Tourism Commission Looks to Woo Gay Couples to Canada

CFRA News Talk Radio ^ | June 16, 2006 | Josh Pringle

[UnbornChild]

Tourism Commission Looks to Woo Gay Couples to Canada Josh Pringle Friday, June 16, 2006

The Canadian Tourism Commission wants to attract same-sex couples to Canada.

The agency has launched an advertising blitz in the United States to woo gay couples to tie the knot in Canada.

If you want to express your objections:

http://www.canadatourism.com/ctx/app/en/ca/contactSubmit.do

I encourage Americans to write as well. You just know American gay couples will use this to get their unions acknowledged by American courts.

[GMMAC]

First off & again:

"One of the things - among many - which likely skews your perceptions as to Canada is that, with under 1/10 of America's overall population, local matters/reactions become national ones much more easily & frequently up here." ~ GMMAC

Second & Third:
Your perception of continuing Canadian media coverage & mine are totally at odds but, ... I live up here & doubtless track our msm far more closely.
How you've arrived at the conclusion that Canadian conservatives are even remotely "happy" with respect to anything regarding the radical homosexual agenda is absolutely beyond me.
However, continually harping about it in post after post may well be indicative of some sort of unhealthy fixation.

[kanawa]

How is anybody going to take you seriously if your agenda is consistently being hijacked by the gay priority?

How is anybody am I, spatso, going to take you seriously if your agenda, in my, spatso's, opinion, is consistently being hijacked by as I, spatso, see it, the gay priority?

The answer is that our agenda is not being hijacked.
It is an issue yes, but only one among many.
We are not, as your spatsological argument would have us believe, fixated or distracted.
If our enemies are stupid enough to believe that this 'gay' issue means
we are less likely to take the battle to them or to defend our borders,
they do so at their peril.

As conservatives and patriots we are called on to fight on many fronts.
The U.S. and Canada face the common enemies of socialism and radical islam.
We don't get to pick and choose our battles,
but stand up for conservative principles and our country whenever we find them challenged.
Of course some threats are more dire.
When faced with two men that want us to accept their "marriage"
and an islamofascist that wants to kill us
it is obvious which is a more immediate threat
and is treated as such.

In this international struggle conservatives need to support one another across borders.
You can be sure our enemies do.
Sniping at our fellows about their problems when we have the same problems helps no one but our foe.

Your knowledge of Canada as gleaned from these few titillating media articles
that you are focusing on is woefully incomplete.
If you're concerned about Canada do some more study.
See where we have been and where we are working hard, with God's grace, to be.
Realistically things rarely change over night
but with consistent effort and the support of our great neighbors to the south
we are moving Canada in the right direction

[proud_yank]

LOL!

[proud_yank]

Realistically things rarely change over night

Amazing how so many American 'conservatives' here on FR are quick to forget that, and openly engage in the liberal practice/art of prejuidice & stereotypes.

We American's can never forget:

[Fair Go]

Spatso why is it that I keep thinking that you must be American and that you have been on a gay tour to Canada and had a bad experience? I am not saying that this is true or not true. It is just the impression that I, as an objective person who is neither American or Canadian, keep getting.

[spatso]

"to castigate Canada's recent pro-homosexual tourism pitch is, given the vastly greater amount of the same crap found in the US, bald-faced hypocrisy."

Gay pride events and all that stuff does not bother me. What bothers me is the Canadian government in really dangerous times appears to take a soft position on all this stuff. Gay mounties being married in uniform, government funded agencies actively recruiting gay tourists and the new "conservative" government appears to acquiesce on the matter. More important, Canadian FReepers pretend everything is fine and they are happy with this soft underbelly being exposed to the world. I just want Canadian FReepers vigorously reject this image for Canada. But, don't reject it by telling me it is not true, reject it by changing the message and the image. If Canadian FReepers are happy with the status quo, such as gay mounties being allowed to marry in uniform, one can only assume it must be the will of the people.

[spatso]

"How you've arrived at the conclusion that Canadian conservatives are even remotely "happy" with respect to anything regarding the radical homosexual agenda is absolutely beyond me."

Just go back and read the posts of Canadian FReepers defending the status quo and insisting that I am wrong and that Canada does not have an image problem in terms of being a little "lite." In terms of "my fixation" I thought I was just being polite and responding to the posts directed towards me.

[spatso]

"As conservatives and patriots we are called on to fight on many fronts.
The U.S. and Canada face the common enemies of socialism and radical islam.
We don't get to pick and choose our battles,
but stand up for conservative principles and our country whenever we find them challenged.
Of course some threats are more dire.
When faced with two men that want us to accept their "marriage"
and an islamofascist that wants to kill us
it is obvious which is a more immediate threat
and is treated as such."

That is pretty good stuff. I find most of your posts compelling and convincing. But, as you have said yourself I am not all that important. You have to convince Congressman Hostetler and a whole bunch of Canadian detractors that really matter. The idea that Canada cannot be trusted on the border security issue is not a passing fancy of weekend posters. Perhaps Canadian leaders need to follow your script in terms of what they need to say.

[spatso]

"Spatso why is it that I keep thinking that you must be American and that you have been on a gay tour to Canada and had a bad experience? I am not saying that this is true or not true. It is just the impression that I, as an objective person who is neither American or Canadian, keep getting."

So far, I have not decided to be gay. If I ever decide to be gay I would certainly want to go to Canada as I am sure I would be made to feel welcome. I cannot imagine that a gay tour of Canada could be anything but wonderful (according to the Canadian Tourism Commission).

[spatso]

"Amazing how so many American 'conservatives' here on FR are quick to forget that, and openly engage in the liberal practice/art of prejuidice & stereotypes."

The picture of Clinton is an interesting intrusion in our discussion. If you remember the debate on gays in the military, even Clinton got it. It was not about being gay or not being gay but, about the image of the military. Don't ask, don't tell turns out to be a workable solution for the military and government agencies. Do you not think Canada would benefit from a similar posture? Don't ask don't tell looks pretty sophisticated today when compared to the Canadian approach of wanting to lead the world in its sensitivity toward the gay lifestyle. It is about image. Surely you can't be happy with this soft, gentle image that Canada appears to have so carefully nurtured.

[fanfan]

.....when all that is reported is Canada's plan to recruit gay tourists.

Army Gets New Commander (Canadian Forces)

Coalition forces kill 45 in Afghanistan

Soft Targets

Real life or fantasy?

Canadian Army MEDICAL OUTREACH in Afghanistan

'I'm nobody's puppet': Harper

Canada to beef up terror security

These are just a few of the threads and links made in the last day on FR regarding Canada.

Seems none of them include your pet subject. Is that why you didn't see them?

Surely it is an image problem for Canada.

Only in your mind.

I guess it never bothered you having a rapist for a President.

[fanfan]

Mr. fanfan are you happy that Canadian government initiatives seem to get lost in the media buzz around gay marriages, gay mounties and now this week's story on the recruitment of gay tourists?

It only seems to happen to you, Mr. Spatso.

Second, do you think the Canadian government should exercise a stronger voice and give clearer guidelines to try and neutralize the excessive media attention placed on the gay Canadian dialog?

I see. Now you are saying our government should control our media.

I take it free speech isn't a big issue for you.

[spatso]

So, are you saying I am mistaken that Canada does not have an image problem (too soft)? Were Congressman Hostetler's concerns merely a figment of my imagination? Am I the only one who has ever expressed doubt about Canadian reliability on the border security issue?
Remember, I am not saying Canada is soft. I am saying they have a problem that they have the image that they are soft and, therefore, unreliable.
Do you think you can shoot the messenger (me) and the problem just goes away?

[spatso]

"Now you are saying our government should control our media."

No, not at all. I just think the Canadian government needs to be more proactive to try and neutralize the really negative image that Canada has cultivated. So, when mounties get married in uniform or the Canadian Tourism Commission issues a press release saying they are keen to recruit gay weddings to Canada that Mr. fanfan and the entire Canadian posse stands up and says "Hell no that is not the image we want for Canada." And, if I don't see it here why would I expect to see it from your government?

[fanfan]

You mean your Republican who voted with the Democrats on terrorism?


Today, the House Judiciary Committee considered my resolution of inquiry on the domestic spying program. The Resolution was rejected 16 to 21, with all Democrats and one Republican (Congressman Hostetler) voting for it.

A few quick impressions: first, I was surprised at how half hearted the Republican defense of the program was. I would even go further -- while some offered a full throated defense of the program, many of my Republican colleagues seemed almost sheepish about it, and many did not speak about it at all.

Second, Republicans repeatedly asserted that the documents were not needed because Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner has unilaterally submitted 51 questions (pdf) to the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General would testify at a general oversight hearing at some undetermined point in the future. I and the other Democratic Members responded that this was wholly inadequate, and that to fulfill their constitutional oversight role the Committee needed to obtain documents from the Administration and hold separate hearings on the NSA issue.

More to the point, while some news outlets touted the Chairman's letter, his questions are, in my view, inadequate. A close reading of them reveals that the first 38 questions essentially ask the Department whether they think the program is legal. They have already given us their answer on that. The remaining questions are so general, that they can be answered by a google search of what is already in the press.

A few are such softballs it is hard to take them seriously. Take number 18, for example -- "Do you agree that it is debatable as to whether the United States homeland is still a target of al Qaeda?" Wonder what the Justice Department will answer. That sounds like the Fox News question of the day.

My third impression is a very positive one: every single Democrat present spoke passionately and eloquently about the legitimate questions surrounding this program and the desperate need for Congressional oversight of it.

To me, this is one of the most serious problems with one-party, Republican rule: there is no check and balance of Executive Branch wrongdoing. The refusal to assert basic prerogatives to obtain documents and engage in oversight is dangerous and disheartening. We are not giving up -- we, meaning every House Judiciary Democrat, have sent our own questions to the Chairman and asked for a series of hearings on this issue.

Some Republicans are breaking ranks, however, particularly those in competitive districts. They know what many may learn the hard way in November -- the American people expect the Congress to be a check and balance, not to give the President a blank check.

Congressman John Conyers's diary

[fanfan]

Do you think you can shoot the messenger (me) and the problem just goes away?

Shooting the messenger that bring lies and half truths works for me.

[fanfan]

That post is not the first from you telling me how I should react, or what I should say to keep YOU happy.

I am not here to help your work through your feelings.

[spatso]

"You mean your Republican who voted with the Democrats on terrorism?"

I never said that Congressman Hostetler was right in his concerns about Canadians being soft on border security, my point was merely that is his belief. And, I need to tell you Mr. fanfan he is not the only person who has that belief. It is a perception right or wrong that needs to be addressed.
When we started the mother of this thread a few weeks ago, another FReeper mailed me to say I was wasting my time. Specifically, Canadians could attack and could be critical of American policy but, they will not tolerate any negative comment about there own situation. So, it is my challenge to find one Canadian FReeper who will break with the posse and agree that Canada has an image problem in terms of being too soft. The gay stuff is merely a manifestation of that soft image problem.

[fanfan]

I never said that Congressman Hostetler was right in his concerns about Canadians being soft on border security, my point was merely that is his belief. And, I need to tell you Mr. fanfan he is not the only person who has that belief. It is a perception right or wrong that needs to be addressed.

I think Algore was first in line for incorrect perceptions that need to be addressed.

So, it is my challenge to find one Canadian FReeper who will break with the posse and agree that Canada has an image problem in terms of being too soft.

The West has an image problem of being seen as too soft by the Islamic world.
What's your point?

[Irish_Thatcherite]

The West has an image problem of being seen as too soft by the Islamic world.
What's your point?

I've been trying to drive the same message home to him!