normanchateau

Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. In my opinion, he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., historically our first nations people were subjugated, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was a criminal offence. What makes this convoluted logic? As an aside, homosexuality itself wasn't an offense, only buggery was. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're right. Homosexuality wasn't an offence. Homosexual behaviour was. Similarly, pedophilia isn't a criminal offence. Pedophiliac behaviour is. Really important distinction and a major contribution to the debate.

Because Harper keeps the BQ happy on money bills by giving Quebec $4 billion. The separatists are propping up the lame duck Conservatives. All federalist opposition parties voted against the budget which promised 4.8 billion dollars to Quebec at the expense of other provinces. Harper's days as PM are thankfully coming to a close.

Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. In my opinion, he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., historically our first nations people were subjugated, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was a criminal offence. What makes this convoluted logic?

I take it that you fail to comprehend the logic.

As my post indicated, the Conservatives promised this money after less than 18 months in power.

Your failure to comprehend the logic does not make it convoluted.

Forced childbirth! I like that. I mean, who needs any responsibility?! Forced. Forced. I know I certainly hate it when I randomly have unprotected sex due to the coercion of all the media and negative influences of society and parent many children, but hey. It's not my fault. I was forced! Anti-choice advocates do indeed want to force childbirth on those with unwanted pregnancies.

Harper's been in power for less than a year and a half and he's already promised the government of Quebec 4.8 billion dollars through equalization. The Liberals were small change pikers by comparison. tsk, tsk. Over how many years? by avoiding simple things like this you diminish your posts. It's 2 years plus, You think it's been 2 years plus since the January, 2006 election? But I'll grant you this: It does not diminish your post.

Your post is internally inconsistent. Sounds like two issues to me by your own admission. In any event, you missed the point of why homosexuality was introduced in this thread which, incidentally, I started. Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. My point, which paradoxically you view as irrelevant, is that he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., how our first nations people were subjugated, how women couldn't vote, how homosexuality was a criminal offence.

My "I could not care less" was designed to alert AndrewL to the possibility that's probably what he meant.

I could care less. I could not care less.

Harper's been in power for less than a year and a half and he's already promised the government of Quebec 4.8 billion dollars through equalization. The Liberals were small change pikers by comparison.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't give my life for anything. It's a highly counter-productive exchange. That's a sorry statement, but I guess it's reflective of much that ails our society. It's also reflective of the libertarian position.

No, Thank you.

Agreed. The current number of senators per province has no relationship to reality. Some provinces are scandalously under-represented. Harper's proposed legislation completely ignores this.

Not a chance he'll call an election. At this point, he's praying that the separatists continue to prop up his government as they did with the budget.

If so, Harper should call an election now.

Back to the topic of Harper appointing senators: Was he right to appoint his personal friend and campaign manager to the Senate, subsequently making him a Cabinet Minister?

The problem was not mere wording. The ideas you expressed were the issue. Precisely!

No, it is not legal to promote or advocate the killing of heterosexuals. Here's C-250: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250 The way the legislation was worded, it is a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of anyone based on sexual orientation. Therefore it is a hate crime to promote the killing of someone simply because they're heterosexual just as it's a hate crime to promote the killing of someone merely because they're homosexual. I think your objection is with hate crime legislation in general. That position I can understand and I would not object if Stephen Harper opposed ALL hate crime legislation. But Stephen Harper has no objection to hate crime legislation based on race. He has no objection to hate crime legislation based on religion. He has no objection to hate crime legislation based on gender. He has no objection to hate crime legislation based on ethnicity. But he has an objection to hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. That's discriminatory in my opinion.

I also don't agree with apologizing for every historical injustice. However, it's not true that all governments do this. It's a Conservative policy designed to reverse the previous Liberal policy of "no apologies". Here's the link: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...7c606c5&k=65329

I never claimed that the Andrew Coyne article I cited mentioned the increase in personal income tax rates. I stated that the Coyne article mentioned that the past two budgets were the biggest spending spree in the history of any federal budget. There are numerous other citations to the Harper government's increase in personal income tax rates which I assumed was general knowledge. Since you're apparently unaware of the tax increase, here's one citation: http://canadaonline.about.com/od/governmen...06budgettax.htm

Would you like examples of how his social conservatism affects the way he runs the country?

Which accusation is false? Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals.

Back to the topic of Harper appointing Senators. Should he have appointed his campaign manager and personal friend to the Senate and made him a Cabinet Minister?