scribblet

Sorry I couldn't come up with something bashing Harper and the CPC but this is a change.. Personally I hope this doesn't happen, but legally, now the legal definition of marriage is changed how an they stop this.. as long as minors are protected ! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home First decriminalization, then plural marriages March 23, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT British Columbia has charged two fundamentalist Mormon men with violating the Criminal Code provision against polygamy. The defendants will argue "God made me do it," claiming their practice of polygamy is part of the religious freedom guaranteed by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the Charter also says all rights are subject "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Many other "free and democratic" societies, including the United States and many European countries, have criminalized polygamy, and their courts have always upheld such laws against legal challenge. What the U.S. Supreme Court said in its 1878 Reynolds decision is still compelling: Religious freedom means the state cannot punish people for religious opinions, but it can certainly regulate secular institutions such as marriage. The justification for prohibiting polygamy is that it leads to treating women and children as chattels and undermines the legal equality required to make democracy functional. Nonetheless, Canadian courts may strike down Section 293 of the Criminal Code over the alleged conflict with religious liberty. One might think it hardly matters. Fundamentalist Mormons, after all, have flagrantly flouted the law for 50 years, so a failure to convict will just affirm the status quo. But it is not that simple. Decriminalizing polygamy will make it impossible to maintain immigration regulations designed to prevent polygamous men from bringing in more than one wife. Extra spouses sometimes get in by concealing their marital status or by virtue of extraordinary circumstances. But, basically, the policy is clear: Check your extra wives at the door. As Queen's University law professor Nicholas Bala has pointed out, rescinding that policy would make Canada the only country in the world to welcome polygamous immigrants - an immigration magnet for polygamists from Africa and the Middle East as well as fundamentalist Mormons escaping prosecution in the United States. Related Articles It is also predictable that newly arrived polygamists would join with those already in the country in litigation to advance the cause of polygamy. cont...

Steven Fletcher, minister of state for democratic reform, intends to reintroduce a bill that would make it impossible for politicians to rely on hefty loans from wealthy individuals to finance their campaigns. Sounds like a plan !! http://www.commandnews.com/fpweb/fp.dll/...6LNRVK1O3yaSdwN Tories to turn off taps on political loans (Political-Loans-Refor) The Canadian Press Mar 11 16:10

Sure, I'll believe it, thousands wouldn't LOL

Agreed, but it's fun reading the spin and speculation - no facts mind you, just speculation.

they did cut spending, nobody liked it, remember the art cuts for one... damned if they do and damned if they don't

Yeah, but the Liberals and NDP want Harper to spend more !

I don't like the idea of deficits either, so does this mean they shouldn't spend anything, no stimulus package at all? Maybe just reduce taxes huh

So I guess you Liberals don't want the gov't to spend anything, keep the status quo?

Exactly, sometimes I think this board has amalgamated with Rabble or something - Yikes

Stockwell Day aside, there is no such Northern Association, or if there is there is NO proof that Harper is or was a member. Oh yes, our friends at 'The Canadian National ' Newspaper, or rather the Nationalist Canadian Website, which bills itself as the 'socially progressive, cross-cultural national news source'- 'Progressive' apparently being a synonym for 'pretentious'.... but lacking any coherent 'progressive' policy doctrine, spend 99.9% of their time denouncing those they see as 'enemies of the people'. - a real hoot, but not based on any reality. They try to isolate themselves by using qualifiers like 'apparently', and 'alleged', etc. with the 'source' being a book by some guy- Trevor Harrison written in 1996 about Reform. The author of the smear piece is one Peter Trembley, I couldn't find anything else on him, but did find pieces on the same site denouncing Paul Martin, Iggy, & Jack Layton as enemies of the people/ traitors to the country for this and that perceived lack of correct progressiveness. Somehow they even manage to denounce both the Global Warming Alarmists and Sceptics for both being fronts of the evil corporate forces of globalization.. and so on, not worth reading further. Their 'progressive' dark fears seem to be guided by some unfounded belief that Harper, and all, 'right-wing' politicians, are guided by some secret desires to resurrect the third Reich. booga booga

Stockwell Day is very active and has actually been a very good MP, his religious views do not impact on his abilities as an MP. If Stephen Harper believes the same thing he keeps it pretty quiet, so I'm not sure how anyone would know that, perhaps some proof? Certainly there has been no impact on anything he has done; these sneaky insinuations are fortunately seen for what they are, malicious character assassination. The same applies to that one book which is no proof whatsoever of any association with some shadowy group that we don't even know actually exists - we should fear more those who like to use this type of nefarious innuendo to manufacture fear and doubt - ditto for the religious crap, more drive by smears. I have to wonder why people are so concerned with Day and Harper's beliefs but don't seem to mind Prime Ministers who are part of a religion which believes in transubstantiation, virgin births and the infallibility of an elected Pope, to mention a few. (not offense to Catholics, just making a point)

suspicions confirmed: a scathing rebuttal http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/coons-...t-rebuttal.html and btw, no mention of Stephen Harper being on this so called list

Maybe someone could provide a credible source and proof that A) this organization actually exists, that Harper is or was actually a member and C) proof that this is no more than malicious innuendo and a smear job.

Much like the anti Harper obsession on here, it reminds of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, only this is Harper Derangement Syndrome LOL Layton is simply out to obstruct legislation any way he can, he is mad for power or just plain mad. Why would anyone respect a leader who flat out says he will vote against the budget no matter what's in it, I think Layton has lost his moral compass.

I think Bob Rae would be good in Foreign Affairs. Trudeau jr. the sheeples would vote for him simply because of the name.

I don't get it, how can you be a muslim of 'other religions' Muslims of other religions Other religions of muslims what does it mean

Wow, now that is rabid zealotry to say the least. I can't imagine wishing nukes on any nation, even 'Palestine'

wow, good for Iggy, he's taking the moral ground here and not bowing down to propaganda. I'm favourably impressed.

Good, I hope that applies to Conservatives also

Say it isn't so, anti semites and racism infesting the Liberal ranks, gee sounds like Daily Kos http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...nd-liblogs.aspx Kelly McParland: Liberals need to deal with fruitcakes in the ranks

Why not, his employer obviously made a good offer...

He won't get anywhere, the best he can do is put forward a private member's bill which Harper won't sign. He does of course have a right to a voice in a democracy, let us hope that there are not enough of such voices to bring in legislation. Late term abortions are not performed in Canada, no doctor will do them, not even Morgentellar. The procedure termed as 'partial birth abortion' is never performed in Canada either. Although I think it can be done here if there major congenital malformations.

Absolutely !!! What’s a proportionate response, Israel continually lobbing rockets into Palestine on a daily basis, or, a proportionate response to Palestine's wish of the complete elimination of Israel. In that case Israel's proportionate response would be complete elimination of Palestine.

Doesn't that also go for non Christians or atheists et al, they want their views pushed on the others. It's all a matter of everyone having a voice, and the gov't trying to please everyone. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all the time.