normanchateau

The Conservatives have written off some minorities. They like to argue that homosexuals represent a mere 1% of the population and therefore believe they can get elected without worrying about this mere 1%. Conservatives incorrectly assume that only homosexuals care that Harper voted not to include gay bashing in hate crimes legislation. Canadians are fairly civilized and you don't have to be gay to oppose gay bashing. But Harper doesn't understand that. Of course gays and lesbians aren't alone in being written off by Harper. How about the 30,000 Canadians charged each year for possession of tiny amounts of marijuana? How about those who are jailed for possession? And how about Quebec where Harper is running a distant third and has litttle prospect of winning a single seat? Either Harper has written off Quebec, or Quebec has written off Harper, or both.

Low blow BM. Sparhawk did not say it can take up to a year. Sparhawk said it can take YEARS to recover from the effects of marijuana.

"Corrupt" Liberals? What evidence do you have that my Vancouver Liberal MP, a fine, decent, hard-working man, is corrupt? :angry: What evidence do you have that any Liberal MP outside of Quebec is corrupt? The intolerance of extremist Harper extends beyond SSM. He voted to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation and he now supports permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for simple possession of small quantities of marijuana. What other party leader has taken such extreme positions on these issues? :angry:

What federal politician or political party is campaigning on a political platform of giving money to lazy people? Who, other than a lazy person or an insane one, would vote for them?

I left it out intentionally. Although the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police favours decriminalization and views enforcement of simple possession as an utter waste of police resources, the Canadian Police Association which represents police officer unions opposes decriminalization. I'm trying to look at this objectively (believe it or not) and concluded that the position of the second group would be viewed by some as cancelling out the position of the first group. The pro-criminalization hysteria of Harper and cohorts is best countered by scientific evidence, medical evidence and a relatively unbiased presentation of the facts. Mentioning the police chiefs requires acknowledgement of the police unions. Speaking of pro-criminalization hysteria, you might find it interesting to read excerpts from a book on the origins of Canada's cannabis laws in the following link: http://www.cfdp.ca/giffen.htm It remains a mystery to legal scholars why marijuana was criminalized in 1923 since this substance, unlike other drugs, was not viewed as a social problem at the time.

Ya we'll have a referendum on this, and any other issue where doing what's right is contrary to the views of the majority. If the majority says it is OK to ignore rights and freedoms given to us by our Charter, then it must be true. Once you start this ball rolling it will not stop until the last extremist has a referendum on their own personal issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How about a referendum on whether those who can't reproduce with each other should be allowed to marry? Since some Harper supporters have used reproduction as an argument against SSM, I'm sure they'd want to extend it to postmenopausal women, infertile men and all the others who, in their narrow minds, don't deserve the legal right to marry. Perhaps we could have "civil unions" or some other "compromise" when postmenopausal women or infertile men want to marry.

And despite that, approximately 70% of Canadians will vote for socially tolerant parties on January 23rd. And next year's leader of CPC won't be foolish enough to make an election issue out of giving the majority the freedom to take away legal rights from a minority.

Besides Joe Clark, Stockwell Day, the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, the Liberals, NDP, BQ and 69% of the Canadian population, there's another unlikely supporter of decriminalization...the former leader of the Alliance Party of Canada. Incredible but true. As Alliance leader, Stephen Harper said he was prepared to go along with decriminalization under certain conditions. To quote Harper, "Our caucus is prepared to support decriminalization of small amounts, but only if the government does a whole lot of things to make that practical." Source: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14939.shtml It is bizarre that Harper, as CPC leader, would take a position even more socially intolerant than the position he took as Alliance leader. Can any CPC supporter explain this or are Harper's actions simply inexplicable?

To a large extent, I agree. Before the adscam story, more than 50% of Canadians were going to vote for Martin and were thrilled that Martin ousted Chretien. Martin's subsequent drop in popularity had nothing to do with his actions or abilities but rather wanting to punish someone even if he wasn't the one responsible for adscam.

This may surprise you but Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are far more passionate in their support for same sex marriage than Paul Martin. Not too long ago, Martin opposed it. Martin's current support for same sex marriage is motivated by constitutional and political considerations, not religious liberalism.

Kind of like the anger one sees in CPC supporters as they remain stalled in the polls at 30%. They seem angrily unwilling to accept the fact that close to 70% of Canadians support parties to the left of CPC.

A single government, yes, but the Liberals, NDP and BQ all supported this legislation. Only the CPC, a party supported by about 30% of the population, opposed the legislation. The Christian Heritage Party also opposed the legislation but that party doesn't seem to be much of a vote getter. It does however appear to have some influence with Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper, as leader of the Alliance Party, failed to show up on second reading to vote against C-250, he was condemned by the Christian Heritage Party. C-250, the legislation which added gay bashing to hate crimes legislation, passed second reading without a dissenting vote from the Alliance Party. Subsequent to the condemnation, Harper and the Alliance Party pleased their Christian Heritage Party friends by dutifully voting against it on the third and final reading. Source: http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

I hope Paul Martin is a religious liberal. Religious liberals didn't oppose adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Religious conservatives did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Religious Liberals are blasphemers and like to pick and choose what parts of their religious they wish to believe in, is that what you're saying? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now that you mention it, religious liberals AND religious conservatives both choose which parts of their religion they wish to believe in. However, the two groups differ in that the former are less motivated than the latter to impose their views on everyone else.

They do and none more so than in Quebec where Harper is running a distant third. No one has ever become Prime Minister without a single seat in Quebec where 25% of the Canadian population resides.

Show me where I drew parallels to the American system. That's not what I said.

I hope Paul Martin is a religious liberal. Religious liberals didn't oppose adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Religious conservatives did.

He does seem to show poor judgment these days. Why would he choose British Columbia to announce that he would not decriminalize marijuana? And why take such a hardline position anyway? When he was leader of the Alliance Party of Canada, he took a more nuanced and thoughtful position in that he was prepared to go along with decriminalization under certain conditions. I wonder if he forgot what he said previously or whether he didn't mean what he said previously or if he's simply become more hardline.

I'm undecided. On the one hand, I'm confident that my fellow Canadians would not vote to take away the rights of a minority group to marry. So in the end, the referendum would silence the religious conservatives at least for a while. On the other hand, I can think of two reasons not to have a referendum. First, I don't think a majority should be allowed to vote to take away rights from a minority. Consider the following scenario. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed in Germany. All of Germany now knew that Jews had been stripped of their civil rights by the German legislature. Suppose Germans were first allowed a referendum on this. If the referendum had passed, would that have made it right? Second, a referendum would be a precedent for many more and it would be difficult to draw the line. I'd want a referendum on the decriminalization of marijuana. Someone else would want a referendum on immigration. Someone else might want a referendum on tax cuts. And so on and so on. We elect MPs who best represent our views and my MP represented my views on SSM.

It matters to the taxpayer. Harper has proposed that if a health district won't see a patient in a short enough period of time, that patient will be seen elsewhere. In many cases, this will mean taxpayer dollars will funnel into the private healthcare system. This in turn will mean more physicians leaving the public sector for the private sector where salaries are higher. Harper's plan would be unsustainable. In places like Vancouver where there are long wait lists for some services, the closest hospital with a surplus of spaces for those services is in Bellingham, Washington. That hospital is corporate-run and is eager to have Vancouver clients. Harper's poorly thought out plan does not preclude sending Canadian patients to American for-profit hospitals. Harper's plan might go over well in the US but for Canadian taxpayers, it's potentially a financial disaster.

I agree that the "far right" is not a majority of the CPC. Nonetheless, it appears that half of CPC MPs are religious conservatives. The following was reported in Lifesite, an anti-abortion website defending that half of CPC MPs are religious conservatives: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072804.html Lifesite defended the huge number of religious conservatives in CPC by pointing out that CPC is to the left of political parties in other countries. True enough but Harper is running in Canada where a majority favour parties to the left of CPC, i.e., the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens.

What an offensive statement! Mentally and/or physically disabled individuals are often less productive. Many of them work and of those who don't, I suspect abilities might be a problem. What's wrong with more productive people giving them the fruits of their labour? Are you suggesting that we return to an era where private charity was the only help available to those who can't work?

We're a democratic country which votes for local MPs who most represent our views. In the 2004 election, I had a choice between three candidates who favoured SSM and one who opposed it. And what's wrong with a debate format which vaguely resembled that of the debates between Bush and Kerry?

To some extent, I think Harper won last night's debate. Layton and Duceppe's frequent and aggressive negative attacks on Martin made Harper look moderate. Harper conveyed a relatively positive message leaving it to Layton and Duceppe to focus on the negative. To the extent that this was Harper's goal, he was successful.

Can't say that I blame them given that the alternative is for them to explain why their leader supports permanent criminal records and potential jail terms for possession of even small amounts of the substance. In 2001, the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association recommended decriminalization pointing out that the harm done by permanent criminal records and jail terms for simple possession far outweigh the minimal health risks of consumption. Source: http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/18...anmedical.shtml But I suppose medical journals base their recommendations primarily on evidence whereas Harper's position is apparently based on something else.

The other beauty of this exchange is that it provided me with an opportunity to point out that Harper had absolutely nothing novel to contribute to the softwood lumber dispute. He merely parroted Layton/Martin. On the other hand, I'll give him full credit for saddling CPC with the novel but irrational campaign platform of supporting permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for simple possession of trivial quantities of marijuana. Even Stockwell Day had the common sense to advocate decriminalization: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1722.html But Stockwell Day was booted out because the Alliance Party decided that Stephen Harper would be more electable!