Gnomes’ new leaf

It occurred to me a few weeks ago that modern political discourse, this blogger’s meagre contributions to it included, rarely transcends empty partisan rhetoric, even by those claiming to be nonpartisan. Full of sound and fury, it signifies nothing. I wasn’t sure why this was the case, why I always assume the worst of those I dislike, why I am driven to elaborate and exaggerate their failings while finding it incredibly difficult to admit their strengths or even to support them in things I agree with. With this epiphany in mind, I sought to find common ground and empathy, even – nay, especially – with those against whom I have been most adamantly set.

Ted MortonAnd then I read the paper. More and more, when one reads about the Alberta PC leadership race, one reads the name “Ted Morton.” Once dismissed as a fringe candidate, his faction is proving itself organized and mobilized, and perhaps, just perhaps, capable of winning. Here is a man with whom I can find no common ground. His message, to me, is nothing but thinly-veiled hatred. Hatred of the rest of Canada, from whom we must isolate ourselves, hatred of our judicial system and the rights it guarantees, and let’s just not get into Bill 208.

In trying to discuss the issue intelligently, I find words fail me. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t write an entire paragraph on the prospect of a Morton win without using the phrase “worst human being ever.” So what can be done? Is there no choice but remaining above the fray or falling into vitriolic argument?

~ Gnomes



  1. Gnomes said,

    Sunday, 3 September 2006 at 5:38 pm

    As a fun aside, try reading through Bill 208, linked above, replacing the phrase “of the same sex” with “of mixed races”. It’s a hoot, and every thing in the preamble still applies!

  2. O'Smiley said,

    Monday, 4 September 2006 at 12:57 pm

    I don’t quite understand the purpose of Bill 208.

    I was of the understanding that it was specified in the same-sex marriage legislation, and in the chartre of rights, that no-one who’s beliefs were ‘offended’ would be required to perform a same-sex marriage, and that in such circumstances someone willing to perform the marriage would be found.

  3. Gnomes said,

    Friday, 8 September 2006 at 4:50 pm

    The text of the federal Civil Marriage Act recognizes that the religious officials are protected by the Charter. It’s one thing for formal religions to be granted the power to solemnize marriages according to their beliefs, and quite another for someone exercising a secular power on behalf of the government to decline their services in a discriminatory manner.

    And then there’s the school thing, which is just inane.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: