cuts to women’s groups, groups that support abortion and other Non Christian approved causes, I’m curious what the North Coast thinks about Canada becoming a less secular society and allowing any religious group to get a stranglehold on our government. Any thoughts, is this a good thing, bad thing or just politics as usual?
I most certainly do not believe that any religion or Christian Group should have any play in government business. I believe that women have worked very hard for many years to have their choices in life destroyed or taken away from them. I do not believe churches of any kind should be calling the shots or getting into Harper’s back pocket.
I do not believe that any known Christian Group should be telling the people to not accept Gay Life in any way. Many of these churches seem to be having their own problems with keeping their peckers in their pocket.
I’d extend that to unions as well yes. I’m am not saying capitalists should be restricted from participating in democracy I’m saying corporations should have absolutely no say in our democracy.
Donations should be made on a private level and should be restricted to a few grand per person. The parties do not need multi million dollar warchests in order to get their message across we have a government funded media network that could easily allot time for each candidate to have their advertisements.
Having the american media corporations lobby our government and have them pass a canadian version of the DMCA is quite frankly a load of shit.
The citizens own this country not the corporations and they need to be bitchslapped back into their place.
Apparently those self same religious people and capitalists you refer to, wish to restrict women who have been active in politics from participating in democracy.
"On Friday, the Tories accused the CBC of Liberal bias – yet, again – after the broadcast of a viewer-inspired poll. Conservative researchers believe the viewer who asked the question about women in politics is a two-time Liberal candidate from British Columbia, Mary Pynenburg. "
Apparently the new norm in Canada is that if you’ve ever run for public office, you are no longer allowed to suggest subjects for discussion and further analysis. What exactly was this contentious and biased question that Ms. Pynenburg suggested? "
“If there were more women leaders in federal politics, would this have a positive, negative, or no effect on the quality of government?”
So the new reality is if you’ve ever contributed to a political party that is not in power like Frank Graves did, be prepared for character assasination. Of course while facts, open discussion and vigorous debate on opposing views are cherished values in a secular society, they are not always welcomed by theocracies. Since most theocracies/religions seem to be male dominated, women should remain silent.
Even the Globe and Mail is raising an eyebrow at the Conservatives’ mindset and tactics.
"Stephen Harper’s Conservatives just don’t give up when it comes to bashing the CBC. It’s getting silly, with the Tories again questioning the broadcaster’s impartiality as a result of comments about a recent poll on women in politics. "
They’d like you to believe the CBC kissed Liberal ass when they were in power, when in fact it pissed them off just as much.
We’re damn lucky to have something that though funded by gov’t is not beholden to it.
“But politics was also to the fore. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he doesn’t want to renew the abortion debate, but he sparked an outcry when he said government money earmarked for ambitious child and maternal health programs in the Third World won’t go to abortions.”
If this was his intentions why were 18 of his Tory MPs urging a crowd to reopen the bitter debate on abortion?
CHRISTIANS AND/OR RELIGIONS IN GENERAL
Responsible for most wars in history, enabled the subjugation of indigenous peoples,
gladly enabled residential schools in Canada with the accompanied horrors,
CORPORATIONS
Responsible for 99% of Global Warming, child labour, assasination of Labour leaders in third world countries, the oil spill in the Gulf, the Exxon Valdez,(just my top 5)
UNIONS
Reponsible for OAP, CPP, EI, Social Assistance, Workplace Safety Legislation, Universal Health care, Child Labour laws, Minimum Employment Standards for non-union workers,
Universal Suffrage, the “Middle Class” of any society, the list goes on. In addition Unions operate under free and open democratic principles.
Religions;
I can think of 2 that should be banished to the Desert where they began.
Corporations;
Need Global legislation to keep them in check.
Now what was the question?
Oh yeah,Should Unions participate in the democratic process??? HELL YES!!!
Unions are no different than corporations or religions when it comes to lobbying. They represent a huge force in terms of the amount of money they have, and they do their best to forward their own agenda.
You can make biased arguments as much as you want–but my comment had nothing to do with what they stand for, but rather how much spending power they have.
I take it that bobo is a creationist, otherwise how can he explain that “most wars in history” started less than 2000 years ago? And to what does he attribute the subjugation of indigenous tribes in Africa and Asia long before the births of Christ and/or Mohammed?
Why not say that religious relief organizations are the first on the scene at any disaster area, that humanitarian aid to many poor countries is spearheaded by numerous religious-based organizations? Why not mention that the Salvation Army works day in and day out to provide food and shelter (and employment) to people all over North America?
Not everything done in the name of “God” is good but not everything is bad, either.
Of course, for unions to be held up as the paramount of human endeavour is not a particularly rationale thought either, at least not in this day and age.
“Those who are likely to be disadvantaged most from unionization are the unemployed, those at risk of unemployment, or workers who are unable to get the job they want in a particular line of work.” (David Card and Alan Krueger, 1995, Myth and Measurement; The new economics of the minimum wage)
Also,
“…unionization produces higher wages (for the union members) at the expense of fewer jobs, and that, if some industries are unionized while others are not, wages will tend to decline in non-unionized industries.” (Milton Friedman, Price Theory)