Tory MP James Lunney On KAIROS
Parksville-Qualicum KAIROS requested a meeting with our Member of Parliament, James Lunney, to discuss the [de-funding of KAIROS]. We were not able to secure a meeting, and finally, in a telephone call on Feb. 1, Lunney advised that he would not meet with our group because, he claimed, we disagreed with all of his and his government’s actions. While it is true that in the past we have disagreed with some of the government’s actions, we have not disagreed with them all. But even if we had, Lunney is our Member of Parliament, and we believe we have a right and he has a duty to meet. Members of Parliament are elected by citizens in order that citizens views are represented to Parliament.
14 comments:
Welcome to the ReformaTory echo chamber. They don't meet with, or acknowledge, the existence of opinions other than their own.
(This has been the pattern in Alberta for years!)
But we don't use the FPTP post in Canada, so instead of being elected by razor thin pluralities allowed by a split opposition, CDN MPs are elected by huge majorities, so obviously they shouldn't concern themselves with a tiny minority of malcontents.
why meet with people who are never going to vote for you in a million years?
why give a platform to an organization that's been continuously slamming his party for the last several months?
meeting with them would simply provide KAIROS with another opportunity to spin how the mean old tories are kicking a nice church group.
no one has an inherent right to meet with their MP in any case.
and, ultimately, through the power of the ballot box, they can always try and replace him with someone more atune with their agenda.
ain't democracy grand?
Wise move on Lunney's part.
By your curious brand of reason, BB, no MP should ever bother providing any service to a constituent for whom electoral support can never be expected, which is clearly illegitimate. That's because you don't understand the difference between party and government.
Seriously, you nitwit; stop wasting everyone's time.
@BB:
Last I checked, the principal of electing our representatives was that they are there to represent ALL of their constituents, not just those that voted for them.
Further to that, there is a principal that says that our MPs are our primary gateway for accessing our government - regardless of how we vote.
The ReformaTories (esp. the ones from Alberta) have made it abundantly clear that they won't do any of those things.
Seems a bit silly to ditch the votes of the 7 or so churches KAIROS represents. They all seem fairly mainstream. Hardly radicals.
By the way, BB: you might want to get rid of the link to the child pornography site you provided in this post. It was irresponsible of you to have put in there.
So, Backseat Blogger, what was your reaction when Liberal MP Tom Wappel refused to assist an aging veteran because he felt that said veteran had voted for the Canadian Alliance?
Our MPs are supposed to represent ALL of their constituents, especially including every single one who DIDN'T vote for them. Lunney has at least the obligation to meet and to listen. That he didn't shows that he has the arrogance of the Liberals of old. And, yeah, maybe it's time for the voters to render the same judgement to the Harper Conservatives that they rendered on the Liberals in 2006.
i can't help but wonder if tiguy et al are being deliberately obtuse or are just naturally stupid.
i said an MP doesn't have to meet any representative of KAIROS. as a local group they clearly don't need their MP's help vis-a-vis the federal government but are simply looking for an opportunity to vent - preferably on the local TV new or in the local paper.
By the logic that an MP has to meet with EVERY group seeking an audience... well surely even a dimbulb like Tiguy can figure what that would lead to.
James Bow: you are absolutely right. an MP is obliged to help all his consituents out in problems they encounter with the federal government or its agencies.
But meeting(or not meeting as the case may be) with a protest group and helping constituents through the federal bureaucratic maze are two quite different things.
oh and TiGuy, i hoped you enjoyed the link you mention. it may be tasteless but it's there to illustrate a point... one that obviously was above your ability to understand. It must have been quite disconcerting to see a page full of people all much, much older than you. In any case if you can't tell the difference between child pornography and 100% legal gay pornography then you have even more problems than I think you do.
In any case if you can't tell the difference between child pornography and 100% legal gay pornography then you have even more problems than I think you do.
To tell you the truth, I didn't spend a lot of time trying to figure out whether that site conformed to whatever regulations are in place in its place of origin to determine whether its legal or not. I'd certainly be asking a few ID's for some of the models, that's for sure. I personally don't think the post, which I in fact agree with, requires a link to that site.
But if you're satisfied that it's 100% legal that's fine with me. No doubt it'll be fine with your ISP as well.
As for the other issue, you're just making up, on Lunney's behalf, whatever circumstances apply here to rationalise his excuse for not meeting this groups of constituents, which is, needless to say, pretty presumptuous. Lunney isn't obligated to do anything for them but on the question of his responsibilities to his constituents in representing them, there's doesn't seem to be any doubt, as far as the rest of us, who understand the difference between party and government at any rate.
Of course, everything changes when it comes to the Celestial State of Israel, so no surprises here.
So BB believes MPs are there to help people deal with red tape? Explains a lot about Conservatives and prorogation.
dr dawg: yes, in this instance the local chapter of kairos is acting as a protest group. groups, like individuals, can multitask.
tiguy: i'm interested to see that u agreed with the post on my blog but that u had a problem with a link. you could have said so on my blog rather than bringing it, off point, on a different blog. there's nothing to be afraid of tiguy. I don't bite - unless asked to by a consenting adult.
tiguy i don't see how i was making up anything about the job of an MP
two links for your further education:
MP's duties
MP's duties (Australian but still on point)
in rereading my posts i don't see how i was referring to Mr. Lunney's responsibilities in any way but as an MP.
you're going to have to expand yr point.
(and Shiner: yes, these duties do include the work of an ombudsman - as I pointed out earlier.
you could have said so on my blog rather than bringing it, off point, on a different blog.
Yes, but it wouldn't have been as publicly humiliating. As well, I don't care for your blog; it doesn't tell me anything new.
Or how about this: "No one goes to your blog anymore. It's too crowded."
Post a Comment