normanchateau

Extreme religious groups like Focus on the Family view global warming as an unproven theory. They view the evidence for it as "junk science". Here's the link: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/162005d.asp Appointing the former Canadian Leader of Focus on the Family to the position of Chief of Staff, Environment Ministry, doesn't give huge confidence that the Harper government even believes in global warming.

Yes I did. And no it is not. Good post though. Thanks.

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 poll was conducted in 2003 by SES Research and showed that 69% of Canadians favour decriminalization. Here's the PDF: http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W03-T113.pdf The poll showed strong support from those who said they'd vote Liberal, BQ or NDP. Only among supporters of the Canadian Alliance was there a split with 50% supporting decriminalization and 50% opposing it. Also, a breakdown by age group showed that the only significant opposition came from those 60 and over. Harper's opposition to decriminalization puts him in the socially conservative, anti-libertarian half of even Canadian Alliance supporters. Yet this is the man who Conservatives think can appeal to mainstream Canada. Do you think that if the Conservatives commissioned SES Research to conduct a poll, we should discount the results because the Conservatives commissioned it? That's what you seem to be saying. In any event, the SES results are consistent with those of Decima (2003) and Ipsos-Reid (2005). More than 30,000 Canadians are charged with simple possession annually. About 5% of charges result in jail sentences. Simple possession refers to having less than 30 grams. Today approximately 1.5 million Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. Most Canadians, most Liberal supporters, most NDP supporters, most BQ supporters and probably at least half of Conservative supporters do not believe that simple possession should result in a permanent criminal record. Is the majority always right? No. But what special knowledge does Harper possess that compels him to ignore data-based evidence and support permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for possession of a few grams of marijuana? And if this were the 1920's when marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal, what would Harper's position then be? Given that he's a social conservative, I suspect he'd support the 1920's status quo. Or do you think he'd be campaigning for the legalization of alcohol?

You're a tough one to read Normie. I never know when you are mocking rabid Harper loathers and when you are actually being a Harper loather. Fair comment Ricki. I have been known to do both, not to mention mocking myself. It all depends on whether the right or left cerebral hemisphere is dominant at that particular moment.

Sure they are... And Stephen Harper is not a social conservative and Afghanistan is a democracy, not a theocracy. And the softwood lumber deal that Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson rejected was a bad deal and the softwood lumber deal that Conservative Cabinet Minister David Emerson accepted is evidence of Harper's brilliance on economic issues. And the tax on income trusts is not a broken promise.

I think you mean hyperbole. Hypobole means precisely the opposite. I have never accused Harper of approving of gay bashing including killing of gays. Such an accusation would indeed be reprehensible and despicable. I have, however, pointed out that he voted against legislation which made it a hate crime to kill people based on their sexual orientation. I have never suggested that he voted against this legislation because he approves of such criminal behaviour. Is he a homophobe? I suppose you and I could look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Some would argue that wanting to take away a lesbian's right to marry suggests homophobia. Others would disagree. Some would argue that voting against making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime suggests homophobia. Some would disagree. Some would argue that the homophobic comments Stephen Harper made in Parliament about Svend Robinson (Harper later apologized for these comments) suggest homophobia. Some would disagree and defend those comments as harmless humour just as Peter MacKay's comments were defended by some as not being sexist.

That would be a difficult task. It's hard to argue that Canadians should die for an Islamic fundamentalist conservative theocracy in which human rights cannot "be contrary to Islam". That's clearly stated in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and gives the corrupt Karzai regime and its mullahs the right to imprison blasphemers and execute those who convert to Christianity. We all support our brave troops. But it's difficult to rationalize support for a corrupt theocracy whose parliament includes drug smugglers, warlords, convicted criminals, human rights violators and Islamic fanatics.

So you believe the poorest among us should cover the costs for these Conservative initiatives? Harper did what was politically expedient. If he raised the personal income tax rate of those earning the most, there'd be a national outcry as loud as the one we heard from investors when the Cons broke their promise on income trusts. But when he raised the personal income tax rate of those earning the least on July 1st, it was not even a front page story. The media were silent. Those who earn the least are a relatively powerless group in this country and Harper had little to lose by taxing them further. Most don't vote for him anyway. It is shameful and despicable that he choose to tax these poor people when Canada has a multibillion dollar surplus. I predict that in February when the Cons deliver their next budget, they'll lower the personal income tax rate of those who earn the least. Even Harper by now must realize that the "optics" on this don't help the Cons. Poor Ricki Bobbi had to twist himself into a pretzel to rationalize this one, e.g., the Cons needed the money to pay for the transit credit, textbook credit, ad nauseam. As if there were no better source of revenue for this than raising the taxes on those who earn the least. No wonder Preston Manning removed Stephen Harper as Reform finance critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a professional economist who believes that cutting personal income tax rates stimulates the economy.

Good for the Liberals and NDP. They promised they'd support legislation to stiffen jail terms for gun crimes and they've delivered.

KK, did you know that under your name, just above the five blue boxes in the left hand column, it reads "Physcotic Werewolf"? Is that like a psychotic werewolf on drugs?

Do show evidence of the majority of Canadians supporting decriminalization? http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/364/canada.shtml

That is the Martin flipflop on SSM you are talking about? Isn't it? No doubt about it. The same criticism can be levelled at Martin for his flipflop on SSM.

As well as a large proportion of democrats. Yes, many Democrats would agree and no doubt so would some Liberals. But enough Liberals, NDP and BQ members supported the decriminalization legislation which is essentially liberetarian. And most Canadians support decriminalization. But Harper continues to oppose it which is consistent with his social conservatism.

Times change. People change their minds. I agree. Even Harper flipflopped completely on Medicare. For years he opposed it but suddenly, in April, 2005, he favoured it. In 2003, he said the Canada Health Act should be scrapped. In 2001, he urged Alberta to drop out of Medicare. Here's the link: http://www.tommydouglas.ca/research/200504 The question remains whether the flipflop was sincere or was it a policy change essential to getting elected. I suspect the latter but I could be wrong.

Fair enough. It could be that the details are still being worked on. China and Canada are both important for each other's economic future. A meeting of some kind will take place... I'm confident a meeting will take place as well. And when I said maybe this and maybe that in my previous post, I was merely joking. In retrospect, I should have added smiley faces.

A libertarian? You must be kidding. Anyone who thinks that a teenager should have a permanent criminal record and potential jail sentence for possession of as little as a few grams of marijuana is hardly a libertarian. A majority of Canadians favour the decriminalization of marijuana. The Liberals had a decriminalization bill in place which never made it through because they lost the January election. Both the NDP and BQ favoured the bill but Harper stated publicly that he favoured the continued criminalization of this substance. Libertarian?? What a joke. His zero tolerance policy on this substance mirrors that of George Bush and the Republicans.

Seems unlikely. Theocracies like the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan whose constitution states that the Koran reigns supreme routinely violate human rights. Powerful mullahs can over-ride any human rights if those rights are, as stated in the Afghan constitution, "contrary to Islam." For example, they imprison people for blasphemy and sentence people to death for converting to Christianity. The Karzai government has done both yet Harper not only invites Karzai to Canada but is willing to sacrifice Canadians for that country.

The judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the killer(s) knew that the victim was homosexual. I don't believe people should be convicted of a crime if there is insufficient evidence.

Maybe they're trying to show that their foreign policy is independent of that of the US. Maybe they're more right-wing than the Bush administration. Maybe they think that Taiwan is the "real" China. Maybe they worry that the Canadian softwood lumber industry will start selling lumber at a profit to China rather than selling it at a loss to the US. Maybe they don't want to do business with godless atheists.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!! THEIR ARE CURRENTLY 24 STATES WHICH HAVE HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION WHICH INCLUDES ATTACKING A PERSON BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION A HATE CRIME. Sorry, what I meant is that there is no federal US legislation declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime.

I think Harper will last at least 13 months. In February, 2007, the Conservatives will release a budget which they hope will buy them sufficient votes. There'll be tax cuts and handouts to special interest groups. I predict they'll reduce the personal income tax rate on those who earn the least. This past July they stupidly raised it. Come February, they'll reduce it. I also predict that they'll introduce the capital gains tax rollover. They promised it in the last election and February would be a good time to deliver it. It'll please those who were angered by their broken promise on the income trusts. Unfortunately for Harper, the best he can hope for is another minority government since a majority of Canadians will never vote for a socially conservative, religious extremist no matter how much of their own money he showers on them. So in spring, whether Harper loses to the Liberals or barely squeaks out another minority, the Conservatives will finally give him the boot and replace him with a fiscal consrervative who is not a social conservative.

This is true. There is no legislation in the US declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. Thus, Bush could not have voted against the legislation as Harper did.

Bullfeathers on both counts!! Have you forgotten that Paul Martin permanently ended the political career of anti-American Carolyn Parrish by removing her from the Liberal caucus? What has Stephen Harper obtained from the US that demonstrates his approach has been more effective? He failed to get the U.S. to change their policy on passports. And Conservative cabinet minister Emerson wasn't able to get a significantly better softwood lumber deal than Liberal cabinet minister Emerson.

Because it as much as it tries to pretend, it is not a grassroots based spontaneous protest movement. It is a tool of whatever opposing party is in the country in question - That's what's 'evil' about it. It lies as much as anyone. "Peace" really has nothing to do with it. So what you're saying is that the U.S. peace movement currently is nothing more than partisan Democrats out to undermine Republicans. How about the U.S. peace movement protesting the Vietnam War when Lyndon Johnson was President? Are you saying that the Republicans were behind those protests?