normanchateau

Long before Harper opposed C-250, Canada had hate crimes legislation. That legislation stiffened the penalties for crimes such as physical assault or murder if the crime was motivated by race, religion, etnicity, etc. (but not sexual orientation). In other words, if you assaulted someone merely because they were Chinese or Jewish or Caucasian, the penalties would be more severe than if you assaulted them for some other reason. Recently in Vancouver, the prosecution tried to prove that some men who killed a gay man in Stanley Park did so because the victim was gay. The defense team argued that had nothing to do with the killers' motives. Believe it or not, the defense was successful in reducing the jail time on the grounds that the crown prosecutor could not prove it was a hate crime. Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Harper voted against it. Not a voting record to be proud of and certainly not one suggestive of a future Prime Minister of Canada.

Would you rather he did what Joe Clark did, i.e., indicate clearly that he prefers Martin to Harper? Or would you prefer that he took Ralph Klein's approach of just stating that Harper won't win because of his social conservatism? Why would any politician today show support for Harper knowing that the party is likely to dump him after the next election, assuming he doesn't resign first?

Thanks for the link. I went to it and clicked on Harper Pledges Patient Wait Time Guarantees. In that section Harper has promised that if patients can't be seen within a particular time interval at their local hospital, "they must be given the option of receiving treatment at another hospital or clinic, even outside their home province." So indeed Harper's "pledge" is consisent with my claim. There's nothing in his pledge that rules out being sent to a private clinic or hospital which has shorter wait times and there's nothing that rules out US hospitals and clinics. Indeed those US hospitals have much shorter waiting times and their outrageous prices reflect that. So it appears that Harper's plan may result in millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars being funneled to the big businesses which run US health care. Good plan Harper. It will soon bankrupt our system far more quickly than any scheme any other party has ever contemplated.

First of all, your numbers are wrong. Second, Canada provides exports at the world price. You can't just arbitrarily raise your export price unless there is a shortage because your customers will just go elsewhere. OK, let's suppose Layton's position is too risky. Are you suggesting that we stick with Martin's less threatening approach, which Layton has attacked, or should we go with Harper's approach, which is to utter not a peep and hope that if we say nothing, the friendly giant will give us back the money he stole?

What rules of the board am I ignoring? The point of this thread is that Harper said he does not support the decriminalization of marijuana. The other major parties do. Is it ignoring a rule of the board to ask what rationale Harper has in opposing the decriminalization? Is Harper helping Canada by wanting to send young people to jail for possession of small amounts of marijuana?

It's yet another example of previous Harper positions that Harper and CPC supporters would rather we forgot. And while you may think that Harper's position is legitimate, I personally believe that his vote to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation is utterly reprehensible if not unconscionable.

Here's one source for that 47% figure: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/publicop...canadalegal.cfm And here's that figure again along with some additional information: http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html I encourage those who go to the second link to click on ARREST STATS. Stephen Harper said this weekend in British Columbia of all places, ,that he opposes the government bill (which the Liberals, BQ and NDP support) to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. But he's not said why he opposes it. Can any CPC supporters explain his rationale? At this point, 1.5 million Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. Is this not enough for Harper? How many does he hope will be arrested eventually for simple possession? Are his reasons economic? Certainly the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year arresting, prosecuting and jailing young people for possession of marijuana does keep a large number of people employed.

Because his policies are not evidence-based. They often appear driven solely by what he feels might appeal to the emotions and shaking jowls of CPC supporters.

For some strange reason, Harper's been rather silent on the issue of Iraq recently. But at one time, he had rather strong opinions on the issue. Link: http://www.notacolony.ca/HarperonUSA.htm Harper's campaign thus far appears based in part on his hopeless and unrealistic assumption that Canadians will forget all of his past inappropriate actions which distanced him from the average Canadian. For example, I'm sure he'd rather we forgot that he voted to exclude sexual orientation from hate crimes legislation. This was an extreme position even by the socially intolerant standards of CPC. Merely bringing up this topic angers some CPC supporters but I notice that Harper has no more chanhed his position on this than he has his position on Iraq. And if he has reversed himself on Iraq, he's not said so.

Here's what Layton said in the Globe and Mail: "We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States." He made this statement not in Ontario or Quebec but in British Columbia, a province whose northeast sector produces billions worth of oil and gas annually. What's so outrageous about this statement of a polite warning and why hasn't Harper uttered a peep about how he'd solve the illegal actions of the US in their violation of NAFTA and their illegal seizure of billions of dollars from Canadian softwood lumber producers? Layton is at least suggesting a possible approach. Harper's failure to deal with this issue is just another example of how bankrupt he is of any useful ideas or strategies. The thought of Harper in the US negotiating for Canada is repulsive. In the 1980's, Brian Mulroney failed to get a single concession from Ronald Reagan on softwood lumber duties which were in place then despite the personal friendship between Reagan and Mulroney. Does anyone seriously believe that Stephen Harper could negotiate a deal with George Bush? He couldn't even negotiate a deal with Preston Manning which is why Harper quit Reform and went to the National Citizens' Coalition.

True but why does Harper want to put public money into the hands of private corporations? I stand to be corrected but didn't Harper say last week that if public wait list times are too long, those on the lists would be sent to private health care including private, corporate-run US hospitals? Those outrageously expensive US hospitals, run by US big busniess, would essentially be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.

No doubt your finding was based on an objective and scientific evaluation of the evidence.

In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage, usually in the form of polygyny (a man taking several wives) but occasionally in the form of polyandry (a woman taking several husbands). In some western societies today, same-sex marriage is recognized. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Polygamy the most common form of marriage in "other parts of the world"? Really? Sure there's polygamy in some countries but "the most common form of marriage"? How about China? How about India? There are quite a few people in thhose countries, believe it or not. Relatively few societies practice polygamy today even though the Christian Bible and Jewish Talmud have no problem with polygamy. Not that long ago Americans were permitted polygamous marriages and there are still some in Utah who resent the anti-polygamy laws. In fact the "traditional" view restricting marriage to two people is based on society creating those laws, not on biblical traditions. American legislators decided that society was best served by taking the polygamy option away just as Canadian legislators decided that society was best served by extending the definition to same sex couples. Other countries like Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands survive despite same sex marriages. So will Canada.

Nothing would change under a Harper government in terms of marijuana possession I don't think. I don't know about the other provinces but I don't see people going crazy around here about small possession... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read the first sentence of the quote again. Stephen Harper has said he will NOT reintroduce the decriminalization legislation that the Liberals introduced in November, 2004. I'ver heard nothing to suggest that the Liberals won't proceed with that legislation if they're re-elected.

Good questions Newbie and judging by the fact that not a single CPC supporter has answered your questions despite the large if not overwhelming number of CPC supporters on this board, I suspect CPC supporters view them as rhetorical. Even in their wildest dreams, CPC supporters don't anticipate longevity in a CPC minority. Given that he quit the Reform Party because of his inability to get along with Preston Manning, given the string of Harper advisors who resigned this summer and given his inability to retain Belinda Stronach, Keith Martin and others, compromise might not be one of his strengths.

Yes it's unlikely given that the CPC candidate came a distant third in 2004 in Vancouver Centre, the Canadian riding with the highest percentage of gays in all of Canada. CPC lost in 2004 despite running a gay candidate. Unfortunately for CPC, that candidate agreed with Harper that C-38 should be defeated. This time CPC is sufficiently cynical and desperate enough to have selected a candidate who favours same sex marriage and disagrees with Harper on his vote to exclude sexual orientation from hate crimes legislation. Gosh, I wonder if Vancouver Centre voters will elect the CPC candidate who disagrees with Harper on these issues or whether they'll actually remember Stephen Harper's socially intolerant stand on these issues?

Peter MacKay for his betrayal of the Progressive Conservatives, a conservative party that was actually all-inclusive and trusted by a significant number of Canadians, including those from Quebec. CPC will have to transform itself into a PC-like party in order to regain that trust.

Before Cadman took the riding for Reform/Alliance, it was a NDP seat. In 2004, the NDP came a close second to Cadman with the Liberal and CPC candidates a distant third and fourth, respectively. Running this time for the NDP is a popular former cabinet minister who lives in the riding, spoke at Cadman's funeral and is a close friend of Cadman's widow. All local polls give the NDP the edge to recapture the seat.

I wonder how many people on this board have actually read the legislation which the federal government introduced to the House of Commons in November, 2004. That legislation, had it passed, severely toughened the laws on growing and selling but decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. As the law stands now, a young person, if convicted of possesssion, obtains a criminal record which permanently prevents entry even as a tourist into the US and other countries, creates problems in obtaining certain jobs, etc. Other than growers and sellers, why would anyone be against this? Stephen Harper and Paul Martin both agree on stiffening the laws against growing but Harper, for reasons which I have yet to hear, opposes decriminalization. If there's a Harper supporter out there who can explain Harper's reasons for opposing decriminalization, please post that explanation. If even his supporters can't explain it, that's cause for concern.

Wishful thinking. According to a poll by Corporate Research Associates published in the St. John's Telegram this weekend and reported in the Vancouver Sun, p.A4, this morning, the Liberals are projected to take all seven seats (versus five in 2004) in Newfoundland and 25 of 32 in Atlantic Canada with the remaining seven going to the NDP and CPC. There are 75 seats in Quebec and at least 12 are anglophone or allophone. Impossible for the BQ to win 65 though 63 is theoretically possible...but unlikely. Whether the Liberals break through in BC or not, CPC will suffer massive losses from their current 22 seats. It's merely a question now of how many they'll lose. Gurmant Grewal's riding association just acclaimed Phil Eidsvik as the replacement CPC candidate. No one else wanted the job. Eidsvik is a disgruntled, anti-aboriginal fisherman who opposes traditional First Nations-only fisheries. Now that'll be a real vote getter in Grewal's riding where one third of the voters are Indo-Canadians and all the fisherman in the riding fit into one minivan. Running against Eidsvik is Sukh Dhaliwal, a well-respected Indo-Canadian who came within a few hundred votes of Grewal in 2004.

I don't agree with decriminalization either but I think it's a necessary transition stage before legalization. Most Canadian support decriminalization so it'll likely happen first even though Canada's Senate has already recommended legalization.

Your pious claims that only rock solid evidence can be used to inform judgement rests on a foundation which consists of months of postings about Steven Harper's "hidden agenda" and his plan to destroy Canada, to destroy public health care, to give the country over to the US, to invite space aliens to control our minds... You've never had a shred of evidence to support any of it, but that hasn't stopped you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shame on you Eureka. Stephen Harper has no plan to invite space aliens to control our minds.

I agree with Harper on hard drugs. But marijuana is not a hard drug and he wants to treat it as such. Many average Joes in BC are indeed growing marijuana for personal consumption. They should be allowed to do so and the dysfunctional law crminalizing that should be changed. Neither police nor RCMP enforce possession laws in BC and successive BC provincial governments have no interest in punishing those who possess small amounts. Having a dysfunctional law which is ignored does not exactly encourage respect for the law. Joe Clark when he was the PC leader and Stockwell Day when he was the Alliance leader both agreed on that point.

Shoop and I actually agreeing? Now this IS scary.

I don't know about Sikhs in Ontario but here in BC they seem to be split between "fundamentalist" and "moderate" factions. There are even fundamentalist and moderate temples with the two groups often fighting for control of particular temples. Sometimes a particular temple switches hands as each group brings their supporters to the temple to try to gain control of the executive committee. Ujjal Dosanjh fortunately comes from a moderate group and there are few fundamentalists in his riding so he's not likely to be punished in the next election. Some years ago Dosanjh was stabbed, seriously injured and hospitalized after he offended one of the fundamentalists...but he didn't back down. But you're right that some Sikh Liberals might be punished at the polls if fundamentalists predominate in their riding. Some of the fundamentalists are strongly influenced and even controlled by edicts coming directly from fundamentalist leaders in India.