normanchateau

Who exactly tells us "what to believe"? Satan? Other demonic forces opposed to socon Harper?

You are referring to hate speech laws in general. I have no problem with getting rid of ALL hate speech laws. My problem with Harper is that he specifically wants to exclude sexual orientation but is fine with all other hate speech laws relating to race, religion and ethnicity. Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals but he did not oppose hate speech legislation in general.

The provincial Liberals in Ontario are left-leaning. There is a huge ideological difference between the Liberal Party of BC and the Liberal Party of Ontario. Take a look at the facts before hurling your 'socon' insults. Of course the BC Liberals differ ideologically from the Ontario Liberals. But Harper remains a so-con.

Yes, the GG has shown a lot of support for the troops. They would love to see her. Maybe that's the security concern...Harper's own insecurity. I suspect there'd be far more of our troops interested in seeing her than Harper, MacKay and O'Connor combined.

First, how is this bad news? And second, stow the off-topic personal banter. Yes, unequivocally good news.

If there are security concerns preventing Jean from visiting despite her pleas to visit, why were Harper, MacKay and O'Connor able to visit? They were there on business, not sight-seeing. In this morning's Vancouver Sun on page A4, Peter O'Neil points out that in addition to Harper, MacKay and O'Connor, numerous entertainers, business people and ex-soldiers have all recently met the troops in Kandahar. I guess they were all there on business. Typical Harper bs. Blocking opposition MPs and now even the nonpartisan Governor General from visiting shows that the Harper government is once again lying about security concerns. Fortunately Jean has been supporting the troops in other ways, including visiting bases in Esquimalt, Edmonton and Halifax, and meeting with families of Canada's fallen in Afghanistan.

So what you are saying is that Harper did not vote against a bill making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime but rather he voted against a bill making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Well that certainly changes everything. I guess he's not the intolerant so-con I mistook him for.

Obviously poorly written since it supports my point. Apparently there are many such "poorly written" reports. Here's another link: http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/S...eches_Oct27.htm A speech by a Senator opposing C-250. Read the first paragraph. Once again, Cools is speaking about hate speech in s318. line 3, "...to add sexual orientation to the list of identifiable groups against whom genocide can be committed."

Easterner? You're the Easterner!

No, the claim is absolutely true. As a result of Bill C-250, which Harper voted agianst, Section 318 now adds sexual orientation to hate crimes involving the killing of homosexuals. I've posted the link multiple times. Here it is again: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/ You are welcome to state what it is in the link that you believe is dishonest. But of course you won't since you think repeated and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient. You keep citing a poorly written CBC report. Obviously poorly written since it supports my point. Apparently there are many such "poorly written" reports. Here's another link: http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/S...eches_Oct27.htm A speech by a Senator opposing C-250. Read the first paragraph.

You are mistaken ... again. Alberta has the lowest excise tax on a litre of gas in the country. Here's a link. Ontario started charging a health care premium last year. It was in all the news Normie, but then again Dalton McGuinty is a darling of the left so you wouldn't want to actually tell the truth and make him look bad. Yes, I'm well aware that Alberta has the lowest taxes at the pump in all of Canada. But why do they need a provincial tax at all given that they have no PST on other goods? I had no idea that Ontario was now charging a health care premium. It certainly wasn't news on the west coast. McGuinty is obviously as misguided as Campbell in BC and Klein in Alberta. Unlike income tax, these absurd health care premiums are regressive. In fact the fool Campbell actually raised our premiums by 50% a few years ago. Incidentally, both Cambell and McGuinty are Liberals. Why would they be darlings of the left? Are supporters of that so-con Harper so far right that they think provincial Liberals are left?

If there are security concerns preventing Jean from visiting despite her pleas to visit, why were Harper, MacKay and O'Connor able to visit?

Not it isn't, listen once again Afghanistan is a democracy and voted for Karzai. Wrong again. Afghanistan is a theocracry. The Koran trumps all human rights in Afghanistan. Iran voted for their loathsome President Ahmadinejad. Does that make Iran a democracy?

Michaelle Jean has been repeatedly asking Rick Hillier to go since early 2006 but she's been told that there are security concerns. This same excuse has been used to block visits by the House of Commons multi-party defence committee and the Senate multi-party national security committee. But for some reason, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and Gordon O'Connor have all met the troops in Kandahar. Wouldn't it be nice if Jean, who is nonpartisan and represents ALL Canadians could visit and show her support for the troops instead of just three Conservatives?

Raising the minimum exemption, removing the GST and instituting a flat tax would be fair to the poor, encourage foreign professionals to move here (good thing considering we have no docs), and it's actually a more 'fair' taxation method, it doesn't punish progress. Hell, it's worked fantastically in Alberta. Why not take a page from our book? Sure, if all the provinces had Alberta's oil and gas revenues... And why are the provincial taxes still so high at the fuel pump in Alberta? And why do Albertans pay a monthly premium for their health care? If I'm not mistaken, only BC and Alberta residents pay health care premiums to their government.

Some are thinking that even though the Taliban are worse, they see no sufficiently compelling reason for Canadians to die to prop up the Islamic fundamentalist, Koran-ruled theocracy of Afghanistan whose own government imprisons blasphemers and has sentenced Christian converts to death. If a Taliban-like group were threatening the government or people of Iran, would we send in Canadian troops to prop up the current elected Iran government? Well that's analagous to what we're doing in Afghanistan in my opinion. There are probably multiple reasons why a majority of NATO countries are unwilling to send their forces on this pointless mission.

Because all religions decry homosexuality, their utterly clear and obvious worry is that litigants will be able to use hate provisions against "sexual orientation" to attack them and their holy books. The question was why do opponents of C-250 think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of religion? You've purposefully ignored the second part of the question. Religionists have no problem with religion being a criterion in hate crimes legislation. Why are religionists not worried "that litigants will be able to use hate provisions against..." religion "...to attack them and their holy books". Churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate on the basis of religion. Try getting married in one of these institutions if you're of the wrong religion. Why should religionists be protected by hate crimes legislation and homosexuals not?

Do you have evidence for this statement? In particular, that this was Harper's main concern?

Your continued shrill dishonesty regarding this point is rather revealing. It has already been pointed out to you by multiple people on multiple threads that your claims regarding this legislation are entirely false. No one makes those claims but you. No, the claim is absolutely true. As a result of Bill C-250, which Harper voted agianst, Section 318 now adds sexual orientation to hate crimes involving the killing of homosexuals. I've posted the link multiple times. Here it is again: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/ You are welcome to state what it is in the link that you believe is dishonest. But of course you won't since you think repeated and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient.

Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states that no laws can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam. That's pretty much standard in all Muslim countries, and it does not make Afghanistan a theocracy. It's certainly not standard in all Muslim countries and it does, by definition, make the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan a theocracy.

Wrong again. That's your narrow definition of theocracy. Here's mine: http://www.answers.com/topic/theocracy The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan fits this definition perfectly.

No, they just kill Christians in batch lots for being Christian. Excuse me? Examples please. Indonesian Christians; persecution and despair This is not evidence of the government of Indonesia killing Christians. It is evidence of Muslims in Indonesia killing Christians. Nor does the government of Indonesia sentence to death those who convert to Christianity.

The left-leaning ridings are all NDP or Liberal already. Quebeckers are going to be caught up in the "Nation" issue. The Conservatives will be the only true nationalist option in Quebec ... Afghanistan will be a sconed or third issue. Good, I hope all the CPC policy strategists share your view.

So what exactly has Harper achieved that demonstrates an effective approach?

Call him a socon all you want. But if you are resorting to using decriminalization of marijuana as a socon issue than your arguments are pretty weak. OK, so you now acknowledge that Harper's position on this issue makes him a so-con. Good. Being to the right of even his own party pretty well guarantees electoral failure in Canada. Canadians will never give a so-con a majority government.