noahbody

The legislation is more than that clause. It also includes the following: "319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; ( 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; © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

Would you say that repeatedly referring to the Liberals as corrupt is rational criticism or irrational hatred? It's rational hatred.

It'll be Tobin, Manly or McKenna. Tobin most likely.

Putting people in prison isn't quite the same as merely discriminating or being intolerant of homosexuality. Should merely discriminating or being intolerant of homosexuality be considered a hate crime, then?

Which accusation is false? Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. Here are your words: "In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals." This is like saying the Liberal Party voted against giving any more assistance to natives since they voted against the budget. The Liberal Party hates natives.

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up. Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. This part of the bill was already covered by the crimal code. The objection to the bill had to do with free speech and religious rights. This is why your accusation is false. Please apologize at once. "Counselling an Offence (Section 22 Criminal Code) 1. It is illegal to advocate violence against anyone in Canada. Section 22 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to counsel, procure, solicit or incite people to commit assaults or other offences, whether or not the offences are actually committed. Moreover, under Section 810 of the Criminal Code or common law authority to exercise preventive justice, a judge can require someone who incites others to commit assaults or property damage to enter into a recognizance with conditions that will put an end to the counselling activity. Those who refuse to sign such a recognizance can be jailed, and if they violate the conditions imposed by the judge they can be arrested and charged. "

Would you call opposing embryonic stem cell research evidence of social conservatism? Is that something on his hidden agenda? Got a quote?

They have the option of keeping the old one. All's good.

My bet would be on Tobin. My second guess would be Manly. Third guess: McKenna. All three would be good leaders, I think. I have Bob Rae listed right after Finnegan from the Mr. Dressup show. Harper is a good leader too. He's not afraid to put the country ahead of his own popularity or the popularity of his party. This quality, though admirable, likely won't ever win him a majority. Just the other week he saved the country $10-20 billion, yet he was only criticized for thumbing Kyoto. I assume you meant 'serious damage to the Liberal party.' My worry is that he could possibly become PM. We'd be trading our billions for credits while he passionately promoted the destruction of our resource-based economy in order to save the planet.

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up.

I'll debate that with you. Just what do you consider false promises? As far as your comment about it being "opportunist and short-sighted vote buying," I'd say that is a better characteristic of the Atlantic Accord. The promise of the Accord was made on the campaign trail to buy votes and counter Harper's stance that the Atlantic provices deserved a better deal. Was the Atlantic Accord short-sighted? Apparently. Agree? The hatred of Harper by the Atlantic provinces over this issue is a little ironic in that Harper, in opposition, was actually the catalyst behind the Atlantic Accord as well.

Great Scott Marty, we've travelled back to the year 1981! 1981? The statemet reminded me of something that would be said before the 82 constitutional act. But not after... why? The Queen is no longer driving the bus.

Great Scott Marty, we've travelled back to the year 1981! 1981? The statemet reminded me of something that would be said before the 82 constitutional act.

Great Scott Marty, we've travelled back to the year 1981!

If this is the beef, I'd say include a mulligan clause whereby if the province begins to regret its choice, it has the one-time option to switch. That should at least give them peace of mind.

Nice work if you can get it. And certainly more than Manning spent on suits. He pulled it out of thin air. The words "I'm guessing" and the 11 cents were intended to make this obvious to readers.

Harper used to say that having the party pay for things like this was wrong (and I"m sure he'd agree it's just as wrong for taxpayers to pick up the tab). Now, apparently, he seems to think it's perfectly acceptable. So, the question is, was he lying when he said that the party/taxpayers shouldn't pick up the tab for things like this? Or was he telling the truth, in which case he should be criticizing himself now? Some of you should really invest in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Stephen Harper." Harper is a merit-driven person. He believes respect should be gained on the basis of policy, effort and achievement; not by the clothes they wear or their hairstyle. Was he lying when he objected to Manning's clothing budget? No. He stated his belief. He didin't believe it was important. Why does he have a stylist now? He's learned image plays a greater role in the political game than he'd like.

All the fawning aside, it still means Harper intends on doing nothing as he states here. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070608/..._harper_climate It doesn't state he intends to do nothing.

It's actually missle defence. Are you against missle defence, which serves as a deterrent to war? Guess you're pro-war then. Regardless, do have a link that supports Harper siding with this? CBC reported Harper was secretly supporting the missle defence. I assume by saying "secretly" they have no idea if he is or isn't and they're making up news again.

Stating "every racist is a conservative" an excellent example of bigotry. Agree? It'd be bigotry if I'd said every conservative is a racist because I'd be ascribing a negative trait to all the followers of an ideology. But as it stands, I don't see the bigotry in my statement. There's bigotry in the statement because of the word "every."

No. "In his ruling, Brownback said the war crimes tribunal lacked jurisdiction to try Khadr because the U.S. government had made no determination whether the Canadian was an “unlawful enemy combatant” - a finding required by Congress to proceed with the case."

Stating "every racist is a conservative" an excellent example of bigotry. Agree?

Okay, now it has been a while since math class but..... That number doesn't jump out at me as being off by a lot. Approximately 10 % of the population. 30,000 million = 30 billion

Positioning Canada away from false commitment of the previous government was the only for Canada's voice to be relevant. How do you feel about the Chretien government signing the accord with no intention of meeting the targets?

Yes, that must be his hidden agenda. Did you notice that program was brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada. Canada's sacred cow was ranked 30th. Evil Harper doesn't have to destroy it, he can just let it self-destruct with the aid of the aging population. Implying that Harper wants to bring in the American system is a false statement. More private involvement (our system is already a combination of private and public care) resembles some of the European models (ranked better than Canada) and in no way suggests ending universal access.