normanchateau

It's hard to get motivated to vote NDP when you know that a vote for Jack Layton could help Stephen Harper. Look at the 2000 US election. Many of the Green Party supporters, by voting for Ralph Nader, got George Bush elected. In Florida alone, Nader took thousands of votes which had they gone to Gore, would have given the Florida electoral votes to the Democrats, and George Bush would not have become president. I know this defeatist attitude won't help the NDP but it's far more important, in my opinion, to defeat Stephen Harper and allow CPC to replace him with someone more in tune with Canadian values. While Layton (and the BQ and Liberals) supports the decriminalization of marijuana, it'll never happen if Harper slips in. Even Stockwell day and Joe Clark support decriminalization and so, I suspect, will Harper's replacement.

You've stepped in it once again. Of course there have been numerous studies to support the whole range of figures since the Kinsey study and I provided the link yesterday at 8:53 am...not the Calgary link but the other one. And if you were to actually read Kinsey's book on male sexual behaviour, as I have, you might actually acquire some knowledge of the issues involved in studying sexual orientation.

The CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians, unless it about telling Canadian women they cant have abortions, or that homosexuals can't marry each other, or that it is ok to hate homosexuals..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> or that we should put young people in jail and give them criminal records for the rest of their lives because they possessed a gram of marijuana. Surely even CPC supporters would agree that Harper's finally crossed the line by opposing something as benign as decriminalization. But hey, when someone thinks the 1920's approach of decriminalizing alcohol and criminalizing marijuana is logical, they're irrational anyway. But I will concede that he'd have made a fine Prime Minister in 1925. The Liberals, NDP and BQ, as well as two thirds of the Canadian population favour decriminalization but CPC knows better and believes jail time "will teach 'em". Nope, CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians.

Excellent points Leafless. I think Stephen Harper should hire you to write his speeches.

The published literature in fact suggests that both are correct to some extent. The problem is one of definition. If one defines gay as being exclusively homosexual in one's behaviour, the figure is closer to 1% though it ranges up to 5% in some studies. If one defines it as having engaged in homosexual behaviour at some point, then it's at least 10%. Kinsey's figures are skewed if not biased towards the very high end but he devised a scale which has proved useful to researchers, i.e., the Kinsey Homosexual Rating Scale. The scale scores are as follows: 0=exclusively heterosexual 1=primarily heterosexual 2=between 1 and 3 3=bisexual 4=between 3 and 5 5=primarily homosexual 6=exclusively homosexual So if someone does a survey, how they define homosexual will make a difference to the outcome. If you define homosexuals as exclusively homosexual, you'll get a lower percentage then if you define them as being those with a score of 4, 5 or 6. In any event, I have far more confidence in what the percentage is based on research performed by experts in the field of sex research than I do in research performed by StatsCan. StatsCan has no knowledge of the nuances of behavioural research, e.g., many homosexuals won't label themselves as such despite their behaviour being exclusively homosexual. Behavioural scientists collect as much data on sexual orientation, identity and behaviour, as possible to get the complete picture.

Canadians are far less selfish than your comment implies. Most Canadians not only care about the well being of the majority but also about the well being of the minority. Your comments imply that it's somewhow the fault of the media that Harper has taken the positions that he has. Is it the media's fault that Harper blurted out in BC that he supports the notion of criminal records and jail time for young people who possess even very small amounts of marijuana? Would it have been so bad if he had simply said let's go after the drug dealers rather than jailing young people for the harmless act of possession of small amounts of a substance less dangerous than alcohol? Sure, marijuana users are a minority but how many of them do there have to be before Harper decides they shouldn't be jailed?

The Government of Canada has an up-to-date, chronological website where one can follow softwood lumber developments including NAFTA, WTO, appeals, decisions, etc. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/what-en.asp I see no indication that there will or can be any further appeals to NAFTA. Five NAFTA panels have ruled in Canada's favour. If you have evidence of a pending or even possible further appeal to NAFTA, please provide it.

I'm sure it makes a lot of sense to you. However, to the strategic voter, a vote for the Marijuana Party or the Green Party is simply a vote for Stephen Harper. Of all the major party leaders, only Stephen Harper opposes decriminalization. The Liberals, NDP and BQ want decriminalization. Even under the influence of marijuana, a strategic voter would not waste his vote on the Marijuana Party. The strategic voter also knows not to throw away his vote on the local NDP candidate if the Liberals and CPC are neck-to-neck in his riding. In those ridings, the strategic NDP voter wanting to see decriminalization would need to vote Liberal...and I suspect many will thanks to Harper's blurting out last week that criminal records and jail time are appropriate for simple possession.

And just because he made a homophobic joke (which he later apologized for) about Svend Robinson in the House of Commons doesn't mean he's a homophobe. These are all just remarkable coincidences. Here's the link: http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192 Perhaps Harper supporters will not see his comment, coming from the Leader of the Official Opposition, as inappropriate, or will once again engage in hopeless denial about their baggage-laden leader because: (1) it was mentioned in...gasp...a union website and Harper has written off the union vote anyway (2) it was mentioned by someone with an anti-Harper bias and therefore should be ignored or condemned rather than acknowledged (3) homosexuals are a minority group and CPC erroneously believes that the majority of Canadians are selfish, care only about themselves and don't care about minority rights (4) it happened three years ago and anything that happened years ago is not relevant today except adscam

Frankly I'd much rather talk about Harper's plan to continue to criminalize and jail young people for possession of small amounts of marijuana. He has said he will not re-introduce the decriminalization bill which effectively means retention of the status quo as first introduced in the 1920's. While Ontario (the topic of this thread) might not be as progressive as Quebec or British Columbia, the CPC/Harper position on the proposed Liberal government legislation can't simply be swept under the rug or ignored. I believe that young Ontario voters might actually care about this issue as much as any other issue.

I stand to be corrected but it appears that if one looks at predictions on this website about a month before the 2004 election, a disproportionate number were predicting a CPC victory. Judging by the poll presented on the mapleleaf web site, a higher percentage of people here plan to vote CPC (37%) and a lower percentage plan to vote Liberal (28%) than will do so in the general population. Could it be wishful thinking that makes people predict outcomes that are inconsistent with current polling data?

Gays already have full marriage rights. A campaign strategy which intends to take away those rights is even more foolhardy than one which would deny those rights in the first place.

Agreed VK, and Layton would be wise to distance himself from Robinson. Vancouver Centre will remain a Liberal seat thanks to the NDP candidate being a thief and despite CPC running a candidate who favours same sex marriage. Ironic that a mediocre Liberal candidate like Fry will retain the seat but Fry will benefit from Harper's position on C-38 rather than the opposite views of the local candidate.

I'm with Harper on this one, I've seen first hand what pot can lead to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you seen what a needless criminal record WILL do to a person? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It goes beyond a criminal record. Of the 30,000 Canadians annually charged with simple possession, 5% actually go to jail. Harper actually supports this bizarre state of affairs which began in the 1920's when little evidence existed, one way or another, but now the evidence is in. Harper's position is clearly not evidence-based. To support the legalization of an unequivocally harmful substance like alcohol while favouring jail terms for a less harmful substance is completely irrational. Yet Harper chose British Columbia to announce that effectively, this indeed is his position. It appears to be largely tradition-based rather than evidence-based, i.e., a 1920's tradition.

Yes the good news is that the CPC can only improve their fortunes in Quebec.

Sounds like my CPC candidate.

As I said, their analysis applies to hate crimes legislation per se, not merely the inclusion of sexual orientation. Sorry that you misunderstood my response.

Yes, it's a problem when 30% of the populatiuon (NDP and BQ) are further left and want more government spending.

Marijuana decriminalization in Vancouver is a perfect example. Marijuana was criminalized in the 1920's, at the same time that alcohol was decriminalized. Both the current (Sam Sullivan), former (Larry Campbell) and prior (Phil Owen) mayor of Vancouver favour outright legalization of marijuana yet Harper announced this weekend that he opposes even decriminalization. He's so out of touch with Vancouverites that it's pathetic. Putting young people in jail for marijuana possession is a 1920's idea. This is the 21st century.

Yeah, the reason is that the media are merely running amok and don't have the smarts to produce a coherent plan...just like some politicians.

The door was open long before C-250. Just as the Bible doesn't paint an exactly tolerant view towards homosexuals, neither does it paint a tolerant view towards women, various races and various ethnic groups. I don't recall religious groups being worried that their "religious freedom" was threatened by hate crimes legislation based on gender, race or religion. I will no doubt be accused of bashing religionists but the Bible clearly views women as second class citizens yet hate crimes legislation extends to women.

If the media have a plan, they're very poor at executing it. I've not even heard them mention C-250 once nor have they reminded the voters about Harper's homophobic comment about Svend Robinson. Or do you think that Harper's homophobic comment will be reported in January? I do not trust the media to remind Canadians sufficiently about Harper's past mistakes, e.g., building a firewall around Alberta, health care flip flops, attacks on Mike Harris and Preston Manning's health care report, and so on.

This is also the case for bashing of racial groups. In all cases, the person must have previously stated their racist position at least to someone (i.e., a witness) before the accused can be convicted of a hate crime. It need not be a speech to a large audience. Same holds for the other criteria, i.e., religion, ethnicity and now sexual orientation.

Fair enough but that assumes media people actually have a plan as opposed to running amok randomly, sometimes reacting, sometimes poking, sometimes prodding, sometimes appearing totally out of control and hysterical. While I think some media might have a plan, I suspect most just run amok. In other words, if they weren't working for the media, they'd be politicians.

Yes, and I won't back down from accusing him of being utterly and blatantly objective even if it means he'll ban me.