normanchateau

No argument there. The Liberals could merely win a minority.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/violence-in-alberta.html

Are you saying that fanatics should determine what Canadians can or cannot publish?

Good, at least you agree that there is some point at which sacrificing Canadian lives for a country whose constitution permits murdering its citizens for religious reasons may not be appropriate.

Consistent with the trendline link provided yesterday by LastViking which predicts a Liberal majority in October, 2009.

Is there some point at which we have the right to decide that their laws are sufficiently morally reprehensible that they no longer justify the sacrifice of Canadian lives?

Here are Ezra Levant's opening remarks to the Alberta Human Rights Commission this afternoon: "My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement. When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons ... two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com." http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/kangaroo-court.html This absurd interrogation of Ezra Levant is not Canada's proudest moment. I am surprised that he has not received more support from either side of the political spectrum.

The trendline claims a Liberal majority if an election occurred in October, 2009. I doubt that Dion will wait that long to bring down the government.

In other words you're saying converts to Christianity should be executed if that's what Afghans want. Do Canadians have the right to question such laws or should we support apparent theocracies as long as they're democratically elected?

Yes, and he's the same Imam who threatened to kill a moderate Danish Islamic leader who opposed violent protests over the cartoons: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010719.php Ultimately 50 people were killed and hundreds more were injured during the protests and thanks to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Ezra Levant is the latest victim of Ahmed Akkari.

Reuters Saturday, January 5, 2008; 5:19 AM KABUL - Afghanistan's Islamic council has told President Hamid Karzai to stop foreign aid groups from converting locals to Christianity and also demanded the reintroduction of public executions. Strict interpretations of Islam as practiced in Afghanistan treat conversions as apostasy, which is punishable by death. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=sec-religion What a shame that in 2008, Canadian soldiers continue to risk their lives to protect an apparent theocracy which deems it legal constitutionally to execute those who choose to convert to Christianity. As Article 3 of the current constitution of Afghanistan clearly states: "Article 3 [Law and Religion] In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

Zundel, a German citizen, was deported to Germany in 2005 because a Canadian Federal Court deemed that he was a threat to national security. Germany convicted him of hate crimes in 2007 and the conviction was upheld after Zundel appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice. By contrast, Zundel's two Canadian convictions for hate speech, one in 1985 and one in 1988, were both overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Why should Levant be convicted of anything? How are the Danish cartoons republished by Levant analogous to Zundel's hate speech? To help you answer the second question, here's a quote from Zundel: "Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers....Through us, the White majority of Europe and America, the Jewish minority have obtained their advantages, including their Israel, their Federal Reserve, their World Bank and their International Monetary Fund. In exchange for these advantages, the Jews give us -- their White hosts -- wars, depressions, inflation, unemployment, energy shortages, higher and higher taxes and air piracy. Like sheep, they expect us to go down the road with them -- all the way to the kosher slaughterhouse. We White people of America have done nothing so far which would frustrate the Jews' expectations or their ambitions of becoming the world's slavemasters."

So you view the Danish cartoons as hate speech?

I had forgotten about the Canadian fatwa against Mark Steyn. Here's one version of the story for those who missed it: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7632

Today at 2:00 Ezra Levant is to be interrogated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for the political crime of publishing cartoons which were offensive to some members of the Calgary community. This is not a federal issue. On the other hand, it doesn't fit neatly into any forum on this website. Those who care about free speech might find this story of interest: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...cb1&k=90175 Here are the cartoons: http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/my-visit-to-...aroo-court.html I make no apologies for violating anyone's human rights by posting the link to the cartoons. In my opinion it was shameful that most Canadian media refused to publish them.

I think your reading far too much into the trends. Nothing tells me that Dion is on the verge of a break through. If things stay as choppy as they are Harper will have the advantage for three reasons. 1. Natural benefits of incumbency. 2. Third campaign as leaders vs. zero for Dion. 3. Harper has proven to be a smart tactical politician, nothing I've seen in Dion shows me he has that. As I said, this trend might not continue. Harper has indeed proven to be a tactical position but whether he's smart is a matter of partisan opinion.

I can understand the words, but not the line of "reasoning". I was referring to the trend lines showing a decline in support for Harper over the past few months. But your point is well taken as this trend might not continue.

There's no need to refer to fabricated kitten eating or caninophilia. Why not just focus on Harper's actual actions and statements?

No. The legislation is quite clear. It's advocating or promoting the killing of homosexuals which makes it a hate crime.

What have I said that you don't understand? I'd be happy to clarify.

the Alliance voted against it. 68 out of 69 members.... the other one was absent. I believe Stephen Harper was then leader of the Alliance. Do you have the numbers for the other parties? My recollection is that the Liberals, NDP, BQ and approximately half the PC MPs, including Joe Clark, voted for it.

I wonder if his social conservatism has anything to do with the small mindedness. I wonder if your social liberalism has anything to do with small intellect. On the other hand, since there is an evidence-based negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, that might be contributing to his small mindedness. You of course have no evidence of an inverse relationship between social liberalism and intelligence.

Would you say that repeatedly referring to the Liberals as corrupt is rational criticism or irrational hatred?

And that's why I pointed out that Stephen Harper opposes embryonic stem cell research.

Not all criticism of Harper should be viewed as hate. Often it's more resembling of contempt. Sometimes it's beneath contempt. Sometimes it's mere criticism. On the other hand, if all criticism of Harper is interpreted as hate by his supporters, it might be more adaptive for them not to respond.