Blue Like You

Archive for August 9th, 2007

Once again the Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein hits the mark with his editorial - Gun Crime? No Worries.

In his crosshairs this time is Michael Bryant, who according to Goldstein, “is a master of the clever slogan, the brilliant riposte and the bon mot when it comes to fighting gun crime.”

Lorrie reminds us that we are fortunate indeed to have Bryant for our Attorney General, because his clever slogans are such an effective tool against Toronto gang and gun crime.

However, Bryant has now added buttons to his arsenal!

Just last week, this up and coming Liberal cabinet minister revealed to the Toronto Star — where trial balloons by Liberals go to die — that he has made up some buttons featuring the brilliant phrase: “No Gun. No Funeral” and now carries them around in his pocket.

(Where trial balloons by Liberals go to die - Heh.)

He then goes on to explain that what Bryant really means is ‘No LEGAL gun. No funeral’.

But that, of course, would be a stupid thing to put on a button, since it isn’t true.

After all, Canada could ban all “legal” handguns today and people would still be shot and killed by thugs using illegal ones.

Lorrie makes several other very important points which I’ll have to revisit another day.

Urgent family matters to attend to.

Blog Quebecois links to a post by Werner Patels referencing the Bountiful polygamy conundrum.

While Patels urges that the related issues of statutory rape and pedophilia be prosecuted, he questions the ability of Canadian law and modern society to prevent arrangements of multiple partners who quietly choose to cohabitate.

This is a question that I continue to ask (not that I necessarily support the idea) - how can we say that some people should be allowed to live their lives without state interference and not others?

It’s interesting to see a Progressive admitting that the slippery slope argument may in fact have some validity after all:

The case of the community of Bountiful, British Columbia, and its predilection for polygamy, is to be referred to the courts to determine the constitutionality of polygamy with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When same-sex marriage was first raised as a possibility, social conservatives quickly condemned it and said that if it were green-lighted, it would soon lead to polygamy as well — and turn Canada into Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now that this issue has raised its head, one cannot deny that they were right in a way. But would it really be so bad if polygamy were allowed?

Some of his arguments that appear to be in favour of decriminalizing polygamy and polyamory in general are reminiscent of the same-sex marriage rhetoric:

So many people in modern society today have multiple spouses — they’re divorced from all of them, but they often have children together, while support payments serve as sort of a bond. Frankly, it would not be such a giant leap to a system where they all lived happily under one roof.

- i.e. Perhaps it would be better for the children, because they wouldn’t feel ‘different’ and would be more likely to be accepted by the mainstream.

Just as was true of same-sex marriage, it is highly doubtful that allowing polygamy would have any effect on the rest of us.

-Yup. As long as it doesn’t affect me. I’ve heard that one before.

And from an Opinionated Lesbian’s blog:

If you support the right of gay people to live their lives as they wish, you must support the same right for others. Like polygamists.

We can’t turn back the clock. It is what it is.

But let’s just stop kidding ourselves.