normanchateau

So why does Stephen Harper support making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religion? Why is it only redundant when gays and lesbians are concerned?

Sexual orientation refers to the gender of those to whom one is attracted. If one is attracted to someone of the same sex, one's sexual orientation is homosexual. If one is attracted to someone of the opposite sex, one's sexual orientation is heterosexual. Did you not know this? If you doubt what I'm saying, google sexual orientation. Given that your idea of sexual orientation seems to be something completely different than the conventional view, I now suspect that you also have an especially unique view of social conservatism. No wonder you fail to acknowledge visible evidence of social conservatism in Stephen Harper.

There was no law on the books prior to C-250 which said it was a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their sexual orientation. There was a law that said it was a hate crime to kill someone because of their sexual orientation. The new law made it a hate crime to also "promote or advocate..." The new law was parallel to other laws, which Harper supported, to make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on race, religion, etc.

And those gays and other fine people who oppose SSM are what? Freedom fighters? Neanderthals? What about Harper's parliamentary vote against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals, i.e. C-250? I suppose you also think that those like Harper who oppose C-250 are not social conservatives. They're merely religious freedom fighters. And Harper's desire to incarcerate young people for possession of trace quantities of marijuana, if not socially conservative, is what? Part of his war on plants? An attempt to promote government sales of alcohol? If these were the 1920's when alcohol was illegal and marijuana was legal, do you suppose "nonsocon" Harper would have opposed the 1920's status quo?

Your link included the following statement by Immigration Minister Diane Finley: "We have to make it easier to get more people here faster. We have a backlog right now that the previous government ballooned from 50,000 to 800,000. It has since grown to 900,000." Sounds to me like what the Minister is saying is that the Liberals slowed down immigration and we Conservatives are now going to speed it up. Wasn't it just a few years ago that the chameleon-like Harper complained how the immigrant vote was helping to elect Liberal MPs east of Manitoba?

Stephen Harper authoritarian? His supporters have argued he's libertarian despite his socially conservative policies.

Here's Harper on video passionately and emotionally voicing his opposition to SSM at a religious rally: http://trailervision.com/trailer.php?id=167 Would you call his opposition to SSM socially conservative? Do you think the fact that he has twice now lead the fight in parliament to oppose SSM, first as Opposition Leader and next as Prime Minister, means that he is no longer opposed to SSM? Or does it mean that he acknowledges that he does not have the votes in parliament to win this particular fight and doesn't want to fight an election on this issue? Harper knows that the religious nuts and homophobes will vote for him anyway. He needs to win middle-of-the-road votes. What about Harper's parliamentary vote against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals, i.e. C-250? Was that socially or religiously conservative? Or do you think it was libertarian? What about his opposition to decriminalization of small quantities of marijuana? Most Canadians do not believe that there should be permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for possession of trace quantities of marijuana. Stephen Harper does. Does that make him socially conservative? Or libertarian?

It would depend on whether the Conservative government was fiscally conservative or merely socially conservative.

That was 2006 when the Quebecois were especially angry with the Liberals. Do you really think that they are just as angry in 2008? If so, why are the Conservatives now behind the dysfunctional Liberals in popular support in Quebec? What more can Harper possibly do to buy the Quebec vote? In the 2007 federal budget, he transferred billions to Quebec from the rest of Canada. In 2008 he'll implement Bernard Lord's recommendations on bilingualism which will also cost us billions. In 2006, he declared the Quebecois a nation. Now he's played into the hands of the PQ by recognizing Kosovo's right to secede from Serbia. What more can Harper do to get the popular support in Quebec that Brian Mulroney achieved in order to win a majority?

Don't be disappointed. Rationalize. It's the Conservative way to deal with cognitive dissonance. Rationalization is also an excellent defense mechanism. Whenever Harper does something you would have completely opposed if it were Martin or Chretien or Trudeau, just tell yourself that this is something Harper needs to do in order to win a majority. Then convince yourself that once he has a majority, he will show his true colours even though it means he'll then stand no chance of ever being re-elected.

So what you are saying is that the reason the Conservatives have (1) increased spending beyond that of any previous government in the history of Canada, (2) failed to reduce personal income tax rates since being elected, and (3) transferred billions from the rest of Canada to Quebec, is because they want to save the country from socialism? Those wily Conservatives sure fooled me by disguising their fiscal conservatism as unrestrained spending and out-of-control socialism.

"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions." - Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001. Sounds like MontyBurns and Stephen Harper agree.

It's now confirmed that the US will provide those 1000 troops even if no other country does: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...566&k=13927

And given that the current polls have the Conservatives in third place in Quebec despite a dysfunctional Quebec Liberal party, it will be interesting to see how far they fall when the Liberals become functional.

I think the name of the game is majority, not Liberal. Mulroney pandered to Quebec as well as any subsequent Liberal Prime Minister. That's how he won the only Conservative majority in almost half a century. Harper will also spend billions pandering to Quebec despite his negative views on bilingualism in 2001. Why would you expect Harper to be more principled or revolutionary now that he's in government?

In terms of what they choose to spend it on, yes. In terms of how much they spend, no previous government has spent more: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Perhaps the title of this thread should be a socialist (Conservative) vs a socialist (NDP) government. You are of course correct. Both are socialist. The question remains does one want a socialist (Conservative) government spending billions to buy the vote of Quebecois in the dim hope that this would produce a majority socialist (Conservative) government?

I would. The Liberals previously proposed legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, i.e., 15 grams or less. The NDP and Greens have both produced legalization. Harper opposes even decriminalization. Would you call Harper's position socially conservative? Libertarian? What about his opposition to C-250? Would you call that socially conservative? What about his opposition to SSM? Would you call that socially conservative?

Muslims don't have a monopoly on anti-Semitism and they certainly didn't in the 20th century but I can't think of any other group who has produced more anti-Semitic cartoons in the 21st century. Show me recent evidence to prove I'm wrong. I provided cartoons published very recently in major outlets. Sure, you can perhaps find some white Christian anti-Semitic cartoons today but they're likely on some Nazi blog not read by more than a handful of mouthbreathers. The cartoons I provided appeared in mainstream sources in the Middle East.

Would you say that introducing legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory sentence of six months in jail for one marijuana plant is a socially conservative policy? Re-visiting same sex marriage in December, 2006 failed only because there were not enough MPs to support it. Similarly, when Harper voted against SSM when it was introduced by the previous government, his opposition was ineffective because he didn't have the numbers. But he opposed it both times. Is that not socially conservative? Or would you claim that because he didn't have the numbers, he can't be accused of social conservatism? One of the best examples of his religious and social conservatism is his vote on Bill C-250 when the Liberals were in power. Bill C-250 passed because the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it. Harper and his party voted against it. Bill C-250 made it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals and lesbians. Harper is not opposed to hate crime legislation per se, e.g., he has no problem with hate crime legislation based on religion or race, but he has made it clear that he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. So far Harper's social conservatism has had a minimal impact on Canada because he doesn't have a majority of the MPs. But his past votes in the house certainly reveal where he stands. Some Harper supporters would have us believe that if he had a majority, his social conservatism would suddenly not be an issue despite the fact that his previous votes suggest otherwise.

Do you think that this is made up? http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm Or is it best simply to ignore evidence which creates cognitive dissonance?

On the other hand, here's a projected Liberal minority government: http://www.trendlines.ca/electcanada.htm

Are you Tom Flanagan?

Liberals and Conservatives in statistical tie according to Ipsos-Reid, March 25, 2008: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3861

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Conservatives think it's perfectly acceptable to transfer billions of dollars from the rest of Canada to Quebec, as they did in the 2007 budget, if they think that will buy them enough votes to form a majority government.