normanchateau

How about this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2006/11/to..._vote_on_s.html Or this? http://www.straight.com/article-209473/bil...ld-fill-prisons Or this? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-is-obtuse.aspx And do you really think that so-con Harper will allow parliament to discuss this? http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Change+wi...2251/story.html

The decriminalization bill remained viable until Harper killed it: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads= And after the bill was killed, the number of Canadians arrested for mere possession increased: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

Chretien had the balls, Martin didn't.

A change in Liberal Prime Ministers prevented earlier passage of decriminalization legislation. Decriminalization legislation was introduced to Parliament under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Chretien anticipated the legislation would pass by the end of 2003. Here's the story: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories However, the more conservative Paul Martin replaced Jean Chretien in the fall of 2003 and chose not to act on the legislation. Numerous disagreements between Chretien and Martin served to fracture the Liberals.

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?sect...6&article=2

To do it, we need a Prime Minister who agrees with the majority of Canadians. A majority of Canadians support both decriminalization and legalization. The current Prime Minister does not. If he did, Keith Martin's proposed legislation would be brought to Parliament for discussion. Keith Martin also proposed similar decriminalization legislation in a private member's bill in 2007 but Harper prevented discussion of it.

And in some countries they still get arrested for heresy.

So was alcohol and prior to that, heresy.

How about this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2006/11/to..._vote_on_s.html Or this? http://www.straight.com/article-209473/bil...ld-fill-prisons Or this? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-is-obtuse.aspx And do you really think that so-con Harper will allow parliament to discuss this? http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Change+wi...2251/story.html

What, and become like Mexico? http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/581/me...na_debate_forum

It's not a bad investment for Canadian taxpayers. The more Harper feels that he has a safe landing pad with FOX, the sooner he'll be willing to give up the only high paying job he's ever had in his life.

There's no denying that crime rates will decline if all criminals are in prison. Crime rates for marijuana possession will also decline if marijuana possession is not a crime.

"There shall be no recession in the households of former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer and former Clinton mouthpiece Mike McCurry. How much are these guys getting paid to help our PM line up interviews in the U.S. media? Alas, the Harper government won’t say, citing the provisions of the We Didn’t Tell You How Much the Psychic Hairstylist Makes – You Think We’re Going to Tell You This?" http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/16/harper-...randing-itself/

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f.../17/263933.aspx

Tell that to Stephen Harper.

Martin's shadow cabinet? :lol: When Stephen Harper decided to "revisit" the issue of ssm, Stephane Dion was leader of the Opposition.

Here's the motion: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/mot061206.htm Had it passed, it would have respected the legality of same-sex marriages existing prior to the December, 2006 vote. However, it would have re-opened the question for future same-sex marriages.

Fortunately there are enough Canadians out there who are strategic voters rather than partisan hacks and therefore will vote for the local candidate most likely to defeat Harper's candidate.

Either that or it may work to Ignatieff's advantage. Most Canadians remember that Harper said one thing about income trusts before the election but did exactly the opposite and rationalized it after the next election. Arguably, that tainted Harper irreversibly even among some Conservative supporters. Since then, the disconnect between his actions and what his supporters believe are Harper's fundamental beliefs has increased. His supporters rationalize it as something he must do to stay in power. Others who don't support him, view him as a liar and hypocrite. After three years of Harper, I would like to think that Canadians are now becoming ready to elect a Prime Minister whose mistakes include being candid and honest. Sure, it's a risky strategy but it might just work.

These sentiments are remarkably similar: "It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction." (Stephen Harper, National Post, January 24, 2001) “If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… This is one more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. …Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status …Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta”. (Stephen Harper, National Post, December 8, 2000) Perhaps after Harper is given a well-deserved boot in the ass by the rest of Canada after the next election, he can return to Alberta and "liberate" it.

"'The more they believe, the less brain activity we see in response to their own errors,' said U of T Psychologist Michael Inzlicht. In some ways, he added, 'that's a good thing. But on the other side, we need to know when we're making a mistake. If we don't, we may make the same mistake again.'" Hmm, so religious believers may not be willing or able to recognize when they make a mistake, let alone correct it. Wow, that could really be a problem if any of them were to end up, say, running a country or something. Thankfully, that could never happen. http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Religio...study-6496.aspx

Which would explain why Harper was also able to fire his nuclear watchdog and get away with it: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/politics/

"Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen won out in a bid to become NATO chief after a heated internal debate with Turkey. The Turks were upset with Rasmussen's handling of a cartoon controversy in 2006 that offended some people in the Muslim world when he defended the right to print cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Other possible candidates for NATO's top post were said to have included Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay, former British defence minister Des Browne and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere." http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/04/n...ummit-ends.html Sounds like NATO picked a courageous leader in Rasmussen.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524483_12 http://www.alternet.org/story/98952/%0Dhtt...org/story/98952 http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/97297 But then, perhaps you think that the US should be proud of the fact that they incarcerate more citizens than any other country on earth, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of inmates per capita: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Yet oddly enough, in 2003, Harper opposed the Canada Health Act. In 2001, he urged Ralph Klein to drop out of medicare. But in 2005, he stated exactly the opposite and attacked Preston Manning for stating precisely what Harper had previously stated: http://www.tommydouglas.ca/research/200504 Apparently Harper supporters have no problem with Harper changing his position on an issue.