sharkman
-
Posts
9,399 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sharkman
-
-
Already asked and answered, the media should cover more important things first, less important things LIKE GAY MARRIAGE in later weeks.
-
And at the end of the day, that bill menaces religions, go back and reread what Kimmy said. There were not all kinds of amendments from religious groups or the Conservatives would have supported it.
-
How 'bout we stay on topic. Start a new thread on this Chinese thing. I know to you the gay marriage thing is the most important issue in Canada, but to most of us its not as important as tax issues, day care plans, and whether Quebec will separate. Did the media ask any questions about these? No, Harper had to bring them up. The gay issue has already been solved by Martin, but asking Harper about it on week 3 or so seems about right.
-
I wonder if this will mellow out Fox bashers. Nah, only 5%. It does concern us Fox fans, however. The prince could keep buying up shares and work his way over 10% and keep making noises about anti muslim bias. Although O'Reilly would not let some prince get between him and the 'folks', I could see how it could be bad news.
-
I believe you were inferring that Harper supports some hate laws, just not gay hate. I don't think we need any. We need judges who punish people.
But if there is to be gay hate laws, then they should not be written to menace religions.
-
Being that it's such a small part of the population as well, I think our media has better things to worry about
Yeah, why would any political party care about minorities?
Uh, you quote me, but still manage to miss what I said? That particular point was on the media. On day one they bring up gay marriage when there are so many more important issues.
-
Not really Norm, in the CPC, the people are open minded enough to have differences of opinion. I'd rather have Harper in control of the purse strings than Martin any day. The Liberals, on the other hand forbid having free votes on things. I'm sure Harper could work somethng out with Quebec on this, they'd like to see the guilty Liberals punished too.
-
That's because I've found you to be so biased I don't just accept everything you say. You obviously hate Harper, but I'm not sure of his voting record on hate laws. But since they are not a big deal to me, I can differ with him on them. What you fail to understand about this gay hate law is that it doesn't protect religious people to speak their conscience on it. Your bias prevented you from realizing that when Kimmy gave it to you straight from the wording.
As for Svend, he never apologized for the ring, for ripping a sign out of a priest's hands, and many other incidents, it's nice to see Harper was big enough to apologize.
-
BHS you make good points. Hate laws are silly, if our liberal justice system would just start punishing people for breaking the laws already on the books, there would be no need for further degrees of wrong hate laws.
Instead of disagreeing with BHS, Norman, who never saw a hate law he didn't love, shows his hate for Harper.
-
The interesting thing is, the survey considered both behavior and identity, whether a person considered themselves gay. It was taken by Stats Canada no less, who has no axe to grind on this or any issue, they just want to get as accurate a picture of Canada that they can.
And to have some activists in Canada squawking so loudly about gay rights when we lead the world seems like misplaced priorities.
I would submit by the gay movement deifinition that just because a person has a homosexual experience one night does not make them gay. Remember, you are born gay, not changed over by an encounter, so using that is completely bogus by that Calgary study. Either you are gay or not, they seem to be trying to pad numbers.
Being that it's such a small part of the population as well, I think our media has better things to worry about since all Harper would do is take a free vote on whether gay marriage should become civil unions.
-
What's so incomplete about the Liberal plan is only couples that decide to both stay working will get any benefit. Couples that want to have a parent actually with the child during the crucial formative years get nothing.
As mentioned, Dryden's own numbers mean that 86% of mothers get left out, and families in rural areas would get nothing from the Liberals. And yet it costs so much. I saw an interview in which Dryden sniffed at the CPC plan, saying it amounts to $25 bucks a week. Can you imagine Liberals saying it's a small amount if it was a Tory benefit cut of $25 a week. They'd be sputtering,"That amounts to $1200 bucks a year per child that no family can afford to lose!" But since it's payment, they claim it's small.
-
The interesting thing is, the survey considered both behavior and identity, whether a person considered themselves gay. It was taken by Stats Canada no less, who has no axe to grind on this or any issue, they just want to get as accurate a picture of Canada that they can.
And to have some activists in Canada squawking so loudly about gay rights when we lead the world seems like misplaced priorities.
I would submit by the gay movement deifinition that just because a person has a homosexual experience one night does not make them gay. Remember, you are born gay, not changed over by an encounter, so using that is completely bogus by that Calgary study. Either you are gay or not, being born that way or not. They seem to be trying to pad numbers.
-
Being that it's a survey, the respondants were completely free to answer without embarrassment. I find that the gay agenda to put a gay character in every tv show and movie to be an unrealistic representation of their presence in society. That's probably far more inaccurate than this survey result.
-
An interesting survey conducted in 2004 and covering a wide range of issues showed that only 1% of Canadians consider themselves to be gay. This is surprising since gay activism has always held that 10% of the population is gay at least. Here is some of the relevant data:
CCHS Cycle 2.1 is the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation. This information is needed to understand differences in health-related issues between the homosexual (gay or lesbian), bisexual and heterosexual populations. These issues include determinants of health, such as physical activity, mental health issues, including stress, and problems accessing health care.
Among Canadians aged 18 to 59, 1.0% reported that they consider themselves to be homosexual and 0.7% considered themselves bisexual.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm
Gay marriage vs civil unions has proved to be a real hot button issue for some, so it's interesting to quanitify what numbers in Canada are directly affected.
-
If we consider the recent tirade their leader went on regarding Israel, it sheds light on things. His rantings betrays him. I don't think he'd sacrifice his regime, but use the new influence that nukes bring to pressure whomever he doesn't like, and menace the borders of Iraq just because their gov. is now friendly to the U.S. And they could try to nuke Israel.
Israel is now sweating what to do about this new threat. They could take out the offending Iranian facilities, but that would have a bad downside. But is it worse than a nuke going off in Israel?
-
So this Moore guy (unfortunate name) is only 28? Good grief, he's at 12 years away from being an age most Canadians would vote for. Bring back Mulroney, even with his reduced physical capacity he could knock the stuffing out of Martin in a debate any freakin' day. I wonder when he'll announce his preferences for this election.
-
Everyone has missed the boat here completely...the only thing to be "done" about softwood lumber is to allow the appeal processes of NAFTA and the WTO to run their course.
One of the only sane commentaries on this issue has come from former U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The WTO ruled in favour of the U.S., NAFTA ruled in favour of Canada...both rulings come with appeal rights / procedures. These are the treaties we have, so we have to follow the process.
We cannot demand money be paid before final rulings are made...it's that simple. And to breach NAFTA as a way to force compliance with NAFTA is stupid. At least right now we can show the tribunals that we are in compliance and the U.S. is not.
If we ever want to see duties refunded we can't put ourselves in a position where a tribunal can say...oh well, you guys are doing it too...
And besides, what makes anyone think that the U.S. will just pay whatever we say they should for oil & gas? They won't. And before they are totally screwed due to lack of supply, we'll be long since destroyed due to a lack of an economy.
Unless someone can tell me how we re-route our pipelines across the ocean to China, we'd best just do fair business with the U.S. on oil and gas.
FTA
Thank you for a most revealing post. I hadn't heard that the Americans have a ruling in their favour, it's amazing how this slipped Martin's mind when he was bragging about standing up to the Americans and telling Dubya to pay the 5 billion. Our media has dropped the ball on this as well, most Canadians think the Americans are ripping us off when they are not. What's new...
-
I dunno, I think the 8,000 people who were forced to abandon their homes might think it's more than just PR. If whites in Canada were forced off of native lands it would be the start of separation(depending on the province involved) or the sudden appearance of all those unregistered guns.
At any rate, it seems like the Palestinian leaders are unwilling to do anything else than the status quo, not building an infrastructure for their people. At least the Jews are doing something.
Also, this might surprise you Blackdog (not really) but I see the wall being the Palestinians fault. After how many decades of suicide bombers killimg innocent civilians, the Jews have run out of options.
-
And of course the fact that newspapers' subscription numbers have been sliding downward for years has nothing to do with the lay-offs.
Here's another one for you, although you may have heard. About a month ago, USAToday had a picture on their website of Condi Rice. There was an odd look to the photo since they photoshopped it and gave Condi demon eyes. After much outrage they came out with a statement on how there was an error in the process that got missed blah blah blah it wasn't our fault blah blah photo was hard to blah blah...
Several photo professionals contacted the blogger Michele Malkin with the expert opinion that there was no way you could do that by accident, the effect would show up on the whole photo, not just her eyes. So pathetic. But no, there's no bias, those are groundless accusations!
-
Yes, I've read about this incident, and the whole point is that the far left wing is very hateful. Michele Malkin gets the most horrid threats and comments and she's far less a controversial writer than Anne Coulter. Trevor Lautiens,(sp?) who was conservative and used to write for the Vancouver Sun would get used baby diapers left on his driveway and hate filled letters.
It only damages the credibility of their side but these rabid haters can't stop themselves. And the mainstream left reacts with denials.
-
You either totally misunderstood the crime policy announced by Harper or are trying to spread inaccuracies about it. At any rate, I suggest you would be better off voting for Jack Layton.
gotta go.
-
Are you ignoring the fact that you feel if a majority of Canadians agree on something, it should be enacted? Because I'm willing to bet that gay marriage never would have passed last summer if the will of the people had been considered. I know, I know, we can only listen to them on their desire for drugs.
-
You are making an assumption, my friend, and assumption is the mother of all evils. Just because Harper hasn't stated a policy on it, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Your memory on Mulroney forgets that Canada did quite well with the U.S. during this time, we've always had the occassional disagreement. But I know, you prefer Martin's approach, which we never actually hear or see except afterwords when he claims to have stood up to Bush. Yah, right, he couldn't stand up to a stiff wind.
-
For example, Harper inexplicably and bizarrely this weekend in British Columbia let all of Canada know that he opposed the decriminalization of marijuana despite the fact that a majority of Canadians support decriminalization as do the Liberals...
This is where I got the idea that you support the will of a majority on issues. It was like 3 posts ago. Please, I'm hoping you don't get into another convoluted redefinition explanation like you did with 'bible thumper'. (I refer to a follower of any religion when I say bible thumper, even if they don't actually believe in the bible, they may follow the Koran or some other book but if they thump it then...)
Conservative Minority in View
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Okay, here's what Kimmy said to you already, it seems you can't remember or don't want to bother:
Norman continues to peddle misinformation as to what Bill C-250 actually contains. Bill C-250 amended the sections of the criminal code that deal with hate speech. There's no mention of physical gay bashing, or broadening the definition of hate crimes. Bill C-250 is irrelevant to the prosecution of gay-bashing incidents unless the perpetrators gave public speeches on the topic beforehand.
QUOTE(Bill C-250)
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
2. Paragraph 319(3)(b ) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
for reference:
QUOTE(the newly amended Criminal Code section 319.3b)
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
That doesn't sound so bad, right? Bill C-250 expressly protects religion, right? These religious types must be worried about nothing, right?
Let's have a closer look. Or at least have some lawyers have a closer look for us.
QUOTE(Carters & Associates - barristers at law)
Media reports indicate that the proposed changes to the Code will exempt anyone expressing an anti-same sex perspective based on a religious text. The Bill's author has repeatedly assured the public that religious leaders will continue to have this protection as a result of the exemption in subsection 319(3). However, even a cursory examination of subsection 319(3) clearly indicates that this protection only applies to someone charged with the "promotes hatred" offence under subsection 319(2), not in relation to the "communicating" offence under subsection 319(1). Further, the "promotes hatred" offence has an additional legal safeguard in subsection (6) which requires the consent of a Provincial Attorney General. In contrast, the "communicating" offence in subsection 319(1) requires only that a peace officer have reasonable and probable grounds or that a private citizen is able to convince a Justice of the Peace to commence the criminal process. What follows from these observations is that free speech, or "communicating" about sexual orientation within a church or religious organization will not be protected.
(emphasis added by me)
(source: http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb02.htm )
In other words, Bill C-250 expands the definition of "identifiable groups", and protects religious speech from punishment under 318.2, but does not protect religious speech from punishment under 319.1.
QUOTE(Criminal Code section 319)
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b ) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
In summary, the religious groups worried about Bill C-250 had reason to be concerned. (\quote)
Norman, the protection for religions are incomplete. That's why Harper wouldn't support it. Lawyers and judges can find all kinds of loop holes in this porous document.