normanchateau

Kimmy, it seems to me that his tolerance of disgraceful MPs is beyond question. He tolerated Gurmant Grewal even when Grewal defied him, e.g., the Rachel Marsden affair.

Yes, proving to Canadians that he can and will accomplish nothing will certainly help Harper get re-elected. His most impressive accomplishment might just turn out to be continuing to ballgag the social conservatives and religious nuts who will be elected on January 23rd.

Conservative anger likely wouldn't disappear even if Harper were to win a majority. Sure, they'll drink and party on election night but the anger will soon return. Look at US conservatives. They control the White House, Senate and Congress...but they're still angry. As for the majority of Canadians, i.e., those of us who are voting Liberal, NDP, BQ or Green, I suspect the entertainment value of Harper and his MPs will rapidly attenuate any lingering disappointment. The new social and religious conservative MPs, muzzled by Harper during the campaign, can be counted on to humiliate themselves. The Harper cabinet, replete with men of "integrity" like the backstabbing Peter MacKay and creationists like Stockwell Day, I'm sure won't disappoint. And how about the newly minted Quebec Conservative MPs? Will they be resigning in humiliation and disgrace at the same rate as they were when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister? And will they be just as "federalist" as Conservative MP Lucien Bouchard? Have they been screened by Harper as carefully as the BC Conservative candidate charged with multiple counts of smuggling? And how about the mainstream media? How long a honeymoon period will they allow Conservative MPs? No wonder Canadian conservatives will remain angry.

If there's a poll out there showing that a majority of Canadians view Harper as "Best PM, I've yet to see it. Plurality, sure. Majority, I don't think so. But a plurality is all Harper needs to slip in just as it was sufficient for the loathsome Chretien.

He has??? Wasn't it less than two months ago thatr Harper announced in Vancouver that he would not reintroduce the decriminalization of marijuana legislation favoured by the NDP, BQ, Liberals and two thirds of the Canadian population? In other words, Harper still favours permanent criminal records and jail time for possession of a few grams of marijuana. You don't think this zero tolerance US social policy is extreme? How about Harper's opposition to C-250? Most Canadians I suspect view killing a man merely because he's gay as a hate crime. But not Stephen Harper. He fears that will result in the Bible being banned. Now that's extreme even by religious nut standards. Other than no longer speaking publicly about his extremely conservative social views, what evidence is there that he has changed his position on any of them?

I doubt that enough NDP supporters will vote Liberal to defeat the Conservatives. However, the second scenario seems likely...i.e., a paralyzed CPC minority government . At least the latter can't do major harm to Canada without being defeated.

Yes, Brian Mulroney does indeed deserve all the credit for what will happen to Canada in the next few years. Let the good times roll once again. Don't worry, I think Harper will be a better PM than Mulrooney... Wow, that good....

Harper a good man? Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay. Harper voted against C-250, arguing that it would be used to ban the Bible and would deny people the religious right to condemn homosexuality. There's a reason why more than 60% of Canadians won't vote for Harper on Monday. He's a religious nut. Most Canadians aren't. Do you think it's good that Harper wants young people to obtain criminal records and possible jail terms for possession of a few grams of marijuana? You think this irrational position is good?

You'll be toasting. The religious nut will win. It's an irony of the multi-party system that while well over 60% of the Canadian electorate despise Harper and will vote against him by voting for socially moderate parties, he'll become Prime Minister despite being socially conservative. For what it's worth, those who vote against Harper on Monday know they're in the majority. It may take a few years but a dose of religious nut Harper will gradually cure the country of Conservative governance even more efficiently than Brian Mulroney did. Norman! Great to have you back... You were so confident in the Liberals last time we were talking...but, as the CBC has put it, there has been a "major shift" in the Canadian electorate. Why don't you join in? tml12, I was confident that Canadians would never elect a religious nut like Stephen Harper. Clearly I was wrong and Monday they will. I still remain confident that a majority of Canadians, i.e., more than 60%, will vote against Harper and support socially moderate parties to the left of Harper's party.

Do you seriously believe that Stephen Harper has no control over his MPs? Do you seriously believe that Gurmant Grewal's repeated defiance of Harper had nothing to do with him ultimately not running? Do you seriously believe that Grewal, who had been in full campaign mode one day then suddenly declared his noncandidacy the next day, did so spontaneously? If so, I have a large bridge to sell you.

You'll be toasting. The religious nut will win. It's an irony of the multi-party system that while well over 60% of the Canadian electorate despise Harper and will vote against him by voting for socially moderate parties, he'll become Prime Minister despite being socially conservative. For what it's worth, those who vote against Harper on Monday know they're in the majority. It may take a few years but a dose of religious nut Harper will gradually cure the country of Conservative governance even more efficiently than Brian Mulroney did.

Sure, let's have a referendum a day on ALL the issues. And while we're at it, let's fine those Canadians who fail to vote in a referendum. It could generate a lot of revenue, especially when people are on travelling vacations.

Yes, Brian Mulroney does indeed deserve all the credit for what will happen to Canada in the next few years. Let the good times roll once again.

I suspect that sharing is a dirty word to most of today's Conservatives. On the other hand, didn't Harper promise to share the wealth by throwing out the capital gains tax? That will sure help lower the tax burden for Canada's poor. Eureka, I've been travelling in Asia for the past month and just returned. What's happened to this board in the interim? It used to have some balance of views but now it sounds like Free Dominion. It will be interesting to watch Harper once the campaign is over and he's PM. Since he couldn't get along even with Preston Manning who appointed Herb Grubel rather than Harper as Reform Finance Critic, it should be highly entertaining to watch Harper make cabinet appointments. Given the inherent selfishness of Conservatives, they're all going to want lucrative cabinet positions. Will the religious nuts in his caucus be in cabinet? Will he appoint any women? Looks like Nina Grewal will be re-elected. Perhaps she can be Minister of Justice. Pulling her strings will keep Gurmant busy and out of trouble as well. Poor Gurmant is still being investigated by the RCMP. Maybe Nina can pardon him. What about public backstabber and liar Peter MacKay? Harper can show he's serious about restoring truth and honesty to government by not putting MacKay in cabinet. Alternatively, Harper can go the Brian Mulroney route. Sleazy, lying cabinet ministers were a hallmark of the Mulroney era and Harper can show us he'll maintain that tradition by appointing liar MacKay. We'll know soon enough. And of course all the new Conservative MPs and future cabinet ministers who'll be elected in Quebec this time will be beyond corruption...just like in the Mulroney era.

Sounds like an idea that anti-abortionist Stephen Harper would like...mandatory full-term pregnancy. And I suppose one could enforce this by putting the pregnant woman in jail and monitoring her prison activities so that she's not tempted to self-abort. After all, if she committed the crime of getting pregnant, she must be compelled to serve the time. What Canada is desparately short of are children unwanted by their mothers.

Yes, that's why CPC apologists have abandoned this thread. Even they can't explain why (1) Harper would support the continued criminalization of small amounts of marijuana as part of his election platform when he could have just clammed up on this issue and (2) why marijuana was criminalized in the first place. I'm off to South Asia and free of my keyboard for the next three weeks. A lot can happen in the polls in that time.

No, I have no proof and if Harper did talk to Gurmant Grewal earlier this month and asked him to step down, over-ruling even the local CPC constituency association, good for Harper. But Harper has tended not to intefere in these issues. For example, he allowed the Richmond, BC Constituency Association to select Darrel Reid as the CPC candidate. Reid's candidacy, which came about because of a sudden influx of religious conservative new members can't possibly be good for the CPC. And despite Grewal's shameful antics prior to the 2004 election, Harper didn't interfere then. Prior to the 2004 election, Grewal had already defied Harper. Harper's office asked Grewal not to hire Rachel Marsden given her unsavoury reputation (not to mention very nasty comments she'd made about Harper) but Grewal did anyway. This all happened before the 2004 election. There's an interesting story about this, including Marsden's comments about Harper, in the Indo-Canadian newspaper Voice which appeared online. Editor Rattan Mall interviewed Grewal about it in May, 2004: http://www.voiceonline.com/voice/050611/headline4.php

Using terms like fool and dishonesty does not change the facts. Are you not aware that Harper voted against bill C-250? Bill C-250 made it a crime to kill someone merely because that person is gay. Bill C-250 also made it a crime to engage in hate propaganda against gays and lesbians. Harper might not see killing someone merely because he's gay as "gay bashing", but I suspect most Canadians do. Here's bill C-250 which was passed by the Liberals, NDP and BQ but was opposed by Harper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250 Harper's party was not the only one to oppose adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. The Christian Heritage Party also opposed it and urged Harper to do so as well. But the legislation passed despite the objections of religious conservatives. Harper can pretend to be as moderate as he likes at election time but his opposition to the passage of C-250 remains an unequivocal fact.

Speaking of looking either dishonest or foolish, Norman, you've been repeatedly been corrected on what C-250 actually contains. Yet you continue to write this fiction about what C-250 contains. Are you a compulsive liar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Calling someone a liar or engaging in other foolish or inane personal attacks doesn't change the fact that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. "Status of bill C-250: The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation now joins four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin." However, a "not withstanding clause" allows religiously motivated hate speech." Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm What's especially telling about Harper's opposition to adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation is that he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se but only the addition of sexual orientation to that legislation.

Fortunately legislators and politicians have had the vision and wisdom to bring in laws which reverse some of the bizarre notions put forth in the Bible. For example, the Bible appears to have no objections to polygamy and pedophila whereas Canadian laws have made them illegal.

Yeah, imagine saying that Harper is a social conservative! Shame on you Hiti. Just because the evidence suggests he's a social conservative, doesn't mean that he's a social conservative. Besides, as we saw in the 2000 election, even the socially conservative Alliance Party captured almost 30% of the Canadian vote. Next you'll be saying that 70% of Canadians support political parties to the left of Harper's. Besides, social conservatives have been known to become Prime Minister of Canada, perhaps not in this century or the last, but take a look at who won in 1878, 1882, 1887 and even 1891.

Harper certainly is advocating exactly what I said he was advocating about "gay bashing". Have you never heard of Bill C-250, the legislation which added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation? That legislation passed thanks to the unanimity of the Liberals, NDP and BQ. That legislation added gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. But Harper and his party voted against it. The fact you are totally unaware of this legislation is hardly an intelligent reason to accuse someone else of being either dishonest or a fool.

So should Layton have intervened or should he have taken the Harper approach of non-interference?

I have no difficulty whatsoever calling Duceppe and Boisclair scary for talking about yet another referendum on separation. The notion to have yet another referendum in hopes of getting a different outcome is both pathetic and frightening. In some ways (but not all) it's reminiscent of Harper's desire to have MPs voting on the same issue once again in order that he can get the outcome he desires, i.e., stripping away the legislated right of lesbians to marry each other in the future.

One question this raises is whether Layton should have intervened to over-ride the wishes of the local party costitutency association. Martin has been known to do this in the past. Harper has tended to let the constituency association decide. That's why he tolerated Gurmant Grewal and didn't block him from running in the next election but left it up to Grewal and his constituency association. Similarly, Harper did not block the candidacy of Darrel Reid, the CPC candidate in Richmond, BC. Reid is former President of Focus on the Family and appears to be anti-gay, anti-abortion and even anti-stem cell research. Long time members of the Richmond CPC constuency resigned after Reid won the nomination because of a sudden influx of new, religious conservative and anti-abortion members. Nonetheless, Harper did not intervene but felt it was up to the constituency association to decide. So the question is should Layton have taken the Martin approach and intervened or the Harper approach which is to leave it up to the constituency association?