normanchateau

And Stephen Harper would never break the bank to pander to Quebec...

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up. Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. For some reason, he won't apologize for that but he's more than willing to apologize for Canada preventing the entry of illegal immigrants in 1914. And Conservatives wonder why their ineffective leader is even less popular today than when he was elected...

Yup. He then lost his first General Election as leader but won his second. Despite the long list of electable candidates waiting to replace him...

Why just ethnic communities and immigrants? If Harper is indeed a strong leader and not just someone who grovels for votes, why not apologize to homosexuals? Canada imprisoned individuals prior to 1967 for engaging in homosexual behaviour. Maybe he should apologize for that. In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Maybe he should apologize for that. In December, 2006, Stephen Harper became the first Prime Minister of Canada to attempt to take away their legislated right to marry. Maybe he should apologize for that. Perhaps the reason he's willing to apologize to certain immigrant groups is because he believes that they share Harper's so-con values. Apologizing to homosexuals would offend not only his so-con voters but would contradict his own values.

Does anybody doubt that Harper would have bent over and given Quebec even more money in this situation? Here's how one British Columbia columnist views Harper's billions to Quebec at the expense of other provinces: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html Now that Harper is considering apologizing to every immigrant ethnic group with some perceived greivance, and now that he has declared the Quebecois a nation, when will he apologize and grovel to the Quebecois for their historical grievances?

Perhaps that mobility will extend to Pakistan where al Qaeda does have bases according to the National Post in Saturday's edition. That mobility may need to extend to Iran now that there is irrefutable evidence that Iran is arming the Taliban. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/...in2921708.shtml

What's a Bush-bot?

Yes lets talk about accountabilty shall we...from a liberal...give me a break... Actually Ms. Black is a NDP MP.

Re: An open letter to Prime Minister Harper Does anyone here seriously believe that Stephen Harper's professed views on global warming are informed by scientists, be they credible or crackpots? Let's get real. His views are just as likely to come from political polls. And if they don't come from polls, policy strategists and shifts in the political winds, he has yet another well-respected, potential source of information: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national...c5fd7f9&ei=5070

And the reason you are not allowed to marry into these peoples families is, quite simply, becuase you are white. I suspect the issue is religion rather than race. Sikhs are no keener on having Hindus marry into their families.

The problem which the Conservatives were attempting to solve was the line-ups and the long processing time, not finding a guarantor. But I suppose getting rid of the professional guarantor has good optics even though it did nothing to solve the problem.

Even an incompetent government eventually responds to pressure. Ironically, the long line-ups at the Vancouver Office which had been there for half a year, finally disappeared just before the Conservatives made these announcements.

You're joking, right?

I don't get it really. Just don't get it. Canadians are a very irrational bunch. There's nothing irrational about Canadians rejecting a leader with socially conservative views. In the past election, 64% of voters rejected such a leader. Today, 71% won't vote for him. Conservative supporters are counting on Canadians to forget Harper's previously stated views and pretend he has morphed into someone he is not.

Where is the talk of a "statistical tie"? It is indeed a statistical tie but indicates that the trend established in the past few months continues, i.e., the decline in Conservative support. What can Stephen Harper possibly do now? Apologize to Sikhs for not allowing in illegal immigrants in 1914? Apologize to homosexuals for Harper voting against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals? Deliver billions and billions of dollars to Quebec at the expense of the West and other provinces? Identify which special interest groups he hasn't yet apologized to, grovelled to or thrown money at? Leave the Conservatives and allow them a shot at a majority government?

Odd that the Conservatives are now in second place behind the Liberals: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...anada-poll.html Keep up the good work Stephen.

The trend continues. According to the Decima poll released today, the Conservatives are now in second place at 29%. The Liberals are at 32% http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...anada-poll.html

Why?

The menace of fundamentalist Muslims being threatened by more fundamentalist Muslims... not quite equivalent to the noble 1939-1945 fight of democracy versus nazism.

It sounds like you're implying that he should only apologize to those who might vote Tory. What about apologizing to women for denying them the vote? Or is there no point since most women won't vote for Stephen Harper anyway?

The Taliban are no longer in power but the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under Karzai remains the equivalent of a theocracy. ”No law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” http://anewerworld.org/?p=40 Why has Karzai proposed reconstituting the Taliban-style religious police? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGBGKLP871.DTL Suppose another Islamic Republic with a democratically elected president, the Islamic Republic of Iran, was threatened by a more fundamentalist Taliban-style movement within Iran? Should Canada send troops there?

There are many other gestures Harper could make. Why just apologize on the basis of race and ethnicity? Prior to 1969, homosexual behaviour, i.e., sodomy, was a criminal offence in Canada. Should he apologize to all homosexuals? Prior to 1919 in Canada, women could note vote. Should he apologize to all women? In the early 20's, the Communist Party of Canada was an illegal organization. Should he apologize to all communists. Where does it all end?

Of course the Bloc is supporting it. In the 2007 budget, Harper promised 4.8 billion dollars to Quebec which allowed Charest to deliver a tax cut. Who's paying for this extraordinary handout to Quebec? In part, British Columbians: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html

The Vancouver Sun covered this issue in depth a few days ago. Here's what the Sun article concluded: "It must have been awful for the Komagata Maru passengers to have come all this way, to spend two months with little food and water in Vancouver harbour, only to be sent back and face jail time. But it was their choice to challenge a foreign law. Like other illegal migrants, they tried and failed. Countries have every right to set their own immigration policies, picking and choosing which people and how many to allow in each year. But more than that, governments have a responsibility to set immigration policies that are advantageous to their citizens. They have a duty to protect their own citizens' rights to decent homes, jobs, opportunities for advancement, good schools for their children, health care and so on. Over the years, Canada has developed one of the most generous immigration policies of any country in the world. One in five Canadians is an immigrant and we are all lucky to be here. But Canada can not accept everyone who shows up at our doorstep and nor could it 90 years ago. It's unfortunate, but it's not something we need to apologize for." Here's the full article: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...a5a451fff78&p=2 If Stephen Harper wants to apologize to Sikhs solely to get some votes, fine. However, I believe in the long run, a more principled stand would serve Canadians better.

Of course the laws were racist at the time but the point remains that these people were illegal immigrants by Canada's laws of the day. Canada had every right to determine Canada's immigration policies. Canada still has every right to determine Canada's immigration policies without apologies to anyone but the electorate. These people were illegal because by the laws in place in 1914, they hadn't come directly from India. They came from Shanghai. This granted Canadian authorities the legal right to prevent their entry. See: http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/komaga...ru_incident.htm Why should we be apologizing to illegal immigrants? Should we be apologizing to the boatloads of illegal Chinese immigrants who came ashore in British Columbia in 1999 and who were sent back to China? And since they weren't Caucasian, should another Prime Minister 90 years from now apologize for the racist 1999 Canadian government who refused to accept these illegal immigrants?