Fundamental Right, eh?

Jack Layton has threatened with disciplinary action one of his MPs, Bev Desjarlais from Manitoba, for wanting to vote the wishes of her constituents and her conscience (assuming that these coincide, one supposes) on the homosexual marriage bill.

The London Free Press now reports that a group of ND MPs is challenging Layton for "whipping" them into voting along rigidly defined party lines. One can only imagine that these MPs are now feeling the pressures from voters on both sides, and are reading the polls about the wishes of constituents occupying a central role in voters minds. Less than a quarter of those recently polled are keen supporters of MPs voting their conscience. They want representatives to represent them.

Last month, Layton made his party's position very clear: "The same-sex marriage legislation is a question of human rights and that's why it's a fundamental question of principle in our party and we won't be able to accept members voting against the party position." Layton is uncharacteristically consistent in his argument. One cannot hold the position that Homosexual marriage is a fundamental right, and then commit to the rule of the majority. Those two principles are not compatible.

Layton's position sharply underscores the untenable position of the Liberal Government. On the one hand, they insist that homosexual marriage is a question of fundamental Charter rights mandated by the Courts, while at the same time they annouce a free vote so that Parliament will decide. Which one is it?