Category Archives: Liberal

Factional tensions in the Victorian Liberal Party have reignited over a failed attempt by a group of 'Young Turks'to oust an MP aligned with Opposition leader Matthew Guy.

At a preselection battle for the rural seat of Narracan onSaturday, 65-year-old incumbentGary Blackwood fended off a challenge by 25-year-old rival Stephanie Ross, a conservative pro-lifecampaigner and the partner of controversial Liberal numbers man Marcus Bastiaan.

The result is a victory for Mr Guy, who went to significant lengths to shore up support for Mr Blackwood including announcing plans, one week before today's contest, to build a new West Gippsland hospital should the Liberals win government at the next election.

However, some view it as yet another failure by the Liberals to embrace the gender targets Mr Guy himself set last year, and a blow to the party's attempts to renew and regenerate ahead the 2018 Victorian election.

"This is a leadership issue for Matthew," said one senior figure. "He set the terms, so if you can't meet them, that's a problem."

Mr Blackwood is currently the oldest Liberal member in State Parliament and has spent most of the past 11years on the backbench.

While Mr Bastiaan and his allies have long argued the parliamentary team needs fresh blood and firepower to combat Labor and the Andrews Government, Mr Guy said on Saturday:"Gary Blackwood won Narracan in 2006 and has held it with a strong majority ever since. This result reflects his proven track record of delivering for his community."

The battle for Narracanalso highlighted the ongoing culture war within the Victorian branchand fears that the Liberals are lurching too far to the right.

While Mr Blackwood is regarded as a social conservative (he voted against the decriminalisation of abortion in 2008),MsRoss -a Catholic aligned with the Menzies branch of the Liberals controlled by conservativewarrior Kevin Andrews - is seen as too extreme by many in her party. This was highlighted last year afterFairfax Media revealed details of aninterview where she argued that women should never have abortions, even in the case of rape.

Mr Bastiaan, meanwhile,has spent the past few months actively recruiting conservative church groups, Probus groups, and "anyone that will listen",exposing him to claims of alleged branch stacking.

But both are polarising figures and,as revealed by The Age on Saturday, senior party officials are currently overseeing a confidential vetting committee into Mr Bastiaan's recruitment activities.

Despite some Liberals assuming the preselection contest was going to be tight given Mr Bastiaan's reputation as a numbers man, Mr Blackwood ended up defeating Ms Ross 121 votes to 76.

However, the internal angst isn't over yet, with another sitting MP Burwood Liberal Graham Watt also being challenged for preselection on Sunday by lawyer-turned-staffer Gideon Rozner.

Read more from the original source:

State Liberal MP fends off preselection challenge by controversial pro-lifer - The Age

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch (R) meets with Democratic Sen. Robert Casey on Thursday.(Photo: Win McNamee, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON The first of many liberal public interest groups to delve deeply into Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's record on Thursday called him a "dangerous" choice who consistently favors corporations over workers, women, minorities andpeople with disabilities.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee was announcing a March schedule for Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, the Alliance for Justice issued a 56-page report on the federal appeals court judge that says aconservative ideology pervades his 10 years of opinions and dissents.

The group said the Senate should give "heightened scrutiny" to Gorsuch's nomination because of President Trump's recent attacks on the federal judiciary. Those attacks followeddecisions across the country that blocked Trump'seffort to impose a temporary travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries.

"Judge Gorsuchs view of the Constitution is one that would indeed take our nation backwardto an earlier era, where women, people of color, persons with disabilities, workers, LGBTQ Americans, and those interacting with the criminal justice system have fewer rights and legal protections," the report said.

The analysis likely to be followed by as many as dozens more from conservative as well as liberal public interest groups paints a portrait of a conservative ideologue whose views were formed in college and law school, long before his 2006 confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Read more:

On anniversary of Scalia's death, will his legacy live on in Neil Gorsuch?

Former law clerks herald Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's independence

But it devotes most of its attention to his rulings on the bench, highlighting those it considers to be outside the judicial "mainstream." Prominent among the cases cited are those in which Gorsuch favored the religious rights of corporations and non-profits over women seeking insurance coverage for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

"He has placed the rights of corporations over those of other Americans, weakened critical acts of Congress, and advocated for overturning long established legal doctrines that ensure the federal government can properly enforce protections for the American people," the report said.

That's areference to Gorsuch's disdain for aSupreme Courtprecedent granting considerable deference to federal agencies when they interpret vaguely written laws or regulations. It's one area where Gorsuch disagrees with the late Antonin Scalia, the justice he would succeed on the court if confirmed by the Senate.

It is hard to overstate how dangerous Neil Gorsuch would be on the Supreme Court, Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the Alliance for Justice, said.Neil Gorsuchis a judge whos ideologically driven.

Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that hearings on Gorsuch's nomination willbe held the week of March 20, with the judge appearing on March 21. The hearings are likely to last three or four days, followed by committee and full Senate votes, most likely in April.

That timetable would give Gorsuch an outside chance of being confirmed in time to hear oral arguments later in April the last arguments of the court's 2016 term. Otherwise, he would not sit in on cases until the 2017 term begins in October.

Trump urged Democrats to vote for Gorsuch during hispress conference Thursday but acknowledged that "you may not see that." Without at least eight votes from Democrats, Republicans who control the Senate would have to change the rules to eliminate the current 60-vote hurdle.

"But hell get there one way or the other," Trump said.

Read more:

Analysis: Trump's press conference was a spectacle for the ages

The first 100 days of the Trump presidency

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lngZ1X

Read the original:

Major liberal group opposes Gorsuch confirmation - USA TODAY

Members of Parliament spent most of Thursday debating racism and discrimination in Canada as the Liberals and Conservatives battled over a private members motion that condemns Islamophobia.

The Tories introduced their own anti-racism motion in response to Liberal MP Iqra Khalids motion M-103, which calls on the government to condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and to study the issue at the heritage committee and make recommendations.

Conservative MP David Andersons motion doesnt specifically mention Islamophobia, a term the Tories say is not well-defined and could stifle freedom of speech. The House of Commons, including Conservatives, has already unanimously condemned all forms of Islamophobia in an NDP motion last fall, although it wasnt a recorded vote and its unclear how many MPs were in the chamber.

The Conservative motion condemns all forms of systemic racism and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities, which Mr. Anderson said is more inclusive. For procedural reasons, the Conservative motion will be voted upon in the coming days, while the Liberal motion will be dealt with in April.

Heritage Minister Melanie Joly called the Tory version weakened and watered down and said the government would not support it.

The Conservatives have brought this motion forward in a cynical attempt to serve their political purposes and avoid addressing the real issue concerning Islamophobia, she told reporters even before the debate began.

In a speech in the Commons, Ms. Khalid read out some of the 50,000 hate-filled responses she said shes received about her motion, and said shes not backing down on the language used.

I have asked my staff to lock the office behind me, as I now fear for their safety. I have asked them not to answer all phone calls, so they do not hear the insults, threats and unbelievable amounts of hate shouted at them and myself, she said. lslamophobia is real.

Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu told the House she was also the subject of online attacks during the election campaign for being a Christian.

My point is that hate crimes and these attacks are happening across different faiths, she said.

She added that MPs need clarity on the definition of Islamophobia, which she said is different around the world. If I think of myself, I am afraid that if ISIS jihadists came over, they might cut my head off and rape me. Is that Islamophobia? I do not know.

Most Tory leadership hopefuls, including Kellie Leitch, Maxime Bernier, Andrew Scheer, Brad Trost, Chris Alexander, Kevin OLeary and Erin OToole, say they disagree with the wording of Ms. Khalids motion. Michael Chong is the only candidate who said he will support it.

Ms. Leitch, who started a website called Stop M-103, told The Globe and Mail on Wednesday that many Canadians are worried their freedom of speech will be stifled.

Ms. Joly told the Commons it boggles the mind that members who have put their names forward to lead political parties, would try to capitalize on fear and division for their own benefit.

Former Liberal MP and justice minister Irwin Cotler, who put forward an anti-Semitism motion in 2015 using an agreed-upon definition, said the Liberals could change the term Islamophobia to anti-Muslim bigotry in order to get all sides on board.

Has anybody spoken with them about the use of the terminology of anti-Muslim bigotry, which amounts to the same thing but is more specific and does not have what for some is seen to be a confusing term? he told reporters.

Ms. Khalid said Wednesday Islamophobia is the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination.

The NDP have signaled they would support both motions, but NDP MP Jenny Kwan told the Commons the party also wants Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to denounce U.S. President Donald Trumps immigration ban.

Follow Laura Stone on Twitter: @l_stone

See the original post:

Liberals, Tories spar over Islamophobia motion in full-day debate - The Globe and Mail

Ivanka Trump is perhaps the second-most watched person in the White House. The oldest daughter of the President, her position as a policy activist and adviser is unique in presidential history. Working through the ranks to become a clear voice for womens issues, coupled with her considerable business acumen, she should be a respected figure regardless of politics.

Instead, she faces a special scorn from Third Wave feminists and leftists alike (but I repeat myself) for one major reason: being her fathers daughter. One would think that a womans reputation is based on more than her relationship with a man.

Nope, not in 2017.

In many ways, Ivanka is the most self-made Trump: The Georgetown and Wharton graduate worked with a number of outside partners, and then formed her own empire. She used her own platform to advocate for women and equality in the workplace.

Despite her numerous accomplishments, the left has waged war on the first daughter in recent weeks. Why? Because they hate her father. A strong women's rights advocate and outspoken social liberal is being seen through the shadow of a man in her life: Her father, Donald J. Trump.

No feminist would or should judge another womans accomplishments through the prism of their fathers or husbands. Ivanka should be no different.

The social media campaign called #GrabYourWallet, which pressures retailers to drop Ivankas fashion products, was created as a response to Donald TrumpDonald TrumpPentagon Papers whistleblower: Leaks can make a difference Cummings: Not clear if Trump knew what the CBC was Ana Navarro hits Kushner for complaining about CNN: 'Oh, baby boy, I'm so sorry' MOREs infamous hot mic remark. Ivanka had no involvement in her fathers controversial remarks but liberals have ensured that she will suffer anyways!

#GrabYourWallet successfully pressured Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Jet.com, Gilt, and Shoes.com to stop selling Ivankas line. Sears and Kmart removed her products from their websites, while TJ Maxx instructed its employees to hide her clothing on the sales floor. For many on the left, all things are personal, and fashion must be no exception.

One look at the #GrabYourWallet site, and it hits you: someone took the time to systematically create a Joseph McCarthy-type list of companies and ask if they are, or if they ever have been, a carrier of Ivanka's products. The featured spreadsheet list of retailers is as comprehensive as it is offensive. Contact numbers and emails are next to each company, regarding their current status.

In Venezuela, public employees that signed the recall petition against strongman Nicolas Maduro were fired due to their political beliefs. Its hard to imagine a social media campaign fueled by the same sentiments.

And the attacks on Ivanka extend far beyond just #GrabYourWallet. Google your lite-fare media du jour and youll find enthusiastic hit pieces, ripping Ivanka and her brand. Search her name on Buzzfeed, and youll see a list of articles about her product all unabashedly negative and repetitive. How many Mean Girls gifs articles can one website hold?

The Huffington Post oh-so-helpfully explains to the reader why the Nordstrom scandal is such a big deal. Their line of reasoning? That Donald Trump cant separate himself from his kids business decisions.

Voxs hot take on the situation can be seen through the prism of their profile of Ivanka last July, which expressed surprise that she holds so much influence over her father. Considering her success as an independent businesswoman, this should come as no shock. But Vox edu-tains readers by telling them that her efforts have so far failed to influence her father it then follows with over twenty paragraphs which show her effectiveness in influencing her father. I guess they figured no one reads beyond the first few sentences.

Meanwhile, the New Yorker has described Ivankas honed negotiating and speaking skills as weaponized greatness.

Why the vitriol against Ivanka, far more than against her brothers? Much of it can likely be boiled down to jealousy. Left-leaning journalists and self-proclaimed feminists wont admit it, but she is everything that we all aspire to be: smart, beautiful, and successful.

If Ivanka were anyone elses daughter, she would be praised as a trailblazer. If she were anyone elses daughter, shed probably also be successful with or without Donald Trumps money or influence.

Excerpt from:

Vicious attacks on Ivanka Trump exposes liberal hypocrisy - The Hill (blog)

Donald Trump answers a question from CNN's Jim Acosta during a news conference.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.

On Wednesday evening and throughout Thursday, conservative media outlets continued their coverage of Donald Trumps conflict with the intelligence community.

On the Daily Caller, an article titled, How the Nations Spooks Played the Game Kill Mike Flynn claimed, The talk within the tight-knit community of retired intelligence officers was that Flynns sacking was a result of intelligence insiders at the CIA, NSA and National Security Council using a sophisticated disinformation campaign to create a crisis atmosphere. Breitbart, meanwhile, aggregated reporting on the issue from the Wall Street Journal under the headline Deep State #Resistance: Spies Withhold Intel From Trump, Says WSJ.

Meanwhile, the National Review stood largely alone on Thursday in proposing that Congress should investigate Trumps relationship with Russia. In a formal editorial, it proposed that such an inquiry is necessary, whether or not this matter is on the order of Watergate. The editors wrote, A steadier hand is in order. Its time for the appropriate committees to conduct the oversightof the executive branch, and of the intelligence servicesfor which they are responsible.

Most publications turned their attention Thursday to other media outlets. Several sites featured posts mocking mainstream publications for worrying that Trump had primarily invited questions from conservative news organizations at his Wednesday joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Media Freakout Over Pecking Order Rages On, read a representative LifeZette headline. The Daily Caller drew from eight years of Barack Obamas interactions with the press to present 13 Hard-Hitting Questions Liberal Reporters Asked Obama, including one from Jim Acosta of CNN, who has been especially upset about conservative media access to the White House.

Town Halls Guy Benson approached the issue somewhat more soberly, offering a four-point analysis. Its fair to say that if President Obama had exclusively called on explicitly left-leaning outlets over the course of multiple consecutive press conferences conservatives would have melted down, Benson acknowledged. He went on to write that he didnt think personal pique was the top driving factor of their grousing. He proposed, however, that the mainstream presss reaction was driven by a deep-seated arrogance and ideological myopia, which blinds its representatives to the journalistic chops of less-than-liberal reporters.

Continuing this trend, conservative publications zeroed in on the presidents bromides against the mainstream media during his Thursday afternoon press conference. On its home page, Breitbart quoted Trumps assertion that the media has become so dishonest that if we dont talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Town Hall described the event as Round Two of his battle with CNNs Jim Acosta, writing, Trump asked CNN to do some self reflection. He told them to honestly consider not airing such anti-Trump news every night, and theyll see their ratings rise.

Sean Hannity presumably wasnt surprised by all this rancor. Youve heard me saying since 2008: Journalism is dead. But what were seeing play out now is far worse, he pronounced in his opening monologue.

Posts from conservative pages about polls indicating high approval numbers for Trump circulated widely on Facebook:

Read more from the original source:

Today in Conservative Media: Trump Bites Back at the Liberal Press - Slate Magazine (blog)

|

Posted: Feb 17, 2017 12:01 AM

What happened to liberal Democrats, and their concerns about civil liberties and government surveillance of American citizens?

Liberals once hated the CIA. And they loved the Russians. Yeah, you can look it up.

And their liberal friends in liberal Hollywood made movie after movie about the dangers of The Deep State and its awesome surveillance powers. One of the best was "Three Days of the Condor," with liberal icon Robert Redford fighting the malevolent CIA boss John Houseman, who longed for "the clarity" of world war.

Years later, Edward Snowden became the liberal demigod and WikiLeaks was their winged chariot of truth and beauty. Liberals fretted about the powers of the intelligence community being used on private citizens for political reasons.

So what happened to them? What happened to the ideals of these liberal Democrats?

Donald Trump was elected president, that's what happened to them.

And now you can clearly see the change in them as Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has become feast for the crows.

Flynn deserves his punishment. Make no mistake about that. He reportedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his phone conversations with a Russian ambassador that included discussion of the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

As a former general officer, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency boss, Flynn understands the chain of command. There is no lying to a superior officer, and Pence was his superior. Lying to a superior is grounds for court-martial. Or, at least gives pretext for a quick and brutal departure from the Trump White House, which is what happened.

So Flynn is gone, forced to resign, his head high on a spike upon the Democratic Party ramparts.

Democrats jeer at his head up there. It's as if this episode were street theater in olde England, with Punch and Judy entertaining the small folk. And Flynn's head, up there above them, is pecked endlessly in the sun.

But what victory are they celebrating, exactly? And at what cost to the republic?

What would have been bothersome to liberals of old (the pre-Trump kind) is that Flynn may have been targeted for a takedown by the Deep State intelligence operatives liberals once loathed.

Flynn and Trump warred with the intelligence community during the campaign, and Trump called out the CIA and others on multiple occasions, tweeting at them, provoking them.

Most recently, Trump was furious that his private conversations with the Australian prime minister became public and were used as a club to pound him in the pages of the "Never Trump" Washington Post and other establishment newspapers.

The damning news was that there are reportedly transcripts of Flynn speaking with the Russian ambassador -- before Trump was inaugurated president.

This indicates that Flynn was most likely the subject of a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It means his conversations were recorded. The American public should know what this is about. I have a hard time believing Flynn was a traitor. But I don't have a hard time believing that arrogance and foolishness are necessary prerequisites for a hard public fall.

What's astounding about this is that news reports on Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador also mentioned something else.

They mentioned the existence of many intelligence community sources, and these many intelligence sources presumably read the transcripts and leaked their contents to reporters.

That's what is amazing. That the intelligence community records the conversations of a private citizen and leaks to damage and weaken a president.

Liberals -- who once prided themselves on being civil libertarians -- are overjoyed. They don't question their good fortune. They celebrate.

Now Trump is in open, public war with American intelligence, and liberals cheer on the intelligence community leakers.

Trump declared his war with American intelligence on his Twitter account and then did so in person as he stood in the White House at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I think he's (Flynn) been treated very, very unfairly by the media -- as I call it, the fake media, in many cases -- and I think it's really a sad thing that he was treated so badly," Trump said.

"I think in addition to that, from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked," said the president, adding that such leaks were a "criminal action, criminal act."

The president's references to Flynn are awkward and politically self-serving.

But the president's reference to the intelligence community -- in his government -- is an open declaration of war. And it's dangerous.

Democrats are on the outs, so they love this story about Flynn. It feeds into their belief that Trump is some tool of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. It's not whether they believe it that matters. What matters is that they see a way to sear this deeply upon the American mind before the 2018 elections.

Democrats will continue to push this theme, even if it means celebrating a possible takedown of administration officials by American intelligence, and the many sources of those reports.

So why aren't liberals more concerned, when once they'd be outraged about authoritarian tactics?

For the same reasons they weren't concerned about presidential overreach when their guy was president, with his imperial pen and his phone.

Because for many Democrats, just like for many Republicans, it's all about power, isn't it? And ideals -- even those which help keep the republic -- be damned.

See more here:

Where Have All the Liberal Democrats Gone? - Townhall

John Howard confronted by One Nation supporters on a visit to the NSW central coast in 2001. The then PM responded to the threat of One Nation to the Liberal partys electoral fortunes by refusing to preference them Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

The Western Australian Liberal deal with Pauline Hansons One Nation has been given the blessing of the former prime minister John Howard, despite his 2001 edict it must be placed last on his partys how-to-vote cards.

Adding star power to the Liberal election campaign in Perth on Thursday, the nations second-longest-serving prime minister said the WA division made a very sensible, pragmatic decision to cut a deal with the rightwing party.

I fully understand why the WA Liberal party has taken the decision, he told reporters at a shopping centre in the seat of Southern River on Thursday, when he received almost entirely positive responses from voters and children.

Howard said One Nation had morphed into a different beast since his 2001 instructions, although he still didnt agree with everything it espoused.

Everyone changes in 16 years, he said. Trying to understand that decision and decisions that were taken by various iterations of the Liberal party 15 or 16 years ago is ridiculous.

Everyone changes in 16 years ... I think its entirely sensible

This is a different set of circumstances. I think its entirely sensible that the party has done whats its done.

The Greens were the only ones who hadnt changed, he said, and advocating dismantling the US alliance illustrated the partys continuing extremism.

The idea that people would see the current One Nation party as more extreme than the Greens is ridiculous, Howard said. And whos playing footsie with the Greens the Australian Labor party.

His comments came after the WA premier, Colin Barnett, refused to be drawn on whether the Liberals were morally wrong to seal the deal, snubbing alliance partners the Nationals, which retaliated with its preferences.

Barnett admitted some of the headline-grabbing views of candidates were abhorrent but said it was a numbers game and he had an election to win.

The latest comments from One Nation hopefuls dogging the party reportedly came from the now-deactivated Twitter account of Richard Eldridge, who is contesting an upper house seat in Perths South Metropolitan region.

In the posts, Eldridge, a real estate agent, advocated killing Indonesian journalists and also attacked the gay community, black people and Muslims.

Old social media posts are also haunting Michelle Myers, who was nominated for the newly-created seat of Bateman.

On Facebook last year, she said the gay community used Nazi-style mind control to get people to support same-sex marriage and has recently been protesting against abortion outside a reproductive health clinic in Midland, where women also get fertility treatment.

In absolutely no way do I endorse the policies or candidates of One Nation, Barnett told reporters. I find some of those comments absolutely abhorrent.

Im not going to be defending One Nation go and talk to Pauline.

Read the original here:

John Howard backs Liberal preference deal with One Nation in WA - The Guardian

In the liberal mind, your freedom is their oppression. From 60 Hard Truths about Liberals

I dont think Ive ever heard a more accurate description of the liberal mind. It not only encompasses everything they believe, it accurately explains their bizarre behavior.

Why do liberals see your freedom as their oppression? Because everything to them is a zero-sum game. Liberals only win when everyone who opposes them loses.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of individualism and personal freedom. Your God-given rights as an individual are your power. For liberals to satisfy their lust for absolute power, your individual rights must be taken away from you.

The exercise of free speech is a display of individual power. Liberals despise free speech because it is a right they cannot control. If it takes a rioting mob to keep an individual they hate from speaking, and you from hearing it, so be it.

Small, decentralized government is the best protector of individual rights. Your individualism is considered a threat to the liberal goal of centralizing all power under their control. That is why liberals promote the power of the collective over the power of the individual.

Owning a gun is a display of individual power and freedom as well. That is why liberals are forever fighting and restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition.

With individual freedom comes individual responsibility. If liberals were to embrace freedom, they would have to embrace the responsibility that naturally comes with freedom.

When seen as part of the larger collective, liberals are never held accountable for their actions, nor for the actions of those who act on their behalf.

Although most liberal elitists are wealthy, they despise the freedom that ownership of private property and wealth brings to those who consider themselves individualists.

In the mind of a liberal, the only way a conservative could possibly acquire wealth is if it were stolen, or gained by oppressing someone else.

In their quest to transform our country into a collectivist utopia, liberals have taken over the public schools and universities.

They use our innocent children and young adults to expand their own power by teaching them to hate freedom and to despise traditional American values. Instead, students are taught that all our nations problems stem from individualism and the only solution is national collectivism.

Liberal oppressors are relentlessly working to steal and corrupt everything that has made this country the last bastion of freedom on this earth.

Terri Lovell is a lifetime resident of Santa Clarita, a former home school mom, a current College of the Canyons student and a member of a local Republican club.

The rest is here:

Terri Lovell: Liberal oppression - Santa Clarita Valley Signal

Gay marriage and abortion are the prime hot-button issues but others include sex before marriage and the role of women in the clergy. In Lichfield, some wealthy gay donors to the church feel themselves alienated by anattitudewhich forces gay vicars to be celibate and fails to recogniseequal marriage.

The more "traditional" family values may not be something we all buy into, but one of the main tenants of a truly liberal society is that that liberalism cant be forcefully imposed on the people from above. The UK, and more specifically the Church of England, are clearly places of diverse opinion. The question is: how do they all come together?

At present, the worldwide Anglican Communion is undergoing a demographic shift. As the average British churchgoer becomes older and older, much of the growth is coming from socially conservative African countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda.

With the UK and the US increasinglysecular and accepting of gay marriage, the Communion is faced with a dilemma: embrace liberalism and risk alienating many Anglican communities from the developing world or court those same communities and become out-of-step with 21st Western liberal values.

Continued here:

If the Church of England continues to smother liberal Anglicans, it is ... - Telegraph.co.uk

Liberal Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi is lamenting what he described as an "unfortunate" expression of laughter erupting from the opposition Tory benches in the House of Commons this week after he spoke about his past as a bus driver in Edmonton.

"It was a very unfortunate expression of ... laughter that was done by the opposition," Sohi told reporters after the daily question period in the Commons on Thursday. "Whether they apologize or not, thats up to them, but we are focused on my work and we are here to focus on delivering the commitments that we made to Canadians."

The laughing incident arose after backbench Liberal MP Don Rusnak, who represents a federal riding in the Thunder Bay area of northwestern Ontario, asked Sohi if he could talk about the benefits of the government's efforts to support public transit.

The question fell under the category of what is known in federal politics as a "planted question" asked by a government backbencher. These types of issues are regularly raised by the government in the House of Commons, normally designed to elicit a pre-rehearsed response or soundbite that promotes a government policy.

Sohi began his answer to Rusnak's question on Tuesday by highlighting his past work as a bus driver and then expressing condolences for a Winnipeg bus driver who had been stabbed the night before.

A video of Tuesday's incident shows that several opposition MPs laughed after Sohi spoke about his previous job. Several Liberal ministers shook their heads in disgust over the laughter. But it wasn't immediately clear if the laughter was over Sohi's former job, or whether the Tories were expressing skepticism about the minister's sincerity.

Sohi said he didn't want to allow the laughter to distract from his message and his current job to deliver billions of dollars in new federal infrastructure money to Canada's communities.

"Well, I rose in the House to convey my deepest condolences and thoughts and prayers with a Winnipeg bus driver who was stabbed while performing his his duty and service to his community, and I wanted to do that as a former bus driver who have seen, you know, violence happening on transit facilities," he said. "Obviously, I did notice the laughter, but I was there to convey a very, very important message, and that message was to show our support and thoughts and prayers with the person who was stabbed while serving serving his community."

Conservative MPs laugh in the background after Liberal Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi speaks about his past as a bus driver. House of Commons video.

Sohi is one of only four Liberals elected in Alberta and he was appointed to cabinet by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after also serving as a city councillor in Edmonton.

"These kind of expressions of disrespect are not going to stop me from focusing on what I need to focus on, which is delivering on behalf of Canadians," said Sohi.

Responding to a Liberal complaint about the laughter on Wednesday, former Conservative cabinet minister Candice Bergen, now the opposition house leader in the Commons, dismissed suggestions that her Tory colleagues were disrespectful.

"We all come from various backgrounds, and that is why we are called the House of Commons. We represent the people: farmers, bus drivers, receptionists. We represent everybody," Bergen told the Commons on Wednesday. "There is all kind of laughter that occurs here. We absolutely respect and honour all of the jobs that we have done, and the experience that we bring to this House."

The incident comes during a week in which the Tories were hammered by the Liberals for not supporting a motion in the House of Commons to denounce racism. Conservative leadership candidate Michael Chong distanced himself from his colleagues by supporting the motion that was introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid to denounce Islamophobia.

Go here to read the rest:

A Liberal minister spoke about his past as a bus driver. Tories started laughing - National Observer