normanchateau

I don't think he's a madman. It's just that Harper's positions are so extremely socially conservative that he makes Paul Martin look left wing. This is Jack Layton's biggest problem. Canadians are angry with the Liberals but many left wingers will vote for them anyway for fear that not voting for Martin will help Harper.

I can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? :angry: What if Harper had planned to take away the rights of a particular racial group? An ethnic group? A religious group? A group with physical disabilities? Should we not discuss this because it only affects "a select few"? Is this really how CPC supporters think? How about if a Muslim country decided that they would take away the legal right of Christians in their country to marry and in future, Christians could form "unions" only. Suppose only a few radical, political Christian activists spoke out about this issue which did not "affect all citizens" but only "a select few." Should the Muslim majority in that country not care about the human rights of the Christian minority? Would it be more worthy of discussing stripping away human rights if we broadened the group so that it included a larger number of people? Suppose Harper had said marriage should only be reserved for couples who can reproduce and therefore the future marriages of anyone else would henceforth be called unions. Any infertile women, gay men, hysterectomized women, sterile men and postmenopausal women would not be permitted to marry but they would be permitted to form unions. Since such a group would include more than "a select few", would the Liberals, NDP and BQ be wasting tax dollars debating this issue, or would the human rights of this larger minority group be irrelevant?

Norman, should we cut all relations with Japan, France and Russia since these countries don't accept gay marriage? The issue is no longer whether or not we accept gay marriage. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in Canada. Harper's plan is to strip away those rights by re-visiting the C-38 legislation. In other words, he's looking to take away human rights which already exist. When in recent Canadian history has a leader of the Opposition campaigned on a platform of taking away existing human rights? And it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad, that any CPC supporter would view taking away those rights as a "compromise"? Japan, France and Russia are not fighting an election based on taking away human rights. Gays and lesbians never did have the right to marry in those countries. If they did have that right, it would be an exceedingly unwise politician who chose to start his election campaign by promising to "revisit" the human rights of one minority group. Canada did not cut off relations with Germany when Germany began to strip away the human rights of their nonAryan citizens. It was not until Germany invaded Poland in 1939 that Canada's relations with Germany took a serious turn for the worse.

All Canadian adults currently have the right to marry. To take away those human rights from one group is outrageous, not a compromise.

"Organized crime" involvement was not the only outrageous statement. How about "broke every conceivable law in the province of Quebec"'? As far as I'm concerned, the more outrageous Harper's statements are, the more Canadians are likely to acknowledge that the CPC leader has difficulty distinguishing between the facts and the truth. Then again, the Deputy Leader of the CPC is no better in distinguishing falsehoods from truth. Didn't Peter MacKay make a deal with David Orchard that he'd never make a deal with Stephen Harper? If CPC doesn't view that as lying, it's no wonder that they've attempted to portray Harper as an "honest man".

Compromise? You refer to taking away someone's right to marry as a compromise. The last time I heard someone referring to removal of human rights as a "compromise" was when I read a history of German legislation between 1933 and 1945.

Martin always looks like he's losing. Don't read anything into that.

What polls?

Yeah, marriage should be reserved for "real" people, not gays and lesbians.

I agree. Harper should say nothing about his socially conservative agenda and his plans to strip rights away from lesbians until AFTER the election.

The law of the land trumps religious laws. And the law of the land is democratically determined by a parliamentary majority. The Liberals do not have a majority but require other parties to pass legislation. The Liberals could not have passed C-38 without the NDP and BQ. With CPC mired at 30% in the polls, 70% of Canadians favour parties to the left of CPC. Those parties, unlike CPC, are not filled with religious conservatives attempting to impose their beliefs on the nation. If religious conservatives don;t believe in lesbian marriage then they can chose not to engage in such marriages but they shouldn't try, once again, to block the wishes of a majority of Canadians who have no problem with lesbians marrying.

Because he did.

For other current seat projections, check out: http://predictor.hillandknowlton.ca Here they are based on the December 2 Strategic Counsel poll: Liberals 114 CPC 99 NDP 32 BQ 62 And here they are based on the December Decima poll: Liberals 130 CPC 82 NDP 41 BQ 54

Yeah, Harper's promise to revisit same sex marriage had not yet been factored in.

Let me see if I understand your logic. Faith rules everything in one's private life and one's work if one is sincerely religious. Stephen Harper's work is being leader of the Opposition and potentially Prime Minister. Stephen Harper has said that he personally opposes abortion. Should he therefore, as Prime Minister, work to outlaw abortion since that would be consistent with his faith?

I answered this at 7:57.

To me, a bible thumper can be any religious conservative. Fundamentalist Muslims or Sikhs would fall into this category even though their holy text is not referrred to by them as the Bible. I wouldn't think of calling all Muslims Koran thumpers but I'd have no problem characterizing conservative Muslims as such. One problem that I have with Bible thumpers and religious zealots of any religion is that they want to create laws of the land which would have an impact on those of us who don't share their views. If my daughter wants to marry another woman, she should be able to do so even if it does offend the religious conservatives. If my father's Alzheimer's disease would benefit from stem cell research, he should not be denied that treatment because religious conservatives oppose stem cell research. The Campaign Life Coalition points out on their web site that the votes of 53 CPC MPs on reproductive technology were consistent with their own position. However, most Liberal, NDP and BQ MPs voted in a manner inconsistent with the Campaign Life Coalition. I don't want religious conservatives influencing the CPC position on reproductive technology especially if CPC ever forms a government.

I did not try to reverse myself. My position has been consistent throughout. You misinterpreted my earlier comments as being anti-Christian. I merely clarified the fact that you had misinterpreted my comments. In retrospect, I should not have wasted my time since you still seem to be under the completely erroneous impression that criticism of religious conservatives is somehow inherently anti-Christian but not anti-Sikh or anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic.

Religious zealots can be Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, etc. You erroneously assume that I equate religious zealots with Christians. I don't. Gay bashers and lesbian haters can be of any religion. I'm sure all religious groups have some gay bashers and lesbian haters. I'm also sure that there are plenty of nonreligious people who are gay bashers and lesbian haters. You seem to be creating and attacking a straw man argument that equates religious conservatives with Christians. This is your creation, not mine. All religions have their share of religious conservatives.

So has society today transfered from Simon says to Science Says???? This isn't a nock against polls, they are great snap shots...sorta like a black and white photo of the coat of many colours. Not saying these polls are not accurate, but even 3.5% makes a huge difference...yes its better than his Italian friend but no reason to harp on a legitimate question of wether or not there is a deep seated resentment towards the Liberal party that will manifest itself at the polling stations...to me it is a good question...it was never a statement. As for the answer there is already deep seated resentment agaisnt the Liberals, the question is wether or not the conservatives can capitalize on it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm sure there is deep seated resentment against the Liberals. However, there may be even greater resentment against Stephen Harper and his social intolerance judging by the fact that even fewer people plan to vote CPC than Liberal. When I speak to my acquaintances about federal politics, some aren't sure whether they'll support the Liberals, NDP or Greens. But all are certain that they'll not support the party which they equate with social intolerance and religious conservatism. Are my acquaintances any less representative than the other poster's Italian friend? Impossible question to answer. That's why we have polls.

See my response on that thread.

OK, Shoop and BQSupporter. I was wrong...or rather my source, who just got back to me, was wrong. The December 1, 2005, poll was a Decima poll, not an Ipsos-Reid poll. However, the numbers are exactly the same as those I posted earlier, i.e., Liberals 36 CPC 28 NDP 19 BQ 12

Harper did lie. I provided the politicswatch link to Harper's statement about the Liberals. that statement was a blatant lie. Now, I'll try again. Will you apologize for calling me a liar about the Ipsos-Reid poll if I provide the link to the December 1 Ipsos-Reid poll? If, as you claim, the Ipsos-Reid data I provided are "fictional", why would you not want the opportunity to demonstrate that unequivocally instead of bringing up Harper instead?

See my last comment on that thread...the one I posted a minute or two ago.

Sorry you interpreted my comments as anti-Christian. That was not my intent. My focus was on religious conservatives, not Christians. Most Canadian Christians are not religious conservatives. I think the Ipsos-Reid poll made that clear. I know of quite a few religious conservatives in Canada who are Sikh or Muslim or Jewish. The leaders of all four major Canadian political parties are Christians so clearly that's not even an issue. The issue is religious conservatives, NOT Christians.