The Rants of Issachar

This post has been simmering for a while now. It's still not terribly well phrased. My concern has been that in writing about issues that some people are very passionate about, I will be labelled as a bigot. But there's not much I can do about it if people label me unfairly, and as Marco pointed out, that's never stopped me before. So here it is...



What does the Rule of Law mean?

Well it means a lot of things, but I want to talk about one meaning in particular. I'm probably stretching the meaning of the phrase, so if anyone knows of a better way to phrase what I'm talking about, please suggest it.

I'm talking about the fact that if we don't like a law, we can use legal means to change it. Everyone is bound by that law until such time as it is changed. If we think it should be illegal to sell junk food in schools, we can pass a law against it. If we think it should be legal to sell alcohol to ten year olds, we can change the laws restricting alcohol sales to minors.

I believe that North America has largely given up on this part of the Rule of Law. People want something to be allowed, (or stopped), and they don't bother with the legal means of changing the applicable laws. I can see why they do it. They think that problem X is so important that it needs to be solved immediately. Following the Rule of Law would be too slow, and the problem needs to be fixed NOW! The problem is that in the long term this is extremely unhealthy for the legal system. Short term good (from some perspectives), and long term bad. Of course that may be a bit generous. There's also the possibility that they're selfish people who don't care about larger issues at all. They only care about getting their own way on issues they care about. You tell me what you think is more likely explanation...

A few examples:

• Marijuana Laws in Canada
• Roe vs. Wade in the United States.
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  

These are examples of "law" that has been established in defiance of the Rule of Law.

Marijuana laws: It is illegal to sell, smoke or posess marijuna in Canada. That is the written law. This law is only enforced sporadically these days. I'm not sure who this happened, somewhere along the line we forgot to actually have a debate about marijuana laws. For the record, I want pot to be illegal, and for there to be actual legal consequences for breaking the law. Medical usage of pot is a canard that has nothing to do with the issue. Contrast marijuana activists demands with the usage of morphine in the medical system. But it seems we're going to end up with de-facto legalized marijuana without actually bothering to change the law.

Roe vs. Wade: Calling the US Supreme's Court's decision in that case "shaky" is putting it mildly. The right to abortion almost certainly doesn't exist in the US constitution. Intellectual honesty demands that this rather obvious fact be recognized. This is not the same as saying that abortion should be illegal. I am disappointed that pro-choice activists don't have the courage to admit that Roe vs. Wade is bad law even as they argue that abortion should be legal. Benjamin Wittes wrote a very good article on this in the Atlantic Monthly, and I really suggest you read it. (Sorry, the link requires a subscription).

Sexual Orientation Discrimination: A few years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that sexual orientation was one of the forms of discrimination prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was in spite of the fact that the words "sexual orientation" do not appear in the Charter. It was also in spite of the fact that MP Svend Robinson attempted to get sexual orientation included in the list of prohibited forms of discrimination when the Charter was before the House of Commons and failed. (This might lead one to conclude that that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not prohibited by the Charter. Certainly Mr. Robinso thought so at the time.

The court acknowledged these facts and then announced that the words "sexual orientation" should be "read-in". Simply put, the Court altered the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in defiance of the legal methods for ammending the Charter. There is a method for ammending the charter, but it doesn't involve the Supreme Court deciding that things ought to have been included.

It would have been far better for our countries if abortion rights activists in the US and gay rights activists in Canada had had the courage to pursue legal means to advance their goals. (I'm not sure what to say about pot smokers...) When we simply pretend that the law says what we think it should say, rather than actually changing the law using the democratic system, the Rule of Law is diminished. And that's bad for us all in the end.

Update: August 12th 2005. Added a link to the Charter, and one to the relevent section. (Section 15 - Equality Rights) (See above)

Posted by:  zannebee

Admittedly, I don't know that much about law (especially not in Canadia!). But it is my understanding that in the US, the Supreme Court is in place to create balance between the branches of government. The government can create law, but then the Supreme Court must interpret that law when cases pertaining to that law are brought before them, and they must determine if the law is Constitutional or not. Without a body like the Supreme Court, there would be no balance. The government could create any law it wanted without regard for the Constitution if a check on the system did not exist.

I believe that the Constitution was purposely written somewhat fuzzily, the framers knowing that they could not possibly be specific about everything and the Supreme Court was intended to be free from political influence and therefore able to make crucial decisions about the law and how it is applied. But, as society changes, the interpretations change. And unfortunately, people and presidents do try to "pack the courts" as it were.

The debate is in how the constitution should be interpreted. I did some googling and found this link, which explains the debate and I found it interesting.

And scary.

Posted by:  zannebee

I want to add that I find it scary because I do feel that Bush is going to attempt to "pack the courts" and that it will effect us for decades to come, and I don't think that a lot of Americans really understand this. I believe in the system, but I don't believe that presidents should appoint justices that are not at least moderate. That's just irresponsible and frightening.

As far as creating law versus interpreting law is concerned, even when a law is written, it is still "tested" by the courts either way. When people want to change the law, they try many different ways of doing it. An example would be when women wanted the right to vote. Different groups of women tried different ways to do it. They attempted to get it before the courts, they tried to get laws passed and they tried to get the constitution amended before they finnally did managed to get the constitution amended. They poke at the problem from all sides as it were. I don't think that it's laziness or going around the law.

Hey, BTW thanks for posting this, it is really interesting subject and got me thinking. I always like that, even if I dissagree.

Posted by:  Major John

Zaneebee, the SCOTUS exists to resolve certain disputes, resolve splits in appellate opinion and to judge whether a law meets Constitutional muster or not. They do not exist to say, "we don't like the way things are, so we will invent something (in the emananations of the penumbras...)to take any decision making power about it away from the legislature and the executive branches.

Without the court the "government" could pass any law it wanted..."? Rubbish. We have a bicameral legislature AND an Executive with a veto. Its not like we'd all be wearing paper dunce hats and forced to eat asparagus for breakfast because one Congressional Representative wanted us - if not for the valor of 9 robed saviors.

The abortion example is especially illustrative of this. States were increasingly making some sort of abortion legal. 23 or so states had done so by the time Roe came down..."Not enough - we'll decide you rubes." The whole snarling and poisonous mess of abortion politics in the US would have been avoided if the SCOTUS said "sorry, not our call". we'd probably have a good 45 states where there would be some sort of compromise, a couple where it would go back and forth and a couple or so where it would be off the radar. And it would have been done by people voting, compromising, arguing it out. Now, the SCOTUS has simply said "you have no voice in this because we wanted to make it so." Would that they had similar zeal when McCain-Feingold banned various forms of speech during political campaigns...

BTW - Court "packing" is what FDR was trying to do by increasing the size of the Court so he could get around the majority. Bush trying to appoint someone to a vacancy is not "packing". Did you complain that Clinton was trying to "pack" the Court when he was putting Ruth Ginsburg on? No? I rather imagined not.

Posted by:  zannebee

Major John,

I am not an attorney and I never studied law. I was stating what my understanding of the law is. I'm not sure why you felt the need to get all snarky. If you read the link that I posted, this is what I thought the debate was about. I thought that when Issachar argued that Roe v Wade is bad law, he was basically saying that he doesn't like the fact that the Supreme Court is allowed to interpret the Constitution because it should be taken literally. I may have misunderstood him (I wasn't able to read the article he posted because I don't have a subscription).

One thing that I do know is that there are three branches to the government, the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch - that this is written into the Constitution and it was done so to create balance in the system and to prevent abuses of power. So, not sure what pissed you off so much about my statement about one of the branches being necessary for balance.

And when you spoke of states rights in your abortion laws example, isn't that a different argument? Isn't that more about Federalism? Or did I misunderstand you?

As far as "packing the courts" goes, I stated that I believe that Presidents should appoint Supreme Court Justices who are moderates. This means that I don't think that any President should appoint a justice who has a political agenda or who leans widely to the right OR the left because I feel that that's irresponsible. So, again, not sure why you felt the need to snottily suggest that I only feel this way when the President is a Republican.

One suggestion for you: If you think that I don't know what I'm talking about or I don't understand the debate, how about you try to educate me instead of getting all pissy? What that usually does is anger people and they stop listening to you. Boom, it's over, you lost the debate right there because you'd rather piss people off than educate them. You may think that you have won because you managed to piss someone off, but in the long run, it's not an effective tactic for debate.

Posted by:  issachar

whoah, whoah, whoah...


Zannebee,

The Atlantic article I linked to doesn't discuss this issue directly. It's an article by a pro-choice democrat saying why relying on Roe vs. Wade is a bad idea. It's related to abortion in the US only. So it's not essential for this discussion. It does point out that Roe vs. Wade has had the effect of creating a permanent highly motivated and organized anti-abortion lobby.

On the main issue... The US President cannot simply appoint whoever he wants.
While the President can nominate anyone he wants for the courts, they have to be approved by at least 50% of US senators. Frankly, if half the US Senate supports a nomination, the nomination is ipso facto not an extreme choice. US Senate nominations are not a "King Tut decree". They require broad-based support from many elected officials. This is quite different from the Canadian Supreme Court of course.

--Sidebar--
The Canadian Prime Minister can appoint anyone he wants to. Period. The Commons and our non-democratic Senate can say anything they want to, but the Prime Minister's appointment stands. I say "non-democratic Senate" because we get Senators the same way. The Prime Minister appoints whoever he wants. (We have fixed numbers of senators for each province though). It's a stupid system, but for some reason a large number of people in this country don't want to change it...
--/Sidebar--

Back to the US Supreme Court...

Yes the function of Supreme Courts is to establish whether or not a law is constitutional. The constitution is of course not divinely mandated, it's just a law. (The highest law in the land). When two laws conflict the more important law takes precedence. i.e. State law trumps city laws. In this discussions, the Constitution trumps regular state and federal law.

The problem is that "judicial activist lawmaking" (as some have termed it) doesn't follow this pattern. It's the establishment of law by claiming something exists in the Constitution that isn't clearly there.

Consider the Civil Rights movement. Legal appeals to the constitution were a good way to go about this because the US constitution actually said things like "All people are equal". State laws clearly violated these parts of the US Constitution.

BUT--- Imagine if the US constitution had read "All white people are equal, this document does not apply to non-whites as they have less rights than white people. Judically changing that would have been contrary to the Rule of Law and therefore fruitless assuming that the judiciary followed the Constitution. The approach to take in this scenario would be to say "the constitution is fundamentally unjust" and then to change the constitution.

In the case of Roe vs. Wade this might have meant trying to pass a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing a right to have an abortion, or more likely simply lobbying to change state laws to allow abortions.

In the case of descrimination against gays in Canada, this would have meant changing the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

It's the disregard for the rule of law that I so troubling.

So... What do you think Zannebee?

Posted by:  zannebee

Interesting and informative, thank you Issachar.

I do know that a President can't just appoint a justice. However, when the senate leans to the right and the president is on the right, we are definitely going to get a right leaning justice. How far he leans is the question. I can deal with a slightly conservative justice. I would prefer, of course, that he were smack dab in the middle, but yeah, that's not going to happen. My fears are that Roberts is way more right leaning than we realize. There is a lot of talk that he is a "stealth" nominee, that since we don't know a lot about him and there are not a lot of records on him, that he may be much more right wing than we know. And I don't trust Bush. But I was witholding judgement to be honest, until I found out more about him. However what I have heard about some of the comments and notes that he has written in the margins of his breifs disturbs me.

I suppose if I were Canadian, it would disturb me greatly that the Prime Minister can just appoint someone.

I will have to think about the rest of what you said before I respond again. I still have a feeling that the debate is about interpreting the Constitution, but let me think about it some more.

Once again Issachar, thanks for the lively discussion. As I said, I enjoy interesting subjects that make me think.

Posted by:  zannebee

Opps, typo. I misspelled "brief". Soz.

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee...

Sure I'll let you think about it some more, but I'll keep commenting in the meantime... :)

Your concerns about Judge Roberts would be greatly reduced if the Supreme Court worked strictly interpreteted the US Constitution. It's when they have a quasi-legislative role that you need to really, really care what their political opinions are.

I think it's quite clear that President Bush was right when he insisted that a "litmus test" was a bad way to select justices. You don't pick judges based on how they will vote on hot button issues, you select on the basis of their competence and skill in faithfully interpreting the law as it is written.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party seems to have fallen under the sway of certain "litmus tests". There's a line from the always angry Ann Coulter that I think applies here:
The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one.

Personally, I'm a bit put off by the furor surrounding Roberts' nomination. What exactly do the Democrats not like about him? It seems that they just don't like his politics. That's not a real objection to his nomination!

It seems a lot of people think that SCOTUS' job is to ask "is it a good law"? The job of the judiciary here is to ask "Is it a constitutional law?" or to put it another way "Is this law legal?". It's the job of citizens to ask if the law is "good".

Posted by:  zannebee

I understand what you are saying. But I will have to agree to disagree with you because I don't believe that the Constitution was written to be interpreted literally. In the link I posted, there is an example of how interpreting the Constitution literally can equally cause problems. I will quote the passage that I am referring to here:

"Justice Hugo L. Black, who served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971, adhered to a strict constructionist approach. He argued that only if a right was mentioned should it be observed. But this view led him to a very broad and liberal interpretation of freedom of speech; he insisted that even obscene works should be permitted. The First Amendment, he declared, means just what it says: The government shall make no law against freedom of speech."

I think that most conservatives would agree that they don't feel that some things should be permitted, such as child pornography. However, if we went with the strict interperetation of the Constitution, it would be. There are other examples in there as well.

As far as Roberts as a nominee is concerned, Democrats are worried because they feel that he has a right wing political agenda and that Justices of the Supreme Court should not have political agendas. It's as simple as that, really. If a Justice was appointed who conservatives felt had a left wing political agenda, Republicans would be outraged as well. I'm not saying that Democrats would't be smug about it, just as Republicans are being smug in this instance. I'm just explaining why Democrats are upset in this particular case.

As far as Anne Coulter goes, I don't respect her much. Someone who could say this with a straight face:

"The hilarious highlight came, though, in questions 6 and 7 during the Q&A period. In question 6, a woman introducing herself as a mother who weirdly sees Coulter as a "wonderful role model for my children," asked if a woman would ever become president. Coulter replied: "But they [Democrats] just want to randomly choose some nitwit like Barbara Boxer, for instance. Or Hillary. How about that for a role model? Hillary. Get ahead by who you're married to. That's a good role model for girls."

This was followed by Question 7, from a female college student asking advice on how to take back universities from liberals.

Coulter replied: "That's very simple - especially with a pretty girl like you asking the question. You must join College Republicans. I promise you a lot of men will join. And since you're in college, I gotta give you a tip. It's a great way to meet heterosexual men. And there are a lot of pretty girls in College Republicans, which is why my male friends like going to my college speeches with me."

Doesn't garner much resect from me.

Posted by:  issachar

Who said anything about respect? Ann Coulter's a loud, angry polemicist and she's occaisionally funny. :)

There is of course different ways to interpret a Constitution. You could go with Framer's intent, strict wording or with the idea of an evolving "living document"

Framers Intent runs into the very basic problem of knowing the minds of dead people. It's sort of like the "do what I mean, not what I said" attitude.

An Evolving Living Document politicizes the court. Having a very small group of people decide what current the "fresh" meaning of the term is will inevitably make the political opinions of justices very important because a different set of political opinions will result in very different law.

A strict wording approach results in the least political court because a judges political opinions has very little impact on the meaning of words. Furthermore, the court's rulings will be the most consistent and over time. You don't have rapid political shifts.

The trick is to leave most of the law non-Constitutional. Constitutions are supposed to be very very basic ground rules. A broad set of ground rules that virtually everyone agrees on makes a good constitution. A hotly contested issue does not make for good Constitutions.

Of course all rights intersect with other rights. One has the right to freedom of expression, but that doesn't mean that someone can express themselves by doing a performance art piece of masturbating on the sidewalk outside Starbucks. Like my rather extreme example, child pornography is an case of conflicting rights. That is another function of judges. To balance conflicting rights.

If you go with a method constitutional interpretation other than strict wording you will end up with a highly politicized Supreme Court. The question is whether the US really wants that.

I sure don't.

Posted by:  issachar

ack... excessive editing and insufficient previewing...

There are of course different ways to interpret a Constitution.

Posted by:  zannebee

It still seems like a matter of opinion really.

*shrug*

I'm not really sure I understand the difference between "framer's intent" and "strict wording".

Posted by:  zannebee

Funny, this is the first time that I can recall that I have run into this "rule of law" argument, and then just this morning, I heard Tom DeLay talking about it in a piece on NPR.

Posted by:  westcoastloon

Argh, I wish I had the knowledge to participate in this discussion. . . In the meantime, I'll read and learn.

Posted by:  Lisa

So what if Bush appoints a judge who leans a little to the right. At least he is held somewhat accountable for his appointees, unlike our Canadian oligarchy dominated by liberal judges. No matter if he is a conservative or democratic, he will be never completely unbiased. The only reason it is such a big deal is because the judge is NOT liberal, or as liberals think of themselves on the political spectrum:"centre" and "objective," not to mention, "balanced."

Don't let that quote from Ann Coulter fool you. It's not just looks with the Conservatives! (They have education and wit too!)What do the Democracts have to say for themselves? They are the ones who are strongly endoresd (in the millions) by the "Underwear industry" as Coulter labels it (Hollywood); the industry that is only and all about appearance and sex appeal.

Posted by:  zannebee

I think most liberals would more easily describe themselves a... uh... liberal. Or open-minded.

And don't let what you term "The Underwear Industry" fool you. Hollywood is strogly supported by Corporations (via marketing, etc) which also strongly supports... Republicans.

So it all evens out in the end.

Posted by:  zannebee

Ugh, typos. Meant to say "strongly" not "strogly".

Posted by:  Lisa

The Liberals' idea of "open-minded" is pretty unique. "Open minded" actually means for them: anti-Christian, pro-terrorist, anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-environment, anti-profit, pro-gay marriage, and anti-American.

Posted by:  zannebee

Hmmm. That's a kind of a.... errr... narrow view. [sarcasm]Just a little. A wee bit. [/sarcasm]

"anti-Christian, pro-terrorist, anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-environment, anti-profit, pro-gay marriage, and anti-American."

Lets take these one at a time (keep in mind that I am speaking about Americans because I am American and not Canadian):

Anti-Christian. Actually, a lot of liberals ARE Christian, so this is not true. Liberals, in general, want to promote religious tolerance. This is not the same as anti-Christian. It means that they believe that people should have the freedom to worship any religion they wish. However, liberals do become upset when fundamentalist or evangelical or other Christians attempt to shove their religion down others' throats because forcing ones' religion on another does not jive with religious tolerance. Liberals believe that religion is a personal choice everyone must make for themselves and that it should not be forced on an individual. Christianity is not the American national religion. Separation of church and state is something that our forefathers carefully wrote into our Constitution because a lot of people came to America to get away from religious intolerance and they did not want that to happen again, and many liberals wish to preserve this. Again, this is not the same as anti-Christian, and many liberals feel this stance is actually pro-American.

Pro-terrorist. Not sure where this comes from. Maybe you are speaking of the fact that many liberals are upset at the loss of civil liberties these past few years and that we may lose more civil liberties. Many liberals find it disturbing to see their civil liberties eroded. This is not the same as being pro-terrorist. So I'd have to say that liberals are actually "pro-civil liberties" and again, they feel that this is a pro-American stance.

Anti-war. Well, as far as the Iraq war is concerned, yes, many liberals are against the Iraq war. This is because they feel that President Bush lied to the American people about the purpose of the war. We were told that Iraq has ties to Al-Quaeda (it doesn't) and that Iraq had WMD (it didn't). Many people believe that Bush knew this and that he lied to the American people so that we could invade Iraq. They believe that Bush intended to invade Iraq all along (it is part of the neo-con agenda - to "democratize" the middle east) and that as part of the agenda, we will also be invading Iran. Meanwhile, they are watching their sons and daughters and thousands of Iraqis die as a result of this agenda and they feel that "democratizing" the middle east for oil is not worth the price of the deaths of these people. There are a lot of other objections too, but I will leave it there. Maybe you will remember that there was not nearly the amount of uproar during the Gulf War. This is because most people thought that Bush Sr was honest with the American people and that he was justified in his actions, whereas they feel that Bush Jr is not. Objection to what your government is doing is not anti-American. Many liberals think that it is actually a necessity and a duty when they feel that their government is heading the wrong way.

Pro-abortion. Liberals are not pro-abortion. They are pro-choice. The operative word here is "choice". This means that they believe that even if they feel that abortion is wrong or not right for them personally, that they cannot and should not make that choice for another woman. They believe that one should walk a mile in another person's shoes before judging their choices. They also believe that the government has no business telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body; that if the government is allowed to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her reproductive system, outlawing abortion is just the flip side of forcing women to have abortions. Liberals believe that freedom of choice is pro-American.

Anti-guns. Some liberals are anti-gun, others are just anti-assault weapon, some are for tightening gun laws to make sure that criminals can't purchase guns, still others own guns for protection and hunting purposes. I think as a whole, you can't generalize about what liberals believe as far as guns go, except to say that they believe, for the most part, that people have the right to bear arms, but that there should be reasonable limits on who purchases and owns guns and the types of guns that are made available. The reasons for these limits being that they feel that criminals should not be allowed to have guns, or the police and the general public are put in danger, and that assault weapons are not necessary for your average Joe going deer hunting.

Pro-environment. Liberals do believe that our children and grandchildren will inherit our planet. They want to preserve the planet as best they can because they want to leave their children and grandchildren with a better place, not a worse place. If you imagine the planet as being your home and you want to leave your home to your children when you die, you probably wouldn't want to leave them with a home that is on the verge of being condemned. This is the train of thought that most liberals have as to why it is important to safeguard the planet. It's thinking and caring about future generations and not thinking only in the present and only about oneself.

Anti-profit. I disagree. Most liberals are, however, pro-worker. This means that they tend to value the masses over one person... or in other words, they don't feel that one person deserves to get filthy rich on the back of maltreated, underpaid workers. That's not to say that all companies are like that, but liberals tend to get upset with companies that treat people like crap and pollute the planet without regard to human beings or the future. They believe that the future of our planet and people as a whole are more important than the profits of a few individuals. They aren't anti-profit, they just want to see people treated fairly.

Pro-gay marriage. I would say that liberals are more "anti-discrimination" than "pro-gay marriage". But because liberals are open minded, gay marriage doesn't bother them. They believe that people should not be discriminated against simply because they are of the same sex. They don't believe that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. They also don't believe that homosexuality is "catching". They believe that people should be free to be who they are and that homosexuals should not be discriminated against. Again, they feel this is a pro-American stance, to be against discrimination.

Anti-American. This is patently false. Because many liberals love their country, they fight for what they feel America stands for (some of which I have documented above). Many liberals today, however, feel that their President has betrayed them. A bumper sticker that I have seen around town encapsulates this thought - "I love my country but distrust my Government".

Hope this helps you understand better where liberals are coming from, rather than just dismissing them as "anti-Christian, pro-terrorist, anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-environment, anti-profit, pro-gay marriage, and anti-American."

Posted by:  zannebee

Anyway, back to the original discussion...

Looking at the Canadian Charter - Section 15, Equality Rights, it says:

"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."

I bolded the "and, in particular" because I think that is the crux of the matter. The first part is the most important:

"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..."

Then they mention some instances, "in particular", where some people might be discriminated against. But this does not exclude any other instances, such as sexual orientation.

I think that I now see the difference between framer's intent and exact wording. If we went by framer's intent, we would ask ourselves, did the framers intend to include everyone but just didn't think to include sexual orientation because of the time period (after all, nobody said "sexual orientation" then)?

If we were to go by exact wording, it's true that it does not include homosexuals, but then again it says EVERYONE.

If we try to interpret what it does say, we might read in sexual orientation because it does say "everyone" and it doesn't say "excluding sexual orientation" or something similar.

Posted by:  Lisa

Zan, unfortunately, I didn't have the time to go into specific examples for each (anti-american, pro-guns, pro-choice, etc.), so my comment came across as 'narrow.' That was a nice elaboration you provided; you made the liberals sound very "moderate." of what I meant.

1. Anti-Christian:
The mainstream media, mostly controlled by liberals,(Major newspapers and TV Networks) have repeatedly labeled Christians in the States, who are politically active and speak out for the traditional family and for unborn children, as "Right wing fundamentalists/evangelists." This label has such a negative connotation now,that they have created this sense that these "fundamentalist Christians" are a group that is dangerous and must be feared. The media has demonized Christians who stand up for what they believe.
That is exactly the point, as you said -not all Christians are "right wing extremists" (Republican), as liberals have branded them. But, when the liberal media does case studies comparing a Christian Coalition Rally to a Nazi Rally (by Andrew Sullivan) and Christians are labeled consistently as "homophobic" and "intolerant" - how can you not call liberals as a collective group anti-Christian?

The NY Times and networks have warned of the power of the Christian right. They got completely worked up that George Bush was going to speak at Bob Jones University, for example.

The way, John Ashcroft, a Christian conservative, is associated with the 'religious right' by the media, and portrayed as divisive and narrow minded. Anyone who holds Christian beliefs - is torn apart and labeled 'extreme' by the prevailing liberal attitudes of the day.

Here are a few quotes from Ann Coulter that are applicable: "...having created a mythical enemy and trained the public to reflexively hate it, the myth can later be deployed to discredit anyone by saying he is a member of the religious right."

"Liberals hate religion [Christianity in particular]because politics Is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition."

I will respond later to those other areas as I have run out of time. (I realize this is a discussion about the Rule of Law, but I have to respond to Zan's reply - I hope that is ok!)

Posted by:  zannebee

Hey Coul,

Sorry, but I have to disagree about the mainstream media being controlled by liberals. It's simply untrue.

To quote Eric Alterman, "Most journalists "bend over backwards to give conservatives more than a fair shake on most issues. They feel pinned in, to a considerable degree, by the perception of bias."" I have to agree with him. Plus, conservatives have Fox News, which is run by conservative Rupert Murdoch, "managing director of News Corporation, one of the world's largest and most influential media corporations".

In fact, Patrick Buchanan has been quoted during one of his presidential campaigns as saying "I've gotten balanced coverage... and broad coverage - all we could have asked. For heaven's sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that.".

William Kristol has admitted "The liberal media was never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

To be honest, I'd never heard of Andrew Sullivan, so I looked him up. According to Wikipedia, he's actually considered a libertarian/conservative and he's primarily a weblog journalist, not a mainstream media journalist. In any case, from what I've read about him doesn't seem like I'd go to him for news.

Also, I wouldn't say that all Republicans are right wing extremists. I know many moderate Republicans.

Anyway, the Christians that you are referring to, the ones who belong to the Christian Coalition and groups like Focus on the Family do have extreme right wing views. Which is fine. They can believe whatever they want to believe, it's their prerogative. However, what people get upset about is that it's not just that they have these views, it's that they want everyone else to conform to their views. That is why they are considered by liberals to be, as you say, "divisive", "narrow minded" and "extreme". Because they appear to have a voracious desire to force others to conform to their beliefs, they push away people who do not believe what they believe, even people who do hold the same views, but don't feel the need to force them on others. This is also why people feel that "fundamentalist Christians" are dangerous and they fear them.

Not all Christians are like that. But the ones who are really create a bad image for the more moderate Christians. I'd be inclined to say that the extreme right wing Christians are more to blame for the bad image people have of Christians than any "liberal media".

Liberals are not anti-religion. I know liberals who are religious. I go to a liberal church. Heck, I even have a friend who is a Mormon. We get along because he doesn't push his religion on me. We talked about it when we first met and he told me that he believes that if he lives a good life and is happy, etc. people will come to him and ask him about his religion, that he doesn't need to force it on them. And man, my respect for him when waaaay up.

As for Ann Coulter, as I told Issachar, I have absolutely no respect for her.

Posted by:  zannebee

Oh, I guess I should say that there are some liberals who are anti-Christian or anti-religion, even some who I have heard referred to as "fundamental-atheists". And while I think it's fine that they have these views, as with extreme right wing views, I don't agree with extreme left wing views. When I talk about liberals, I am speaking of more moderate liberals, which, to be honest, most liberals are.

Posted by:  zannebee

Aargh, typos again! Please excuse them. I meant to say "fundamentalist-atheists". There's some other ones too in the other post but I'm just goping to leave them.

Posted by:  zannebee

GOING!!!!!

Posted by:  issachar

Dang it! Is Tom Delay lifting material from my blog again? :P

As for the rest of it...

Coul, I think your first post generalizes rather excessively and that tends to discredit your position.

Zannebee,
A short sidenote...

I am getting really really tired of this "Bush lied" crap I keep hearing. It is now very clear that Iraq did not in fact have WMD's at the time of the last invasion. Nor did they have an efficient weapons programme. It is also clear that most western intelligence agencies, (including the French), believed that Iraq had or was quickly developing WMD's. This leads one to conclude that Bush was mistaken about WMD's and Iraq. You might well argue that he was willfully mistaken, but to say that he lied betrays an ignorance of the facts. It's the hyperbole of the anti-Bush left that turns many of us off.


But as you said, back to the original discussion...

Certainly the specifically listed prohibited forms of discrimination are not the only ones. The problem is with "reading in" sexual orientation as one of the specifically prohibited grounds. I doubt that you'd get very far if you decided that you were going to fire any employee that you found out owned a jetski, (some people find them quite annoying), but that doesn't make Jetski ownership one of the specifically prohibited grounds. It seems to me that the reason some grounds were mentioned specifically was to make them stand out as particularly strongly forbidden forms of discrimination.

It's not the content of the change that I object to so strongly, it's the detrimental effect on the rule of law (and the role of the Supreme Court) that the manner of change implies. A politicized Supreme Court is a really bad idea, but I think that many people don't care about it as long as their politics are the favoured politics.

Posted by:  issachar

Ah, apparently an intermittent internet connection doesn't help the flow of discussion. I wrote my last response at lunchtime.

Zannebee,
If I were you, I'd be a little more concerned about the anti-Christian liberals. I think they're sidelining the Democratic party with their anti-Christian rhetoric. Large numbers of Christians are in fact quite left leaning on many issues. Treatment of the poor is the most obvious one I can think of. The anti-Christian veins in the liberal movement simply drive these people to vote Republican instead. One example of this is abortion. Many of these Christians are overwhelmingly liberal on most issues, but can't condone what they firmly believe to be the murder of children. (Abortion). Making the NARAL position on abortion the non-negotiable Democrat position is not a good idea if you want to reach out to liberal Christians.

My experience with this is mostly limited to Canada, where we're having our own "scary Christians are invading the political process" FUD. I really do NOT think it's good for Christianity to be affliated with one political party, but how are we going to end up voting if one party tells us to get lost?

Incidentally, don't you find it funny that your statement "they want everyone else to conform to their views" is a charge frequently levelled at liberals by "fundamentalist Christians"? I do.


Oh, and I know we're way off topic, so I'm going to try to bring it back briefly...

Zannebee... In all seriousness. Which is more important to you, a non-political Supreme Court or policies such as abortion rights, affirmative action or the like being confirmed as law by the court? (As opposed to the legislative branch.)

Posted by:  issachar

oh, and westcoastloon... please participate if you'd like to. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Posted by:  Lisa

Issachar, yes, I admit that first comment was a 'tad' general. Zan, there are quite a few comments you made that I would like to reply to. But I have only so much time! Ugh. So I will address your first comment that the media is not liberal. Here are some facts to consider:

89% of journalists voted for Clinton according to a 1998 poll whereas 43% of NON journalists voted for Clinton.

7% of journalists voted for Bush and 37% of voters did. In the media elite world Democratics out number Republicans 12 to 1.

Liberals, of course, deny there is any bias. I would highly recommend you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg and his follow up book: "Arrogance." Goldberg worked for CBS with Dan Rather as a correspondent for over 20 odd years. He brought up the issue of liberal bias in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. It took guts to do what he did; the overwhelming negative response he got is in itself an indication of the liberal bias. But, just read the book! Fox News is more balanced, not even necessarily "conservative".

Democractics love to talk about "affirmative action"; well, they should really practice what they preach and have an affirmative action plan for conservative journalists.

An example of liberal bias in the mainstream news is how when a guest is introduced the host will make sure listeners know that he or she is a conservative by saying, for example, "Here is right-wing/conservative Bob.." The liberals aren't identified as liberals. They are identified merely by their names - implying that they are the objective experts. Goldberg cites detailed examples revealing this on mainstream networks such as CBS NBC and ABC.

It is not enough to merely say that "that is untrue", regarding liberali bias; furthermore, it is not a matter of opinion. Look at the stats.

Here is a quote by Goldberg that makes a good point:
"Look at it this way: Imagine that almost all of the people who bring you the news on CBS, NBC and ABC voted for Richard Nixon .... Imagine that they favored Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale. Now imagine that the media elites are mostly against affirmative action and mostly for the death penalty. Pretend that most network journalists are for prayer in the public schools and against a woman's right to have an abortion. Now make believe that they broadcast the news each night not from Manhattan, the most liberal enclave in America...but from Omaha, Nebraska. Imagine too, that their neighbors are highly paid, sophisticated New Yorkers who, like the media elites, send their children to expensive private schools in Manhattan with the overwhelmingly white sons and daughters of other wealthy, sophisticated New Yorkers -even as they bemoan how segregated by race and class America remains. Imagine instead that they send their kids to Omaha public schools, where their children sit next to mostly middle- class boys and girls whose parents aren't big shots in the world of high finance and law and journalistm, but mostly work in less glamorous jobs at Mutual or Omaha or at the county courthouse..... Do we really think that if the media elites worked out of Nebrasks instead of NY and if they were overwhelmingly social conservatives instead of liberals, and if they overwhelmingly voted for Nixon and Reagan instead of McGovern and Mondale...do we really think that would make no difference? Does anyone really believe that the evening newscasts would fundamentally be the same?...

Maybe these make-belive conservative journalists would be more open-minded if there were some diversity....So just to make sure that we don't become too parochial out there on the plains, we would make sure that we had racial, ethical and gender diversity at our network broadcasts in Omaha. We could make sure that our news organizations were populated not just with white male conservatives but also with black male conservatives and Hispanic and Asian male conservatives and black and Hispanic and Aisan women conservatives too. Do we think that because we have this wonderful diversity, this manificent rainbow coalition, that we would get a less narrow, less biased, and more honest newscast?"

(Bias by Bernard Goldberg, p. 121, 2001, Medium Cool Inc)

There is so much more I could type here about how the media is liberal, but I would be here all day.

Exactly, Christians want others to conform to their views - that is a given! What does the liberal media do every single day in Hollywood - they force their liberal views down our throats: they glamorize single parenthood, make light of casual sex, and push again and again that there is nothing wrong with being gay. For crying out loud - what do you call this!? Is this not, what you are saying, Zan, pushing people to conform!? It is the liberals who hold the majority - and who are the ones that are pushing everyone to accept their amoral views. Christians are a minority - and what are people afraid of - that Christians are suddenly going to push society to be excessively MORAL?

It is the so-called "extreme right wing" Christians who are a part of the Christian Coaltion and Focus on the family (and of whom people are afraid, as you said, Zan) who are actually politically active, and doing something. That is GOOD, and IMO we need a stronger presence like that in Canada.

Posted by:  zannebee

Ha ha ha. Bernard Goldberg is slighty biased. You may as well recommend I read a book by Ann Coulter.

I don't have time to reply to any thing right now. My computer crashed and died this morning and it's been a long day. I'll try to get back to this tomorrow.

Posted by:  zannebee

Coul, If you fail to understand the difference between being exposed to other people's life styles and forcing your lifestyle on another person's, I don't know if anything that I say will make sense to you. But I will try.

As far as Hollywood goes, the bottom line in Hollywood is money. Hollywood corporations produce what people want to watch. Other corporations, even conservative corporations, put money into productions which they believe will be profitable via marketing. Believe it or not, this is not a vast liberal conspiracy. This is business. And the bottom line in business is money.

You may dislike the way that other people live their lives. You may dislike the fact that Hollywood produces what you consider morally reprehensible television shows and movies. That's fine. You are welcome to your beliefs. You are not forced to watch these shows, you can always change the channel, turn the TV off, refuse to see movies that don't suit your tastes. There are plenty of Christian stations and productions out there that cater to your needs.

But what people fear in the right wing Christians is the political activism. What these people appear to be suggesting is that other people should not be allowed to produce the types of television shows, movies and radio shows that they don't like because they don't follow Christian tenets.

The flip side of that would be if non-Christians were suggesting that Christians should be prohibited from producing media which featured Christian tenets. This is not happening.

Now: think how angry you would be if you were not allowed to be who you are, a Christian. Think how it would be if it were illegal for you to be a Christian, how upsetting that would be. Or if you were prohibited from marrying, because you are a Christian, or if people constantly made statements like "the media push again and again that there is nothing wrong with being Christian, For crying out loud!"

This, of course, is not happening. But you are suggesting that other people should not be allowed to be who they are because you don't like who they are, such as homosexuals and people who don't share your belief system. Your morals are not necessarily everyone else's morals, so pushing other people to be what you call "excessively moral" via the law is really just forcing your beliefs on people who don't share the same belief system. This is why people get angry, they believe that extreme right wing Christians want to prohibit them from being who they are and believing what they believe, via the law. If you put yourself in their shoes, you might understand.

I already addressed the "liberal media" issue, so I am not going to re-address it here. Oh and just because Fox News says they are "Fair and Balanced" doesn't make it so. I can proclaim that I am the Queen of England, but guess what? I'm not. I know. It is a shock. :oD

Issachar, I'll get back to you later.

Posted by:  zannebee

OH Coul, I forgot to mention that at least in the United States, Christians are hardly a minority. Percentage-wise, there are actually about as many Christians living in the US as there are Jews living in Israel! Think about that. Homosexuals, however, are a minority, composed of either 1-4% or 10% of the population, depending on who you talk to.

Posted by:  Lisa

Zannabee,

You completely missed the point. And I never said that liberals have a "conspiracy" - the point is liberals control the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS), and their political viewpoints, whether or not they are aware of it, are ingrained in them and a part of their world view. Perhaps I do not agree with the crap they promote, but that is not the issue here. Yes, it is all about making money and getting high ratings. My point was the mainstream media is controlled mostly by liberals. If it was controlled by conservatives, (not necessarily Conservatives who are Christians) there likely wouldn't be so many shows with the those themes I had mentioned earlier. The networks aim to get ratings of course - the crazy thing is that while they promote racial desegration in their liberal political views, their programming is aimed at whites, and as such most of their programs do not have black people.

Anyways, the point is the political views of the networks strongly shape how they frame an issue in an interview, for example, and how they write a sitcom. If you want true freedom of expression with true diversity, which you have said that you HAVE, you are definitely not getting it from these networks. The majority of the time you are getting a liberal political point of view; and obviously the entire USA does not think this way, as shown in the recent election, and as shown in the rapid increase in viewers of FOX. Basically, NBC, ABC, etc are reflective of the liberal elite, and not of the average middle class American. (Even though the program may get high ratings.)

The late night talk shows, and sitcoms reflect the networks news programs and their liberal political stances. Anyhow, of course, one can choose whether or not to watch something - but the mainstream media - which is supposed to be about giving balance and objectivity is certainly not, and because the majority of Americans get their news from these networks (Not from Rush or Fox), these networks should, like I said, have an affirmative action program for conservatives.

You said that you had already addressed the point about a liberal media. How so? By saying that is "untrue"? By giving me some people's opinions?

Hahaha. Now it is my turn to laugh. What is your point? So there are as many Jews in Israel as there are Christians in the USA. Thanks for that tidbit. That proves absolutely nothing. The population of Israel is about 6 million. The population of the USA is 300 million. Looking at the RATIO of Christians to non Christians in the States, they are a minority. Jews make up about about 80.1% of Israel's population.
So, as inaccurate as that point was, it still didn't help your argument.

Posted by:  issachar

Coul...

Looking at the RATIO of Christians to non Christians in the States, they are a minority.

uh, no. Unless I'm reading that link incorrectly, it says that Christians made up 76.5% of the US population in 2000. That's a ratio of just over 3 Christians to every non-Christian.

That stat obviously depends on the definition of "Christian", but it certainly does lead to the conclusion that Christians are a mionrity.

Posted by:  issachar

gah... spelling...

oh well, lunch is over.

Posted by:  zannebee

Coul,

It's not numbers, it's a percentage. There are approximately the same PERCENTAGE of Christians in the US as there are Jews in Israel. Which means that Christians are the MAJORITY in the US.

I'm not going to re-address the "liberal media" issue because you obviously are very ingrained in your belief system and I am not going to get anywhere talking to you about it.

I don't really enjoy banging my head against a wall once I realize that that's what I am doing.

Posted by:  zannebee

Issachar said "Incidentally, don't you find it funny that your statement "they want everyone else to conform to their views" is a charge frequently levelled at liberals by "fundamentalist Christians"? I do.

Funny in a smack-yourself-in-the-forehead-with-an-open-palm kind of way, yes.

Back to the other subjects...

I concede that you have a point if they are saying that "sexual orientation" should be "read in" as one of the specifically prohibited grounds. However, it seems to me that "sexual orientation" should fall under "everyone", even if not specifically mentioned.

No, I don't like a politicized supreme court. But I have a sinking feeling that people adopt "strict wording" in order to be able to discriminate. In the example above, you argue that homosexuals should not be treated equally under the law because they are not included in the specifically prohibited grounds. Strict wording makes it easier to discriminate against minorities because unless the charter is amended to include them, they are not included. It's basically splitting hairs in order to get what you want. And If the charter is anything like the constitution, it is no small feat to amend it. It's a heck of a lot easier to discriminate against a group of people if that group of people is not specifically mentioned and the majority group makes it extremely difficult to make the change to the charter or constitution to specifically mention the minority group.

Lets say that a lot of people suddenly decided that people with red hair are bad. They start rallying against people with red hair. Would you include people with red hair as one of the "everyone" who should be treated equally under the law, or would you say, no, they should not be included, because they are not specifically mentioned?

I do see your point about "reading in" a specifically mentioned ground and I concede to that.

As far as the Democratic party is concerned, they have been largely pro-choice for a long time. However, "in the platform adopted in 2000, the Democrats stated a respectful inclusiveness of Democrats who feel differently about the issue". The Democratic party did not align itself with Naral, Naral has aligned itself with the Democratic party because it is pro-choice. Personally, I think the Republicans have done a pretty darn good job of polarizing the country by using divisive issues to galvanize the troops, so to speak. What I really wish people would do is vote based on a variety of issues that they are well informed about rather than just voting based on one issue, like abortion. I think that many of the people who voted Republican based on one issue, like abortion, don't understand that they are actually voting against their interests in many cases. This is frustrating.

Anyway, I'm done for now. I have spent way too much time on this blog as the lone liberal, and it's becoming excessive and a bit pointless. So I am just going to leave the conversation here. I'll probably come back again at some point, but right now, I'm tired.

Posted by:  zannebee

I was "willfully mistaken" (tee hee), I am going to re-address the "liberal media" issue. I wasn't going to, but it's bothering me.

There are two separate issues here. One is the news. That's what people usually mean when they complain about the "liberal media".

The other is the media in general, TV shows, movies, radio programs and books.

What put me off initially was your use of conservative "buzz words" like the "liberal elite". It seems like conservatives have this idea that liberals are rich, educated weirdos who drink lattes all day long and talk condescendingly over the heads of everyday people. While I am sure that there are some liberals like this, I personally don't know any. All of the liberals that I know are everyday working folks who have families they care about. I myself am not rich in any way, shape or form. I am a single mother and I work a job like everyone else. While I am educated, I paid for my education with student loans and a few small scholarships and some grants, I don't have a trust fund or anything like that. I do not make a lot of money and I didn't go to a prestigious college. I went to Arizona State University.

Most of the people I know vote Democrat because the democratic party platform is pro-labor and supports social programs for the poor, civil liberties and equality for all people.

And here I will say that you completely missed my point. The mainstream media is not controlled by liberals, it is controlled by corporations - and yes, even conservative corporations. Case in point, as I linked to above, the Fox broadcasting Company is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a staunch conservative. While he owns Fox News, a voice for conservative news, he also owns the Fox network, which runs TV Shows which you probably disapprove of: The Simpsons, The Family Guy, That 70's show, various reality shows such as Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?, Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire, and Married by America.

Corporations don't care what kinds of programs they run AS LONG AS THEY MAKE MONEY. And these shows make money because people watch them. I've heard it referred to as the "corporate loophole" and it's created by greed. And the Republican party is PRO-CORPORATE. So if you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the corporations that support the kinds of programming that you don't like. You can't tell me on one hand that Fox News is popular because people want news with a conservative bent and then tell me on the other hand, they don't want to watch these "liberal" programs... but somehow they are popular anyway. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by:  issachar

Gah...

I'm going to have to preface everything I post with warnings about the poor writing. Obviously I meant that the link did not lead to the conclusion that Christians are a minority. (Despite what I actually wrote).

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee...

Thanks for discussion. (I'd love it if you came back though).

You said that I argued that "homosexuals should not be treated equally under the law because they are not included in the specifically prohibited grounds".

Did I? If so, where did I do that? It was not my intention to say that.


If strict wording makes it easier to discriminate against minorities, then that's because your constitution explicitely permits discrimination against minorities. The solution is to change your constitution. However, a strict wording interpretation does not lead to legal discrimination unless it's actually in the consitution. Consider the civil rights movement. A strict wording of the constitution makes unequal rights for blacks illegal. Only a politicized interpretation leads elsewhere.

You're certainly right that it's difficult to ammend a constitution. It should be difficult or everything becomes constitutional. The whole point of a constitution is to define broadly accepted "rules of the game". If it's difficult to ammend the constitution, only broadly accepted rules will make the cut. Controversial ones won't and they'll be left in the legislative arena where they belong.

As for the Democrats & abortion issue. I'm not suggesting there are no Pro-life Democrats. I only mean that Pro-Choice organizations (like NARAL) are doing a very good job of tying the Democratic party to their position. "Respectful inclusiveness" of those who feel differently isn't going to get a lot of "left" Christians on board on it's own. They want the possibility of changing Democrat pro-Choice stance. The other problem is that the situation "on the ground" may be quite different from the party platform. I'm not sure.

Voting against their interests may not be entirely accurate. They may simply weight different parts of their "interests" differently than you would in their shoes. Or maybe they're knowingly voting against their interests because of a principal.

Still, it's your party and your country. You can do what you like. :)

Posted by:  issachar

oh, and if anyone's still interested in the "rule of law" question...

TPMCafe's got a short discussion on "judicial activism" in the US. Same sort of issue.

Posted by:  Lisa

That stat re: perentage of Christians in the USA would have you believe that the majority of Americans are Christians. Unfortunately, the name "Christian" is used rather loosely, and hence, this stat is not an accurate reflection. Think about it - if Christians (not just in name) were in fact such a majority in the USA, don't you think you actually would see real changes in laws (ie. abortion) that would reflect this?

As far as Conservative corporations, you've made a point there Zannebee; crappy sitoms aren't confined to liberals.

Both conservatives and even LIBERALS (though hardly any liberal journalists) realize and attest to the fact that mainstream lib media networks (except Fox) and journals like the NY Times grossly twist the truth.... you would be appalled.

I agree, this discussion is a bit like banging one's head against a wall.

BUT, one last thing - the Goldberg books I mentioned about liberal media bias in mainstream news on ABC, CBS, NBC,NY times, MSNBC, etc reveal that this is a hard and cold fact - and if you are not aware of it or think there is no bias, read a book or 2 about it, at least. This would also explain the increasing rise of Fox news viewers, because many people are tired of it. It's not enough to say "Goldberg is totally biased" when libs are ALSO admitting this bias in the MAINSTREAM news. (Fox isn't really considered mainstream with only 1. some million viewers)

I'll leave you to your other discussion.

Posted by:  zannebee

Coul, you suggest that I read Bernard Goldberg. Well, I am going to reciprocate and suggest that you read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?", watch "Outfoxed" and peruse www.mediamatters.org.

Also, Issachar, "What's TheMatter With Kansas" by Thomas Frank explains what I mean by people "voting against their own interests" and how the Republican party has used hot button issues like abortion to divide us.

Issachar said: "You said that I argued that "homosexuals should not be treated equally under the law because they are not included in the specifically prohibited grounds".

Did I? If so, where did I do that? It was not my intention to say that."

Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. I was under the impression that you were against legalizing gay marriage because "sexual orientation" is not one of the specifically prohibited grounds. You did not say whetheror not you agreed that homosexuals should be considered equal under the law because they fall under "everyone".

Issachar said: "If strict wording makes it easier to discriminate against minorities, then that's because your constitution explicitely permits discrimination against minorities. The solution is to change your constitution. However, a strict wording interpretation does not lead to legal discrimination unless it's actually in the consitution. Consider the civil rights movement. A strict wording of the constitution makes unequal rights for blacks illegal. Only a politicized interpretation leads elsewhere."

I may have misunderstood you on this also. Because I was under the impression that you were against legalizing gay marriage because "sexual orientation" is not one of the specifically prohibited grounds, and you did not say whetheror not you agreed that homosexuals should be considered equal under the law because they fall under "everyone", I thought that you were using it as a tool to exclude homosexuals from being considered equal under the law.

I think this is probably a subject I will have to learn more about. Thanks for bringing it up.

Posted by:  issachar

I'd heard of "What's the Matter with Kansans" before, though I have not read it.

As I've never been to Kansas or read Mr. Frank's book, I may be mistaken, but I suspect that a lot of people simply don't realize how important "hot button issues" are to many people. Thanks for the reference though.


As for the misunderstanding, don't worry about it. It's not even close to the first time.

For what it's worth, the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Canada is legitimate because it was done by an act of parliament. Bill C-38 was passed by elected representatives and was a legitimate ammendment of the definition of civil marriage in Canada. (I am not going to discuss the merits of gay marriage in general because that blurs the issue at hand).

I do not think that it should be open season for gay discrimination because they're not one of the explicitely mentioned groups. Like jet-ski owners they fall under the category of "everyone". The specific mention of certain groups is deliberate and it provides an extra measure of "thou shalt not" to discriminatory laws against those groups".

Why have a extra measure of protection? I'm not a constitutional expert, but I suspect that it's because of the issue of reasonable discrimination. We have legal and legitimate discrimination in Canada, and I would argue that in the case of those specifically mentioned groups, the justification for legal discrimination must be much more obvious than for non-mentioned groups.

We legally discriminate on the basis of age: Voting rights, right to buy alcohol etc.

We legally discriminate on the basis of sex: Bathrooms, Women's only gyms. Remember that the "seperate but equal" argument didn't fly when used to justify segregation in the US because "seperate but equal" is unequal.

We legally discriminate on the basis of physical appearance. Businesses are allowed to specify a dress code for customers and employees.

All of discrimination is legal and to justify this we added the caveat that the rights laid out in the charter were subject to reasonable and justifiable limits. (Note the very relative terms).

Posted by:  Lisa

Zann, you recommended some books that support the liberal point of view that the mainstream news is balanced. First, these books are coming from liberals, so of course they are going to argue that they are not biased; a very high majority of journalists and reporters vote democrat. (I had given you a few stats.) SECOND, and very importantly, mainstream publishers are, guess what? Biased against conservatives; in other words, Conservative books are rarely published by these companies. The funniest part is that, the evidence shows that Conservative authors have heaps more success than liberal authors: Most conservative authors are on the NY times best seller list, if not number one. You would think that mainstream publishing companies would be motivated to make more profit, and publish these Conservative books!

As Coulter has written about in her book "Slander" - huge amounts of money is given to promote liberal authors. Even more hilarious, is the fact that liberal authors get so much promotion by the mainstream media and a whole lot of monetary aid, and they STILL don't make the best seller lists! (ie. Whoopi Goldberg's book: Proud to Be) Meanwhile, bookstores, the media and publishers, work hard to prevent Conservative authors from getting published or sold.

As shown by the best seller lists more conservatives read than liberals. This makes sense though. Why do liberals need to read anyway, especially when they can go to mainstream media, or better YET, Hollywood's college drop out Michael Moore (who even lies about where he grew up!) to find the truth?

Posted by:  issachar

Why is this so important to you two?

People have biases. Media groups are composed of people. Not surprisingly media groups have biases. Some are more aware of their biases than others.

Fortunately, there are plenty of media sources and the barriers of entry to the field are low.

Posted by:  zannebee

Thanks for the info Issachar, good post.

As far as bias in the media goes, it bothers me when people are misinformed and I think that Coul is misinformed by reading these right wing books. It bothers me that he gets all his info from Ann Coulter and Bernard Golberg, repeats what they say as truth and suggests that I should read them. They are GREATLY biased. So I thought that if he was going to suggest that I read some books promoting the right wing view, I'd reciprocate and suggest some left leaning books & videos etc. I was kind of joking really, although I do think that "What Liberal Media?" and "What's the Matter With Kansas?" are good reads even if you don't agree with them.

Also, again, there are two different medias. One, the news, two, other media outlets. I think it's very important not to have bias in the news because this is where most Americans get their information about what is going on in the country and in other parts of the world. Personally, I don't watch the mainstream news much anymore because I think it is biased to the right (and I am basing this on my own experience). I quit watching the mainstream news about... maybe 5 years ago? I knew that there was something weird going on with it, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. However, I felt that we weren't getting objective news. I think that I have since figured out what has been going on. It appears to me that Fox News, which is very biased, unfortunately had a big impact on the rest of the news channels. Personally, I think this is because they use fear and sensational stories to attract viewers. (As an aside and an example, my boyfriend, who is an audio engineer, used to work for a company that made commercials for Fox News. He used to joke about the teasers that they would use for their stories like "Everyone knows that the sun is bad for you, but what you don't know about the shade CAN KILL YOU!" and that is a direct quote.) I think that it's frightening how much our news is filtered and controlled by the mainstream media, which I believe is bent to the right. That is why I think this subject is important. We need objective news because otherwise, it's not news. It's a way of pushing an agenda.

Coul, I think you jumped to conclusions in your last post. Conservatives read more than liberals because Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter are high on the best seller list? That's just silly. They are polemicists and they are popular for that very fact. The conclusion that I would be more likely to jump to is that conservatives appear to enjoy a good rant and they prefer to read books which confirm their opinions. Also, by your statement "conservatives read more than liberals", I am reminded again of how conservatives like to label liberals with the "liberal elite" moniker, partially because a lot of professors, researchers and scientists at universities are liberals. I think that they probably read quite a bit. Your "college drop out Michael Moore" comment is equally confusing. Conservatives are angered by the fact that they think that liberals are more educated, therefore more "elite". They espouse "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" (which Michael Moore did) - yet they don't hesitate to kick a liberal who does not have an higher degree (Hollywood actors, Michael Moore)in the knees for it. Strange dichotomy, and not the first or only one that I have found in conservative ideology.

And again, here you are saying that there is a liberal bias, but showing me how there is actually NOT a liberal bias.

Coul, please, please, please, try to read something other than Ann Coulter. It is very well documented that she pulls most of her info straight out of her rear end.

(PS Michael Moore says he is from Flint, Michigan, neighbor to Davison where he really grew up, a town 4% the size of Flint. This is akin to me telling people that I am from Phoenix, AZ when I actually live in Mesa, AZ, a smaller suburb which is less recognizable. I do this quite often because when I say "Mesa" people say "Where???". It never occurred to me that it would be considered "lying". This is not to say that Michael Moore is not biased to the left or guilty of stretching facts, clearly he is. But it doesn't mean that he lied about where he grew up.)

Posted by:  issachar

again with the corrections...

all of *this* discrimination is legal.

it's been a bad month for typing...

Posted by:  Lisa

Zannebee,

Ann Coulter and Goldberg aren't the only bestseller conservative books - you misunderstood me. Take a look at a list of best sellers and see what kinds of authors have sold out over the years, compared with the liberal or "unbiased" authors.

At least conservatives like Coulter, admits openly that they are biased' liberal media, on the other hand, are so entrenched in their way of thinking - they are surrounded by people with the same point of view as them - and so they can't see any differently or even recognize how they are biased. They can't escape from their narrow world.

As far as Goldberg goes, he worked for CBS for 28 years. You'd think after working there that long, he might have some idea about what goes on in the mainstream newsroom.

I've taken a few university political science and history courses and have watched news programs like CNN. I have seen how liberal views are taken now as the "norm" and as "moderate" and to challenge these views is to be seen as extremist. My teachers in PoliSc and fellow students were openly hostile towards Conservative ways of thinking. This isn't an isolated thing either; American universities such as Columbia where 2 in approximately over 200 journalist students are conservative, says something, doesn't it? But, arguing merely by saying Goldberg is biased, and discrediting everything as just false makes this argument a dead end. Of course, there are other perspectives on the media, from other authors. If you are aware of these other perspectives, what specifically do they say? Do they say that top American universities are run amuk with pro-life professors, professors that are strongly supportive of Bush, or who defend the death penalty? I'd really like to know what they say about the mainstream news (ABC, CNN, NBC) having a Conservative bias. Give me some examples.

I have gotten so much liberal propaganda from my university classes this past year, that getting some perspective from the Conservative side has been good.

As far as Michael Moore's hometown - there is a big difference betwee the two towns. The one that he claims he is from (Flint) - was made of factor workers, labor and working class people - the town he was ACTUALLY from (Davison) was very wealthy and composed mostly of management. Why does this matter? Because he claims to identify with the working class average American. It is funny that he has "fictiously" portrayed himself, and at the same time claims that we live in "fictitious" times. He was fired from a few jobs....employees complained about him; he has a very pathetic CV. David T Hardy and Jason Clarke's book called, Michael Moore is a big fat supid white man, sheds some light on his history, his background, and the inaccuracy of the statements and videos he has made.

Yes, fortunately there are other news outlets besides the mainstream. As far as TV news goes, it is great that Fox is out there to provide another perspective for the mainstream networks to consider.

Posted by:  zannebee

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I will respectfully disagree with you and I will leave it at that, except to say that it's always possible that when one has extreme views that one cannot distinguish what is "moderate".

Posted by:  Lisa

Yah Issachar, :) I'm not sure why this matters so much. Probably because it's an opporunity to rant about something. Ha ha.
Well I guess, there are not a lot of people I know who are interested in discussion/debate on these subjects, except my family and friends like Kat! :)

Oh, by the way...Zan...I'm not a guy. ( I think you referred to me as "he") Hehe.

Posted by:  zannebee

Ooops. Sorry.

Posted by:  zannebee

FYI, here's an evangelical Christian I can respect and listen to.

Posted by:  zannebee

And here's what happens when you try to change the law in the way that you are suggesting.

Posted by:  issachar

So the Governor of California vetoed a bill...

What's your point? That since democracy doesn't always give you what you want you shouldn't use it? Would you favour ignoring the rule of law and implementing all the laws any Governor or President vetos?

Yes, if you respect the rule of law, you will have results you don't like sometimes. But I'm sure you'll like the alternative even less when those wielding power outside of the rule of law start doing things you don't like...