Friday, April 04, 2008

It Isn't Partisan

It's assumed that part of the reasoning, in the opposition calls for Lukiwski to resign, are based on partisan considerations. A chance to embarrass the government, using Lukiwski to damage the Conservative brand, forcing his resignation a political "victory". However, if one is truly being partisan in this regard, then the last thing anyone should want is Lukiwski to resign.

What better politically, then to have Lukiwski remain in his high profile position as parliamentary secretary? Scott Brison today:
“Allowing the member to remain an officer of the House of Commons defaces this institution. Does the Prime Minister realize that his tepid response to these hateful remarks against gays and Canadians suffering from aids tells Canadians that hate, bigotry and prejudice are just fine in his Canada?”

From a tactical, partisan perspective, there is more to be gained in leaving Lukiwski right where he is, because as Brison alludes to, it does send a message that bigotry and prejudice is condoned, through inaction, within the Conservative Party. In the past, Harper has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the belief that members of his party are outside of mainstream Canadian thought, particularly on social issues. Lukiwski on the front lines contradicts the wanted appearance, whether fair or not, he will always be a poster boy for the unattractive underbelly. Having him remain as parliamentary secretary, suffering no retribution, serves as a constant reminder of the type of people that the "new" Conservative Party attracts.

No, if this issue was viewed solely from a partisan lens, moral consideration aside, the last thing anyone should demand is Lukiwski resign, his continued presence is far more valuable politically than his quick dismissal.


Antonio said...

having watched the entire video, you can tell the guy just made a really bad joke 17 years ago.

It sounds a lot worse on paper than it does when you watch the whole thing.

You know how much I appreciate the gong show steve, but seriously, mock the guy for making a bad joke. Do it incessantly until we all laugh at just how stupid he looked and sounded.

But "a disgrace to this very institution", come off it.

Scott Brison never met a homophobic comment he didnt have a press conference about. Svend Robinson redux...

This guy stayed in the Conservative party for how many years? seriously?

Jay said...

Opposing for the sake of opposing yet again with Antonio. I am sure if you said the opposite he'd be saying what you are saying.

How many liberals resigned over the years for saying/doing something inappropriate?

Steve V said...

"Bad joke"?

Anonymous said...

Too bad Lukiwski and some like-minded monstrosities in the Tory party can't form a new anti-gay party alongside revolting bigoted Liberals like Tom Wappell, Pat O'Brian, Dan McTeague, Roseanne Skoke and Joe Volpe - all of whom have said stuff that was every bit as inflammatory and were never disciplined for it.

I can understand that the Tories don't want to come down too hard against people like Lukiwski because it might upset some of their "base". But don't the Liberals simply expel all MPs who have voted against equal rights for gays and lesbians - particularly those listed above who have made particularly intolerant and hateful comments over the years.

Joe said...

Tempest meet teapot.

If this is all the chattering classes have to talk about then Canada is being governed very, very well.

Steve V said...


Nice logic. You're a beaut!

knb said...

Anotonio:you can tell the guy just made a really bad joke 17 years ago.

Joke? I think there was a certain element of playing to the camera and the women who were around, but how on earth do those thoughts come into your head, let alone out of your mouth, unless you think that way in the first place?

Steve, I completely agree with your point. I tend to think that Harper will do something when he comes back. How he'll square that with Buckler's comments yesterday remains to be seen.

Anonymous said...

Joke? He didn't look drunk and he looked very serious. He didn't slur his words and he had no trouble walking straight.

He was "40" - pretty set in his ways by then.

Na, not funny - not a joke.

I don't think he should be kicked out of caucus, but I do believe he should lose his position in cabinet. In fact, if he was so sorry he should have offered to step down from his secretarial position - Harper could refuse his offer to do so, but he should have offered all the same.

He's not sorry - he's sorry he was found out.

Steve V said...


I think the beer in his hand is the out. However, his mannerisms don't denote real intoxication, in fact he walks and moves like someone who is pretty sober.

The guy was a mean-spirited homophobe, not sure why people are looking for excuses.

Anonymous said...

Why don't the Liberals expel a vicious homophobe like Tom Wappel from their caucus (something long overdue) and then challenge the Tories to follow their example by expelling Lukiwski???

Steve V said...


Why is it everytime an issue surfacing on the Cons, the only retort it the dodge and weave with the Libs? So predictable, and boring.

Antonio said...

I really dont think anybody should put stock into things people say 17 years ago.

you can find all kinds of nice things and things that look bad but Jean Chretien and most of his caucus passed the defence of marraige motion in 1997.

bring up hansard transcripts of what MPs said in 1997 revolving around that debate? 10 years ago, many were over 40 and their views were set in stone...apparently not for long.

The guy apologized. The diff between him and spencer is that larry spencer truly believed gays were rcruiting in playgrounds...he didnt back down. Likuwski knew there was trouble and just did the right thing and said he was sorry.

Something a parliamentarian said in 1991, 15 years before he made it into Parliament is hardly an affront the the institution. People have said far worse inside the house, especially the Harper insinuation about Nav Bains' family.

so yes steve, it is partisan, because if the shoe was on the other foot, as it was 10 years ago for almost the entire Liberal caucus, clearly 17 years ago is more important to score points now

Steve V said...

"so yes steve, it is partisan"

Nope, if it was partisan I argue he stays right where he is, for obvious reasons.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I'm sorry that you find it so "boring" to face up to the fact that there are some really hateful bigots sitting happily in the Liberal caucus (ie: Tom Wappel, Joe Volpe, Jim Karygiannis etc...etc...etc...).

But I don't think the Liberals can demand any sanctions against Lukiwski when they have never taken any steps to punish people in their caucus for saying things that are just as bad if not worse.

The NDP at least has been very consistent. They demanded that all NDP MPs support equal marriage and when one refused (Bev Desjarlais) she was stripped of her caucus responsibilities and then run out of the party. This is as it should be.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is a perversion of sexuality no different than beastiality or incest or pedophilia. Homosexuals are obsessed with putting their genitals where they don't belong. It's a sin.

Right and wrong is NOT determined by popular opinion nor personal opinion. Homosexuality is wrong and that's a universal, immutable, objective truth.