Jump to content

Talk:Bev Desjarlais

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT rights opposition?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That category should be reserved for hardliners like Craig Chandler, Tristan Emmanuel, Pat O'Brien and Cheryl Gallant. If they support some degree of gay rights, but not gay marriage, they don't belong in that category. (For example, Stephen Harper does not belong in that category) CrazyC83 22:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guys: This isn't that complicated. The cat is for people who have taken assertive steps in limiting LGBT rights. BD has taken assertive steps in limiting LGBT rights. And your argument was...? That's what I thought. Carolynparrishfan 20:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I believe it should be included (see above), though there's argumentation – from me and others – against it. E Pluribus Anthony 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and so did Bill Clinton...but I don't see him in the category. Bearcat 04:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it another way: none of them resemble Harvey Milk. Include them all: let visitors decide where on the spectrum they belong. E Pluribus Anthony 06:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT category is a stupid waste of time, it's not encyclopedic and we should not be classifying people like this. --Cloveious 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Issue: Same-Sex Marriage

[edit]

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. This is why I disagree with the idea that is was the 'main issue.' Sub-Arctic 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Did Her Term as MP End

[edit]

CJCurrie made a change, ending Desjarlais' term at 2005. I've reverted it because she continued as MP into the 2006 election, where she ran as the incumbant (and lost). Her term as MP ends, then in 2006 by my reckoning.

She stopped sitting as an NDP MP in 2005, but that did not revoke her MP status. --Otter Escaping North 15:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of some contention, and the answer isn't necessarily clear and apparent.

In early times (ie. the 19C), it was accepted that there were no MPs during electoral cycles. Since the position of an MP has become full-time employment, this has changed somewhat -- office-holders are usually seen as holding their positions through various electoral cycles. However, there is no hard-and-fast rule as to whether they formally hold any title during this period.

I'm willing to "bend" on this point and permit the 2006 date, though I'd appreciate it if someone with a direct insight into the matter could provide clarification. CJCurrie 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CJ. You made an interesting point (are MPs still MPs when parliament is dissolved?), so I went out and did some digging. I came across Ms. Desjarlais's MP Profile at http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/membersofparliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=56064&SubSubject=1004&Language=E
On that page, the "End Date" is listed as January 22nd, 2006. Given this is Parliament's web site, I think we can take it as definitive. --Otter Escaping North 18:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson assistantship

[edit]

I removed the qualifier that she was "executive" assistant to Greg Thompson from the article. While present in the Mackey piece, it roughly contradicts another source (a recent print copy of Frank) that characterized her as a communications assistant. Just about any source would generally outrank Frank, but the very same Mackey piece is provably inaccurate on a much larger point (the assertion that she "lost the riding [after the nomination, so implicitly her seat] to her former party's candidate.")

Anyway, she'll surely be listed here soon enough with full details. :) Samaritan 07:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bev Desjarlais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bev_Desjarlais&oldid=1201475966"