JerrySeinfeld

Global TV (BCTV) - no friend of West Coast lefties - reported results of a phone poll conducted by Mustel Group for CTV involving voters in Vancouver Kingsway. Responses were taken over the last 48 hours from 202 respondents and the margin of error is approx. 7%. Of all respondents, 42% voted Liberal, 24% NDP and 14% CPC. Of those that voted Liberal, 23% voted for the candidate, David Emerson, 62% voted for the party. To the question, "Would you vote for David Emerson if he ran as a Conservative candidate?", the result was an astonishing 11% yes and 76% no. Apparently the Vancouver Board of Trade endorsement of Emerson's move is, to put it mildly, at odds with the voters in the riding. this is a classic. i am conservative and have no doubt that the "conservative agenda" is not something that reflects can-kingsway beliefs (i live in van centre). that said, it will be interesting to see 2 things: 1. many voters - including van kings may be surprised that the harper agenda is not what it was touted in lib ads 2. van-kings voters may be happy to have a voice in government, especially one that curreys favour in softwood lumber disputes. if these two things happen, we may be surprised at the result when emerson faces voters in the next election

August did u not see the footage of the three muslim students confronting the lone PEI professor, DEMANDING that he take down the cartoons? This is bullying and intolerance incarnate!

Good comparison. Can you think of the last society that tried to supress freedom of the press, expression and kill those who disagreed?

The story is way over blown. The words Gretsky and dirt just do not fit that well together. The press simply got tired of Emmerson and Islam and had nothing better to do. I take The Wayner at his word. I can't think of anyone in public life whose word I'd believe moreso than his. The Wayner's word trumps a new jersey cops anyday and is gold until proven otherwise.

So letfies: gay marriage, abortion, women's rights and tolerance what do these things all have in common? Islam hates them. I dare u to say otherwise

I'm not even a devout christian. simply a baptised non-practising catholic. but here is my take on how I would speak if I had christian beliefs but muslim "entitlements" about my beliefes: 1. I don't believe in gay marriage. News articles or cartoons espousing gay rights should be met with threats of violence. Furthermore, if any Canadian university professor DARES to contradict this by espousing gay rights, I will stand outside his door and confront him for "disrespecting" my religious beliefs. 2. I don't believe christ should be depicted in a bad light. The makers of "the last temptation of christ" or "the passion of the christ" should be threatened with violence, boycotted and asked to apologize for their movie. In addition, any theatre, production company or hollywood company associated with producing these movies whould withdraw any association with such movies out of "respect" for the christian religion. How ridiculous does this all sound?

Thanks for pointing out the humour in this grave situation Hasan, but really, I'm concerned for your health ! Will we ever see you here again ?? You are a brave man. I too am afraid for you. how DARE you speak out against a belief. better hide, friend...better hide. You know they're already after you...great satan!!!! seriously though...we are on the verge oif living in fear. reminds me of germany circa 1942....never speak out publically against..... islam is so fucked up

just joining in, but it sounds like we've stumbled into a debate about homosexuality. while I'm sure this is what the pro-ssm zealots would have u believe this is the debate, its not. really, the debate isn't about rights its about people trying to steal culture. i defy homosexulas to get a little bit of originality and define their own version of "union" instead of hijacking others. If I started walking around naked and demanded to be known as a "nudist jew" should I be granted protection and a new definition under legislation?

No. if we keep tolerating the intolerance of islam, we are ALL in for a rude surprise.

As geoffrey states, 'yes', it is true. That is why both the Muslims and the Jews deride Christians as 'idol-worshippers'. why are we getting caught up in this? this debate on "why" we are offending isn't the issue. the fact that we have the freedom to offend IS the issue. last time i checked we have the freedom in this country to say and print offensive material. am i mistaken? if I am, perhaps the muslim faith has been successful in its attempt to curtail our personal freedoms in the interest of it's personal beliefs???

This is the best take yet... http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn05.html comments PLEASE

Note to the "right": Even engaging in a debate about these cartoons and their repurcussions in the muslim world is an excercise in entertaining the ridiculous. Free societies allow freedom of expression, period. Any muslim who challenges this in the name of "respect" is living in a dreamland. No newspaper or individual is under any obligation to "respect" anyone. In fact, in free societies we reserve the right NOT to respect certain religions or points of view. Respect is a subjective term. Freedom of expression is not. Muslims who don't like this cartoon, or other apologists for threats of violence need to wake up and grow up -- or choose to live in societies where that freedom does not exist. Make your choice, but don't expect to make your home in a place of freedom and then demand anything but. Support Denmark - BUY DANISH!!!

check this out and tell me if you think this pertains to the muslim faith in the western world: “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant”

oh god.....god....oh my...god please...please....no

i'll add my two cents: progressive is code for: do what feels good, and tolerate that which may be too much work to stand up against. this is why so many hollywood types are "progressive". because it's easy, it's popular, it provides immediate gratification and doesn't require much thought. think about things like naturopathic medicine. it all sounds good doesn't it? but when you think logically it doesn't make sense to let people push all kinds of remedies with absolutely NO testing or control. this is a prime example of "progressive" people neglecting to challenge new ideas or thoughts before black cheque accepting everything new, as good. plus, who wants to be that mean old codger against the newest, hippest thing in hollywood? most people would rather go with what "feels good", then dub the whole movement "progressive". It's tricky, but if you think about it, its pretty darned accurate.

An article from Australia on a right-wing American web site is evidence that the law isn't applied equally to Muslim communities in Canada and the USA? Allllllrighty. . . The Australian example is a fact of life - despite your attempts to deny. Couple that with the recent national boycotts, death threats, bomb threats, etc. all based upon a cartoon are pure evidence that we are faced with a religious people who have very diffenet values than us. It's high time we realized: it's not US with our "progressive multicultural values" who must learn to adjust, it is the muslims who will have to change their ways.

I'm not aware of any legal regime in Canada or the USA which allows serious crimes like assault to be explained away by "cultural differences." Until evidence of such processes is provided, I'm going to assume it's bollocks. Here is your evidence, yank: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513206/posts feel free to check other sources.

Lots of native women don't have the support of family or mosque if they leave a violent husband either. I'm sure, if this is an issue of concern for you, that you support charities like Rosie's Place and their outreach efforts to Muslim women -- as well as support strong divorce laws and law enforcement protections for victims of domestic abuse, regardless of gender? You're getting way off track here. Your argument seems to be: "if muslim women get beaten they should leave or contact the authorities." That's not the issue. Taking the Australian example, the "authorities" have been instructed to ignore spousal abuse and be "tolerant" of it given religious traditions and customs. That's the danger: that as our societies become more "tolerant" of other religions we risk supporting another form of INTOLERANCE. Got it now?

Yeah right. I'm sure the muslim women on the wrong end of a beating in Australia would beg to differ.

So when can we count on Mark Steyn and other neo-conservatives supporting fast-tracked asylum for the most vulnerable victims of these fundamentalist regimes, such as Iranian gays and lesbians, and supporting a free and liberal society which repudiates fundamentalist oppressions simply by noting that every citizen receives equal rights and responsibilities under the law? Ooops, are those crickets I am hearing? The reality is, whenever warmongers "explain" to us who we're fighting, it's because who we're fighting isn't clear. It's not going to be breeding ourselves into poverty which will rescue western society from the threats of religious fundamentalism and associated terrorism -- it will be redoubling our commitment to the rule of law, the rights of the individual (i.e. no secret wiretaps of other citizens or putting the legal rights of permanent minorities up to popular votes), and REAL liberty, which is the right to be left to one's own devices in peace. So far, the neoconservatives haven't realized this -- which makes them the willing useful idiots who the jihadists require in order to maintain their own delusional God complex of "being important enough to the west to wage war against." Take away that delusion of grandeur, that "great struggle," and their entire thesis crumbles to fine dust. Hold up - I see everyone automatically polarizing to their respective previously held views. The main point about multiculturalism is that it's own "tolerance" risks cannibalizing it's other closely held values. example: if the "tolerant" society of Australia chooses to allow muslim men to beat their wives in respect of "traditions and habits", the lefty tolerant society is faced with seeing two very highly held ideals clashing: tolerance of minorities versus championing womens rights. see the link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=20034 It's already happening in Australia - and Steyn merely sees this trend continuing as our societies become more and more muslim. He also points out the simple idea that many socialist, "tolerant" societies with no backbone can't last much more than another generation, and that many supporters of socialist ideals can't see past a generation.

Follow the link and I look forward to any rebuttals... http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Actually its Paul Martin who looks afer his friends.

Sure but it illustrates the point. Martin and the Liberals have really no business taking credit for balancing the budget. Strangely the budget and political fortunes have a strange way of turning on their own schedule. Let's face it. Throughout the 90's the economy boomed as did stock markets around the world. Then as the US economy slumped..Canada got lucky with an upswing in resource prices. All this time, Canadians kept thinking "why would I change governments- things are good, I have money in my jeans". With gay marriage on the horizon the last election was a slam dunk for the Libs, but slowly with scandals etc. the tide has shifted. All of this without much influence from ANY government.

August as a conservative (small c) I appreciate your efforts. However I think in today's context it's unnecessary. The Liberals have done a tremendous job of discrediting yourself. As in the soldier ad - when you hurl wild and untrue accusations at your opponents, everything you say starts to sound like BS. Rather than rebut, I think the CPC's current strategy of keeping cool and allowing the Libs to self destruct is working fine. No?

I live in a big house in an affluent neighbourhood, and have taken my share of nice holidays in the sun rather than enduring a Winnipeg winter (well, maybe not all of my share, I think I could definitely do with another right about now). But I don't begrudge my tax dollars helping others who are struggling to make ends meet; your view is very self serving, and I wonder if you meant for it to come across as selfish as it did - or is it just my interpretation? Perhaps I should put it differently. When faced with an issue, conservatives don't automatically jump to the conclusion that more government money is the solution. Conservatives believe in things like "means tests" etc. - ie. if you're REALLY in need,we'll help, but we're not going to create a culture of paternalism and government teet-suckling.