Welcome to the second, less frequently-posted decade of RevMod.

Contact me at revmod AT gmail.

Monday, June 07, 2004

Is it time to start quoting John Crosbie again, yet?

I'm not a reporter of poll results. In fact I'm rarely even a reader of poll results. When I ran in the provincial election as an NDP candidate in rural southern Alberta, reporters occasionally inquired how I evaluated my chances. "My latest polling data says I'm running even with the Tory," I'd tell them, "but my family might not be a large enough sample."

I still think that's pretty damn funny. I digress.

People who are more fascinated that I am with polling data are starting to see a trend that suggests the strong possibility of the Conservatives getting the most seats. I'm sure the data is correct, but I still think the analysis lacks one vital but hard-to-quantify variable: the surprising thickheadedness of so many Conservate candidates who are not named Stephen Harper.

The latest bright star in the Conservative heaven is Cheryl Gallant, MP and candidate in Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke. Ms Gallant scored PROM=1 * SIG=3 (the first three-point SIG of the game) for equating homosexuality and pedophila, in her discussion of Bill C-250.

In an interview with CTV News, Ottawa-area MP Cheryl Gallant said she opposed the new law, that was recently amended to include sexual orientation as one of the protected groups.

"The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses, for example, pedophiles," Gallant said.
This gets better and better, too. Gallant says "I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed." Now, I don't know if that's true, but it's a pretty clear indication that she's not alone on this. Tough to believe that Scott Brison didn't think he'd feel comfortable in that caucus, eh?

And it just gets better and better - John Reynolds' reaction:

"I'm the House leader and I've seen no line-up of letters in my office asking us to repeal that law," Reynolds told CTV News. "It's a bill that passed the House of Commons."

"She'll have every right to bring that up with a new caucus in Ottawa - which will be greater in numbers. But it's certainly not something that is going to get us off an agenda."
"Oh, and also? We don't even know what she's talking about. Protect pedophiles? From what - people being critical of pedophila? Yeah, the Court's really going to read that shit in to C-250." No, wait. Reynolds didn't say any of that. He said "it's not a priority," not "she's wrong in so many ways." Had he said something like the latter, my undecided vote might have had a chance to become a Conservative vote. Now, virtually none.

I've said before that there are good reasons, some of which I'm sympathetic toward, for opposing hate speech laws. Those reasons tend to revolve around free speech and civil liberty. That's not the argument Ms Gallant formed here. I don't think you have to read too deeply between the lines to see that what she really means is something more along these lines:

[W]ith hardly any opposition, the sodomites and their aggressive gay machine became a force to control politicians, judges, the media and finally our school systems. Their weapon was a single word, tolerance, and all opponents were put to flight.


Satan has the backing of the courts, trying to shut the mouths of God-fearing pastors, who still have the courage to preach about it from the book of Romans, who show what God thinks of homosexuality and what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe the time will soon come when godless judges will close churches that call being gay a sin.
Here's the question someone needs to ask Ms Gallant: do you agree or disagree with the above passage? What parts do you dispute?

Anyway, I've headed very far down this road, trying to avoid having a "what did she really mean" argument like we had around abortion councilling. This is so much clearer. If you don't think I'm right, feel encouraged to point me to one single moment in Gallant's public life when she showed any indication putting her homophobia in question.

Let's head back to my initial point. What to know why the Conservatives will not be allowed anywhere near the reins of power? The Canadian public wants to punish the Liberals, but they don't want Canada to radically change. Stephen Harper knows it, and has spent the campaign trying to sell his party as Liberal Lite - "Same great taste, now with 75% less corruption!" His candidates don't understand this strategy, because they keep opening their yaps on these issues. I think this gaffe, the Cheryl Gallant gaffe, might be the break point. I think the only choice right now is for Harper to remove her as a candidate before the shitstorm really takes hold. I keep saying Harper can't afford more of these errors. I'm ready now to say that Harper can't afford this one. It's catching on slowly because it happened over the weekend, up against D-Day ceremonies and high-profile hockey games, but it will be noticed. I think if the Liberals are smart they'll use this as a wedge issue to get the angry-at-the-Liberal-party centrists back.

I'll answer my title question. Yes, it's time to quote John Crosbie. I've used this before, but with Harper in the driver's seat, it seems more appropriate than ever to this election:

"It's the 90% of Reformers that give the other 10% a bad name."

No comments: