Talk:New Reform Party of Ontario

Untitled
EDITING TALK: FAMILY COALITION PARTY OF ONTARIO

The Party feels that "pro life" is more positive, as indeed life should be.


 * I have no objection to the term "pro-life". CJCurrie 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no categorical bias against same sex "couples" receiving the same benefits (from all governments and agencies). The FCP recognizes the importance of formally registering long term relationships whether between a man and a woman, or two lebsbians or two homosexuals. Before the law there needs to be 100% equivalence. The FCP however does not wish to rewrite the traditional and sacramental meaning of marriage. Therefore it does not support entering into the same Registry (maintained by the Province, the Parishes etc.) as married couples those who are not heterosexual couples. In all else, formalizing, registering and making known the "special status" or contractually binding spousal bill or rights and obligations is welcomed and preferred over casual arrangements that often leave the State burdens such as those arising when non survivorship pension benefits are allowed. [Posted by anonymous editor, 3 April 2006.]


 * Are you certain that this is official party policy? I'm going from the FCP's online "Family Values" policy section, which includes the following entry:


 * 5. The Ontario Coalition supports the institutional value of marriage, being the union between a woman and a man to the exclusion of all others.  Only this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits and for any program funded or administered by the government., "Family Values", "More Specific Policies"  CJCurrie 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is the tiranny of unintended abuse of Her Majesty's English. The words "institutional value" can only mean "the traditional definition" of &c. Moreover, one cannot use a "definition" in the provision of rights and benefits. One can likely base government programs on a definition (as a conditio sine qua non of entitlement) but it must also be bound by the Charter which, mercefully, does not allow definitions to be restrictive, or arbitrary or (in a word) unconstitutional. I don't want to sound pedantic but....a lot of what the Party is putting out there bears revision and spinmeisterization. Your Humble Servant (hereinafter YHS)[btw I kind of like YHS- my favourite Saint, the Patron of Vinchiaturo, is Bernardine of Siena-the greatest spinmeister of the Church who became of Doctor of the Church- and he went by JHS which meant, I think, Jesus (est) Hominum Salvator- or Jesus saves the entries on his computer] Life is blood sweat and beers, so cheers! [Posted by anonymous editor, 3 April 2006.]


 * It's quite possible that you're correct as regards constitutional rights, but I'm still not certain your assessment corresponds to official FCP policy. CJCurrie 01:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Currie it's me YHS. I must say I reeeealllly like this.It's like an endless chessgame. God if I had known this existed I would never have joined the Istituto Ecomania Semiantica. With all due respect to Umberto Eccomi. What Joe seems to be saying is that peope who are not straight (and who is?) have the same rights as people who are straight, i.e. to marry people of the opposing sex. In other words, and this is like the how many angels can fumigate on the head of a pine, what Joe is saying is that if the non-straights were given the rights to marry inter se et contra naturam, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE GREATER RIGHTS THAN THE STRAITS. LET US SAY YOU WERE NOT GAY, OR LET US SAY I AM NOT GAY. You and I could only marry a personable of the (I hate to use the word opposite) un-same sex. But if you or I were (respectively) non-straight then we could end up married, or we could each have a female spouse, which is a two way option that straights who are fully straight can't have or even interpolate, casually or otherwise. So you see maybe Joe has a point. What may have happened (per incuriam of Legislators cum maxima culpa of the Judiciary)we may have failed to treat equals equally. Which is a NO NO under the Trudeaumania of Canada. So, to recapitulate, the FCP is only against CONFERRING GREATER RIGHTS ON NON-STRAIGHTS than it confers on unipolar people who can only think "boy/girl, boy girl" etc. ad infinitum. This is a tough one. Only St. Bernardine (and only after He became a Doctor of the Chruch) can help us on this one. Because of course a distinction without a difference is what he was into.[ Thank you for the privilege of my EDITING TALK:fcp PAGE, you are saving me a bundle on spychologists and psychiatrantists] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Spensieri (talk • contribs)

Semi -protection
I have semi-protected this page to prevent furtehr editing by an anonymous user who is unfmailiar with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Edits must be neutral and verifiable. The eidts that this user has been making have been personal opinion, and not facutal. I encourage the anon editor to become familiar with these and other Wikipedia policies. By the way, I do not disagree with the anon editor's opinion that the FCP is made up of wingnuts, but our opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia article -- just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts. Ground Zero | t 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting a record
The party has set, by default according to the Toronto Star, a record for the number of family members running as candidates in a single election. Eight members of the Kidd family (although one has a different last name) and six members of the Carvalho family are running as candidates in the Greater Toronto Area. The newspaper could not find a Guiness Book record for such a feat. GBC 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism - Is term is used in the main article as describing this party. When I clicked on Dominionism, it led to an article which seems to have been written by someone who sees the philosophy as an attempt to impose certain ideas on an unwilling population and those ideas are specifically Christian. There is a warning placed by wikipedia saying the article may not be unbiased. I don't doubt it. Perhaps someone would like to check this link out and consider removing it from the FCP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.33.171 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting - May 2015
I've reverted a whole bunch of edits here. I don't like to do this, but these edits simply did not meet the standards set by Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view. It sounds like it was written by someone who is involved in the party, and is not able to distance himself or herself adequately to contribute unbiased text to an encyclopedia article.

Also, it was not well written - lots of run-on sentences, and the headings were capitalized incorrectly (WP:HEAD). The last point could have been fixed easily, but the edits did not meet Wikipedia standards, so they had to be removed. I urge the contributor to read and understand WP:NPOV and Conflict of interest. Ground Zero | t 01:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)