JerrySeinfeld

My understanding is that he was appointed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No he was elected.

I can accept that forcing those opposed to ssm to accept ssm is wrong so long as you can agree that people who don't really love each other don't have a "right" to marriage, fair deal? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm all for that!

This is a good way to get kids into better-paying, more legit jobs than they are doing in most provinces. I know when I was a 12 I used to deliver 500-600 flyers door to door twice a week. It took me at least 3-5 hours each time. I made about $50-60 every two weeks. That's like $3-4 / hour of hard driving labour in the snow. At least now a kid can go out and work in a decent environment and earn real money. Great news for kids!

60%-70% of the population lives in central canada. In a democracy (the last time I checked) one person equals one vote, therefore you would expect that central canada would dominate gov't decision making. I would be seriously concerned if the narrow minded policies of an Alberta party representing a province with maybe 10% of the country's population had control over the national agenda. That said, central canada is hardly monolithic - Quebec votes for the BQ largely because they want nothing to do with the social conservatives that seem to be driving the policy agenda of the CPC. I have stated on this forum many times that I am not ideologically opposed to voting for a right of center party (like many Ontario voters). However, I can't vote for the Reform (oops, I mean the Conservative party) as long as it keeps trying to do its best impression of the Bush Republicans. BTW - The Conservative party is the only political party whose supporters regularly insult the people that they need to bring over to their side. Your comment about 'lemmings' is typical. Harper's comment about the BQ today and SMM is another example that is an insult to all Quebec nationalists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually in a true democracy like the USA, the senate (the senior chambre) is equal, elected and effective. Rhode Island has the same number of senators as does California. Also, There is a true separation of powers so that the President doesn't hold all the power (unlike our 4-5 year dictatorships in this country). And your comment about the CPC on social issues is sort of accurate and I agree that they'd be better off to lose them, but really these are not major issues for the CPC. The Libs have done a masterful job of painting the CPC into a corner on these issues in a successful attempt to lure people's attention away from their own theivery. Message to Harper: drop the SSM debate and drive on with Health Care, National Unity and Honest Government; all areas where you easliy trump the Libs.

Hitler was elected.

What a scary place this country would be if our political leaders could take away or give (ie. DEFINE) rights at their whim. Sounds to me like a dictatorship. You're wrong: the Charter defines rights. The courts interpret the charter.

Harper talks academic circles around Paul Martin's claim of "HUMAN RIGHTS on the SSM issue...check paragraphs 2-4 "I remind the Prime Minister that in our system of government, the Prime Minister does not decide or define our rights. The Prime Minister does not interpret the Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada does that. He asked the Supreme Court of Canada to endorse his interpretation and it just refused. I want to address an even more fundamental question. That is the question of the issue of human rights as it pertains to same sex marriage and the use and the abuse of the term “human rights” in this debate which has been almost without precedent. Fundamental human rights are not a magician's hat from which new rabbits can constantly be pulled out. The basic human rights we hold dear: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and equality before the law, the kind of rights that are routinely violated by the Prime Minister's good friends in states such as Libya and China, are well understood and recognized around the world. These rights do not depend on Liberal bromides or media spinners for their defence. The Prime Minister cannot through grand rhetoric turn his political decision to change the definition of marriage into a basic human right because it is not. It is simply a political judgment. It is a valid political option if one wants to argue for it; it is a mistaken one in my view, but it is only a political judgment. Same sex marriage is not a human right. This is not my personal opinion. It is not the opinion of some legal adviser. This reality has already been recognized by such international bodies as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to New Zealand's Quilter case. In 1997 the New Zealand court of appeal was asked to rule on the validity of the common law definition of marriage in light of the New Zealand bill of rights which, unlike our charter, explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. New Zealand's court ruled that the opposite sex requirement of marriage was not discriminatory. So the plaintiffs in this case made a complaint to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that the New Zealand court violated the international covenant for the protection of rights to which New Zealand, like Canada, is a signator. But the UNCHR rejected this complaint in 2002, in effect upholding that same sex marriage is not a basic universal human right. If same sex marriage were a fundamental human right, we have to think about the implications. If same sex marriage were a fundamental right, then countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden are human rights violators. These countries, largely under left wing governments, have upheld the traditional definition of marriage while bringing in equal rights and benefits regimes for same sex couples, precisely the policy that I and the majority of the Conservative caucus propose. Even those few countries that have brought in same sex marriage at the national level, currently only the Netherlands and Belgium, did not do so because their own courts or international bodies had defined this as a matter of human rights. They did so simply as the honest public policy choice of their legislatures. In fact, both the Netherlands and Belgium legislated some differences in same sex marriage as opposed to opposite sex marriage in many areas but particularly in areas like adoption. In other words, no national or international court, or human rights tribunal at the national or international level, has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human right. The Minister of Justice, when he was an academic and not a politician, would have appreciated the distinction between a legal right conferred by positive law and a fundamental human right which all people should enjoy throughout the world. Today he is trying to conflate these two together, comparing a newly invented Liberal policy to the basic and inalienable rights and freedoms of humanity. I have to say the government appears incapable of making these distinctions. On the one hand the Liberals are friends of dictatorships that routinely violate human rights to whom they look for photo ops or corporate profits. On the other hand they condemn those who disagree with their political decisions as deniers of human rights, even though they held the same positions themselves a few years, or even a few months ago. Quite frankly the Liberal Party, which drapes itself in the charter like it drapes itself in the flag, is in a poor position to boast about its human rights record. Let us not forget it was the Liberal Party that said none is too many when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It was the Liberal Party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's west coast, an act which Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for, leaving it to Brian Mulroney to see justice done. Just as it was Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Diefenbaker who took the great initiatives against apartheid, Mr. Diefenbaker with his Bill of Rights, and I did not see a notwithstanding clause in that. It was the Liberal Party that imposed the War Measures Act. Today it is the Liberal Party that often puts its business interests ahead of the cause of democracy and human rights in places like China. Recently in China it was the member for Calgary Southeast who had to act on human rights while the Prime Minister went through the diplomatic moves. The Liberal Party has spent years repressing free speech rights of independent political organizations from Greenpeace to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that might want to speak out at election time. It has consistently violated property rights and has put the rights of criminals ahead of those of law abiding gun owners. The Liberal government has ignored the equality rights of members of minority religious groups in education in the province of Ontario even after international tribunals have demanded action. I am not here to say that this party's or this country's record on human rights is perfect. It is far from perfect; we can read about it in any number of places. However, the Liberal Party of Canada is simply in no position, either past or present, to lecture anyone about charter rights or human rights. In this debate the government has resorted at times to demagoguery, attacking our position with equal intellectual dishonesty. The government has demonstrated its fundamental disregard for the opinions of a majority of Canadian men and women of good will. In particular, it has been unforgiveably insensitive with regard to all cultural communities in this country for which marriage is a most deeply rooted value. Nowhere have the Liberals been more vociferous in their attempts to link same sex marriage to minority rights than among Canada's ethnic and cultural minority communities. Yet at the same time, they have clearly wanted these communities excluded from this debate. Why? Because, to their embarrassment, the vast majority of Canada's cultural communities, setting aside those groups dependent on Liberal funding, see through the Liberals' attempt to link basic human rights to the government's opposition to their traditional practices of marriage. Many new Canadians chose this country, fleeing regimes that did and do persecute religious, ethnic and political minorities. They know what real human rights abuses are. They know that recognizing traditional marriage in law while granting equal benefits to same sex couples is not a human rights abuse akin to what they may have seen in Rwanda or China or Iran. What these new Canadians also understand, and what this government does not, is that there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad. New Canadians know that marriage and family are not the creature of the state but pre-exist the state and that the state has some responsibility to uphold and defend these institutions. New Canadians know that their deeply held cultural traditions and religious belief in the sanctity of marriage as a union of one man and one woman will be jeopardized by a law which declares them unconstitutional and brands their supporters as human rights violators. New Canadians know that their cultural values are likely to come under attack if this law is passed. They know that we are likely to see disputes in the future over charitable status for religious or cultural organizations that oppose same sex marriage, or over school curriculum and hiring standards in both public and private religious and cultural minority schools. New Canadians, many of whom have chosen Canada as a place where they can practise their religion and raise their family in accordance with their beliefs and without interference from the state, know that these legal fights will limit and restrict their freedom to honour their faith and their cultural practices. Of course, in all of these cases, courts and human rights commissions will attempt to balance the basic human rights of freedom of religion and expression with the newly created legal right to same sex marriage, but as our justice critic has remarked, we have a pattern: wherever courts and tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights seem to trump. The Liberals may blather about protecting cultural minorities, but the fact is that undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities...."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or a severe short-term memory problem? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you don't start making logical arguments instead of keeping with this ad hominem drivel I am going to have to ignore your posts.

You're rotten lying scumbag fuck. If you're proud of that, it's just what I'd expect of such a completely degenerate piece of shit. If Greg seems to think its okay for you to lie and abuse others, then his forum is not a wothwhile place to be. You can't match me in argument, so you resort to infamy. You know what that makes you? Low. Weak. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually his argument is logically tight. You got so emotional because he used the word "holocaust" (Typical Canadian hypersensitivity) that the thought was lost on you. He's right: democratically elected governments were responsible for the holocaust. And he's also right: Just because we elect a government doesn't mean it represents our interests. ESPECIALLY in Canada, where Alberta's interests haven't EVER been represented federally. This country is nothing but dictatorship by central Canadians. There is "autocracy", "theocracy" --there should be a new terM: ONTARIOOCRACY -- dictatorship by lemming followers of the Liberal Party.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HA! He is so intelligent I don't think most Canadians will even GET what he is doing here. It might not be good politics because he's never been accused of good politics, but academically it's a brilliant move but only for those who understand it: You see just a few weeks ago Belinda and the Libs were criticizing the Cons for voting with the Bloc (I don't see how anyone in favor of keeping this country together can ally themselves with the Bloc)...conveniently now the Libs are doing just that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yessss! Hear Hear!!

Only those who cannot afford it would not 'want' to buy full coverage. Certainly we all have budgets and make choices. Some peoples budgets and choices are constrained by low incomes. Maybe that comes as news to you, but tha would mean you live in some kind of cloistered unreal type of existence ad have little to add to conversations about public policy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Certainly and those underprivledged should be insured by medicare. What does YOUR point have to do with a debate about the introduction of private care? Private care for those who buy private insurance has nothing to do with someone who wishes to remain insure by the public system.

These are the words of the deputy PM of the time, but Paul Martin voted for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he was in the cabinet at the time I guess he'd have no choice. I assume it's that way in the Conservative Party as well. I think what's more important is where he stands today. In his words from a CBC townhall meeting: "Three of the highest courts in the land have said that discrimination on the grounds of sex in terms of the definition of marriage is against the Charter of Rights. It is absolutely a question of human rights and under those circumstances there is no way that anybody should be allowed to discriminate or prevent same-sex marriage." Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/martin_paul <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harper talks academic circles around Paul Martin's claim of "HUMAN RIGHTS on the SSM issue...check paragraphs 2-4 "I remind the Prime Minister that in our system of government, the Prime Minister does not decide or define our rights. The Prime Minister does not interpret the Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada does that. He asked the Supreme Court of Canada to endorse his interpretation and it just refused. I want to address an even more fundamental question. That is the question of the issue of human rights as it pertains to same sex marriage and the use and the abuse of the term “human rights” in this debate which has been almost without precedent. Fundamental human rights are not a magician's hat from which new rabbits can constantly be pulled out. The basic human rights we hold dear: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and equality before the law, the kind of rights that are routinely violated by the Prime Minister's good friends in states such as Libya and China, are well understood and recognized around the world. These rights do not depend on Liberal bromides or media spinners for their defence. The Prime Minister cannot through grand rhetoric turn his political decision to change the definition of marriage into a basic human right because it is not. It is simply a political judgment. It is a valid political option if one wants to argue for it; it is a mistaken one in my view, but it is only a political judgment. Same sex marriage is not a human right. This is not my personal opinion. It is not the opinion of some legal adviser. This reality has already been recognized by such international bodies as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to New Zealand's Quilter case. In 1997 the New Zealand court of appeal was asked to rule on the validity of the common law definition of marriage in light of the New Zealand bill of rights which, unlike our charter, explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. New Zealand's court ruled that the opposite sex requirement of marriage was not discriminatory. So the plaintiffs in this case made a complaint to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that the New Zealand court violated the international covenant for the protection of rights to which New Zealand, like Canada, is a signator. But the UNCHR rejected this complaint in 2002, in effect upholding that same sex marriage is not a basic universal human right. If same sex marriage were a fundamental human right, we have to think about the implications. If same sex marriage were a fundamental right, then countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden are human rights violators. These countries, largely under left wing governments, have upheld the traditional definition of marriage while bringing in equal rights and benefits regimes for same sex couples, precisely the policy that I and the majority of the Conservative caucus propose. Even those few countries that have brought in same sex marriage at the national level, currently only the Netherlands and Belgium, did not do so because their own courts or international bodies had defined this as a matter of human rights. They did so simply as the honest public policy choice of their legislatures. In fact, both the Netherlands and Belgium legislated some differences in same sex marriage as opposed to opposite sex marriage in many areas but particularly in areas like adoption. In other words, no national or international court, or human rights tribunal at the national or international level, has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human right. The Minister of Justice, when he was an academic and not a politician, would have appreciated the distinction between a legal right conferred by positive law and a fundamental human right which all people should enjoy throughout the world. Today he is trying to conflate these two together, comparing a newly invented Liberal policy to the basic and inalienable rights and freedoms of humanity. I have to say the government appears incapable of making these distinctions. On the one hand the Liberals are friends of dictatorships that routinely violate human rights to whom they look for photo ops or corporate profits. On the other hand they condemn those who disagree with their political decisions as deniers of human rights, even though they held the same positions themselves a few years, or even a few months ago. Quite frankly the Liberal Party, which drapes itself in the charter like it drapes itself in the flag, is in a poor position to boast about its human rights record. Let us not forget it was the Liberal Party that said none is too many when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It was the Liberal Party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's west coast, an act which Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for, leaving it to Brian Mulroney to see justice done. Just as it was Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Diefenbaker who took the great initiatives against apartheid, Mr. Diefenbaker with his Bill of Rights, and I did not see a notwithstanding clause in that. It was the Liberal Party that imposed the War Measures Act. Today it is the Liberal Party that often puts its business interests ahead of the cause of democracy and human rights in places like China. Recently in China it was the member for Calgary Southeast who had to act on human rights while the Prime Minister went through the diplomatic moves. The Liberal Party has spent years repressing free speech rights of independent political organizations from Greenpeace to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that might want to speak out at election time. It has consistently violated property rights and has put the rights of criminals ahead of those of law abiding gun owners. The Liberal government has ignored the equality rights of members of minority religious groups in education in the province of Ontario even after international tribunals have demanded action. I am not here to say that this party's or this country's record on human rights is perfect. It is far from perfect; we can read about it in any number of places. However, the Liberal Party of Canada is simply in no position, either past or present, to lecture anyone about charter rights or human rights. In this debate the government has resorted at times to demagoguery, attacking our position with equal intellectual dishonesty. The government has demonstrated its fundamental disregard for the opinions of a majority of Canadian men and women of good will. In particular, it has been unforgiveably insensitive with regard to all cultural communities in this country for which marriage is a most deeply rooted value. Nowhere have the Liberals been more vociferous in their attempts to link same sex marriage to minority rights than among Canada's ethnic and cultural minority communities. Yet at the same time, they have clearly wanted these communities excluded from this debate. Why? Because, to their embarrassment, the vast majority of Canada's cultural communities, setting aside those groups dependent on Liberal funding, see through the Liberals' attempt to link basic human rights to the government's opposition to their traditional practices of marriage. Many new Canadians chose this country, fleeing regimes that did and do persecute religious, ethnic and political minorities. They know what real human rights abuses are. They know that recognizing traditional marriage in law while granting equal benefits to same sex couples is not a human rights abuse akin to what they may have seen in Rwanda or China or Iran. What these new Canadians also understand, and what this government does not, is that there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad. New Canadians know that marriage and family are not the creature of the state but pre-exist the state and that the state has some responsibility to uphold and defend these institutions. New Canadians know that their deeply held cultural traditions and religious belief in the sanctity of marriage as a union of one man and one woman will be jeopardized by a law which declares them unconstitutional and brands their supporters as human rights violators. New Canadians know that their cultural values are likely to come under attack if this law is passed. They know that we are likely to see disputes in the future over charitable status for religious or cultural organizations that oppose same sex marriage, or over school curriculum and hiring standards in both public and private religious and cultural minority schools. New Canadians, many of whom have chosen Canada as a place where they can practise their religion and raise their family in accordance with their beliefs and without interference from the state, know that these legal fights will limit and restrict their freedom to honour their faith and their cultural practices. Of course, in all of these cases, courts and human rights commissions will attempt to balance the basic human rights of freedom of religion and expression with the newly created legal right to same sex marriage, but as our justice critic has remarked, we have a pattern: wherever courts and tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights seem to trump. The Liberals may blather about protecting cultural minorities, but the fact is that undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities...."

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "you am incapaple of doing so" sounds oddly close to an attack on the author (me) so be careful to heed your own advice. Actually it was philosphy 125 and it was a practical logic course. The fallacy to which you are referring is called "ad hominem". It's not a perfect fit for the definition but close. You missed the context: another post criticized Sweal's use of vocab, not me. Sweal came back and accused that poster of being unintelligent. I simply posted my remarks to demonstrate that some in academia don't consider the use of multisyllabic words to be a measure of intelligence.

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually it was philosphy 125 and it was a practical logic course. The fallacy to which you are referring is called "ad hominem". It's not a perfect fit for the definition but close. You missed the context: another post criticized Sweal's use of vocab, not me. Sweal came back and accused that poster of being unintelligent. I simply posted my remarks to demonstrate that some in academia don't consider the use of multisyllabic words to be a measure of intelligence.

These are the words of the deputy PM of the time, but Paul Martin voted for it.

Thanks for the advice, Greg. But I am curious if you have offered the same advice to those such as ScotBrison, among a couple of otherswho have called Stephen Harper a Bigot for espousing the EXACT same opinion as the one quoted above from the Liberals, which is precisely why I used the term "bigot" in the poll. Of course I don't think Paul Martin was a bigot back then for espousing the above viewpoint. Just as I don't think Harper is now.

Why don't you stop attempting to stear the debate away from Paul Martin's about-face and address the issue.

This merits a new topic. In 1999, Paul Martin voted for a bill preserving the TRADITIONAL definition of marriage between and man and a woman. Here is an excerpt from the Liberal government's speech: "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others. Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Here is a great quote...from the Liberal GOVERNMENT read in parlaiment in 1999. Oh and by the tway: Prime Minister Paul Martin voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage in 1999. NOW LIBS: READ THIS AND COME BACK TO ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND TELL ME THAT THE LIBS ARE NOT ONLY BIGOTS, BUT POLITICAL OPPORTUNISTIC BIGOTS __ THE WORST KIND!! Here is a quote from the LIBERALS: "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others. Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Only those who cannot afford it would not 'want' to buy full coverage. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Certainly we all have budgets and make choices.

I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof: "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard. Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors. The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Here is a great quote...from the Liberal GOVERNMENT read in parlaiment in 1999: "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others. Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

It's more complex than that. He was forced to stay on a public waiting list by the province's law. Private clinics in Quebec don't do hip replacements.

The poll is hardly scientific.