Talk:Bev Desjarlais
LGBT rights opposition?
This is Bev Desjarlais's voting record on LGBT issues, as listed by EGALE Canada in 2004:
- 2003, Bill C-250 (Amended the Criminal Code to provide more severe penalties for hate speech and hate literature against gays and lesbians): voted in favour.
- 2003 Alliance motion opposing same-sex marriage: was absent
- 2000, Bill C-23 (to provide same-sex couples with equal status as opposite-sex couples in 68 federal laws): voted in favour
- 1999 Reform motion against same-sex marriage: voted in favour
In other words, Desjarlais has a pro-LGBT record on issues not concerning the definition of marriage. She does not belong in the "LGBT rights opposition" category, C-38 notwithstanding. CJCurrie 03:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the definition of "LGBT rights opposition" on the cat page before you delete stuff. "Some of the individuals and organizations listed below have taken assertive stances on limiting the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals or groups...The individuals and groups listed below...are not identical in their attitudes." Carolynparrishfan 21:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I've read it, and I don't think the label is appropriate for someone whose record is pro-LGBT apart from the marriage issue. CJCurrie 01:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As a follow-up comment: I think we should exercise caution in applying this label, and reserve it for those individuals who have shown a consistent opposition to civil rights and equality measures for LGBT persons. BD does not fit into this category, notwithstanding her opposition to C-38.
If we apply the label to everyone who opposes same-sex marriage, the category would have to encompass figures such as John Kerry and Bill Clinton -- a broad enough range to make its utility suspect.
Comments welcome. CJCurrie 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believe including BD depends on how strict this categorisation is intended to be. She's largely pro-LGBT, but not wholly. Given her track record in toto, I do not believe she should be included; however, her opposition to C-38, a law meant to actualise a primary aspiration of the LGBT communities in Canada (and she owes her vote on the bill to the views of her constituents) may necessitate her – and similar – inclusions. And though we can assume what her vote might've been in her absence (e.g., 2003 Alliance motion), her absence from the vote is precisely that: neither a positive nor negative judgement should be inferred from that. She's a politician, after all.
- Ditto for Clinton and Kerry: we should include notables who not only have a said virtue, but exhibit their virtue through actions. There are some public figures who are unabashed about enhancing LGBT civil rights (e.g., many of the other members of the NDP caucus), and all should be categorised through this lens. Thus, the utility of the category is ultimately determined by its 'members', any qualifiers, and those who are interested in the topic. (As a personal segue, I assist an LGBT foundation in Toronto.) E Pluribus Anthony 03:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- This kind of thing is precisely why I find the LGBT rights opposition category problematic in the first place. I'm no great fan of hers, but you're right, her voting record on LGBT issues is mixed rather than consistently negative -- and a category that lumps her in with the likes of Tom Wappel, Craig Chandler and Pat Robertson, without providing context, just doesn't seem quite right. But at the same time, Kerry and Clinton, for all their faults, really weren't sitting that far off the US Democratic Party's queer-ambivalent centre of gravity on the issue; Desjarlais picked SSM to be one of the only issues on which she ever bucked her own party, and that's one of the only things most Canadians even know about her in the first place. So, all things considered, I truly just don't know what the right answer is here...and I'm a gay man who votes NDP. So go figure. Bearcat 07:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Given this ambiguity, and after all is said and done, I believe it appropriate that she should be included in the category (with others): let visitors determine how much of a proponent or opponent they may be by visiting wikilinks to the appropriate articles. E Pluribus Anthony 08:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Nomination Issue: Same-Sex Marriage
The main issue in the nomination battle was same-sex marriage.
It has commonly been interpreted by those outside of the riding that same-sex marriage was a big issue here: it was not. Same-sex marriage was not a part of the nomination debate, nor was BD's stance in regards to the issue. Neither of the major contenders in the nomination bid even mention same-sex marriage on their respective websites, though strangely Niki Ashton's section on 'Fairness' is down, for the moment at least. The real, or perhaps official, issue, was Northern Development. Behind closed doors though, there were some party insiders saying Bev had to go, but the majority of voters here did not care. Even after she voted her conscience on the issue in 1999, she still was able to win the elections in 2000 and 2004, despite everyone knowing where she stood on the issue. Let us be realistic: Churchill Riding is a far-flung and sparsely populated region, with small urban communities spread out over a Northern landscape. There is not much of a LGBT community here to speak of, or to speak out for that matter. That does not mean that there are no gay people here, rather there are not that many. So you can see, a person could easily get away with not supporting same-sex marriage here, where as in an urban riding with a larger LGBT community, Bev may have been toasted by a more liberal candidate. Perhaps same-sex marriage was the most well-known aspect of who Bev was, but that does not mean it was the 'main issue' during the debate. No, same-sex marriage, as an issue, was avoided in much the same way that André Boisclair's cocaine use as a cabinet minister in the nineties was in the Quebec party leadership race. In both instances, these non-issues have been made into issues by people outside of the internal process. I challenge anyone to prove that same-sex marriage was the main issue. Otherwise, that piece of information should be deleted, and the main issue should be replaced by Northern Development.