binary solo said:
When you join a political party you agree to have constraints placed on your ability to voice personal opinions on matters that are at odds with party policy. Especially when you have access to the public by virtue of the fact you are a representative of the party. If you don't want to accept those contstraints you don't join. Once you join you don't complain about the thing that you agreed to at the time of joining. You can try to change the rules, but you can't cry about being told to play by the rules when you knew the rules before you started to play the game. |
Yes but in my perfect little world I believe the politicians should be able to at least voice their own concerns; especially over something so recent and controversial, and no matter if the issue is of religious importance to an individual or not. Each MP represents the party leader in power above them but also the populace in the riding the govern. This is something I could see a Liberal party standing upon, but it is not the voice of the Liberal party, it is the voice of Trudeau. They are representing Trudeau's belief; not necessarily the Party's. I know, I know, he is the one they voted into power, but at the same time......
If this was about something else, perhaps not so much based in social-ethical matters and more in environmental - say building a pipeline through a National Park to save money (a hypothetical example but relevant under current government) I would hold the same stance. Perhaps it is because of how i view Harper that I hold this stance - for he is a man who thinks only of himself when he makes a decision, and I view him as separate to the Conservative party sometimes because of how he makes his decisions. He does not represent the Conservative party as much as he represents himself, and I view this Trudeau decision in a similar way. Throwing religion out the window I still don't think all Liberal people would be pro choice.
#1 Amb-ass-ador
