Amoralist Party of Canada

English Leaders Debate

2008-10-03T08:11:00.003-04:00

So I watched the debate last night, myself and twelve other people across Canada who had nothing else to do. Seriously though this was one of the best debates I have seen. Every single leader came to the table and performed wonderfully. I am not sure I could pick a clear winner.

The format was different. It was a round table approach. Quite nice if you ask me. The leaders all sat around a table and they had more of a discussion then a debate. Although the questions were still posed rebuttal time still given for every accusatory comment. It made all the leaders seem more approachable and less like soap box preachers. I hope they run with this format and use it from now on. It was by far one of the best things about the debate last night.

Stephen Harper was lambasted from all sides, every single leader at that table, which is no surprise since every debate focuses on slamming the incumbent leader. What was a surprise was how well Harper handled it. Harper was swimming in shark infested water with each of the leaders snapping at him in a feeding frenzy, but Harper sat there calmly, with an aire of being untouchable. Continually stressing that he believed the opposition parties were all extremely sincere in their beliefs but that he just had differing opinions. Harper admitted that the war in Iraq was not justified, despite his well documented support of it in the past and took the lickings from that. His major problem was that his party has yet to release an economic platform, in fact the Conservatives are the only party that has not done so. He continually dodged these accusations while continually referring to his economic platform. At various times during the debate Harper was called a fraud, and a liar. The accusations rolled off him without Harper even batting an eye. Although I do have to say to Mr. Harper "It's Laissez-faire, not Lazy Faire you goof!" As my coworker said "despite Harper having all the charisma of a rock, he did really well for himself in the debate."

Stephan Dion was barely there. He made one or two well aimed jabs at Harper that bounced off the PM, but otherwise he was just a body in a seat.

Jack Layton, living up to his name "Happy Jack" was all smiles and giggles. He scored some pretty scathing points against both Dion and Harper, and stood behind May on a few points as well. I think Jack did very well, outlining the very real flaws in Harpo's government and Dion's history of supporting the government.

Gilles Duceppe was a real shock for me. I found myself actually liking the guy. He scored some very serious points against Harper, and of all of them I think Duceppe was the only one that really and truly rattled Harper's cage. Several times Harper outright dodged Duceppe's questions. I had too laugh when Duceppe pointed out the irony in the Bloc being the party that put forward the "Buy Canadian" policy proposal.

Elizabeth May was the real winner of last nights debate in my mind though. Despite being a late entrant, or perhaps because of it, she outshined them all. She had all her i's dotted and t's crossed. She knew what she was there to talk about and she was damned well going to talk about it. She continually tossed legitimate questions at Harper, calling him and his government a fraud and then backing up her claim. She was the little engine that could last night proving all the other leaders that she was a federal party leader, not some crackpot heading a laughable fourth rate group of political activists calling themselves a party. She played well with the big boys, demonstrating how miserable Harper's plans are then backing her claims up with real trusted sources. She truly debated, one might even call her a master debater, ok I digress. Really I don't like the Green Party, I think they are a fourth rate party of political activists who have a week platform and candidates who range from silly to sincere, that being said I must say they have an extremely strong leader.

Final Call:

Winner:
Elizabeth May

Second Place:
Stephen Harper

Tied for Third:
Duceppe and Happy Jack

Loser:
What's his name, Celine Dion's grandfather, Stephan

Who Wants to Be Prime Minister

2008-09-11T10:43:00.011-04:00

Ok, so is an election which will take place on October 14th (that's right American's we go from election call to election in less then two months) and the choices are slim for who to vote if you plan on voting for who should be PM rather then who will represent your area. In the Canadian system you really should vote for the best local candidate, but lets be honest most of us vote on party lines for who should be the PM. So lets take a look at the options:

Stephen Harper (Leader of the Conservative Party): AKA Harpo, Stephen Harper is the current Prime Minister of Canada and has been so for the last three years. Despite his campaign promise of fixed election dates and open and honest government he has called a snap election in order to take advantage of the Liberals having such a weak showing in the current polls. Harper actually adopted a law to force the election dates to a static date, and yet called a snap election because he claims he can no longer run the government as a minority power, yet he also predicts he will win this election and have another minority government.

Stephan Dion (Leader of the Liberal Party): AKA ummm who is this guy? Stephan Dion is the Leader of the Liberal party, no seriously he is I looked it up. Stephan Dion has less charisma than Stephan Harper (and considering he'd lose out to a wet noodle in that department that's pretty sad). He seems to shy away from the camera and has little to say other then "Harper, bad man". Ok sure there is a Liberal platform, somewhere just give the Liberals some time to dust it off will you I am sure we'll hear about it any day now.

Jack Layton (Leader of the New Democratic Party): AKA Happy Jack, (and in case you are wondering, yes Canadians do nickname all the prime time candidates) Happy Jack is the most charismatic candidate in this race, which isn't saying much considering lame and lamer mentioned above. Jack himself is a tool in my books, constantly putting his foot in his mouth and blundering through his career blindly. However he has made some pretty effective deals to prop up various minority governments in the past. Jack is a good opposition leader, can he make a good PM? Only one way to find out, I know I'll be voting orange (NDP's colour is orange) this election.

Gilles Duceppe (leader of the Bloq Quebecois): AKA Traitor, Why even talk about this guy, unless you are from Quebec you can't vote for the Bloq, and if you are from quebec you better be pure blood quebecois if you expect him to do much for you, and you better be ready for yet another referendum vote on if Quebec should split from Canada.

Elizabeth May (Leader of the Green Party): AKA OMG is she ever going to get a seat in parliament. Whats to be said about Liz, well not much, you can't go on her voting record cause she has yet to sit in parlaiment, you can't go by her charisma because being a green you never see her on TV, you can't go by her platform (well ok the greens have a pretty well defined platform, but COME ON they are the green party, does anyone take them seriously?). Another note to consider is that the green and the liberals have a deal in which in many ridings they won't run candidates against each other. They are working together it seems, which is why the Conservatives and the NDP are opposed to the Greens being able to be at the televised debate since, in theory, it would mean there are two Liberals at the event.

Dennis Young (Leader of the Libertarian Party): AKA ummm sorry don't have one for him. Libritarians have a party in Canada really... wow.

Blair T. Longley (Leader of the Marijuana Party): AKA pass the dutchie on the left hand side. Forget the Green party vote FOR green;).

Ok so there are more, but come on who votes for anyone but Liberal Conservative or NDP anyways.

In case you do, or at least want to see other parties, here is a list of the registered parties according to elections Canada.

Legalizing All Drugs

2008-09-11T09:33:00.002-04:00

Ok, everyone who reads this knows that I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but of late there has been a lot of talk in the press about legalizing all drugs. This is certainly an extreme view amongst legalization circles, and on this one I am not entirely decided. I mean on one hand, its not really my business what someone else injects into their body, if they want to kill themselves slowly or quickly that's their business, on the other hand many drugs are highly addictive and once a person starts its hard to stop, although I reject the notion that after one taste you can be hopelessly addicted to ANY substance for life, I don't care how addictive it is using anything once does not make you an adict.

The money that would be saved in enforcement would be beyond measure really, but how much of that would just be redirected to health care due to deteriorating health. There is a simple solution to that and say you can't get treated under governemnt health plans for ailments resulting from dangerous behaviours, it has to come out of your own poket. This is something I am actually rather a proponent of, ie if you are an alchoholic and your liver has issues, you have to pay for the treatment, if you are a smoker and get lung cancer you have to pay for the treatment, if you are a meth adict you have to pay for the treatment to get you out. However accidents and general illnesses of course would be covered. Of course the problem with this line of thought is where do you draw the line? Is a skydiver elegiable for coverage if his shute malfunctions? Skydiving is a dangerous activity.

In my mind marijuana obviously should be legalized, the proven negative effects are so incredibly small as to not even count. There is no logical reason to keep marijuana illegal. Other drugs, I still am unsure about. Though, as with marijuana, regulation is always the better option to prohibition.

Election

2008-09-08T14:49:00.002-04:00

Ok, so Harper finally saw fit to call an election. So much for his promised set election dates eh, but who honestly expects politicians to follow through with election promises once they are in office.

But now that the elections are eminent campaigning is in full swing, though I did notice some Conservative election signs up before the actual call, but lets ignore that (just like I am sure Elections Canada will), and now Harper and his Conservatives have announced an additional 9billion in spending on the first day in parliament since the call, but Harper expects Canadians to believe that this sudden spending spree has nothing to do with the elections. Come on Mr. Harper, how stupid do you think... oh wait, you got in for one term already, obviously the average Canadian voter is really that stupid.

Goodbye Howie

2008-06-16T13:54:00.002-04:00

Howard Hampton announced that he would not be seeking re-election as leader of the Ontario NDP. All I can think to say is good riddance. Don't get me wrong Howie's not a bad guy, and I don't disagree with his politics. So If I think he's a pretty swell guy and his politics are inline then why I am I saying good riddance. Howard has all the personality of a wet noodle, and if charisma were measured on a scale of 1 to 10 he would score -999.

If the NDP ever want to become serious they need a leader who can, oh I don't know, lead. Howard Hampton has made great strides in his time in Northern Ontario and environmental issues, and these accomplishments should be recognized by the NDP, but lets hope the next leader of the NDP doesn't have a CN Tower sized pickle shoved up his arse.

Cluster Bomb Cluster F*ck

2008-05-30T09:15:00.002-04:00

Ok, I am all for banning cluster bombs, they are nasty and pose long term danger, but come on people, this cluster bomb treaty is a joke. 111 countries signed the treaty, the most notable countries missing from the list; USA, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel. In other words the countries that make and use cluster bombs are opposed to the treaty, and those who are cluster bomb targets are supporting and signing it.

Any bets that Iraq and Afghanistan were first in line to sign this one. Why don't the countries that support this treaty just post signs at the border that say "No Cluster Bombs Please" just like those signs we like to put on our mailboxes that say "No Flyers Please", I am sure it will be just as binding.

What is the point of a treaty that cannot be enforced due to the fact that the people who have the weapons that are being banned refuse to sign it? It's like saying "don't hit my face, I am too pretty" before entering a bar brawl.

An Argument For Polygamy/Polyandry/Polyamory

2008-04-23T10:36:00.000-04:00

I have posted on this blog about my beliefs that same sex marriage should remain legal, primarily because the government should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens. Now, with polygamy so much in the news due to the Texas case of the splinter Mormon group that practiced polygamy and was raided, I thought I would go on record as to my reasons for supporting polygamy as well.

Now I should clarify, I do not support what the Texas group was doing should the claims prove true. In fact it is not Polygamy specifically I support but rather Polyamory. Lets start with a definition of the terms associated with polygamy:

Polygamy: the desire, practice, or acceptance of a man having more than one loving female partner

Polyandry: the desire, practice, or acceptance of a woman having more than one loving male partner

Polyamory: the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving partner

Thus I am in favor of allowing a person (male or female) to have more then one spouse (male or female) so long as all parties are consenting adults. As with my support of Same Sex Marriage, no church should be forced to recognize such a union, but should a church choose to recognize such a union then the government should not have the right to step in and say the union is invalid.

In short I feel that the government has no right to determine who should be deemed a married person and who should not. The government should completely get rid of the state sanctioned marriage business and allow the churches and other organizations to manage it. There is no logical reasons for a state run marriage business, and that is all it is a state run business.

In the case of the Texas group we are not just talking polygamy as the issue, but statutory rape. Not all the women involved were consenting adults, and in those cases the government should certainly step in and rescue the women involved. If, upon reaching the age of consent, the women choose to return then that is their business, not the governments.

American's Charge Man For Pornography

2008-04-11T13:20:00.002-04:00

I have always said that American's are too interested in puritanical laws, now this case takes the cake. This guy is not peddling child porn, his models are of age, he is not distributing his porn unsolicited, he is a porn producer and he sells his porn on the internet and in stores. A legal business, however the fine people of Washington were apparently offended by what he was selling. Talk about ridiculous charges.

Reprocussions of Bill C-484

2008-03-11T15:07:00.003-04:00

Bill C-484 is a private members bill introduced to the commons as "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)". In effect it says that anyone who causes harm to a pregnant woman in a manner which could cause harm to a child is guilty of a crime in addition to the crime of assault against the expectant mother, it also basically allows prosecutors to charge someone who murders a pregnant woman with both the fetus' and the mother's murder.

In essence the thought process behind this bill is a well intentioned one. You kill a pregnant woman you are guilty of double homicide, because killing a pregnant woman is particularly evil. There is a flaw in the bill however. It seems to me, and several other opponents of the bill that it de facto gives a fetus rights as a person.

What's wrong with this? Well if a fetus is a person then anyone who has performs an abortion commits murder and could face charges. Now technically the Bill specifically excludes abortions in which the mother consents, so the right to choose is still technically protected, but it is dangerous start.

Not to mention the fact that basically it will have little or no effect on prison time, since in Canada multiple sentences are served concurrently not consecutively.

The law already allows judges to take mitigating circumstances such as pregnancy into consideration when sentencing, so this bill is at best superfluous at worst it is dangerous first step to damning the right choose abortion.

Harper Puts His Job On The Line

2008-02-06T11:17:00.001-05:00

Stephen Harper’s office has spoken to the press, I know hard to believe, but its true. And the word from on high is that a motion will be put forward to the house to extend Canada’s role in Afghanistan. What’s more is this will be a confidence motion, so it is a chance to bring Harper down on an issue that everyone is split on.

The NDP and Block are in clear opposition of any continuing efforts in Kandahar, while the Liberals say they will support a motion as long as Canada’s role is not combative. Harper’s conservatives favour extending the roll in accordance to the Manley report which said that Canada should remain in Afghanistan if, and only if, NATO provides additional troops and equipment, otherwise Canada high tails it out of Afghanistan and leave the mess for the Americans to clean up.

The Liberals could prop up the government, however the Liberals are split on the issue with or with out Dion’s conditions on the mission. That being said Dion has said he will whip the vote making all Liberals vote as one meaning the Liberals have all the power, they can continue to prop up the government, or they can bring down Harper and force an election.

The sad thing is, with all this hype the vote won’t come down to weather or not Canada should be in Afghanistan, but rather if the Liberals think they can win an election at this time. Dion, like any rational thinking Canadian, wants to see Harper thrown off his throne, but if Dion forces an election now he is not guaranteed to win, and he risks handing Harper a majority government instead of the minority he now holds. If Harper gets his majority gone will be the thin veneer of compromising with the opposition, Harper will have Carte Blache to pass anything he wants. It all comes down to are Canadians ready to vote again, or will they lash out at the man who made them return to the polling stations.

Canadians are an apathetic bunch, and generally don’t like to vote, we prefer our governments to be majority so we can stop thinking about politics for at least four years. Minority governments keep politics on the front page since at any moment the government could topple and we’d be forced to vote again. On average a minority government lasts close to two years, which means Harper’s number is about up since he has already had a full two years. The question is does the Liberal party have the back bone to cast Harper to the curb.

It is theoretically possible for Harper to make the full four year term, William Lyon Mackenzie King almost managed to do it twice. In 1921 King was elected PM with a slight minority government and lasted 3 years and 326 days, again in 1926 he was elected to a minority and managed to stretch it out to 3 years and 317 days. However King was an interesting Prime Minister, and a powerful leader. I doubt anyone, even his closest friends, would put Harper on the same level as Mackenzie King.

It seems that even in my ranting that this vote will be derailed by the possibility of toppling the government my own thread of thought was derailed explaining the reasoning and history. This vote should be about Afghanistan and not about Stephen Harper. I want Stephen Harper to fall as much as anyone else, in fact probably more then most since I support so many issues in which he is staunchly opposed and I oppose so many issues he staunchly supports. The issue in Afghanistan is important, and as much as I like the NDP I know Happy Jack wants the troops out of Afghanistan immediately, and while I agree Afghanistan is a mess, the question we must ask is is pulling out going to make matters worse. Canadians have an obligation in Afghanistan, and as much as I am loath to admit agreeing with Harper on any issue this is one I agree with, Canada must stay the course in Afghanistan, lets stick to the Manley Report and get NATO to bolster troops and equipment.

On this issue I am torn and will count it a victory no matter which way the vote swings. If Harper loses the confidence of the house then at least we will have ousted that monster and his goons from the PMO, if Liberals prop up the government then at least Canada will do the honourable thing and help in the war in Afghanistan. I think a non-combative role is a little unrealistic, but it is something. Perhaps the best thing would be for Dion to force an election, then have a Liberal minority government with Harper propping up Dion under the condition that Dion stay the course in Afghanistan. This would oust Harper and allow for a Liberal government again, while at the same time ensuring that the Afghanistan mission isn’t forgotten about over politics.

A Liberal government would not be ideal, there are a lot of issues with the Liberal platform, and Dion is about as charismatic as his predecessor Martin, which is to say not in the least. The NDP would be a good choice to lead this country at this time, and while Happy Jack is charismatic as hell, I don’t think he has a chance in hell of becoming PM anytime soon unless both Dion and Harper screw up so royally that the only vote remaining is Green or NDP. While Harper may just do that considering he penchant for foot in mouth disease, I think Dion is much to smart a man for that. The only outcome I can see if an election occurred right now is a Liberal minority so fractured it won’t last more then a few months. Of course what do I know, I didn’t think Harper would last more then a few months, and that was two years ago, I didn’t factor in that the leaders know damned well that Canadians did not want to go to the polls again too soon, and Ontarians especially who faced a provincial election as well would not want to go to polls for a good while. So if you are wondering why Stephen Harper is still in office despite his running the government as if he had a majority, despite the fact that his open and honest government is neither, then you need to do yourself a favour and look in the mirror, because Canadians don’t like to vote we gave the government to Harper, the opposition knew it was political suicide to oust Harper so they had no choice but to prop him up.

Revisiting Prostitution

2007-11-30T12:23:00.000-05:00

I have posted that I am pro legalizing marijuana, gambling, and prostitution, of these the view I get the most complaints about is prostitution. Usually from women who take offense to my statement that "every feminist should be for legal prostitution". The response is almost invariably that prostitution is degrading to women.

I would like to pose a question to everyone out there, what exactly is degrading about prostitution? Lots of people have sex for money and aren't called prostitutes they are called Porn Actresses. Ok I know some people believe that porn is also degrading to women, fine that is your prerogative, at least you are being consistent. Is it degrading to woman for someone to have sex with someone they just met? What if that person bought them a drink at the bar first, is that not a form of payment in exchange for sex? What about the wife who "rewards" a husband for housework completed with a BJ, is she not prostituting herself?

Sure I know I am taking it to extremes, but the fact of the matter is prostitution in itself is a true victimless crime. If there is not real victim then how can there be a crime?

An Argument For Global Warming

2007-10-29T16:17:00.001-04:00

Howie's Turn 11:20

2007-10-10T23:16:00.001-04:00

Howard Hampton's turn to speak. The A-Channel was wondering if Howie would step down as leader after this. Personally I hope he does. He may be smart, but he's as fun to watch speak as watching grass grow.

He looks quite teary eyed, did he expect to become premier? Although perhaps he's been into the sauce already, who knows? Well I shouldn't be so mean, Hampton's father did recently die and this is his first campaign without him, so perhaps that is what was causing the teary eyes.

Well he opened his speech not really thanking people who were there, but pointing out that they were there, I guess the thanks were implied, but it seemed odd.

Good on him for saying he'd continue to work towards first nations issues, and minimum wage increases, though I would expect nothing less from the NDP.

Wow I didn't realize he'd been an MPP since '87, that's quite a run.

One comment he made that made me laugh is "Governments have a lot of tools," of course I was thinking of tools like McGuinty and Tory, but I know that wasn't quite what he meant.

Wow talk about the bums rush the A-Channel actually cut him off when he began thanking some other NDP candidates. It could have been because he was just repeating his speech, but it didn't seem like he was done to me.

John Tory's Speech 11:00

2007-10-10T22:59:00.000-04:00

Tail between the legs time for Tory. His smile looks quite forced, but one could hardly blame him, though when he talked about his first grandchild he actually seems genuinely proud.

Although I dislike his party and I think he is a tool Tory does seem to have the most amount of charisma out of any other politician in Ontario politics, though that really doesn't say anything.

He pauses briefly to slam into McGuinty a bit, but again that's not surprising. He is after all still technically the leader of the PC party, without a seat, but really that's not a big deal.

John Tory is remaining as the PC party leader. This isn't really a surprise, though if I were him I would step down in shame. He considered his campaign honest and disciplined? Wow he has an odd concept of honesty and discipline.

10:50 Dalton's Speech

2007-10-10T22:42:00.001-04:00

So Dalton is doing his election speech. Well he sure showed off his French language skills. It was a typical acceptance speech, nothing interesting or new said. "I want to thank the volunteers.... blah blah blah... I want to thank all the candidates in all ridings for accepting public life.... blah blah blah." Not that I expect anything different from anyone running this time around. Not an ounce of charisma amongst the lot of them.

Seemed to be more applause for Terri McGuinty then for Dalton, she's certainly easier on the eyes.

He continually hinted at the Religious Education debate, I wish he'd let it drop as everyone else has. He knows as well as the fool who started it, John Tory, that it's done and over with it killed Tory's campaign though and McGuinty knows it. It's kind of like rubbing salt in the wound.

If he said "We are Ontario" one more time I might just have walked to his headquarters and bitch slapped him myself. Is he trying to start a new catch phrase? It's not nearly as catchy as fuddle duddle in my opinion, so I doubt it will catch on.

10:37 PC Party

2007-10-10T22:36:00.000-04:00

Well John Tory did not get elected in his own riding. I find that terribly amusing.

10:27

2007-10-10T22:26:00.000-04:00

Four more years for Khalil Ramal. Well I feel bad for Stephen I was really thinking it would go to the wire on this one, I was even thinking he might have a real chance at it. Well four more years of the MPP who is invisible. Sure he seems to do the job, but I can't think of anything of importance he did while in office. Well time will tell if that changes with this term.

10:25

2007-10-10T22:17:00.000-04:00

Liberal - 71
PC - 25
NDP - 11

Well most channels have called it a Liberal majority for now, hate to say I told you so, but well I told you so. I am sad to see the NDP doing so poorly though, I had hoped they'd gain some ground in this election.

Referendum current result
Mixed Member Proportional - 27676 - 38%
First Pass the Post (current System) - 45409 - 62%

10:14

2007-10-10T22:14:00.001-04:00

London-Fanshawe:
Lib 2304
NDP 1841
PC 1655

Province Wide
Liberal - 69
PC - 24
NDP - 13

10:02pm

2007-10-10T22:04:00.000-04:00

NDP is trailing a little behind Kalil in London-Fanshawe, but Stephen could still win it.

Lib 1652
NDP 1376
PC 1195

Province Wide

Lib - 67
PC - 25
NDP 14

9:45

2007-10-10T21:39:00.000-04:00

Liberal - 63
PC - 25
NDP - 16
Other - 0

London-Fanshawe 9:37

2007-10-10T21:37:00.000-04:00

Stephen Maynard is in the lead by one poll right now.

9:35

2007-10-10T21:23:00.000-04:00

Liberal - 60
PC - 25
NDP - 12
Other - 0

9:20

2007-10-10T21:17:00.000-04:00

Liberal - 32
PC -24
NDP -3
Other -1

Polls Closed

2007-10-10T21:04:00.000-04:00

Ok, votes have been cast. Of course no polls have been tallied yet, but it won't be long. Naturally, since it is my riding and I campaigned for Steven Maynard, I am most interested in the results of London-Fanshawe. It is expected that London-Fanshawe will be a close race, Khalil Ramal is the favorite, and Jim Chapman is a well known local radio personality.

Wow as I typed this some results trickled in.

PC - 6
Liberal - 2
NDP - 0
Others - 0

With only two polls actually fully in.

Polls Close In Under 30 Minutes

2007-10-10T20:31:00.000-04:00

And I am calling it. I know no polls have reported in yet, however I am saying another Liberal Majority Government. Hampton was barely noticed. Tory started a debate he had no intention of following through in. Basically McGuinty will win because there is no one that made enough of a splash.

Live Election Blogging

2007-10-10T19:16:00.001-04:00

Throughout the night I will update this to let everyone know what the status of the election is. As I find results I will post them here. Check back often for live updates.

Best of luck to London-Fanshawe NDP candidate Stephen Maynard.

Poll Closed

2007-10-01T10:03:00.000-04:00

It looks like my readers are split down the middle with half of you saying you'd vote for McGuinty to get the extra holiday, and the other half saying no or only if the candidate were worthy.

Tory Flip-Flops on Religious Education

2007-10-01T09:47:00.001-04:00

According to The London Free Press John Tory is expected to announce today that if he forms government he will have a free vote in the legislature to determine the fate of his faith-based education initiative. Technically this is not a flip-flop since he is still supporting it, and it could be argued that he is just encouraging proper democratic procedure. Since I am not a fan of the forced vote practice one would think I would applaud Tory on this, but the fact is I see it for the blatant parlor trick that it is.

What Tory is doing is admitting that the public has not been overly fond of his faith based school policy plans, so he is killing it without ever officially changing his stance. He knows that such a controversial topic will never pass a free vote, the NDP and the Liberals will crush it even if his own party votes pretty much along party lines, if even a few break ranks it will be defeated. This is Tory breaking a promise before he is even in government, which tops even McGuinty’s record for promise breaking.

Tory started the whole tempest in a teapot by saying that other faith-based schools should receive the same funding as public schools. The Liberals point out it would cost at least 100 Million more then the PC parties projected 400 Million, and the PC’s have no plan for how to pay for it. Now Tory is washing his hands of it in a manner that ensures his hands are clean. I think its time to show Tory that Canadian voters aren’t that stupid. Tory has practically made two issues his entire campaign:

Issue #1: Dalton McGuinty’s hanging from the telephone wire with pants on fire

Issue #2: All faith-based schools should receive government funding

How can a man who is breaking a campaign promise before the election even takes place be trusted?

Who to Vote For in the Upcoming Election Part IV: The NDP

2007-09-24T15:33:00.000-04:00

The NDP, or the Dippers, are lead by a soggy noodle who goes by the moniker Howard Hampton. Don’t get me wrong, I intend to vote NDP, however I think Howard Hampton is the most boring political personality in Canadian History. I mean this is Canada where politicians have a long and wacky history. There’s Sir John A MacDonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada, well known drunk and wheeler and dealer extraordinare forced to resign in shame over questionable dealings between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Conservatives. Then there is William Lyon MacKenzie King, holds the record for longest term (non-consecutive), and he received policy advice from his dead mother and dog, Then there is Joe Clake, the Conservative of the people, 20 years after his defeat he was still trying to regain the Prime Ministership. What about Kim Campbell, she was Prime Minister for about ten seconds, and she lead the conservatives to the worst defeat in Canadian political history destroying the PC Party and putting them in the same rankings as the Green Party. Of course there is my all time favorite Prime Minister, not for his leadership style, not for his policies, but just because he is so darned zany, Jean Chretien, what can be said about Chretien, the man had more charisma then brains. And that leaves out the greats like Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, The Dief, and more, not great because of their intelligence or politics, but great because they had what it takes to be PM in Canada, balls the size of coconuts and charisma up the yin-yang. Sure Hampton isn’t going for the Prime Minster position, just the Premier of Ontario, but even for that role there are some notable freaks, look at the last four. Dalton McGuinty broke more promises then he made, a difficult task even for politicians. Ernie Eves is runner up for the creepiest man in Canada (Stockwell Day took that title long ago). Mike “The Hatchet” Harris made more cuts to public services then any politician ever, and yet still managed to avoid becoming the most hated politician alive. Bob Rae is the current most hated man in Ontario. What is Hampton? He should take a look at the “great” leaders of Canadian History and learn to show a little charisma, punch a protester, drink a little too much at the NDP Christmas party, just do something to create some minor scandal that will show Ontario that you have a pulse. Ok now that I have ranted on and on, making personal attacks towards a man I have never met, lets take a look at his platform.

I used to think the NDP was a party of dreamers. They’d shoot for the moon using a slingshot. The NDP has a proud history, the likes of Tommy Douglas, the founder of public health care system, rose from the ranks of the NDP. However in recent years there were too many Dippers like Bob Rae, the get it done and ignore the cost types. However, they learn from their mistakes and while they are still the party for the common man, they are also the party of common sense. A very nicely done PDF document outlines their fiscal plan demonstrating that they can keep the budget balanced AND increase spending. Of course some taxes will have to be raised, but only for the rich, so I know I have nothing to worry about.

The over all NDP platform is based around six easy to understand, self explanatory commitments:

Health Tax Rebate
$10 Minimum Wage/Roll back MP pay raises
Protect the children and environment
Making sure kids get the education they deserve
Removing barriers to post-secondary education
Reducing wait times and improving health care

Of course Hampton is not likely to be the next premier of Ontario, however he will have a powerbase in that the next government will most likely be a minority, they will have to rely on the NDP to prop them up. That means Hampton will hold some pretty kick ass cards come any confidence votes, any party in power will have to play ball with Hampton in order to remain in power. The more Dippers in an MPP chair, the more power Hampton will wield.

Who to Vote For in the Upcoming Election Part III: The Conservatives

2007-09-24T11:11:00.000-04:00

The Progressive Conservatives, or the Regressive Conservatives as critics often call them, is headed by John Tory. The Conservatives are often called Tories, which has absolutely nothing to do with John Tory heading the party. The Liberals are Grits, and the Conservatives are Tories. This is from the British parliamentary system and dates back a very long time before John Tory was born. John Tory is running on a Campaign of “Leadership Matters” mocking McGuinty’s apparent lack of leadership. Tory seems obsessed with making McGuinty look bad, this is neither uncommon, nor difficult to do. His platform is broken down into four sections:

Investing in Stronger Communities – Tory’s Education, Police, Poverty, and arts and culture stance
Fairness for your Family – Tory’s Tax platform
Government that Works for You – Accountable government, truthful Taxes, Jobs, and Law
Building Ontario’s Future – Jobs, education, immigration, environmental, energy, and infrastructure.

Basically Tory’s stance is that the Liberals had four years to implement a plan and the only thing they managed to do was raise taxes after promising not to. After reading his policy document I would have to conclude that there is very little new in it. It is 90% blame Liberals 5% increase services and 5% lower taxes oh yes and keep the budget balanced while doing so.

As for Amoralist issues, well I’d have to say that any Amoralist looking to vote conservative better get their heads examined. Sure Tory wants to lower taxes, but he won’t be able to do it. He wants to somehow give funding to religious schools while not cutting any money from the public schools. I have no problem funding religious schools, however I do feel that most of the money should come from private donations, after all they want to bypass public education in order to educate kids in the ways of their religion. The only thing I like is his immigration policy, which would break down the barriers which turn skilled trades workers into cab drivers. His environmental policy is abysmal, his fiscal plan is nonexistent, he will bankrupt the education system, he seems bent on privatizing health care, basically he is a mirror image of his federal counterpart Stephen Harer, but at least Tory has a personality.

And the Winner Is?

2007-09-21T14:30:00.000-04:00

Well the Leaders Debate took place last night. Unfortunately I had other pressing matters to attend to so I missed a good portion of it, but what I did see was interesting. After reading many an article on how the pundits think the debate went I think my opinion is justified. As is normal with these debates all three leaders are walking away claiming victory, but who really won the debate.

Personally I hate calling winners in these debates, it seems so pointless. But this time I think there was indeed a clear winner. Howard Hampton won by a landslide I think. Now I know a lot of you will probably point out my bias as a NDP member and the fact that I admitted numerous times that I will be voting NDP. Let me just say though I think Howard Hampton has all the charisma of a doorstop. I’ve never met the man, maybe in person he is much more likeable, but I think the NDP could do much better with almost anyone at the helm. He’s not stupid, I think he is intelligent and well reasoned, there is no other reason for disliking him other then he is dull, at least Bob Rae had personality.

Ok, lets ignore that I just used the name of the most hated Premier in Ontario’s history and continue with my reasoning for declaring Hampton a winner. I think Hampton won because McGuinty and Tory all but ignored him. They fought amongst themselves and Hampton and Tory ganged up on McGuinty and Hampton and McGuinty ganged up on Tory, but very few volleys were fired at Hampton. Basically Hampton was given carte blanche to give his platform with very little criticism, while every point McGuinty and Tory brought up was slammed for one reason or another.

McGuinty spent the entire debate claiming Ontario was on the right road but that “there was more work to be done”. That became his mantra and it was repeated ad nauseam. Tory on the other hand could only rail on and on how he was going to provide more and more services while cutting more and more taxes, while maintaining a balanced budget. Hampton however maintained cool and put forth the NDP propaganda flawlessly, even if it was a little dull.

Who to Vote For in the Upcoming Election Part II: The Liberals

2007-09-17T11:28:00.000-04:00

The Liberals, often referred to as the Lie-berals by those who don’t like them, is headed by Dalton McGuinty, and they are the party currently in power. McGuinty is running on a campaign of his record primarily, which is an interesting strategy considering the PC party is also running a campaign primarily on McGuinty’s record. In true Liberal fashion Dalton gave his platform document a flashy title, “Moving Forward Together”. This platform is broken down into five sections, the key issues according to Dalton:

A Smarter Ontario – Dalton’s Education Platform
A Stronger Ontario – Dalton’s Economic Platform
A Healthier Ontario – Dalton’s Health Care Platform
A Greener Ontario – Dalton’s environmental Platform
A Better Ontario for Families – Dalton’s platform on “Improving Quality of Live”

Basically Dalton is urging a continuation of his rule. Cut back on Private School tax credits, cut back funding of Separate School boards such as Catholic Schools, on the flip side supposed increase in public school funding.

As far as Amoralist issues, federally the Liberals are all for decriminalizing marijuana, though this is more of a cash grab for them then a freedoms issue, provincially there is no indication of what McGuinty’s stance is, although in 1999 he did state that decriminalization is the way to go.

Who to Vote For in the Upcoming Election Part I: The Importance of Voting

2007-09-14T10:51:00.000-04:00

Well you probably all know there is an election looming, at least for those of us in Ontario. I thought, that since the Amoralist Party of Canada has not candidates running in any riding (being as it is a fictional party) that I’d talk about who is running, what they stand for, and what it means to fellow Amoralists. Over the next few days I will publish four articles (five including this one), one on the Liberals, one on the Conservatives, one on the NDP, and one on the other alternatives. This article will focus on the election itself and why you should vote at all and the referendum that is being tied to this election.

As always, in most ridings it is a race between the Liberals and the Conservatives (who in Ontario, for provincial elections still use the Progressive Conservative name), with the NDP as the third option. In some ridings, such as the London-Fanshawe, the riding in which I reside, the NDP stand a good chance of being elected. Now I can’t tell you who to vote for (well I could, but that wouldn’t be right), however I can tell you a little about what each party stands for and you can make up your own mind. Of course the best way to vote is to find the candidate in your riding you can trust, believe, and has similar beliefs and vote for them, regardless of what party they stand with.

Voting is the backbone of the Canadian System, sure you’ve all heard this before, and you all know voter turn out is terrible. Voter apathy may be to blame, but apathy is no excuse. Voting is the only say you have in how this country is run, so many laws make the books because the people who don’t want them too never vote. If you want to affect change the only way to do so is to vote. I have met people protesting various issues who claim never to vote because their voice is not heard, to those people I say go home, your voice really isn’t being heard. Stand in front of parliament all day with as many signs as you wish, you won’t be heard until your ballot is cast.

This particular election is actually more important then others, because not only are we casting our ballot to determine who leads the province for the next four years or so we are also being asked our opinion about how the elections should take place. There is a referendum taking place along with the general election. This referendum is to ask YOU if the current system is fair, or if another system is better.

The referendum question is terribly worded, and most people will probably ignore in entirely. However it is an important issue and your voice should be heard. The question on the ballot will be:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? / Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

* The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post) / L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)

* The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional) / L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)

As I said, a terrible question. It gives no information and many people probably won’t bother to learn what the “alternative system is”. So let me explain a bit.

The current system is a first past the post system. You vote for you local candidate who belongs to a particular political party. That’s not all you are doing however, you are empowering your candidate to a vote in who becomes the Premier. Basically this means which ever party elects the most MPP’s gets to chose the Premier. There is a catch however, the catch is the Premier must have a seat in the government as well. Now this catch is not much of a catch considering any party member may step down and be replaced without a bi-election by the party leader. What this means is that lets say you voted Joe Blow who is a member of the Amoralist Party of Canada, who’s leader is John Stone, now lets say John Stone loses in his riding, but the Amoralist Party still gets the most seats in the house, Joe Blow may be asked by the party to step aside so that John Stone can take his place. In the end you may not get the person you voted for as your representative, and you have zero say in this.

The system being proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly is a mixed member proportional representation system (wow that’s a real pain in the ass to say isn’t it?). In this system you get two votes, one for the party of your choice and one for the candidate of your choice. So you could vote for Joe Blow as your Candidate in your area, but the Conservatives as the party, this would give the Amoralists one vote and the Conservatives one vote for who sits as the premier. Basically 70% of the seats would be local members, the candidates you voted for individually, the other 30% would be what are called List candidates. The list candidates would be anyone the party that was voted for chooses, so if there were 39 list seats (which is what is being proposed) and the Amoralists won 20 seats they could then choose any 20 members to fill the seats. What this means is that they could have the party leader as a list member rather then a local member, and he no longer has to worry about winning his riding, and parachute candidates would be a thing of the past. Of course it is still technically possible for a party to win a majority with out getting any list seats and it may still happen that your local candidate get ousted, but the chances of that are so phenomenally small, basically if a party got 65 seats and zero list members then they could still form a government without a single list member, however in order for that to happen they would have to win in 65 ridings without any of those ridings also getting any votes as a party. Since most people vote along party lines this isn’t likely to happen.

So now you know why you need to vote, and what the referendum is all about, when the polls open, get out there and vote.

Liberals Buying Votes

2007-09-04T10:06:00.000-04:00

The Liberals announced that if they are re-elected to power in the upcoming October election they will add a new long weekend to the list of statutory holidays. Family day, as they have dubbed it, will be the third Monday of February. The Liberals say its focus will be to recognize the importance of Ontario families by giving everyone a day to spend with their families.

This is an obvious and blatant attempt to buy votes. Don’t get me wrong, Family Day is a good idea, we could all use a holiday to help cure the February blahs. I just don’t like the idea of so many people going out to vote for the wrong reasons. This type of vote-buying is wrong. Voting should be about the issues, not which party offers the best vote-buying package.

Ontario does indeed need some more holidays. The workers of Ontario have fewer holidays then almost anywhere else. A day for Ontario families is a great idea as well, Alberta already celebrates this day, and both Manitoba and Saskatchewan are working towards passing legislation to make it official in those provinces as well. So why then am I opposed to this plan of the Liberals? Sure it’s vote buying, sure it gets people voting for the wrong reasons, those are some very good reasons to be opposed to the creation of this holiday. What bothers me most about this is there is another day that continually gets mentioned as a possible addition as a statutory holiday that should get this recognition before a made up holiday. A day that constantly gets overlooked because government employees, including MP’s and MPP’s, already get off. Remembrance Day, this is still not a statutory holiday.

If the Liberals insist on campaigning on vote buying they should at least deal with days that should be holidays first before making up a new one. If you want to support the Liberals in their quest to make Family Day a reality, so be it, but please take the time to study the issues as well. Make sure your Liberal candidate is right for your area. Don’t allow McGuinty to buy your vote, make him earn it.

A Fairer Taxation Method

2007-08-13T14:11:00.000-04:00

The current taxation system used in Canada is unfair and a huge administrative nightmare. Is there a solution to this? Not a system that would keep everyone happy, no. However I believe I have a system that might be better then what we have at least.

Income Tax

Income tax is massively unfair and requires a team of accountants to do the more complex returns. Why not eliminate it? Income tax makes no real sense, an entirely sales tax based system makes more sense. Don’t get me wrong, employers should still have to pay a tax based on how much they pay employees, but that would be a more services tax since they are paying for a service from their employees.

Sales Tax

I admit with my method some of the complexity that was within the Income tax portion of taxation gets moved over to sales tax, but in our modern age this should not really be a big deal. Naturally with the elimination of Income Tax Sales Tax would increase substantially. However not everything would be taxed equally. A tier based tax would be instituted based on how essential the item was. For example on food their would be two taxation rates, one for essential foods like bread, meat, milk, fruits, and vegetables, and another higher rate for junk foods. This would serve a dual purpose, with healthy food having considerably less tax on it then junk food the consumption of healthy food should increase reducing the over all obesity of Canada, with a low enough rate on the essentials it would keep tax rates low for low income families. For other items there would also be varying rates depending on how essential it is with things like gas guzzling SUV’s, cigarettes, liquor, and marijuana, having the highest sales tax rate while things like clothing, and shelter, having the lowest tax rates.

Gambling

2007-08-03T11:13:00.000-04:00

Gambling is a hot topic in the US, if not here in Canada, with the US getting tougher on online gambling. Here in Ontario charity casinos are going up in every town with more then 12 people it seems. Is this a good thing for Canada’s citizens? It depends on who you talk to, some say yes it is bringing tourists, others say no it encourages gambling addiction.

Does having casinos encourage gambling addicts, of course it does, just as having bars encourages alcoholics. Does this mean that we should ban casinos? No, no more then we should ban bars. Now I know that gambling addicts sometimes hurt their family due to the addiction, but it is no different then any other addiction. Gambling addiction is a serious thing, and should be dealt with, but why stop non-addicts from enjoying some time at a casino just because of a few bad apples.

Casinos can be beneficial. There can be no argument that they turn a profit, that they put money into the economy, and that the charity ones raise money for charities. As for gambling addicts, well obviously something must be done, the best way is to educate and rehabilitate. One possible means of minimize gambling addiction is to ensure that there are no bank machines in Casinos and ensure that gamblers do not spend more then what they intended to upon entering a Casino.

What Passes for Scientific Evidence

2007-07-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

Too often shoddy statistical studies pass as proof positive in today’s media, and it is beginning to irritate me. How often have you seen the headline “Marijuana Causes Psychotic Episodes” or “Pizza Cures Cancer” or other silly claims? Ok I know that people are going to read this and goes, but I know there are studies demonstrating that people who smoke marijuana are 40% more likely to develop schizophrenia, and that is exactly my point. People take these studies as they first appear and take them as gospel truth, when in fact they are statistical studies passing off as scientific evidence. Statistical study is NOT hard science it is mathematics. People who read both my blogs probably have heard me say this before, particularly in my latest post "Cannabis Increases Chances of Psychosis”, but it is worth repeating, again and again and again until the masses get it.

Studies like this, purporting to prove something based on statistics, are logical fallacies of the highest order. It is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is latin for “after this, therefore because of this”, in other words if A happened before B then A must have caused B. Everyone knows that this isn’t true. Just because I wake up every day before I go to work, that does not mean that waking up causes me to go to work. However so many studies being reported by the media these days follows this exact reasoning.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really blame the researchers, it is more the media and how they report it that is to blame. In most cases you can see a caveat that the study admits it does not prove its case, just that it indicates it, however the media glosses that over and focuses on the so-called proof. American media is worse about this then most, they take minor studies which are to be used as indicators for further studies and announce that they are proof positive. The public needs to take more care and call these media companies into check when such crazy reports are made. Stop allowing the media hype to form your opinions people, if the media reports something is bad/good for your health find out why, make sure there is actual evidence of this. Logical fallacies seem more prolific then fact base studies now, be on the watch.

Trans-Fat Ban

2007-07-16T11:22:00.001-04:00

Thanks to Calgary’s proposed municipal Trans-Fat ban Trans-Fats are back in the news. The Canadian government wants to limit Trans-fat as well, but it has a considerably longer time frame, which is what prompted Calgary’s move. I think such a ban is a silly idea, especially on a municipal scale, how exactly does Calgary plan to regulate and enforce it? Calgary does not produce all of its own food, it comes from outside sources, do they really expect to be able to get all of the companies that provide the food for them to suddenly change their production method just to appease one city?

I also don’t believe that a nation wide ban is a wise way to go. Rather then ban trans-fat wouldn’t it be better, and cheaper, to offer tax breaks to zero trans-fat producers and enforce stricter labeling guidelines? The government should not act as a nanny protecting us from what we choose to put into our bodies, if I want to eat something with 500g of trans-fat its my funeral, no one else’s. Yes, I know, people who get trans-fat induced heart attacks are a drain on our badly damaged health care system, but there is a solution to that as well. The health care system needs to be seriously overhauled.

What should be done to reduce trans-fats is, as I stated above, give a tax credit for any product created that has zero trans-fats, plus charge an added tax to any product sold with over a certain percentage of trans-fats, change the labeling requirements so that the amount of transfats in any product (on the shelf or in a restaurant) is clearly visable, and invest in education so that people know the dangers of transfats.

Prostitution

2007-07-12T13:35:00.000-04:00

The anti-prostitution laws are one of many I consider to be a law based on morality alone that needs to be abolished. Laws prohibiting prostitution encourage all the negative aspects of prostitution such as abuse by customers, women being forced into prostitution, and much more. I think every feminist should be for legal prostitution. If prostitution were legalized and regulated crime would decrease, and prostitutes could work in a safer environment. Let’s face it the laws prohibiting prostitution have done nothing to slow down the sex trade, and there is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution except on a morality standpoint.

Under the current laws what can a prostitute do if their customer, or their pimp abuses them? If they go to the police they are charged with prostitution, if they take matters into their own hands they run the risk of an assault charge and a prostitution charge. And what about a “John”, if he or she is robbed or assaulted by a prostitute or someone posing as a prostitute, they have no repercussions either. A law allowing prostitution and regulating prostitutes would make the industry much safer.

The only non-moral issue around the prostitution laws, the most commonly cited one supporting keeping prostitution illegal, is sexually transmitted diseases. Both Nevada and the Netherlands have legalized and regulated prostitution, and in both places STD rates among prostitutes are incredibly low. If you issue prostitutes licenses and force them to use condoms or lose their license they will most likely comply, especially if you offer them free or extremely discounted rates for condoms.

Besides all of these reasons there is another less obvious reason to legalize prostitution. We already allow people to have sex in exchange for money on a small scale, the pornography industry. The only difference between porn actors and prostitutes all parties are being paid for sex, not just one.

How would it actually work?

A prostitute would have to apply for a license to prostitute. A full medical checkup would have to be done and if the applicant were free of STD’s then a license would be provided at a fee, high enough to make it worthwhile. If a brothel wishes to apply for a site license that could be allowed as well as long as all girls are certified and licensed, perhaps offering a lower priced license for brothel workers. All customers would have to pay regular sales tax plus a luxury tax in addition to the prostitute’s fees. This luxury tax could go immediately into the health care system allowing the sex industry to pay for the additional expense on the health care industry. Also all prostitutes would be contributing income tax on the amount they earn bringing in even more funds.

Legalizing prostitution is not only logical from an amoralist standpoint but also from an economic one.

Happy Canada Day

2007-07-03T09:28:00.000-04:00

I hope everyone had a good long weekend and enjoyed Canada Day. Too often Canadians are apathetic about their nation, or we just don't announce to the world that we are proud to be Canadians, Canada Day is our day to do this.

July 1 1867 the Dominion of Canada became a confederation with the formation of the British North America Act. Although it has been amended several times it is still in place now as our constitutional document. This act essentially made us a sovereign nation and allowed us full legislative control. We broke from Britain rule peacefully and without incident. There was no revolution, no armed conflict, just the passing of a law, this is the Canadian way. Americans are proud of their freedom from Britain rule, as they should be, but we Canadians have just as much cause to be proud, we did what the Americans did through bloodshed without ever firing a single bullet.

Happy Birthday Canada, I know our national anthem is rarely sung, some may even have trouble with the lyrics, but here they are in case you feel the need to break our into song and see how many loyal Canadians stand at attention for the singing:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

On Morality

2007-06-28T15:46:00.000-04:00

I thought it fitting that the inaugural post on the Amoralist Party of Canada discusses morality. As the founding member of the Amoralist Party of Canada I should point out that I do not think morals should be ignored, I believe everyone should follow a set of morals and should adhere to them as they see fit. I do however believe that politics should be strictly amoral. The government should not run on a set of morals no matter how broad sweeping they may seem at the time, morality has no place in the government.

Lets start out by defining morality, immorality, and amorality so the differences can be examined. Morality is a personal code of conduct, allowing a person to distinguish between right and wrong. Immorality is not following a code of conduct and specifically acting against that code. Amorality is the state of being neither moral nor immoral; it is the median between the two. So how does this pertain to politics, well quite frankly morality does no pertain to politics or law in any way, and that is precisely the point.

Too often in our society morality is brought into question when discussing political matters, look at the relatively recent legalization of same sex marriage, both sides claimed that they had the moral high ground. If morality was left out of the issue entirely there would have been nothing to debate, same sex marriage should be allowed as long as the government chooses to be in business of licensing marriages. Morality should never be the gage at which is used to determine an issue, because morality is illogical and emotionally driven. Every law should be able to stand up on a logical grounds.

To that end the Amoralist Party of Canada is born. While it is a fictional party and there are no candidates in any riding, I urge you to join the Amoralist Party of Canada non the less. Join the Amoralists for a more logical future; join the Amoralists for an end to laws that beat us down based on outdated doctrine; join the Amoralists because you know I am right, law should be based on logic not morality.