normanchateau

Good point. The numbers do differ somewhat in the latest Harris-Decima poll: "The Bloc Quebecois, meanwhile, tightened its grip on Quebec, scoring 45 per cent to the Liberals' 21 per cent and the NDP's 12. The Tories trailed with the Greens at 10 per cent." Both the Liberals and Conservatives seem to be bleeding support to the Bloc.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-act-taxpayer-money-to-fund-abortions-of-black-babies.html

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a socially conservative Prime Minister is that Stephen Harper is now even out of step with police chiefs in his utterly anti-libertarian view on this issue. The police themselves now acknowledge that they have more important tasks and little interest in arresting people for possession of marijuana: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Police+chief+supports+marijuana+decriminalization/2950487/story.html

That's the law despite Harper voting against C-250, the legislation which created the law.

President Obama’s first act of “change” will be to issue an executive order that will lift a ban on using taxpayer money to fund international “family planning” groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa. http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-act-taxpayer-money-to-fund-abortions-of-black-babies.html

"A seemingly enlightened decision by Stephen Harper to have coming G8 meetings in Ontario focus on global maternal health has backfired on his government. Instead of reaping the political benefits of promoting a mainstream, moderate policy issue, the government -- by taking a stand against support for foreign aid programs that would fund abortions -- has reinforced fears about its so-called secret right-wing agenda." http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+motherhood+issue+backfires+triggers+secret+agenda+fears+abortion/2959850/story.html

Why would you want to see the demise of a centrist party? Most Canadians are centrists rather than right wingers or left wingers.

Yes, it was absolutely wrong of them to oppose C-250.

The rise in NDP numbers in BC might also reflect the fact that the provincial NDP is now at 47% in the polls whereas the governing party, the BC Liberals whose policies are more aligned with those of the federal Conservatives than the federal Liberals, has dropped to 29%. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35380/ndp_holds_double_digit_lead_in_british_columbia/

Imagine that, the CBC reporting only on the one study performed in Canada. Bringing Canadian news to Canadians...absolutely shocking.

As a matter of fact, the issue of free speech is common to Galloway, Coulter and Harper's reasons for opposing C-250. Harper and his born-again, praying-on-their-knees friends opposed C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, on the grounds of free speech. Stephen Harper, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Real Women of Canada, Lifesite and other religious extremists acknowledged this: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040415defeat

Much of the debate in this thread revolves, at least indirectly, around the issue of expecting consistency from Stephen Harper. It is naive to expect that consistency motivates him. He strongly opposed making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, presumably because it would have a negative impact on the free speech of Harper-supporting, homophobic, religious nuts. But he has a problem with Galloway's free speech so masks his inconsistency under the bogus guise of anti-terrorism legislation.

Does this mean that Stephen Harper would never resort to waffling or political expediency, and that waffling or political expediency is the exclusive domain of the Liberals? Judge for yourself: "In 1988, as chief policy architect for Manning's Reform party, Harper authored a document calling on Ottawa to withdraw from all universal social programs and leave them to the provinces. In 1993, as a Reform MP, he supported a caucus statement committing the party to "restore to the provinces the administrative jurisdiction (in health) that the federal government has usurped." In 2001, he co-authored an open letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein urging him to drop out of medicare. In a 2003 newspaper article, he wrote that the Canada Health Act should be scrapped and replaced with 10 separate agreements between Ottawa and each province. As late as 2004, he wrote in the Star that one of his guiding principles in health care was that it must remain in provincial jurisdiction." Finally, in 2005, Stephen Harper embraced the Canada Health Act, a complete flip flop from 20 years opposing it: http://www.vivelecan...ks-medicare-law I'm sure you don't believe that Harper's flip flop on health care reflects anything more than political expediency. Harper has been a politician all of his life. He's a professional politician. It's the only career that he's ever had since leaving university. Yet it took him more than 20 years to figure out that if he wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada, he must pretend that he now believes in the Canada Health Act. And if he's not pretending, and now sincerely believes in the Canada Health Act, he must be one of the slowest learners in Canadian political history.

Don't hold your breath. If any Conservative strategist could find fault with EKOS' methodology, we would have heard about it by now. Similarly, if Allan Gregg's political leanings created bias in his polling, some Liberal strategist would have pointed out the flaws in the Harris-Decima methodology.

Religion is one of the crutches people use to deal with life. Religious differences kill far more people than marijuana does. The number of victims of child molesting and statutory rape by Roman Catholic priests is in the hundreds of thousands. Perhaps Harper should propose a mandatory 6 months for selling, promoting or advocating religion, especially those misguided Canadians pushing religion on children whose brains have yet to develop fully. Of course he won't do this being a born-again, praying-on-his-knees bible literalist who converted to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, an Evangelical denomination which preaches about the evils of marijuana.

Isn't Allan Gregg, who worked for both the US Republicans and Progressive Conservatives, CEO of Harris-Decima? Can we trust a Conservative pollster any more than we can trust a Liberal pollster like Frank Graves?

You are correct. Bill C-250 adds to the present definition of an "identifiable group" by including any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation. It further adds to section 319(3) b - of the Criminal Code (the "Code") by providing for the defence of expressing an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. Section 319 - Public incitement of hatred (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) b - if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. Thanks to the amendment to Section 319, the Bible, the Koran and other religious texts are free to continue to promote hatred towards homosexuals, people of other races, people of other religions and other identifiable groups.

It's a good that this attempt at humour came from a Conservative Senator. Had it been a Liberal Senator, today there'd be CPC 10% flyers in Jewish mailboxes accusing the Liberal Party of anti-Semitism: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/727885--pm-s-jewish-pitch-hits-a-new-low-critics-say

You raise a valid point. The Liberals, or at least some of them, did change their position on the Traditional Definition of Marriage, and they were likely motivated by political expediency. On the issue of C-250, however, a majority of Liberals voted to make it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals on all readings of the Bill. All Bloc and NDP MPs voted in favour. All 62 Canadian Alliance MPs, including their leader Stephen Harper, voted against it. Harper gets credit for not being motivated by political expediency on C-250 since he'd lose few votes, except to the Christian Heritage Party, had he voted for C-250. Does this mean that Harper would never resort to political expediency and that political expediency is the exclusive domain of the Liberals? Judge for yourself: "In 1988, as chief policy architect for Manning's Reform party, Harper authored a document calling on Ottawa to withdraw from all universal social programs and leave them to the provinces. In 1993, as a Reform MP, he supported a caucus statement committing the party to "restore to the provinces the administrative jurisdiction (in health) that the federal government has usurped." In 2001, he co-authored an open letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein urging him to drop out of medicare. In a 2003 newspaper article, he wrote that the Canada Health Act should be scrapped and replaced with 10 separate agreements between Ottawa and each province. As late as 2004, he wrote in the Star that one of his guiding principles in health care was that it must remain in provincial jurisdiction." Finally, in 2005, Stephen Harper embraced the Canada Health Act, a complete flip flop from 20 years opposing it: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/91919834-harper-backs-medicare-law I'm sure you don't believe that Harper's flip flop on health care reflects anything more than political expediency. Harper has been a politician all of his life. He's a professional politician. It's the only career that he's ever had since leaving university. Yet it took him more than 20 years to figure out that if he wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada, he must pretend that he now believes in the Canada Health Act. And if he's not pretending, and now sincerely believes in the Canada Health Act, he must be one of the slowest learners in Canadian political history.

Show me the data which support your false claim that the percentage of Roman Catholic priests who are child molesters is the same as the percentage of physicians and lawyers who are child molesters.

Judging by your spelling ability, debating skills and level of literacy, it is not difficult to guess your party preference.

Harper is not opposed to criminalizing speech except as it applies to homosexuals and lesbians. He supported banning the entry into Canada of a UK MP whose positions he opposed. He supports hate crimes legislation, i.e., speech restrictions, as it relates to promoting murder against an identifiable group based on race, religion and ethnicity. He draws the line at homosexuals and lesbians. No wonder Graves views Harper's party as a haven for homophobes.

Show me the data that show the percentages are the same. Even the RC Church admits to 4% of priests. Let's see your data for physicians and lawyers. And do you seriously believe that a regulatory professional group for physicians and lawyers would conceal incidences of child molesting as Bishops and the last two Popes have done? Anyway, I digress from the more relevant point. Frank Graves is right that CPC is a haven for homophobes. To his credit, he stood by this point when he made his apology.

If they have accepted Graves' advice, they're not acting on it. When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper not only voted against same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition but even attempted to take away that right in December, 2006, AFTER he became Prime Minister of Canada? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was a founding member of the pro-apartheid Northern Foundation? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was President of the anti-public health care National Citizens Coalition?

You're not religious? In previous posts you claimed to be a member of a well known religious group whose priests include large numbers of admitted child molesters. Obama faced the same arguments that Harper did from religious extremists who feared that adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation would be used against Christians. Obama ignored the extremists. So did most Canadian MPs who passed this legislation. Your church is still free to condemn homosexuality and serve as a sanctuary for pedophiles. Bill C-250 has not changed that. Conservatives should not be surprised that Graves accuses them of being a haven for homophobes when they retain as leader a born-again, religious extremist like Stephen Harper who opposes extending sexual orientation into hate crimes legislation.