|
|
 | | From: | Chris Ambidge | | Subject: | Prime Minister interview re same-sex marriage / cbc | | Date: | Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:47:55 GMT |
|
|
 | from a year-end interview with prime minister Paul Martin and CBCs
Peter Mansbridge. The whole interview is at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/national/news/martin/
I've excerpted the same- marriage stuff here.
nb - 1 the not wanting to allow the majority to tromple on the rights
of a minority is what tipped the balance for PM the PM, who clearly
has personal reservations, but as Prime Minister holds the Charter
as supreme; and 2, it was knowing someone (the lesbian friend of the
family, described near the end) that helped him clue in to not wanting
to have his personal feelings trump others.
other note: this interview happened before the Newfoundland & Labrador
court decision yesterday. There are now SEVEN provinces + one territory
where same- marriage is availabe (exceptions: Alberta, PEI, New
Brunswick + Nunavut and Bob) - the PM refers to 6 provinces.
\/\/\/\/ begin cbc text \/\/\/\/\
Peter Mansbridge: Same- marriage, free vote in Parliament. I want
to try and understand that because we've talked a number of times
about your own personal feelings on this issue, and clearly it's
troubled you, but you have chosen, as the justice minister has,
to say that the Charter of Rights trumps those concerns, that it's
for you a straight matter of rights. A free vote, how can you have
a free vote on what's a rights issue?
Paul Martin: Well, the vote that's going to take place in the House
is really against this background. In six of the provinces, same-
marriage is the law of the land, and in one territory it is the law
of the land. So that if what you want to do is to take that right
away, you've got to use the notwithstanding clause, and I've made
it very clear that I will not use the notwithstanding clause. This
vote in the House of Commons, it ultimately is about the notwith-
standing clause, but the immediate vote is really, are we going to
extend that concept of marriage right across the land, or are we
going to have six provinces with one definition and four provinces
with another until such time as their court cases are ultimately heard.
Peter Mansbridge: Do you think that's the way individual MPs are
going to be looking at this vote when it's held in Parliament?
Paul Martin: Oh...
Peter Mansbridge: Or is it going to be a straight issue of conscience
or representing the feelings they think they gauge within their own
ridings about the very concept of same- marriage?
Paul Martin: I think that as the debate unfolds, people are going to
look at alternatives. What is the alternative to the legislation
which the government is going to be bringing forth? Some people say,
well, maybe instead of having civil marriage, you could have civil
union. Well, the courts have said no, you can't, that civil unions
are against the charter because they're separate but equal. And also,
the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction to do civil unions.
So that's one option on the table. What's the other option? To get
out of the marriage business totally. I've got to tell you something,
I believe that marriage is too important an institution for us as a
country to simply abandon it. What we're talking about here is civil
marriage. We are not talking about religious marriage. No church, no
synagogue, no mosque, no temple is going to be forced to go against
its beliefs. That's very important to me. So we're talking about
civil marriage, and I don't believe that when it comes down to it
that MPs, members of Parliament, are going to want to see the
government get out of the marriage business. What it comes down to
is are we going to extend what is now a fact in six provinces to
the other four?
Peter Mansbridge: Let me just try to understand. Is it a rights
issue or is it a matter of conscience? Which is it?
Paul Martin: Well, I'm not sure. First of all, I'm not sure that a
lot of people would draw that distinction. The Charter of Rights is
incredibly important. It is what protects the minority from being
oppressed by the majority.
Peter Mansbridge: And that's why you're in favour of this bill?
Paul Martin: Well, that's certainly what tipped the balance for me.
There's no doubt about it that I voted for the traditional
definition of marriage. I am certainly of, you know, I'm a
practising Catholic and I feel this very, very strongly, and I did
wrestle with it. So, yes, it is a matter of rights, and I think
that's predominant.
Peter Mansbridge: So it's a rights issue for you but not necessarily
for members of your party?
Paul Martin: Let me just tell you a story that I think is important.
I have had to wrestle with this. I've had to wrestle with it very,
very deeply, but as I've wrestled with it, I've obviously had an
opportunity to talk. I talked to a friend of mine who told me about
his daughter. Daughter was 12 or 13 years old, and she was a young
woman, but there was something the matter all of a sudden, and she
became very depressive. Fourteen or 15, they were even worried she
might become suicidal. None of them knew what was the matter and
neither did she. Then at the age of 17 or 18, she met another young
woman and then she suddenly realized that she was , and the family
stayed behind her. She went on and, once she knew what the situation
was, she went on, she got a PhD, she's living out on the West Coast
and she's very happy in her partnership, and I have to ask myself, do
we... Is our society not capable of understanding that it's very
important that we be fair and be open? And I believe our society is.
I believe that Canadians are compassionate and that while we
understand the traditional definitions and while those are very
important to us, we also understand that societies evolve and we're
not talking about religious marriage, but we are talking about making
sure that that young woman can, in fact, feel that her life is going
to be one of happiness. And I think that we've got to deal with that.
And so I really, I believe very strongly in my faith. I also believe
very strongly that the charter is an essential guarantor of the right
of my faith to practise the religion, and it's also our way of looking
in society, is really one that we can't just turn our backs on. That
story, I think, does say where a lot of us have come.
Peter Mansbridge: Let me just ask one last point on it because I guess
the question for some is if rights provokes a free vote, would you
say the same about women's rights or native rights? I mean, those are
basic rights, are they not? You wouldn't have a free vote on those
issues. Why would you have one on rights?
Paul Martin: This vote that's coming up is not the vote on the
notwithstanding clause. The vote on the notwithstanding clause, if
it ever came to that, that would not be a free vote. We're not going
to take away a right. But we did say to members of Parliament that, in
fact, they should vote their consciences because what we're talking
about is extending it beyond those six provinces where it's already
the law of the land. I think it's very important to understand that
this vote, no matter which way it goes, is not going to change the
law in Ontario or B.C. or Quebec. What this is going to decide is what
happens in the other four provinces, and if it doesn't pass, then
undoubtedly, there will be court cases.
\/\/\/\/\ end cbc text \/\/\/\/\/
Chris
== Posted as news reporting; fair dealing under section 29.2 ==
== of the *Copyright*Act* (RSC chapter C-42, as amended) ==
--
Chris Ambidge =|= ambidge@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
|
|
| | From: | Roedy Green | | Subject: | Re: Prime Minister interview re same-sex marriage / cbc | | Date: | Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:33:26 GMT |
|
|
| On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:47:55 GMT, ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris
Ambidge) wrote or quoted :
>There are now SEVEN provinces + one territory
>where same- marriage is availabe (exceptions: Alberta, PEI, New
>Brunswick + Nunavut and Bob) - the PM refers to 6 provinces.
Who is "bob"?
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been witnessed.
Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor of Hitler
nor of Mussolini."
~ Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's atrocities in the Iraq war.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
|
|
| | From: | Ellen Evans | | Subject: | Re: Prime Minister interview re same-sex marriage / cbc | | Date: | 24 Dec 2004 11:37:32 -0500 |
|
|
| In article ,
Roedy Green wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:47:55 GMT, ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris
>Ambidge) wrote or quoted :
>
>>There are now SEVEN provinces + one territory
>>where same- marriage is availabe (exceptions: Alberta, PEI, New
>>Brunswick + Nunavut and Bob) - the PM refers to 6 provinces.
>
>Who is "bob"?
Your uncle.
--
Ellen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would
jeev@panix.com just be true, and that's unacceptable.
Carrie Fisher
|
|
| | From: | Robert Feiertag | | Subject: | Re: Prime Minister interview re same-sex marriage / cbc | | Date: | Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:29:20 GMT |
|
|
| Ellen Evans wrote in message
news:cqhgkc$4nn$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article ,
> Roedy Green wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:47:55 GMT, ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris
> >Ambidge) wrote or quoted :
> >
> >>There are now SEVEN provinces + one territory
> >>where same- marriage is availabe (exceptions: Alberta, PEI, New
> >>Brunswick + Nunavut and Bob) - the PM refers to 6 provinces.
> >
> >Who is "bob"?
>
> Your uncle.
> --
Am not.
Bob, aka Tanya
|
|
| | From: | Chris Ambidge | | Subject: | Re: Prime Minister interview re same-sex marriage / cbc | | Date: | Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:05:52 GMT |
|
|
| [me]
>>There are now SEVEN provinces + one territory
>>where same- marriage is availabe (exceptions: Alberta, PEI, New
>>Brunswick + Nunavut and Bob) - the PM refers to 6 provinces.
[roedy]
>Who is "bob"?
Bob isn't a who, it's a where. Its a colloquial name for what was
left of the Northwest Territory after Nunavut was separated out
into its own territory in 1999.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territories
"on April 1, 1999, the eastern three-fifths of the Northwest
Territories (including all of Keewatin district and much of Mackenzie
and Franklin) became a separate territory called Nunavut.
"There was some discussion of changing the name of the Northwest
Territories after the separation of Nunavut, possibly to a term from
an Aboriginal language. One proposal is "Denendeh" ("our land" in Dene).
The idea is favoured by former premier Stephen Kakfwi among others,
but a poll conducted prior to division showed strong support for
retaining the name "Northwest Territories." Other proposals in the
poll included "Restavut", "Sumavut", "Allavut" (puns based on the
similarity of the name Nunavut to the English phrase "none of it")
and the second-place finisher "Bob". "
as should have been apparent from the enumeration of the geography.
Ten provinces total, minus AB, PEI, NB = seven with same- marriage,
Three territories total, minus Yukon = two territories without
same- marriage. The two remaining territories after Yukon are
Nunavut and NWT/Bob.
Chris the apparently cryptic
posting from Lancashire
--
chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca [=] chemist by day [=] panda by night
|
|
|
