Michael Hardner

The firewall comment etc. That's not how it'll play in the east. Why is it that all of this "it's one party now" talks as soon as we start talking about a leader from the east ? I'll tell you why: because this is the reform party with a few extra gaskets under the hood. I asked the question on another board - "What Alliance policies would you be willing to compromise in the CPC ?" Over all the posts in that thread, maybe one or two posters offered SOME conditional compromises. Instead, we had the Alliance stalwarts repeating how they will not compromise this or that. etc. etc. Even if you don't fall into this very gaping hole, the Liberals will be able to point to the CPC and label it as a regional party. If the CPC points to the Liberals as a party of the east, it will only help the Liberals in the east. It's not fair. It's politics. Klein was a big Alliance hero until he spoke up on Harper's unelectability.

Harper's western separatist associations will be played up by the Liberals next election. By electing Lord, the CPC will nip all of that in the bud and open up Quebec. We all hear how Harper is intelligent, etc. I'm sure all of the eight opposing party leaders that faced Chretien were too. Is he electable is the question. Lord has won a few election as a party leader, I believe.

"As one knows the poet by his fine music, so one can recognise the liar by his rich rhythmic utterance." - Oscar Wilde I don't know who the rhythmicist is - you, Steyn or Saddam. I guess I could see Steyn on bass, Saddam on drums and you playing the spoons or some other instrument with dulled edges.

Definitely. But they have to decide first if they're a Conservative party or a western separatist party.

I am honoured to be a member of this esteemed list. Galahad, thanks for the vote. I guess you read my paper on free trade with the Czech Republic and a tax-free zone in downtown Vancouver.

Supposedly he's their ally so maybe it won't have to come to invasions.

Considering all the trouble he caused, I think we should be paying more attention to how these despots come to power, and remain in power. Often, it's the US who supports these people in order to serve some short-term interests. Musharraf, in Pakistan, is a prime example. He's (supposedly) co-operating in the search for Bin Laden, so he's off the radar. But Pakistan has engaged in torture and harassment under his undemocratic rule. The way some people go on about Saddam, you'd think he was the only world leader who tortured anyone. That being said, I'm glad Saddam is in custody and I support the effort to try him in Iraq. Trying him in Israel would be ridiculous, of course. It would only serve to needlessly aggravate Arabs, and would work against US interests in the middle East.

This seems like a made-up quote.

You could have the prospect of local by-laws (no pun intended) outlawing homosexuality in some areas, and other by-laws in cities forcing churches to adopt homosexual marriage. The religious minority in Toronto needs as much protection as the gay minority in rural Alberta.

Who's more likely to act in self-interest - thousands of ecology minded volunteers who care about the planet, or corporations whose reason for existence is profit ?

Hmmm... I'm not sure what my former adversary was referring to. Upon re-reading it in it's entirety, it seems to me that Section 15 was written to leave the door open for homosexual rights. I can understand why that was done. Trudeau knew that a time would come when homosexual rights would be supported by a large section of the population, but not enough for an ammendment to succeed. I'm changing my stand on the charter of rights. I don't think it's a good document. It says it protects individuals against 'discrimination' but doesn't put any kind of limit on what types of discrimination. I still think that gay unions deserve equal treatment in the eyes of the law. And I still think it's hysteria to say that the justices will soon be approving of dog marriage or pedophelia, but there isn't anything there saying that they can't. Nor is there anything saying they can't rule that the minimum wage must be doubled because it constitutes discrimination against the poor. I think there should be a constitutional ammendment describing exactly which groups should be protected. Otherwise, what does discrimination mean ? It's meaningless unless you say what is being discriminated against.

Yes, by all means start a drive to change the charter. I'm sure the "conservative" premiers like Charest will be all for it. As for the charter, I was under the impression that there was another clause that had the phrasing "other groups". To give you an idea of how intellectually honest I am, I was actually arguing AGAINST the Supreme Court decision until someone on another board quoted the section I'm referring to. Unfortunately, I didn't note it and that board is gone now. If you're indeed correct, that there isn't any reference to 'other' groups then I concur that the judges exceeded their authority. I still think gays deserve equal marriage, but I think that the legal process needs to be followed, and not leap frogged. Does anybody know what my former adversary may have referred to ?

Legislation was starting to be introduced on that issue around ten years ago, so I don't agree that you would have been laughed off the stage. And forgive me for laughing, but the issue of dog marriage, though it may be high on the CPC list of concerns, doesn't strike me as a serious one. Then why vote for the CPC vs the Liberals on the issue of dog marriage. How many judges have expressed interest in the dog marriage issue ? Cat marriage ? The answer is: amend the constitution. And... are judges more 'liberal' then then 50% of the population who doesn't seem bothered by this ? No. They struck down a law that wasn't compliant to the constitution. I believe the phrase that they acted on was something like "discrimination against any group". This could work in favour of conservatives groups as well. If you think it's a bad thing, electing the CPC wouldn't fix it. Changing the charter would. Right. We're on the verge of legalized pedophilia, dog marriage etc. etc. This is hysteria. And if the CPC was elected today, the charter would still stand.

Well if you truly believe that the Liberals are taking us on the road to beastiality then give yourself a vote for the new CPC. I'm sure that party will corner the vote of that sector of the Canadian populace that shares your concerns. By the way, speak out loudly and speak out often for your new party. Canadians who are curious about what they stand for will get a good sense of it from you. I'd like to see you standing outside the Eaton Centre in Toronto railing on about the Liberals' plan to introduce dog marriage. You'll earn them a vote for every passerby.

Anyone else that you wouldn't be surprised to see leave ?

Is beastiality protected under the Charter ?

You weren't surprised ? That a potential leadership candidate would defect as the campaign is getting under way ? CTV is calling this a 'serious blow' to the new CPC.

I'm sure the Liberals won't introduce the dog-marrying bill until at LEAST Martin's second term.

Churches administer sacraments, not states. A church can decide not to administer marriage to gays if it wants to. The state, though, can't discriminate. Not special, equal. It sounds like you want to legislate politeness.

I guess they should have declared war on homosexuals right after World War II. That would have nipped it in the bud right there. Honestly, don't you think it's a bit of hyperbole to declare this great country ruined because they're acknowledging gay rights ?

The system is already healthier. Martin won't be able to allow boondogges, gaffes and theft the way Chretien did. If the new CPC party convinces Canadians that it is socially neutral, then power is within its grasp.

Tongue-in-cheek. Yes.

Highly unlikely for the CPC to win. People begrudgingly voted for Chretien the last two elections, so I don't see why they wouldn't give the new boy a try. The CPC needs to focus on 2008, or whatever. What the true believers of the right don't realize yet is that they'll be as unwelcome as a hillbilly cousin once the party starts making a real pitch for the average voter. It'll be the PC party all over again.

Are you saying that you think this is an accurate poll ?

I'm mystified as to why admitted fanatics have such an influence on politics. The mainstream won't support an extreme party, so there must be compromise or failure. But compromise is impossible for fanatical types. If Prentice wins the leadership, you would have a new candidate who's somewhat socially moderate. But that's not enough for fanatics. They'll leave the party and the right wing vote will be split 3 ways...