Sort of a Protest Blog

RE: Bill C-38

If you want to read something more fun read the post below this.

I’ve received two replies from all the MPs in which the e-mail was sent. One was in french and the other doesn’t give their opinion on the bill.

From the honourable Ms. Joy Smith’s, M.P., secretary…

Thank you for your email. I appreciate you exercising your rights as a Canadian and communicating your concerns with my office.

Sincerely,

Marta Krystia, Exec. Assistant to
Joy Smith, M.P.
Kildonan-St. Paul

From the honourable Mr. Marc Godbout, M.P.

Bonjour,

Je vous remercie de nous avoir fait part de vos commentaires. Monsieur Godbout porte un grand intérêt à l’opinion de ses commettants et commettantes.

Malou Alvarez

Assistante

Bureau de circonscription

Monsieur, Je vous remercie pour votre lettre dans laquelle vous exprimez votre opinion concernant le projet de loi fédéral visant à permettre le mariage civil des conjoints de même sexe.

Bien que nous ne partagions pas le même point de vue, je comprends et respecte les inquiétudes que vous entretenez. C’est pourquoi je tiens à vous expliquer le fondement de ma position qui a toujours été claire à ce sujet.

Mon opinion sur la question a toujours été guidée par le respect de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et de la liberté de religion. Le jugement rendu par la Cour suprême sur l’avant-projet de loi présenté par le gouvernement du Canada confirme que les homosexuels ont le droit de contracter un mariage civil. La Cour suprême a également reconnu que les décisions des tribunaux de l’Ontario, de la Colombie-Britannique, du Québec, du Manitoba, de la Nouvelle-Écosse, de la Saskatchewan, de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador, et du Yukon ont montré que la restriction du droit de se marier civilement aux couples hétérosexuels était inconstitutionnelle en vertu des dispositions de la Charte portant sur l’égalité des droits.

De plus, le jugement de la Cour suprême stipule que : « le droit à la liberté de religion garanti par l’alinéa 2a) de la Charte a une portée assez étendue pour protéger les autorités religieuses contre la possibilité que l’État les contraigne à marier civilement ou religieusement deux personnes de même sexe, contrairement à leurs croyances religieuses. »

Ainsi, j’ai l’intention d’appuyer tout projet de loi qui respecte l’intégrité de la Charte et la décision des tribunaux de sept provinces et d’un territoire et qui, en même temps, préserve la liberté de religion en confirmant la protection qu’apporte la Charte à cet égard. C’est la position que j’ai adoptée au cours de la dernière campagne électorale, et c’est la position que je défends encore aujourd’hui.

N’hésitez par à communiquer avec moi si vous avez des questions ou d’autres commentaires. Veuillez agréer l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

Marc Godbout, député

Ottawa-Orléans

This roughly translates to:

Hello, I thank you for having made us share of your comments. Mr Godbout carries a great interest to the opinion of his principals and making. Malou Alvarez Assistant Office of district Dear Sir, I thank you for your letter in which you express your opinion concerning the federal bill aiming at allowing the civil wedding of joint of the same the sex. Although we do not share the same point of view, I understand and respect concerns that you maintain. This is why I make a point of explaining you the base of my position who was always clear on this subject. My opinion on the question was always guided by the respect of the Canadian Charter of the rights and freedoms and freedom of religion. The judgement given by the supreme Court on the preliminary draft of law presented by the government of Canada confirms that the homosexual ones have the right to contract a civil wedding. The supreme Court also recognized that the decisions of the courts of Ontario, the Colombia-British, of Quebec, of Manitoba, of News-Scotland, of Saskatchewan, of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon showed that the restriction of the right to marry civilly with the couples heterosexuals was unconstitutional under the terms of the provisions of the Charter relating to the equal rights. Moreover, the judgement of the supreme Court stipulates that: “the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the subparagraph 2a) of the Charter has a range extended enough to protect the religious authorities against the possibility that the State forces them to marry civilly or religieusement two of the same people sex, contrary to their religious beliefs” Thus, I intend to support any bill which respects the integrity of the Charter and the decision of the courts of seven provinces and a territory and which, at the same time, preserves the freedom of religion by confirming protection that brings the Charter in this respect. It is the position which I adopted during the last election campaign, and it is the position which I defend still today. Do not hesitate by communicating with me if you have questions or other comments. Please accept the expression of my sincerity. Marc Godbout, Appointed Ottawa-Orleans

(translation by Babelfish, feel free to do a better translation)

I’m assuming that Marc Godbout is for the bill barring same-sex marriage.

I’ll update you all when I get more replies.

BILL C-38 VOTE

With the first vote on the government’s Equal Marriage Bill (C-38) set for this Tuesday, April 12, I’m writing to ask you to stand up for minority rights and vote AGAINST Stephen Harper’s motion.

Please let me know if you intend to stand up for minority rights and vote against Mr. Harper’s motion.

Publication Ban

Sponsorship Scandal
Reading materials: CTV

We all know about Prime Minister Chretien and the sponsorship scandal. Well a US weblog has violated the publication ban set in place to provide a fair trial and published some key (and damning) testimony. The people and the companies implicated could very well bring down our government. It goes down pretty deep. I can’t republish the URL of the blog but the anonymous author implies that corruption runs deep in our government and so does nepotism. Though that’s a given. It also imlicates involvement of an organized crime group.

I don’t really see how this can hurt the case but I can see how this can hurt our Liberal party.

My view: if they call a snap election now, the Liberals will lose.

Candidates for the Papacy

I know you’ve all had enough of the Pope talk but I promise, this is my last post about the Papacy.

This is Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria. He’s 72 years old and would be the first black pope since Gelasius I.

Cardinal Danneels, 71 years old.

Cardinal Ratzinger, 77 years old. Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which makes him one of the most powerful men in the Vatican. Though him not being Italian greatly hinders his chances.

Cardinal Tettamanzi, 69 years old.

Cardinal Ouellet hails from Quebec, I believe he is the only Canadian candidate. He’s also the youngest at 60 years old.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is the last candidate. He’s 74 years old and is part of the Curia.

This all got interesting after reading Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons, heh.

I don’t know who’ll become the next pope and I don’t really care either. As I said before in a previous entry, I don’t really think we even have a need for a pope anymore. But since they’re going to pick another one anyway, I hope the next pope shares my views on things. Probably not. It’s funny but I get the feeling that the Americans are trying to steal the papacy.