normanchateau

The concept will remain as long as the religious fundamentalist and born-again Evangelical Christian Stephen Harper remains PM of Canada. It was Stephen Harper who voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals. Harper voted against it on the grounds that it infringed upon people's religious freedom. Because the Bible advocates the murder of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), Harper feared that the Bible would be deemed hate literature. Harper's fear was irrational given that Bill C-250 was amended specifically to protect people's religious freedom to loathe lesbians and hate homosexuals. The amendment, which was adopted, "creates a defense from prosecution for opinions expressed 'in good faith' or based on a belief in a religious text" like the Bible. Despite that, the religious fundamentalist Stephen Harper voted against C-250. It's ironic that intolerant religious institutions and their fear-crazed defenders like Harper want an exemption from hate speech and propaganda laws, apparently so that they can feel free to denigrate groups of individuals without any risk of being charged with a crime.

Perhaps Harper should start espousing some of those long-forgotten Reform principles such as abolition of official bilingualism and multiculturalism, no abortions, opposition to extending civil rights to homosexuals and a potential return to capital punishment. Go for it Harper.

Other than claiming to be all things to all people, what moral compass does the chameleon-like Professional Politician have? This Professional Politician who claims to be an "economist" has bounced around from being a Young Liberal to Progressive Conservative to Reform to National Citizens Coalition to Alliance to Conservative without once being employed as an economist. And Harper's membership in the Northern Foundation, should the Opposition decide to dig up Harper's sordid anti-libertarian history, will certainly illustrate where the Professional Politician's moral compass lies.

Change is in the wind for the decriminalization of marijuana possession: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Change+wi...2251/story.html

Perhaps not nearly as much as the Opposition can find on Harper, the Professional Politician. This Professional Politician who claims to be an "economist" has bounced around from being a Young Liberal to Progressive Conservative to Reform to National Citizens Coalition to Alliance to Conservative without once being employed as an economist. And Harper's membership in the Northern Foundation, should the Opposition decide to dig up Harper's sordid anti-libertarian history, will likely shame him far more than anything that the CPC attack dogs will find on Ignatieff.

Harper can delay the bill which effectively is the equivalent of stopping it.

You don't need a blood test. South Australia uses a simple saliva test: http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/safety/road...riving/faqs.asp

You're wrong. A majority of Canadians favour outright legalization: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300 The percentage favouring decriminalization is even higher. Keith Martin's bill likely won't pass while social conservative and anti-libertarian Harper remains PM but I predict it will pass after the next election.

Ignatieff a socialist?

April 02, 2009 "Is Liberal Keith Martin the best MP in Canada? With his proposal to decriminalize the possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana or two marijuana plants, it's time to ask if Keith Martin is Canada's best MP. Martin, unlike any of the Conservative MPs who talk as though they care about free speech, but in actual political practice prefer to vote for deficit budgets, introduced a private member's bill to repeal section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Further, Martin, himself an M.D., has consistently supported more private healthcare throughout his career. (Has any sitting Conservative MP?) He also brings to light genocide throughout out the world, showing equal concern for each individual's liberty, not just Canadians' liberty." http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...-in-canada.html

April 1st, 2009 Dr. Keith Martin’s office just sent this media release: OTTAWA – Tomorrow, Liberal Health Promotion Critic MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Dr. Keith Martin, will stand in the House to introduce a bill to decriminalize marijuana. “The “war on drugs” approach, characterized by zero tolerance, has been a complete failure. It has not reduced the rate of violent crime or drug use, nor has it saved money or lives. To realize meaningful change on our city streets, we must decriminalize the possession of small amounts of pot. This will cause drug abuse to be addressed in the public health system, rather than through the courts. It will sever the connection between organized crime and drug users. This bill is bad news for criminal gangs because it would collapse the demand for drug products,” said Dr. Martin. His Private Member’s Bill would introduce fines for the possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana instead of criminal charges. Dr. Keith Martin is the Member of Parliament for Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca and the Health Promotion Critic for the Liberal Party. He is a physician who worked in detox, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers for 14 years. http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrinatio...lize-marijuana/

There might be at least modest changes sooner than you think: http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrinatio...lize-marijuana/

There is no rule against successive posts nor should there be.

Senator Marjory LeBreton, the government Senate Leader and a former aide and confidante of Mr. Mulroney, said he did ask to have his name removed from party lists: “My understanding is that he personally called a high-ranking person in the party and asked that his name be removed from all party lists.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/politics/

Yet Harper did not sit back. Instead he went to the GG and grovelled because of intense fear that he'd lose power to the coalition. Or do you have a better explanation of why he grovelled?

Unlike other forms of psychotherapy such as CBT, psychoanalysis has never been empirically validated.

Published: March 31, 2009 TORONTO, March 31 (UPI) -- A Pakistani Muslim with two wives has won a second Canadian immigration hearing, this time based on him taking one wife into the country. The Federal Court of Canada ruled a Canadian visa officer in Pakistan erred by concluding the first hearing for Shaikh Akhtar Hussain by reporting he was in a "peculiar, polygamist family situation," the Toronto Sun reported. Hussain's Toronto lawyer, Ali Amini, told the Sun his client, a retired banking executive, is willing to first bring his first wife and their six children and then sponsor his second wife months later. "It is quite common under Muslim laws for a man to have up to four wives," he said, adding Hussain was honest and forthright about having two wives. Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told the Sun people involved in polygamous relationships aren't allowed in Canada. "Polygamy is illegal under the Criminal Code," Kurland said. However, Amini said if the second hearing is unsuccessful he will file a constitutional appeal citing religious freedom, the report said. http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/2009/03/31...31051238501683/

Yes, Harper's warm personality is one of his few remaining strengths.

You must have just read the English translation of Mein Kampf.

Transport Minister John Baird said the government is concerned about Air Canada's problems and is watching the situation closely. "We're certainly going to keep the door open to talk directly with them, but this is a private sector company and I think a private sector solution is the way to go," he said in Ottawa. http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1504543

"If federal NDP MPs are interested in finding solutions, they will set themselves apart from the federal Conservatives and Liberals by pushing for a national debate on the prohibition of drugs. The NDP has nothing to lose. With its current polling numbers, the party will be decimated in the next federal campaign. Taking a stand against drug prohibition could transform the next federal election because Layton would get lots of coverage from antiprohibitionist journalists, including Dan Gardner and Ian Mulgrew, just to name a couple. The news media employ scores of libertarian-minded commentators and reporters who will love this idea. Often, the NDP and its precursor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, have been vindicated when they weren't afraid to speak the truth to the corporate media. Layton took a risk when he called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. He now reflects the dominant view within the country. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation wasn’t afraid to call for universal pensions, universal health care, and unemployment insurance—all of which are mainstream concepts today. The NDP is at the crossroads in 2009. Does it back the status quo on illegal drugs—which amounts to a death sentence for scores of Canadians in the coming years—or will it take a risk by seeking longlasting solutions, even if those solutions rile our American neighbours? " http://www.straight.com/article-206158/its...end-prohibition

Perhaps so but a growing number of NDP supporters now realize that a vote for Layton merely keeps the repulsive Harper in power.

What legislation currently denies Canadians the right to make such remarks?

I've not noticed too many Harper supporters becoming Ignatieff supporters, or Ignatieff supporters becoming Harper supporters as a result of reasoned debate on this board. In case you haven't noticed, people on this board are more partisan than the average voter. Not sure why you're singling out one particular poster for a personal attack. Is it because she's a woman?

So if I use words to ask someone to kill you, and that person kills you, should I be charged with a crime?