normanchateau

Stephen Harper is spending more on the CBC than Martin did: http://friendscb.org/News/Friends_News/arc...les08160803.asp Do you suppose it's because Harper suddenly cares about the CBC? This is the sheer blinding hypocrisy of the Conservative Party.

Currently two thirds of Canadians support parties to the left of the Harper Conservatives. The Harper Conservatives are not the Mulroney centrists which captured the middle and therefore a majority. I suspect if it ever appears that the socially conservative Harper has the slightest chance of winning a majority, the Liberals can expect to gain votes at the expense of the NDP, Greens and BQ. Dion is fortunate that the socially but not fiscally conservative Harper remains at the helm.

Was one of those objectives replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamic theocracy? Today the constitution of Iraq, like the constitution of Afghanistan, is one where the Koran takes precedence over all other legislation. Thanks to the US, here's a portion of the new Iraqi constitution: Article (2): 1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

Maybe Layton would rather see Harper than Dion as Prime Minister. It was Layton who by pulling the plug on Martin foisted Harper on Canada. Perhaps Layton has finally figured out that Harper has increased government spending by more than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada.

QUOTE(segnosaur @ Aug 7 2008, 09:19 AM) * What about the potential conflict between religious rights vs. gay rights? Do you simply not consider religious rights worth protecting? Or is it just easier for you to ignore the issue? QUOTE(normanchateau) You raise an interesting point, i.e., the conflict between religious rights and gay rights. Of course both sets of rights deserve protection. I don't know of any churches which are forced to marry lesbians. Do you? Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians, he did so on the grounds that it would potentially interfere with his religious rights. While Stephen Harper supports legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religious beliefs, he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. Do you think his position is rational or do you think it's based on his religious beliefs?

I have not seen a text of Harper's apology to Sikh-Canadians but when Harper apologized in June 2008 for the Aboriginal Residential Schools system, he apologized not only on behalf of the Government of Canada but also on behalf of all Canadians. Source: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2146 Prime Minister Harper is not including me in the decision making process but he is apologizing on my behalf. Given that he is apologizing on my behalf, why is he not apologizing for historical sexism, anti-homosexual legislation and Canada barring entry of European victims of the Holocaust? The Canadian government, with the full support of then Prime Minister Mackenzie King, did everything in its power to bar the door to European Jews attempting to escape Nazi persecution and murder. Those attempting to escape the Holocaust in the early 1940's were fleeing for their lives. The Sikhs attempting to enter Canada in 1914 were looking for improved financial opportunities. Why are Sikhs ahead of Jews in the queue for apologies from Mr. Harper?

Of course they were illegal immigrants: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...86-ba5a451fff78 Yes, Canada was racist but that's no reason to apologize for turning back illegal immigrants.

"Liberal Member of Parliament Derek Lee proposed an amendment to C-250 which was adopted. "It creates a defense from prosecution for opinions expressed 'in good faith' or based on a belief in a religious text" like the Bible. This appears to be a redundant alteration to section 319 of the criminal code. Section 319 already allows immunity from prosecution "if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm In other words, the amendment allowed religious leaders to continue to tout the immorality of homosexuality. Despite that, Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals and lesbians. This intolerant social conservative sadly is our Prime Minister.

Here's a surprising comment from Jack Layton: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be "misguided" if he chose to call a federal election before Parliament resumes sitting on Sept. 15, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Thursday." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/21/ndp-election.html It seems that Harper may want an election before the other leaders. Could it be that he realizes that as time elapses, his chances of securing even a minority are quickly fading as the in out affair, the Cadman affair, the crumbling economy, the government's lack of accountability, and increased government spending will have an increasing impact before October 2009? Or maybe he's looking at this: http://www.trendlines.ca/electcanada.htm

Let's not forget that the Conservatives' crime bills are stalled in the Commons justice committee because the Conservative committee chair repeatedly shuts down the meetings when opposition MPs seek a vote to hold hearings on an alleged attempt to buy a vote from the late Chuck Cadman. If Harper has anything to hide, he's going to want to go to the polls sooner rather than later.

Perhaps the number of Georgians killed is not quite up there with the number of Iraqis killed.

Why just racism? Should we also apologize for being sexist? At one time, women in Canada could not vote. Should we apologize for being anti-Semitic by not allowing Europeans attempting to flee the Holocaust into Canada. Should we apologize for jailing gays for homosexual behaviour? Where does it all end? Have the French apologized for 1066? Has Macedonia apologized for Alexander the 'Great' sending armies in all directions? Has Rome apologized to Carthage? Has Cain apologized to Abel? Have Adam and Eve apologized to God? And what about the snake?

He has indeed talked about pulling the plug on himself: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012019052

Ignatieff acknowledging he was wrong on Iraq: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine...ml?pagewanted=1

So you think it's good that Harper is spending more on the CBC now than the Liberals did during their last year in power? And you think it's good that our marginal tax rates are no lower now than they were during the Liberals' last year in power? And you think it's good that Harper has increased government spending to unprecedented levels? http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php Personally I'd rather see the Conservatives follow a policy of prudent fiscal conservatism rather than financial mismanagement and out-of-control spending. But they'll need to replace the inept Harper first. I suspect that after the next election they will.

As was Brian Mulroney...

In other words, Harper was being insincere and hypocritical as usual.

If our level of military resources was so low, why did Harper go on US television to tell Americans that Canada should join in invading Iraq? Was it Harper's lack of accountability, his ignorance or his usual incompetence which made him take this ludicrous action?

And incompetence describes Stephen Harper who wanted Canada to join in and went on US television to say Canadians stood with the President.

While the inept Harper crew attempt to portray themselves as fiscal conservatives by cutting a $4.7 million arts travel program, their vote-buying spending spree on cultural programs is out of control. How do fiscally or socially conservative Harper supporters justify the following? "For the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2009, Parliament has voted to spend more than $4 billion on cultural programs, including the CBC, the Canada Arts Council, the National Gallery of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. That amount is $660 million or 19.7 per cent more than was spent in fiscal 2006, the last year when the Liberals controlled the purse strings. The CBC, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from the Tories this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals." Source: http://friendscb.org/News/Friends_News/arc...les08160803.asp As I recall, before Harper was PM, many of his supporters viewed government spending on the CBC as being excessive. Now that Harper has increased it, do they bend over like ostriches and pretend not to notice Harper's financial incompetence? Or do they delude themselves once again by believing that Harper's out-of-control spending is necessary to win that majority which will ultimately be fiscally conservative?

What a shame Harper wasn't PM when the US invaded Iraq to look for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Canada could now be engaged there and billions of our tax dollars could be squandered to prop up the current Islamic government of Iraq which is now pressuring the US "infidels" to leave. If Harper could gain a majority he wouldn't have to go on US television to tell Americans what Canadians "really" think about Iraq and that it was the evil Liberals who kept us out of Iraq: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

Certainly Canada and much of the world were racist in 1914. If Harper's apology was an apology for Canada being racist in 1914, then why did it not warrant an apology in Parliament? His apologies to Chinese-Canadians and natives for racist Canadian policies were made in Parliament. Could it be that Harper viewed denying immigrant status to illegal immigrants as being less worthy of an apology?

The Kamagatu Maru incident had nothing to do with Sikh-Canadians. The Canadian government was simply preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country. The apologies to the Chinese, Aboriginals and Japanese Canadians had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Canada has no need to apologize for deporting illegal immigrants.

"Canadians unhappy with Tories: Poll Don Butler , Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 OTTAWA - As prospects for a fall election grow, a new survey indicates public satisfaction with the Harper government has deteriorated since last fall. The extensive survey, conducted for the Privy Council Office, found Canadians are split in their judgment of the government's performance, with 34 per cent positive and 35 per cent negative. The rest are neutral. The results offer scant encouragement to a Conservative government that nonetheless seems eager to trigger an election this fall. In nearly every policy area, the public mood is noticeably more sour than it was late last year. The government gets some of its worst marks for accountability, a supposed priority area, with just 28 per cent positive and 42 per cent negative. Only on climate change is its performance more harshly judged. Ominously for the Conservatives, the survey found that satisfaction ratings have declined across the board since December, even in areas where the government's marks are still positive. The less-than-favourable findings raise questions about why Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been so vigorously rattling election sabres in recent days. "The simplest answer to that is that they might do better now than they would a year from now," said Barry Kay, a political scientist and polling expert at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont." Full story: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix...dd-1529e35083fa Dion would be wise not to trigger an election but simply wait for the continuation of the Conservative implosion.

You raise an interesting point, i.e., the conflict between religious rights and gay rights. Of course both sets of rights deserve protection. I don't know of any churches which are forced to marry lesbians. Do you? Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians, he did so on the grounds that it would potentially interfere with his religious rights. While Stephen Harper supports legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religious beliefs, he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. Do you think his position is rational or do you think it's based on his extreme religious beliefs?