normanchateau

Selective editing. I take it you did that because you are backing off your statement that Emerson gave different *advice* to Martin and Harper. No, I still believe Gray.

C-250 is an Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) Maybe we need to rename this thread – Spinning Normie’s Web Objections to Bill C-250 have always been about hate speech, nothing else, in fact this is the only place I’ve seen it interpreted in such a way. It is quite a malicious leap to infer that Harper or anyone else condones gay bashing or murder because they object to it. 2. Paragrapy 319(3) ( of the Act is replaced by the following: ( if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; http://tinyurl.com/y3yygq Senate Debates The terms of the legislation are imprecise and unclear, such as "sexual orientation," "hatred" and associated terms like "religious subject." As these definitions evolve, as "marriage" has, they may create further difficulties for religious expression. "Sexual orientation" includes homosexuals and lesbians, of course, but does it also include bisexuals, transsexuals and cross-dressers, as well as pedophiles or bestiality? What about polygamy? How will a court subsequently define the expression "sexual orientation?" The bill threatens to infringe on long-standing freedoms of expression and religious belief, including the freedom to express reasonable disapproval of homosexual behaviour. The defences incorporated in the Criminal Code have been shown to be unreliable protection for religiously motivated speech. Bill C-250 attempts to give the members of special interest groups and the politically correct activist judiciary the power of criminal law sanction to persecute those who dare to disagree. Freedom of speech must be extended not only to those with whom we agree but also to those with whom we disagree. Prosecution, or threat of persecution, will deter the human right to freedom of expression from prevailing. Madam Justice McLachlin, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice John Sopinka and Mr. Justice Gerard LaForest, described "freedom of expression" in the Charter as the "right to let loose one's ideas on the world." She referred to the "chilling effect" on the exercise of this freedom of expression by law-abiding citizens because of the subjective concept of "hate." In her opinion, criminal sanctions do not operate as a deterrent to hate-mongers, while they chill the free expression of the ideas of "ordinary individuals who, by fear of criminal prosecutions and because of the inherent vagueness of the provision, will refrain from exercising their freedom of expression." She also said: Section 319 imposes limits on freedom of expression in relation to the search for truth, vigorous and open practical debate and the value of self-individualization. In her opinion: The hate propaganda provision raises serious questions as to whether it furthers the principles and values of social peace, individual dignity, multiculturalism, and equality. To most Canadians, the principal intent of Bill C-250 appears to be that the expression of "hurtful" words about one's sexual orientation must not be uttered; that, in effect, punishing, hurtful opinions will suppress civil liberties and truth. You are referring to the provisions in C-250 which resulted in changes to Section 318. I was referring to the provisions in C-250 which resulted in changes to Section 319. Of course religionists are opposed to the latter. Oddly, I've never heard religionists opposed to the idea of religion, race or ethnic origin being enshrined in hate legislation, only sexual orientation. Yet churches, synagogues and mosques regularly discriminate against people on the basis of religion. 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?

There is severe discrimination against Catholics and (Chinese) Buddhists in Indonesia. The country does not hae ties with Israel. The prosecution of the Bali bombings was a joke. It has many if not all of the hallmarks of a theocracy. I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity. Compared to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Indonesia is a democracy.

This is a man who represents a group that argued against a settlement and wants a trade war over the issue. Of course he argued against the settlement that Emerson got. Lumber companies are now paying more in export taxes than they did in illegal duties.

The Liberal bill that died on the order paper before the last election went a little far. In it's original form it proposed an OUNCE, that is 28 grams as the benchmark for personal possession. Is that still Liberal policy? Seems like more than a 'few grams' of marijuana to me. Currently "simple possession" is defined as possession of ANY amount under 30 grams. So if you had one gram in your possession, you would receive a permanent criminal record and potential jail sentence. Harper thinks this is the way it should be even though much of the rest of Canada does not. Nor do the other major political parties. In fact, it would not at all surprise me if half the CPC supporters on this board agreed with decriminalization. You're absolutely correct that this is not on the radar screen of most voters, myself included. But it's rather strong evidence that Harper is a so-con, not a libertarian. And Canadians tend not to vote for so-cons. Mulroney and Clark were not so-cons.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=7113 You know the advice Emerson gave Martin and Harper because a representative from BC Lumber company said Emerson gave advice to Martin? How did this guy know? David Gray is also the spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council which has negotiated with Emerson throughout the entire softwood lumber deal deliberation. Gray was there in 2006, 2005 and 2004. Emerson was the middleman and negotiator between the US lumber lobby and the Canadian lumber lobby, e.g., the Free Trade Lumber Council. If you think David Gray is a liar, you're entitled to that opinion. But I believe him.

Certainly Grewal is a joke. His instability would hurt. McVety, I don't think he is very well connected in the party. Harper is continuing to build a big tent Conservative Party. Seems like a shrinking so-con tent to me. For example, with 69% of Canadians favouring decriminalization of marijuana (2003 SES Research), and the majority of BQ, Liberal, NDP voters feeling that way and even half of Canadian Alliance voters feeling that way in 2003, why has Harper positioned himself in the so-con tent on this? Yet in November 2005, when campaigning in Vancouver, Harper felt it necessary to point out that he favoured criminal records for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Is this CPC policy or just Harper's position?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=7113

The committment to the mission of defending the corrupt, Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in Afghanistan will certainly hurt Harper's re-election prospects, particularly in Quebec and British Columbia.

No. Here is the recorded division: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...d=2215122#Div-9 EDIT: It's under Goverment Orders - Afghanistan then scroll down to DIVISON 9 Thanks for the info.

It doesn't hurt me though it might diminish how the Cons are viewed in some people's minds. Not yours though. I wonder who it would take for you to conclude the "optics" would hurt the party. Charles McVety? Gurmant Grewal?

Paul Martin rejected the deal, not Emerson. The promise was to protect seniors, which they have done. Paul Martin rejected the deal on the advice of David Emerson. Stephen Harper accepted the deal on the advice of David Emerson. And the broken promise, as everyone but you is aware, was not to tax the income trusts. But I am very pleased at your continuing valiant but futile attempts to defend Mr. Harper. I think you'd make a fine political aide to Mr. Harper and a better Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose than Darrel Reid,

I fully acknowledge this. However, I believe that Darrel Reid was probably not a good choice for Chief of Staff. He was an embarrassment to CPC when he ran in the January, 2006, election. The president of the CPC constituency association actually resigned when Reid got the CPC nomination. Is Reid really a wise political appointment for the Harper government? He was a very poor choice, the optics are nasty and it reeks of cronyism. There are hundreds of people out there more appropriate... being they have some environmental experience... and still support the CPC ideals on the topic. Why him? I couldn't explain that. It's ugly. Yes, that's my take on it. I don't really see Darrel Reid doing any harm to the environment but I think his appointment actually does harm to the CPC.

Yeah, their support of Islamic theocracies where human rights don't count if they're "contary to Islam" shows that the CPC really cares about human rights. The Islamosphere covers most of the land mass from the Southern Phillippines, through Indonesia, up through the Malay Peninsula to part of Thailand, (I don't know about Myanmar), Bangladesh, large chunks of India, Pakistan and north through the "stans" of the former USSR, through Morocco (except a PEI sized Israel), south to large portions of Nigeria, to Londonistan, the banleieus (sp) of Paris, to Malmo, Sweden, to large parts of Toronto and Windsor. Can Harper really avoid at least some dealings with the largely malodorous cast of that area? My comments dealt with Islamic theocracies, not mere contact with Islamic peoples. Not all Islamic countries are theocratic. The largest Islamic country in the world population-wise, Indonesia, is not a theocracy. Most of North Africa is not particularly theocratic. Iraq was secular but post-Saddam, they brought in an Islamic constitution.

Did Dion vote to extend the mission to Afghanistan?

I fully acknowledge this. However, I believe that Darrel Reid was probably not a good choice for Chief of Staff. He was an embarrassment to CPC when he ran in the January, 2006, election. The president of the CPC constituency association actually resigned when Reid got the CPC nomination. Is Reid really a wise political appointment for the Harper government?

The last two. Bill C-250 was about hate SPEECH. It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH VIOLENCE. The provision in the criminal code which deals with sentencing is 718.2. It was amended to include sexual orientation in 1995 by Bill C-41 "Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of the members of a group based on colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, "sexual orientation" was added to the list." Here's the source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

Ahhhh.... the fact that Harper said something about Svend Robinson's arrest for THEFT was spun as homophobia. That one was also quite open to interpretation. As for your question it was neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate behaviour. This happened before the theft. It does not surprise me that you view the comment as neither homophobic nor totally inappropriate.

It isn't necessarily either. Please provide the context... Here it is: http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192

Yes, but you were lying through your teeth when you did, which is also reprehensible and despicable. What was the lie?

True, people didn't vote CPC because they were for Kyoto. On the other hand, could they have anticipated the lame (even by CPC standards) Clean Air Act or anticipated that the former Canadian leader of Focus on the Family, an extreme religious group that does not believe in global warming, would be appointed Chief of Staff to the Environment Ministry? As reported in Christianity Today, less extreme religious groups than Focus on the Family are now being criticized by Focus on the Family for daring to suggest that there is good scientific evidence of global warming. Link: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/162005d.asp

Yeah, their support of Islamic theocracies where human rights don't count if they're "contary to Islam" shows that the CPC really cares about human rights. And your defiant ignorance regarding what a theocracy is impresses no one. 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. This rather significant clause gives the religious leaders of Afghanistan, both official and nonofficial mullahs, sway over all human rights and every action that they deem contrary to their beliefs. Perhaps this satisfies your definition of a democracy but others disagree, e.g., http://anewerworld.org/?p=40 Of course your lack of knowledge and credibility on substantive issues does not entirely surprise me after you characterized as an absolute fabrication on my part the amended article 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada. To paraphrase Article 318, it is a hate crime to kill people because of their sexual orientation. As you are perfectly aware, Mr. Harper voted against the legislation which lead to the article 318 amendment.

Of course he's a social conservative. How else do you explain his position on the decriminalization of marijuana? In 2003, SES Research reported that 69% of Canadians favoured decriminalization. In a breakdown by party support, a majority of those planning to vote Liberal, NDP or BQ supported decriminalization. Even among Canadian Alliance supporters, 50% favoured decriminalization. Harper has positioned himself among the most socially conservative 50% of former Canadian Alliance supporters who believe in criminal records and potential jail sentences for simple position of a few grams of marijuana.

No. As OBVIOUSLY (plain English, dude) written in my post I compared the others to the movement in the 60's that was much more grassroots and authentic.... I see. So in 1970 or thereabouts, all "authentic" peace movements suddenly became extinct and were replaced with "fake" Democratic peace movements. And those people who "authentically" protested the Vietnam war when Lyndon Johnson was president insincerely and hypocritically protested the Vietnam war when Richard Nixon became president. Thanks for the history lesson. It helps to explain the Republican war movement.

How about ridiculing a homosexual opposition member in parliament, as Harper did, by making a joke alluding to his sexual orientation? Is that homophobia or just totally inappropriate behaviour?