and while we're on the topic of toeing the party line...
2006-11-29 | 9:27 p.m.

Before you read my entry, read this. See if you can spot the glaring flaw in the logic of that press release.

(Hint: it's not the conclusion, however much I may disagree with it. And even if you grant the initial premise that polling is a valid way to make a decision on an equal rights issue, there's still a massive flaw in there, unless I'm missing something important.)

After you read that, scroll down to read the email I just sent to the family friend who is, technically, still my MP.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dear Mr. Wallace,

In light of the upcoming same-sex marriage debate, I decided to read the press release posted on your website related to your position on this issue. You stated that you would "commission a public third party poll on the issue," implying that, whatever the result turned out to be, you would cast your vote accordingly.

I am not writing to point out the fact that the right of gay people to be treated the same as everyone else should no more be open to public debate than the right of Jewish people, or black people, to be treated the same as everyone else. Even assuming that commissioning a public poll is a good way to make a decision on an issue like this, I cannot understand on what basis you have decided to vote in favour of reopening the debate.

Right on your website, I can find that the results of the poll "showed that 48.7% wanted the federal government to revisit the issue of the definition of marriage." That is not, by any definition of the word, a majority. It is not even an even split, although it is close. One line later, you describe 50.7% as "a slight majority." How can 50.7% be a majority and 51.3% not be? What was the point of even conducting a poll if you had no intention of basing your vote on it? Or were the results just close enough that you don't feel guilty about toeing the party line on this one?

As distasteful as I find those in the Conservative party who pander to religious right groups on issues like this, I was happy to see you elected as the MP for Burlington. Having known you, I believed that you would do a good job of representing us. I found your press release very disappointing, not so much because you are taking a position I disagree with (although that does bother me), but because you provide no real justification for that position.

I urge you to reconsider your decision, if not because denying equal rights to gay and lesbian citizens is unjust, then because the poll you commissioned does not appear to support such an action either.

Thank you for your time,

~...~

Seriously. The mistake I think I'm seeing is so glaring, I can't help but think I must be misreading the whole press release. I know Mike Wallace. I cannot believe that he'd not only miss that, but publish it on his website! If I did misread it, I'm sure he'll email me back and correct me. Maybe someone here can point out what it is that I've missed?

(This is not entirely rhetorical faux-confusion to prove a point about the lack of logic in people who disagree with me. There's admittedly a bit of that in it, but the fact is that I really am confused.)

looking back | looking forward