normanchateau

It seems to me that if we can give nation status to upteen Indian bands in every province, we can do so for Quebec. But when we give Quebecers this status, Quebec is one step closer to what the BQ and PQ want...separation from Canada. When we give such status to first nations, or as you call them, Indians, we're not on quite the same slippery slope of them separating from Canada.

Like when those that supported C-250 voted to eliminate the rights of free expression that other Canadians enjoy? Oh wait, it's only restricting freedom when it's a minority involved. But hate crimes legislation already covers race, ethnicity and religion. Sounds like a majority are alreadsy covered by hate crimes legislation. Or do religious extermists like Harper want to remove religion from that list?

I'm not surprised. Ignatieff's idiotic "Quebec is a nation" stance was going to severely damage the Liberal leadership convention and thanks to Stephen Harper, it's now a nonissue. Harper helped Ignatieff but more significantly, he helped the Liberals to defuse the issue. And since the BQ are now voting for it, he helped them as well by putting them one step closer to their goal. Will Harper gain votes outside of Quebec for declaring Quebecers a nation? I doubt it. Inside Quebec? Perhaps a few votes. Was it worth it? I doubt it.

It's just so easy to write people off with labels. As Stephen Harper did when he wrote off those voters whose sexual orientation he disapproved of when he voted to deny them rights that other Canadians enjoy.

I think Harper was mislead by the lead that Ignatieff holds in Quebec among the contenders for the Liberal leadership. He foolishly believed that if he mimicked the Quebec-is-a-nation stance of Ignatieff, Quebecers would flock to him. Well Ignatieff's stance was reckless and now Harper has confirmed that he's no better.

If they want a theocracy, that's fine with me too. What's not so fine with me is Canadians dying for this theocracy. What's also not fine with me is billions of Canadian tax dollars being spent for years propping up this corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. In March, 2006, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sentenced to death a man who converted to Christianity. Sorry, but I do not support such a government. Fortunately, a majority of Canadians now oppose the military misadventure in Afghanistan. With time, that opposition will grow and Canada will ultimately support our courageous troops by bringing them back home.

I have no problem with a free vote either. The question is why is Harper breaking yet another promise? One theory: He fears the current legislation will be upheld. Another theory: He's decided to postpone the vote until he has a majority. Yet another theory: He sees no point in reminding the Canadian electorate that he's a so-con. Still another theory: He knows that this unnecessary promise was really aimed at his so-con, religious extremist and lunatic right supporters and those supporters aren't about to abandon Harper for the Liberals.

That's merely one interpretation. Another is that he is facilitating and pandering to their nationalism which explains, at least in part, why both BQ leader Duceppe and PQ leader Boisclair now support the motion. It is a step in the direction in which they want to proceed.

Today Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc announced that they support Harper's motion. So does Boisclair, leader of the PQ. It remains to be seen who'll have the last laugh. In the long run, I don't see how this will benefit Harper. Does he actually think separatists will now vote for him?

Huh? This was published two weeks before the election. Is this news now? That explains it. 38% of women supported him in January versus a mere 28% now that they've seen him in action. But then again, he's probably written off woman voters as he has most special interest groups except so-cons and militarists.

One of those rare circumstances where they actually got it right.

The laws of Christianity have undergone constant change over the centuries depending on who was making them and their particular agenda. People will try to bend the law to their own advantage no matter what it is based on. But Canada's constitution does not state that human rights legislation cannot be "contrary to the laws of Christianity". Mullahs have the last word in fundamentalist Islamic Afghanistan.

LifeSite maintains a list of all MPs who voted for and against the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. All NDP MPs, all BQ MPs, most Liberal MPs and 50% of PC MPs voted for the legislation. Harper and all Canadian Alliance MPs voted against it. What a shocking surprise!! You should have mentioned this before!!! It's never too late to remind people where our beloved Prime Minister stands on this issue!! I wonder if he'll re-visit the issue as he plans with same-sex marriage. On the other hand, he seems to have forgotten his promise to re-visit same-sex marriage legislation this fall: "Commons to revisit same-sex vote Last Updated: Saturday, June 3, 2006 | 6:22 PM ET CBC News Members of Parliament will be asked this fall whether or not they wish to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday. During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue." link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/02/...er-samesex.html Another promise broken!! Surely not!!

Nonsense because only 45% of CPC convention delegates voted for it. The other 55% realized that this would not help them get elected. But I wonder how they'd vote if they had a majority. Even among the 55% who voted as they did, some acknowledged that they opposed abortion.

If i did not know any better norm i'd say you where trolling, so i guess i'll bite and say "yours". Can you provide examples?

Any idea where the 38% figure came from. It seems very high. Here are other figures from last month: "Now, the poll suggests, the Liberals have taken the lead in that demographic despite their leaderless status. The Decima Poll was conducted between October 12 and October 16 based on a sample of 1,038 Canadians, with a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20. It suggests 34 per cent of female voters support the Liberals, 28 per cent support the Tories, and 16 per cent support the NDP." Source: http://weblogs.ucalgary.ca/ekmullin/blog/2...th_the_xx_crowd

But they conveniently forget to mention that they raised the income tax rate on the first $35-36,000 of taxable income from 15% to 16%. I suppose their reason is so that they can get credit when they lower it next time.

Unfortunately Ignatieff would only be a slight improvement over Harper. But any improvement would be better than no improvement.

Probably the average voter does not. But the average voter probably does not need to be reminded how so-cons, given the opportunity, would be peeping through keyholes into people's bedrooms to regulate sex. State regulation of sex is common in Islamic countries but not too popular in Canada. This is only in your own mind. You see social conservatives around every corner it seems. Not around every corner but unfortunately in the worse possible place...the office of the PM.

What excuses?

Probably the average voter does not. But the average voter probably does not need to be reminded how so-cons, given the opportunity, would be peeping through keyholes into people's bedrooms to regulate sex. State regulation of sex is common in Islamic countries but not too popular in Canada.

It remains to be seen how the discussion will go and how Liberal delegates will eventually vote on this issue. It is not uncommon for ideas to be discussed at political conventions. A majority can usually be counted on to shoot down the unpopular ideas. For example, at the March, 2005 convention in Montreal of the Conservative Party of Canada, only 45% of delegates favoured new legislation against abortion. 55% of delegates opposed such legislation. Of those who opposed such legislation, a number indicated that they were in favour of new legislation against abortion but did not want to deal with the issue of abortion in the next election.

How does this destroy Canada? Would you prefer the Bloc proposal which made absolutely no mention of Quebec as a nation in a United Canada. This was done in reaction to that motion. The nation-destroying pettiness I was referring to was Harper's proposal to build a "firewall" around Alberta.

The tax cut was announced on November 14th. The government fell less than two weeks later. I suppose it's technically possible to ram legislation through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reading of the House, through the committee process, and through the Senate in under two weeks but - I doubt it. You must have had a very special "Harper-supporter" 2005 T1 tax return form which charged you 16% on the first $35,595 of taxable income. Everyone else in Canada paid 15%.

Doesn't exactly sound like a socialist...