normanchateau

As a matter of fact, "economist" Stephen Harper has looked at Belgium and concluded that we should model the Canadian federation after Belgium: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/10/20/harper041020.html

Harper just never learns from his mistakes. Remember the billions he shovelled into Quebec in 2007? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

You think the right to marry your partner is unneeded?

Not necessarily. Not too many Canadian lesbians moved to countries where they could legally marry even though the issue was important to them and Canada did eventually permit them to marry. Would you leave the US and move to another country because you disagreed with one piece of American legislation?

I doubt it. They've not moved to the many European countries which have decriminalized marijuana. The main impact of the Mexico decision in Canada might be to further marginalize Harper. Perhaps he can find some theocracy somewhere to govern.

Stockwell Day's error was not so much mixing politics with his evangelical roots but being open about it. Stephen Harper also mixes his evangelical roots with his politics. How else does one explain his parliamentary votes on issues relating to homosexuality and marijuana? Harper has the good sense not to discuss his evangelical religious beliefs as Stock did.

MEXICO CITY, April 28, 2009 (Reuters) - Mexico's Senate today approved a bill decriminalizing possession of small amounts of narcotics for personal use, in order to free resources to fight violent drug cartels. The bill, proposed by conservative President Felipe Calderon, would make it legal to carry up to 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana, 500 milligrams (0.018 ounces) of cocaine and tiny quantities of other drugs such as heroin and methamphetamines. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisi...28349522?rpc=64 Will Obama pressure Calderon to withdraw this legislation as Bush did to Calderon's predecessor? Not a chance. Is social conservative Harper even more conservative than Calderon? Is Harper's approach to marijuana evidence-based or part of his conservative ideology?

It doesn't help that the Prime Minister of Canada is a religious, social conservative.

Stephen Harper: “There will be some who want to cut and run, but cutting and running is not my way and it’s not the Canadian way." Stephen Harper: “Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency."

Canada's justice minister says people who sell or grow marijuana belong in jail because marijuana is used as a "currency" to bring harder drugs into the country. "This lubricates the business and that makes me nervous," Rob Nicholson told the Commons justice committee yesterday as he faced tough questions about a controversial bill to impose automatic prison sentences for drug crimes, including growing as little as one pot plant. "Marijuana is the currency that is used to bring other more serious drugs into the country," the minister said. Well, of course, marijuana is the purview of organized crime precisely because of this mentality - if the government suddenly banned coffee, then coffee, too could be a "currency" for harder drugs. Nowhere in Mr. Nicholson's comments does he justify a harder stance on marijuana itself or why Canadians need to be protected from marijuana any more than they need to be protected from alcohol or tobacco. http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/TheWorldTon...ntryID=10029747 Is Nicholson a complete fool or is he simply following Harper's rationale?

So far, his base has supported him no matter how much he flipflops, e.g., no deficit, income trusts, ad nauseam. My favourite is still his flipflop on the Canada Health Act and his attack on Preston Manning and Mike Harris: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/9191983...ks-medicare-law It's classic Harper. No principles left except power at all costs. His base will support Harper no matter what since there's no serious political party further to the right and CPC has no replacement for Harper.

No, both are equally guilty of ignorance and stupidity. Perhaps the reason why McCain's comments are more irritating to some is that had he obtained another 4% of the popular vote and had Obama obtained 4% less of the popular vote, warmonger McCain would today be President of the most powerful nation on Earth. And McCain's reckless and stupid decision to have Sarah Palin as his Vice President would have put her a heartbeat away from being the President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Harper's comment that we can't win in Afghanistan is no different than what Jack Layton has been saying for years. What's more surprising were Harper's comments in September, 2008 that Canada would cut and run. He even announced a date for our departure. When Layton said we should cut and run, Harper supporters called him Taliban Jack. Layton's error was saying what Harper said before Harper said it.

http://www.piersystem.com/posted/780/05081...501_H.81296.jpg

He did raise taxes in 2006. The marginal income tax rate for those earning the least was increased by Harper and Flaherty in 2006 from where it had been in 2005 under the Liberals. In 2007, Harper lowered it to 15% so that it was back to where it had been in 2005. He then had the nerve to claim in 2007 that he had lowered income tax rates. In fact, personal income tax rates today are exactly the same as they were in 2005.

McCain might have consulted with the ever-astute Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The Alaska/Canada border alone is almost the length of the border between Mexico and the southern part of the US. There is just no telling how many illegal Muslims, the women wearing sealskin burkas, might be crossing from Canada into Alaska. There are few federal agents, American or Canadian, monitoring the Alaska/Canada border. At a Congressional hearing, Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren noted the small number of US federal agents monitoring the Alaska/Canada border: "At any given time you've got between 200 and 300 people on that whole border. And we've had reports that people drive, walk, sail, ski, sled, crawl, and probably a few other things across the border with impunity," says Lofgren.

Perhaps this poll will give Conservatives the false hope that they can win the next election without dumping Harper as leader.

Seems like there's now a trend in that direction. "Today, Mr. Harper responded calmly and favourably to Mr. Layton's call for a crack down on credit card interest rates. The Prime Minister's change in tone comes as the NDP appears to be laying the groundwork for supporting the Conservatives should Mr. Layton secure policy concessions from Mr. Harper." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/WBwbureaublog I expect Canadians will respond as favourably to a Harper government propped up by the NDP as they did in December to a Dion Coalition government. It was Layton who in 2005 pulled the plug on Paul Martin resulting in a Harper government. Ultimately it might be Layton again who pulls the plug on an NDP/Harper government and delivers a majority government to Ignatieff.

It was less than 50 years ago that the same argument was used by some southern US politicians when they opposed school desegregation. Like Harper, Bush/Cheney seems to follow in that tradition.

"Although it seems to be the world's best-kept secret, Portugal formally decriminalized possession of all illicit drugs in 2001. And its experiment has provided us with a wealth of empirical evidence about the positive effects of decriminalization. Decriminalization has led to a reduction in drug-related pathologies -- precisely what advocates predicted -- and a reduction in drug use -- precisely the opposite of what opponents feared. While experiencing severe drug problems in the 1990s, Portugal formed the Commission for a National Drug Strategy, which issued in 1998 a report stressing that criminalization drove resources away from treatment and deterred people from seeking help for addiction. Consequently, the commission recommended decriminalization to reduce both the use and abuse of illicit drugs. In 2000, the federal government's council of ministers issued a policy consistent with the report, and on July 1, 2001, a new law came into effect decriminalizing personal possession of all narcotic and psychotropic drugs, including heroin and cocaine. Trafficking remains a criminal offence. Possession is now considered an "administrative" offence, meaning that police can issue citations to, but not arrest, those caught with drugs. Individuals issued a citation appear before three-person commissions that can order a variety of sanctions, including fines or treatments orders, though in the vast majority of cases -- 83 per cent -- the commissions have suspended proceedings. In almost every category of drug, and for drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates in the pre-decriminalization era of the 1990s were higher than the post-decriminalization rates. Fears that decriminalization leads to increased drug use therefore appear to be unfounded, at least in Portugal. Between 2001 and 2005, Portugal enjoyed the lowest lifetime prevalence rate for marijuana, the most popular illicit drug in the EU, with many states' rates double or triple that of Portugal. Similarly, for cocaine, the second most popular drug: Portugal's lifetime prevalence rate was lower than all but five EU states, and many states' rates were again double, triple, or quadruple that of Portugal's. Drug use rates in Portugal are now also far lower than those of most non-EU states, including Canada and especially the U.S., whose cocaine and cannabis rates are so high -- the highest in the world, despite its raging drug war -- that it is considered a statistical outlier. So much for the primary argument against decriminalization -- that it will lead to increased use. Similarly, now that the bogeyman of decriminalization has been slain, Portuguese politicians of all political persuasions are almost unanimous in their support of it. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for politicians of other countries, particularly those countries that most need to listen to Lisbon. The same can't be said for Canada, which is about the only remaining western country in favour of increasing criminalization. Now that the evidence in favour of decriminalization is in, politicians should no longer be permitted to corral support for criminalization by stirring up public fear of a bogeyman that doesn't exist." Source: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Portug...9175/story.html

Not according to the latest poll which has Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals at 52%: http://bc2009.com/2009/04/14/mustel-poll-h...ls-up-52-to-35/ While the percentage who will vote NDP federally is slightly lower than the percentage who will vote NDP provincially, the percentage who will vote Liberal federally (26%) or Conservative federally (26%) equals the percentage who told the Mustel poll they'd vote for Gordon Campbell. Of course all these numbers can and will change before the election. Even so, they don't support your suggestion that most federal Liberals will vote NDP provincially. Some will. Most won't.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also deserves credit for stating that he deplored "the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite. " http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...X7V6VwD97O4G082 And so does the Parliament of Canada for unanimous condemnation of Iran for persecution of the Baha'is who have been falsely accused of spying for Israel: http://news.bahai.org/story/706 Yet the Canadian media and the UN seem to have little interest in how Iran treats their own religious minorities.

Ahmadinejad's comments are absurd. Israelis and Palestinians are of the same race. It's a religious dispute. Ahmadinejad leads a country whose parliament voted overwhelmingly in 2008 to permit the execution of those who chose to convert from Islam to Christianity. Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. Ahmadinejad also claims that the Holocaust is a "myth". Harper deserves credit for boycotting a conference where a Holocaust-denier is treated with credibility.

It's not really that encouraging for the NDP in the BC provincial election. Even though they're in first place, here are the actual numbers from the federal poll: "And in B.C., the Tories have slipped into a second-place tie with the Liberals (26 per cent each), while the NDP has pulled into a slim lead with 29 per cent support. The Greens had 16 per cent." http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNe...2/?hub=CP24Home Most Conservatives and Liberals will vote for Gordon Campbell. Ironic that Gordon Campbell brought in a provincial carbon tax even higher than Dion's proposed carbon tax while the provincial NDP opposes the carbon tax.

I could be wrong but isn't this the first time since 2006 that the Conservatives have been below 30%?