Small Political Parties Are Men Challenged Too!

**Timocrat** · 14th-June-2007

Dateline: Canada
By: Merlin
From: BC Fathers
Via: The Honor Network

Libertarian Party of Canada Rejects Support from Fathers and Men's Rights Associations

Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

Alan Mercer, President of the Libertarian Party of Canada has rejected offers of support from Canadian Men's and Fathers Rights organizations. Mr. Mercer said "some (in the party) are grateful for the efforts your group made in helping us register" and also acknowledged that "the Libertarian Party convention didn't react favorably" when Men's Group representatives attended the recent Libertarian Party convention as delegates.

Negotiations with the LPC broke down over Mr. Mercer's refusal to consider fair and reasonable proposals for Libertarian Family Law Policy. The Libertarian Party currently has no Family Law Policy, the previous Family Law policy having lapsed when the party was voluntarily de-registered by its executive, some years ago. At that time, the Libertarian Party of Canada was the only party in Canada to support the vision of "Equal Shared Parenting" family law reform.

MRAs should not expect any support from that party, and we won't be providing any MRA support to that party. What individual MRAs choose to do is, as always, between them and their conscience - but for the moment no political party in Canada is taking up the cause of Fathers and Families and Equal Shared Parenting.

Ken Wiebe, representing BC Fathers, said "I am very disappointed by this latest refusal of cooperation from the President of the Libertarian Party, especially considering that it was a large influx of our people that enabled the LPC to become re-registered as a political party in Canada."

The LPC was de-registered with Elections Canada some years ago, due to lack of membership and lack of support, and has only recently re-surfaced - largely due to MRA assistance.

Ken Wiebe is the founder of BC Fathers (http:\\www.fathers.bc.ca), and is a past leader of the British Columbia Libertarian Party.

**Marx** · 14th-June-2007

Hmm, that's pretty shit

**Rebadow** · 14th-June-2007

No politician with serious long-term aspirations to be a force to be reckoned with will do that, for he will lose a lot more female votes (+some male) than gain the male ones because of it.

**bola** · 14th-June-2007

The Libertarians depend more on the male vote I suspect than the female, so it's peculiar to say the least that they won't represent us. Maybe some other alliance they've made?

Anyway, if we have nobody to represent us, the best thing to do is: use a protest vote. Give your vote to the party the others fear the most, no matter what their agenda is. At least you get noticed.

**Male-Rights-Network** · 14th-June-2007

They are no Libertarian party. They are just selling out on their principles - of individual freedom over collective intrusion by the State.

It should be noted that the failing of this party to come to the aid of men's and father's rights groups equates to turning their back on their principles.

This so-called Libertarian party are blatantly and arrogantly looking for the women's vote; trying to maximise their appeal to that all important segment of the electorate.

**Rebadow** · 14th-June-2007

Quote from bola

The Libertarians depend more on the male vote I suspect than the female, so it's peculiar to say the least that they won't represent us.

bola, I think that depends on what one's plans are. Are they big? Then it's definitely better to cater to women than to men - for obvious reasons. Mostly notably, because sadly when you cater to women, you also cater to a great number of men.

If their goal on the other hand is just to ensure enough votes to make sure the leadership has a job, so to speak, then I could see them go the other way.

Anyway, let me finish my first paragraph. The "male vote". Don't necessarily associate this "male vote" with "what's good for men". Right now we are greatly outnumbered by chivalrists and manginas who would be more than happy to vote for more female privileges and would never go for something that might diminish female "rights".

I think they know this very well.