# Canadopers: Who will you be voting for in the election? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891 "2005-04-24T18:58:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/41 "2005-04-28T18:44:07Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Maybe I’ll write-in a vote for David Suzuki. Yikes! I actually grimaced when I read that, and then pictured all of use having to live in a compost pile, wearing biodegradable burlap sacks and eatting hay. That suggesting actually made Harper look good. > [@bob\_loblaw](#): > > chow Did you mean Olivia Chow? I’m proud to say I was in her “riding” during the last election and actually worked to make sure she flopped. What a twit. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_loblaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@bob\_loblaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_loblaw)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/42 "2005-04-28T21:38:50Z")
name calling… what a brilliant campaign strategy. too bad ianno’s going down anyway. it was close here a year ago, this time it won’t be. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/43 "2005-04-29T02:01:56Z")
> [@bob\_loblaw](#): > > name calling… what a brilliant campaign strategy. too bad ianno’s going down anyway. it was close here a year ago, this time it won’t be. Sorry, I guess I forgot to add “IMHO.” Until you mentioned her, I had totally forgot about all of those many media clips of her grinning like an idiot and nodding on que, just off to Layton’s right side, has he proudly displays his _Asian looking wife_–IMHO of course. Do you think she’ll run again? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/44 "2005-04-29T04:44:45Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Sorry, I guess I forgot to add “IMHO.” Until you mentioned her, I had totally forgot about all of those many media clips of her grinning like an idiot and nodding on que, just off to Layton’s right side, has he proudly displays his _Asian looking wife_–IMHO of course. > > Do you think she’ll run again? And I_M_HO, using “IMHO” doesn’t make that comment seem any less racist. I’m moving this mess to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/45 "2005-04-29T10:54:28Z")
No, no, **Czar** , he’s exactly right. Ms. Chow’s running for office has nothing to do with her long political career or her extensive commitments to causes of social justice. It’s all because her husband wants to get chinky with it. I mean really. A _woman_ political candidate?! In the _NDP?!_ And a visible minority, no less? It _must_ be because of who she’s fucking. (Tomorrow’s news headline: MONTREAL SUFFERS :rolleyes: SHORTAGE) ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/46 "2005-04-29T12:46:34Z")
Sorry But Ms Chow lost many points with me with here wanting her cake and eating too attitude. If she wants to run, great, but she should have resigned her municiple seat. She instead went on hiatus to run and ofcourse helder her municiple post in reserve just in case. That is unfair to those who voted for her to do the job she ran for. As for who I’ll vote for… tough call. I can’t vote for the Bloc (not running outside of Quebec) and even if could I wouldn’t as they are a regional party and have no national interest whatsoever Conservatives have the same problem. Since the Alliance swallowed what was left of the old PC party they have basically been another regional party in the guise of a National party. The strongest voices seem to be the ones who want a socially consservative agenda and that isn’t Conservatism to me… Government is suppposed to stay out of the personal affairs of others and protect their personal freedoms. I’m not hearing that coming from this party. That and their leader is uninspiring and weak. Liberals have pissed me off so much that I couldn’t possibly vote for them. Martin is Mr Dithers, nothing he has tried has shaken that image. NDP: I can’t go for a party that would likely start undoing the balanced budget and debt reduction. We need a sound financial house or else social programs will not be possible to sustain. The NDP should have shifter closer to the centre to make themselves a viable alternative to the Liberals. Jack Layton seems a little too amaturish and small time to be Prime Minister. Green: Hmmmm pass if I find the NDP unapealing these guys aren’t going to be any better being further left. Time to break out some dice and hope for the best. Right now another Minority governemnt is what we need. True nothing gets done but I’d rather tie the sail down for another year or so and let these guys prove themselves rather than give any of these Yahoos a chance to screw things up when none of them deserve to run this nation. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/47 "2005-04-29T13:08:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And I_M_HO, using “IMHO” doesn’t make that comment seem any less racist. > > I’m moving this mess to Great Debates. My apologies if it was offensive, not my intentions. Firstly, the comment was a reference to _Family Guy_ so it should have been in CS. Secondly, Layton very clearly toted her around, as most politicians do with their wives. The distinction was that she tried to run in her own riding. > [@matt\_mcl](#): > > No, no, Czar, he’s exactly right. Ms. Chow’s running for office has nothing to do with her long political career or her extensive commitments to causes of social justice. It’s all because her husband wants to get chinky with it. > > I mean really. A woman political candidate?! In the NDP?! And a visible minority, no less? It must be because of who she’s fucking. This thread really was more suited for IMHO. That said, the whole Layton/Chow situation was a big joke. As **kingpengvin** pointed out, Chow was a city counciler who told a lot of her constituents that she wouldn’t abandon her post (glad we help her keep her promise). She also covered our neighbourhood in non-English signs (non-French too!). It really irked a lot of us, that she would put 5 languages on a campaign sign, and then leave out English or French. It was brutally obvious that she was brought along to get the minority vote. And she just looked so stupid standing there in the back of every press shot nodding her head like a puppet. If she wanted into federal politics she should have f\*cked somebody better than pornstar-Layton. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/48 "2005-04-29T15:51:50Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > Green: Hmmmm pass if I find the NDP unapealing these guys aren’t going to be any better being further left. I disagree that they are further left. Their economic platform leans heavily towards market solutions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/49 "2005-04-29T18:52:55Z")
For the benefit of us ignorant Yanks, could somebody explain the color-coding system in Canadian politics? Which party is “blue”? Which is “red”? Which is “tangerine”? (I assume “green” means Green.) (In the U.S., “blue” means Democrat and “red” means Republican, but that goes back only to the 2000 election, when CNN used those colors on its state-by-state map of electoral votes.) ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/50 "2005-04-29T18:56:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > For the benefit of us ignorant Yanks, could somebody explain the color-coding system in Canadian politics? Which party is “blue”? Which is “red”? Which is “tangerine”? (I assume “green” means Green.) > > (In the U.S., “blue” means Democrat and “red” means Republican, but that goes back only to the 2000 election, when CNN used those colors on its state-by-state map of electoral votes.) Conservative = blue Liberal = red NDP = orange Bloc = light blue Green = green (natch) The Reform/Alliance parties were generally colour coded green. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/51 "2005-04-29T19:31:03Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > Also, let’s not forget that Klein is the only premier in the country who’s threatened to use the nothwithstanding clause to make sure people like me stay second-class citizens. 😕 “Notwithstanding clause”? And what exactly do you mean by “second-class citizen”? Are you gay, or an Indian? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/52 "2005-04-29T19:39:51Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > If anyone out there has any voice within the Conservative Party, I’m begging you, pleeeeeeease get them back to being PROGRESSIVE! What does the word “progressive” mean in contemporary Canadian politics? (In American politics, it usually means anything to the left of the “neoliberal” Democratic Leadership Council.") ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/53 "2005-04-29T21:33:56Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > Conservative = blue > Liberal = red > NDP = orange > Bloc = light blue > Green = green (natch) > > The Reform/Alliance parties were generally colour coded green. Minor nitpick: Reform was a dark conservative green; the Alliance was red, white, and blue. The Greens tend to be a funky kind of apple green, although that green is also showing up on NDP websites lately, and the Greens’ website leans more towards a brownish olivey-green these days. Orange remains the iconic colour of the NDP. I so remember helping make the election signs when I was a kid… fluorescent orange and black. 🙂 Presumably tangerine is just a variant. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/54 "2005-04-29T21:57:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What does the word “progressive” mean in contemporary Canadian politics? (In American politics, it usually means anything to the left of the “neoliberal” Democratic Leadership Council.") We used to have a party called the Progressive Conservative party, that was economically conservative, but was some what socially progressive. As an oversimplification, they would be against taxes, but for gay marriage. That party disintigrated and was then taken over by the further-right Reform party, then they changed their name a couple of times to the point that I’m not sure what they are called now. The result, unfortunately, was what many have dubbed the RE-gressive Concervative party, and are redicuously similar to the currrent Bush administration, most specifically in their anti-gay, pro-life, pro-war, pro-church, anti-tax stance. My point in the statement you had quoted was that their social agenda was just too far right for most Canadians to stomach. This left Canada with a bit of a void when it came time to vote. Many of us want a more economically concervative government, but my personal belief is that Canadians have a live-and-let-live attitude regarding social policy. There is now no alternative to the current governing Liberal Party (slightly left of centre). The only party to the right of the spectrum is the above mentioned Conservative party, but as I said, they have moved too far right to get enough mainstream support. The other alternative is the NDP that is unfortunately way too far left in their economic approach to be considered viable. So for actual change to occur when to we go to the polls next month, either the Conservative party will have to swallow crow and accept that Canada is now a gay-utopia where everyone smokes pot and has abortions. Or the NDP will have to study first year economics, perferably from somewhere other than their ivory tower. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/55 "2005-04-29T22:04:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 “Notwithstanding clause”? And what exactly do you mean by “second-class citizen”? Are you gay, or an Indian? Because Quebec put up such a fight over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (basically because they didn’t want English signs), it passed with the “notwithstanding clause”. So, now, a province can pass a law saying, basically “Notwithstanding the charter, we pass this law that disregards your human rights under the charter” If they do, the law needs to be reapproved every 5 years. Klein has threatened to push through an anti gay marriage law (because the court has found that banning gay marriage violates the charter). **Hamish** is gay. Hence, second-class citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/56 "2005-04-30T02:52:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 “Notwithstanding clause”? And what exactly do you mean by “second-class citizen”? Are you gay, or an Indian? The notwithstanding clause was an outgrowth of Canada’s legal history of common law. The constitution and a person’s rights were continually evolving and growing, with the courts ruling on the legality of a law, not its constitutional basis. The provinces insisted it be included when the constitution was repatriated in 1982. Rights listed in section 2 and 7-15 can be made subject to section 33 for a period no more than 5 years, and the law must specifically lay out which portion the notwithstanding clause is applicable to. Legislatures are able to renew the term of the law by re-invoking the clause and re-introducing the legislation… It should be noted, that voting rights, parliamentary terms, mobility and language rights are not subject to the notwithstanding clause. In fact the best thing to happen to the Charter was Quebec’s use of the not withstanding clause to restrict English signs in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The resulting outrage and debate have ever since, in my opinion, tainted the clause making its use politically dangerous and counterproductive. > [@Section 33](#): > > 1. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. > (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. > (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. > (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). > (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4). Where rights 2 and 7-15 are > [@](#): > > 1. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: > a) freedom of conscience and religion; > b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; > c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and > d) freedom of association. > 2. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. > 3. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. > 4. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. > 5. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention > a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; > b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and > c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. > 6. Any person charged with an offence has the right > a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; > b) to be tried within a reasonable time; > c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; > d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; > e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; > f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; > g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; > h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and > i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. > 7. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. > 8. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. > 9. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter. > 10. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. > (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. . ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/57 "2005-04-30T04:19:23Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > We used to have a party called the Progressive Conservative party, that was economically conservative, but was some what socially progressive. As an oversimplification, they would be against taxes, but for gay marriage. That party disintigrated and was then taken over by the further-right Reform party, then they changed their name a couple of times to the point that I’m not sure what they are called now. > > The result, unfortunately, was what many have dubbed the RE-gressive Concervative party, and are redicuously similar to the currrent Bush administration, most specifically in their anti-gay, pro-life, pro-war, pro-church, anti-tax stance. Well, in all fairness, I think quite a few social progressives and moderates remain in the Conservative party. I understand **Hamish** ’s fear that a Conservative government would try to limit some of his rights, but I don’t think that they could or would actually do this. They want to please their social conservative base, but they don’t want to scare Canadians too much either. The Conservative leadership speaks from both sides of its mouth, but that’s just how politics work. Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable for people who do believe in gays’ rights to refuse to vote for a party that even talks about curtailing these rights, even if we all know they won’t actually do it. This will have the effect of letting Conservatives know for sure that in Canada, we believe that everyone should have the same human rights, and even saying otherwise for political expediency is unacceptable. To answer to OP, last year I voted NDP, even though I knew they didn’t have any chance to win in my riding. However, unlike **detop** , I don’t think this is because the NDP is seen mostly as an anglophone party; I think it’s because people here just don’t think about it. For the last few elections, federal politics in Québec have been described in terms of Liberals vs. Bloc. The NDP doesn’t fit anywhere in this, and its policies are not entirely different from the Bloc’s, and that’s why they don’t succeed. This year, the Conservatives are bringing some new ideas, but in this case **detop** is most certainly right, _they_ are seen as a Western redneck anti-francophone party and will have to work hard to get votes from other people than convinced fiscal conservatives and anglophones. In any case, I’m voting Bloc this year; it seems like their candidate will have a very real chance of beating the Liberals in my riding. Who would have thought. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/58 "2005-04-30T04:23:58Z")
Before someone asks (and they have), sexual orientation has been a prohibited ground of discrimination under s.15 of the charter since it was ruled in [Egan v. Canada](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_v._Canada) to be “analogous to the enumerated grounds” (which as you can see are an open-ended list). The same [has been done](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms) with marital status and status as an Aboriginal living off-reserve. The current [same-sex marriage rulings](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage_in_Canada) have had the effect of declaring that the heterosexual definition of marriage contravenes the Charter. Therefore, should the government of Alberta wish to contravene this, they would have to (as a minimum) invoke the notwithstanding clause. (Since the definition of marriage is an area of federal responsibility, they may not even be able to do this.) ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/59 "2005-04-30T06:36:11Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > The current [same-sex marriage rulings](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage_in_Canada) have had the effect of declaring that the heterosexual definition of marriage contravenes the Charter. Therefore, should the government of Alberta wish to contravene this, they would have to (as a minimum) invoke the notwithstanding clause. (Since the definition of marriage is an area of federal responsibility, they may not even be able to do this.) Indeed, Alberta cannot decide to forbid same-sex marriages, even using the notwithstanding clause. Only the federal government may use the clause to get out of its constitutional obligations in areas of federal responsibility. On the other hand, it appears that the _celebration_ of marriages is under provincial jurisdiction. That’s why there have been lawsuits to “legalize” same-sex marriages in many provinces and territories: those marriages are technically already legal everywhere in Canada (this is why I’m using quotes), but the provinces won’t accept to celebrate them unless they are forced by the courts. Anyway, that’s my understanding of the situation, correct me if I’m wrong. So I wonder if the government of Alberta couldn’t use the notwithstanding clause to make the _celebration_ of same-sex marriages illegal in Alberta? I think it would make them look very regressive, but could they technically do it? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891/60 "2005-04-30T11:30:01Z")
> [@severus](#): > > Well, in all fairness, I think quite a few social progressives and moderates remain in the Conservative party. I understand **Hamish** ’s fear that a Conservative government would try to limit some of his rights, but I don’t think that they could or would actually do this. . . . > . . . > Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable for people who do believe in gays’ rights to refuse to vote for a party that even talks about curtailing these rights, even if we all know they won’t actually do it. . . . > . . . severus, the Conservatives have already tried to limit gays’ right to marriage. In mid-February 2005, they tried to amend the Liberal’s marriage legislation (Bill S-38). The Conservative’s amendment was to prohibit gay marriage by way of defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Their amendment was voted on by the House of Commons, and it failed. Based on the legislation banning gay marriage that the Conservatives tried to pass two months ago, I fully expect that should they come to power in the next few months, they would again attemp to pass such hateful legislation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadopers-who-will-you-be-voting-for-in-the-election/300891.md?page=4)