kimmy
-
Posts
11,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by kimmy
-
-
Thank you Kimmy. A very informative post entirely disposing of the notion that the CHP is anything but a rabid bunch of extreme theocrats.
Thanks
-kimmy
-
Yay! Another example of how much cooler Paul Martin is than Jean Chretien!
-kimmy
-
I just don't understand what your point is.
Are you saying that whistleblower legislation is another example of Paul Martin being mean to the public service?
Or are you saying that now that there is whistleblower legislation, the public service will be all fixed and there is no need to hold people accountable for the gross mismanagement of the past few years? I strongly disagree. Whistleblower legislation is only one step in making things more accountable.
What do Ken Lay or Martha Stewart have to do with the public service in Canada? Are you saying that because Martha and the Enron Guy lied and cheated, it is ok for people in the public service to lie, cheat, or mismanage public money? Sorry, I just don't see your point.
Martha Stewart and Ken Lay are facing criminal charges for what they did. If people involved in Ad-Scam participated in fraud of millions of dollars of tax money, they should face criminal charges too.
This is our tax money! It is supposed to be used for roads and hospital beds and schools and helping poor people. It is just not acceptible that so much of it has been lost, wasted, or worst of all frauded into friends' businesses over the past few years. That money is supposed to be used to make lives better for all Canadians.
-kimmy
-
That is huge sweeping generalization you are making about how many, is it 160,000 people? And don't forget the 10,000 people that administer 3 hospitals in the Ottawa area.
I am not making a sweeping generalization about public service employees! As I said earlier, it is probably a case of a few bad apples ruining things for the whole bunch.
And, unfortunately, when people at the top screw up, everybody in the organization pays for it. (I know this, because my dad used to work at Nortel.
)But no matter what the case, changes still had to be made. The job they were doing was just not acceptable.
Do we even know whether these issues were political or bureaucratic?Quite obviously some of them are bureaucratic. Like, I don't think the Minister of Defence told his staffers to spend $160 million on HP gear without actually getting the stuff they paid for. I don't think there was political direction in the HRDC screw-up. It was a case of people just not bother to follow procedures. We still don't know for sure if there was political direction in the sponsorship program, but we do know for sure that the bureaucracy was involved... we also don't know yet about the gun registry. It was either corruption or incompetence that made costs spiral out of control, and maybe both! We have not yet yeard a good explanation of what went wrong, but the RCMP has laid charges in connection with some of the money that went into the gun registry.
What about it? I think it's a good idea, although I saw an expert interviewed who said that it won't actually make a difference.What about the whistleblower legislation as well?There used to be at one time something called ministerial responsibility. What has happened to that end of things? It seems that the a little game is played when a minister's department gets into trouble, the minister gets shifted to another department, and then says they cannot comment on their previous department. Excuse me!Well, I think it would be nice if more politicians were stand-up people.
But that doesn't let the whole civil service off the hook. A minister, especially one who can get shuffled in and out of a portfolio at the drop of a hat, can't be expected to know an organization of thousands of people from top to bottom. There has to be delegation inside an organization that big. Managers there have to do their job, and make sure the employees are following procedures. If the managers within the public service had been doing their job, Sheila Fraser wouldn't have had much to write about.-kimmy :angry:
-
Ok, why don't we have a look at this?
http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/partyPolicy6.htm
* They want to criminalize abortion (isn't this what got Cheryl Gallant labeled an extremist?) and they'd have to use the Notwithstanding clause to do it (isn't that what got Randy White labeled an extremist?)
* their stance on reproductive technologies is a little beyond mainstream...
Forms of reproductive technology and methods of birth control leading to abortion, non-therapeutic experimentation, and assaults on the fidelity of the husband/wife relationship, are contrary to our principles (e.g. embryo experimentation, in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination by donor, surrogate motherhood, I.V.F. and insemination of lesbians).They'd ban artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and the "morning after" pill.
* what about gay rights?
2. THE FAMILYWe affirm that the family is a God-ordained institution and the fundamental, indispensable basis of human society (1); that it consists of a man and woman lawfully wedded in a secure family home where natural or adopted children can be lovingly nurtur ed to maturity (2). We affirm that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is God-ordained as the foundation of the family (3), and that any other form of union whatsoever is Biblically prohibited (4). We believe that widespread violation of these prohibition s inevitably leads towards moral collapse and social disintegration.
...no gay marriages, for sure.
3. SEXUAL ABERRATIONSIt should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups (1).
...no legal protection for gays, either.
10. NATIONAL GUIDELINESSafeguards and disincentives should be in place, at the federal level if necessary, to discourage any publicly-funded institution from openly teaching neutral or positive attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, homosexuality, extr a-marital sex, the occult, or any political ideology which favors world government at the expense of national sovereignty.
...and no saying anything nice about gays in public schools, either. There will be book-burnings, and the books being burned will be "Susie has Two Mommies".
* and forget about adults being able to make up their own minds about erotica...
We support enactment and enforcement of legislation to combat the moral blight of pornography in our land. We affirm that erotic materials give a false impression of love and sexuality; glamorize promiscuity by depicting aberrant sexual behavior; promote degrading acts such as bestiality, perversion, cruelty, and homosexuality as though they were the norm; create a thirst for increasingly offensive materials; and may incite one to harm others in an attempt to satisfy perverted fantasies that have been aroused through prolonged involvement with erotica. If hard-core pornography is readily accessible to some, it will inevitably be available to all, and since children must be shielded from pornography during their formative years, we advocate stringent criteria and penalties pursuant to the import, production, sale, and distribution of obscene materials.* they'd reinstitute capital punishment...
The law should provide for justice which includes capital punishment for those who commit first-degree, premeditated murder.* they'd send convicts to Bible-School...
6.8.3 REHABILITATIONWe believe it self-evident that the secular humanistic program of psychological and psychiatric treatment has failed, and assert that rehabilitation based on Christian principles, both in prison and on parole, should be given pre-eminence.
I guess it depends on how you define extremist... but if the Conservatives were extremists in the views of most Canadians, then Christian Heritage is way off the charts.
-kimmy
-
Taft wrote about being appalled by the amount of public money spent in subsidizing an industry... now 7 years after he wrote his article, Alberta's entire debt is on the brink of being paid off, almost entirely thanks to the industry that money was given to.
I guess you could look at it as corporate welfare or whatever, or you could look at it as an investment that has paid off. Maybe it just depends on where you live.
Subsidizing is not promoting.I think you're mistaken!
(ask a Bombardier executive for a more detailed explanation )Industries all over Canada have received (and still receive) help in the form of tax breaks, low interest loans, grants, and other types of indirect help from all levels of government. In some cases (agriculture, fisheries, shipbuilding) it is barely keeping heads above water. In other cases it is with the hope that the industry will grow and be an asset and produce benefits that are more than worth the expense. In the case of Alberta's oil industry, the combination of the NEP and low oil prices caused literally hundreds of thousands of jobs to leave the province during the period Taft wrote about. I don't think that anybody can question how important getting the oil industry working again has been to Alberta's current prosperity, and so I don't think you can argue that the money put into it during that period was a bad decision.
Alberta's financial outlook is rosy... BC and Saskatchewan are currently classified as "Have Not" provinces, right? Maybe BC and Saskatchewan should look into boosting their energy industries with some "corporate welfare". It might pay off bigtime for them down the road!
-kimmy
-
If public service workers are upset that they are under a magnifying glass, maybe they should think about why. They brought it on themselves!
It is hard to have much sympathy after the string of disasters the public service has produced.
Others suggest it is unfair to blame Alcock; that Martin himself cast a shadow on the public service when, instead of defending public servants following Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's report on sponsorship, he talked about cronyism and corruption and named a flurry of inquiries.Oh boo hoo!
I can't imagine why anybody would expect the Prime Minister to stick up for people who have been, essentially, caught red-handed laundering money. How can anybody feel sorry for these people?
And the sponsorship scandal is not the only one, just the most famous. Over the past few years there have several others!
-HRDC accounting practices lose track of a billion dollars
-the Radwanski affair
-paid $160 million to Hewlett-Packard for stuff that was apparently never received
-gun registry costs went completely out of control
We trust the public service to use our tax money to the most benefit for Canadians! And they have let us down several times in the past few years. I do not think it is unfair to expect better...
They fear the effect of the public inquiry into sponsorship, headed by Judge John H. Gomery, will be as draining, time-consuming and embittering for the senior public service as the Somalia Inquiry was for the Canadian military.Since the Somalia inquiry hurt people's feelings and made them feel stressed out, it probably shouldn't have been done
Maybe Canada's public service was just a big happy family before, but obviously some people were just a little too comfortable with their positions. Maybe it is just a few bad apples who ruined everything for the whole bunch, but whatever the case it is obvious that there needed to be some changes. If the changes have been handled badly, then that is unfortunate. And if the changes have hurt peoples feelings then that is sad as well, but I can't think of any job that doesn't have some accountability and expectations of performance and consequences if those aren't met.
-kimmy
-
What Was That All About?In the end, what was the 2004 election about?
Oh, for the major parties it was all about power, of course; but what about the voters? What was in their minds?
Mostly fear.
Many were afraid Stephen Harper had a "hidden agenda"; the real conservatives in his own party -- the ones he hadn't kicked out for telling the truth -- were equally afraid that he didn't.
Either way, the Liberal machine worked hard to feed that fear. And Canadians swallowed the bait and voted from fear.
The CHP take on the election.
I think the CHP will receive much more support now that the so-cons are going to be relegated to the back burners of the Cons party as the Cons try to appear MODERATE.
Of course! Canadians, leery of supporting a party they fear might have a hidden extremist agenda, will flock to support a party they *know* has an extremist agenda.
-kimmy
-
I'm surprised there has been so little talk about Martin's future.
Does he really have one as leader of the Liberals?
Liberals have gone from suggesting Martin would obtain 250 seats to a minority government. and Liberals are happy about that. Are they nuts?
Isn't it time they threw the bum out?
I hope that Martin doesn't give in.
I am just very happy that the Chretien era is finally over. I think that Chretien was more interested in winning fights than about doing what was best.
I really do think that Paul Martin is sincere about wanting to do things different. I like that he ihas already been to the west several times to meet with real people in Alberta and BC. Chretien never came west except to go skiing (or pepper-spray protesters.
)I am wondering about the people who thought the Liberals would make 250 seats. What were they smoking?? After the string of problems they had (most of which are messes that Chretien left for Paul Martin to fix) I think the Liberals did very well in this election. Considering how mad people were about the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals could have been sunk. But they weren't and they pulled it together.
Paul Martin did the right thing when Sheila Fraser's report came out. The public inquiry has generated negative press for the Liberals, but Martin went ahead with it anyway. I think that is a good sign of his character. (and I think the amount of friction it has caused within his party speaks poorly for the people who are opposing him on it.) I hope that Paul Martin continues to be prime minister and that he continues to do things different. I am looking forward to the Paul Martin era!
-kimmy
-
(does anybody who read that article really think that the writer was really talking about Blackberries?)
I think that it is just a fact of life. Maybe life used to be different in the past, but now everything happens fast. Instant communications, instant video, instant coverage. Anything that happens anywhere can be on your TV or on the Internet within minutes. People are overloaded with information, and they are becoming trained to assess information in the blink of an eye to decide whether it is important to them or not. That is why politicians speak in soundbites now instead of talking in ideas. They know that the evening news doesn't have time for ideas, just soundbites. So they give them soundbites. Did everybody notice that Team Martin adopted Dubya Bush's idea of putting their messages on the backdrops behind Martin as he was speaking? Even if you change the channel without listening to what Martin is saying, you still get his message- "Shorter Waiting Times" for instance. They are all adapting their styles to instant information. And I think the article is saying that we are too focused on what's immediate and what's eye-grabby and not paying enough attention to real substance anymore. It is just how things happen now.
-kimmy
-
Oh really!
I think that if you looked around you could find an equally worrying story about an ecological horror-story in any province or territory in Canada. Industrial sludge poisoning lakes and rivers in Ontario, raw sewage being dumped into the sea right outside Victoria and Halifax, toxic mine waste being poured right into the ground in the Western Arctic, etc.
And although it is upsetting to read about these sorts of incidents, they don't actually say a lot about the way each jurisdiction is taking care of its environment as a whole.
Qualitative is different from quantitative. If you want to make some kind of assessment over some place's environmental policies, you need some quantitative information.
-kimmy
-
War is business, big business. If there were no financial profits to be made on war, we would not have war.
Can anyone really argue this one? Without big business, the US would not be able to engage in war. Or, do people believe that Bush is so noble as to be concerned primarily about morality? If so, I am sure that there are many other nations without oil that would like to be "liberated".
I think I can argue with that one!
I don't think China or the former Soviet Union had any big business, but I think pretty obviously their ability to participate in a war would have been very formidable, if it had been called upon. Iran fought in a war against Iraq for many years, and I don't think Iran has any big business to speak of. If you look back through history I think you will find that wars predate big business by many years.
I think the only requirement to have a war is two groups of people with different opinions, access to weapons, and short tempers. Access to weapons might mean big business to build them, but it could also mean state-controlled means of production (like China) or a government/ruler with the financial resources to purchase weapons. It might even just mean a supply of rocks to throw and sticks to swing.
-kimmy
-
I know there are supposedly no legal restrictions of French in British Columbia however the Trans Canada Highway is financed by the feds. Even federal buildings in Vancouver have bilingual plaques and/or signage.
Actually the more I think about it the more miffed I am be coming about the lack of French (read: bilingual) signage.
So in BC we have de facto eliminated French. BRILLIANT!
I remember before I moved out to Canada's left coast, hearing about the CRTC forcing the cable networks in BC to carry one French channel and the ensuing anti-French (there is no other way to describe it) diatribes.
I think the federales have let us down but not insisting on bilingual highway signs across Canada.
I guess I can't write Tony Valeri any more to find out the reasons why the francophone community hors du Quebec is being descriminated against bigtime, especially by those who are supposed to protect their minority rights, our federal government.
I have to ask...
...does "Kamloops 394" mean anything different in French than in English? Aren't big red octagons and inverted triangles universally recognized symbols? Does it take much imagination to figure out what
"Maximum
90"
means?
And it seems to me that last time I was on a highway in BC, I think most informational signs were in Pictographs, not English or French.
It seems like somebody looking too hard to find an issue. I can't imagine the traffic signage being an obstacle to anyone, even someone who can't read either official language. If I was a BC motorist, of either language, I'd be a lot more concerned about the hair-raising state of the Trans-Canada Highway outside Golden-- driving off a cliff by accident will "eliminate" Francophones (or Anglos) more permanently than the highway signs
I can't vouch for BC but I know that even here in the heart of Neckberta, a parent can sent their child to school from preschool all the way to university graduation in French. Isn't that what is really important when it comes to language rights?
-kimmy
-
From 1986 to 1995, the period when the Alberta government faced its toughest economic constraints, its spending on economic development (grants, tax breaks, loan guarantees, programs, and so on) exceeded
$20 billion, a sum unrivalled by any other province. In fact, far more has been spent on the "corporate welfare" than on income support for the poor (or "welfare," as it is commonly called) totalled $608 million, less than half the amount spent on the category called "industrial development."
In 1987 Alberta spent 11% above the national average on health care, and over 600% above average on industrial development. That was also when the Province began staggering into debt. In fact, in the six fiscal years from 1986/87 to 1991-91, when Alberta was running massive annual deficits, spending on industrial development exceeded the deficit in three of those years, and was close to the size of the deficit in the other three years.
...
Alberta's private subsidies are even more startling when compared to the amount collected in corporate income taxes. From 1986/87 to 1992/93, all corporate income taxes paid to the Alberta government totalled $4.64 billion (not including taxes paid by family farmers). The total cost of spending on industrial development (not including the $5.6 billion in agricultural subsidies) was $9.97 billion.
This means that in direct revenues and expenditures, the corporate sector in Alberta was a net drain on the provincial taxpayer of $5.3 billion form 1986/87 to 1992/93, the very period Alberta's debt increased so rapidly.
...
Alberta produces about 5 times as much petroleum as Saskatchewan does.
In total, the Alberta government earns roughly 8 times as much as Saskatchewan in petroleum revenues. In most years the Saskatchewan government spends between $10 million and $20 million to support this industry. In contrast, Alberta government spent anywhere from $430 million to over $700 million on the energy sector from 1989 to 1993, and much more in the years before. For an industry that provides 8 times the revenue as Saskatchewan's, Alberta is providing 20 to 70 times the subsidies!
-Taft, 1997
So, what this Taft person is saying is that when times were tough, Alberta's government spent money to try to stimulate the economy?
Isn't that what they call "Keynesian economics"? Let me know if I'm wrong on that (Alberta public school education
) Governments should save money when times are good, and spend money during tough times to try to stimulate the economy, isn't that the idea? I was pretty young at the time but I do know that Alberta's economy was not very good during that time. And I know that much of Alberta's oil production capacity was lost during the NEP years, which are just before the years "Taft" compiled these statistics about subsidies for. It looks like the Alberta government was spending money during the years after the NEP to try to restore the lost production capacity.
It seems like this Taft person is criticizing Alberta for following what many people think is a good economic strategy. The article you quoted also didn't say that all of that money went into the resource sector. Weren't you the person who was saying in another thread that governments should spend money to try to diversify the economy? It seems like you are criticizing them here for doing just that.
Also, I have to wonder if maybe Alberta's resource-rich neighbors would be more prosperous if their own governments were more aggressive in promoting those industries. Saskatchewan has lots of oil, and BC has lots of natural gas, but it isn't helping anybody if it stays underground...
-kimmy
-
I don't have a problem with Canadians helping Canadians in times of trouble. What I object to is the rank hypocrisy of so many Albertans who will bitch endlessly about the feds and the rest of Canada, but are only too happy to cash their cheques.
Albertans cashing cheques for which they've provided so much of Canada's funding isn't hypocrisy.
I hate the auto insurance industry, but no matter how much I hate them, I'd still have to pay my insurance if I wanted to drive (since I don't have a car, this is purely hypothetical.
) And, having paid my insurance, I would fully expect the insurance company to pay up when I needed to make a claim. Albertans might not be thrilled with the system, but we're stuck with it, and as long as we are doing our part (in sending huge transfer payments to other part of Canada) I don't think it's hypocrisy to expect the government to do its part.
-kimmy
-
Considering how many people thought the Conservative party is "scary", I can't believe people are talking seriously about the Christian Heritage party!
-kimmy
-
And again, I can't help but point out that , as the recent drought and BSE crisis have shown, when the going gets tough, even rugged individualist Alberta is quick to nose up to the teat.
Whether Albertans agree with it or not, Canada as a nation has decided that provinces pay in so that the federal government can assist people who need assistance. That's been the agreement, when it's Atlantic fishermen or Quebec airplane builders who need a helping hand. As it happens prairie farmers have needed a helping hand, and Canada as a nation ought to help out, just as it has when people in other parts of the country have needed a hand.
If you disagree, maybe an alternative would be that Alberta could look after its own, and stop paying in to help out others. Do you think that sounds fair? The federal government would be relieved of any obligation to help out people in Alberta, and in return Alberta would be relieved of the ongoing transfer of wealth to poorer provinces. Does that sound like a good deal? I think Albertans would take that deal. I don't think the federal government would, though.
-kimmy
-
So, because Ontario hasn't put all its economic eggs in one basket (especially one so prone to cycles of boom and bust as oil) and isn't represented by a fringe party, it's somehow Ottawa's fault Alberta gets screwed?
Maybe, just maybe, Alberta should look at economic diversification (doubtful in a province that's as hooked on oil as a junkie on smack) or vote for political parties not stocked with frightening extremists.
This just doesn't seem very well informed. It seems to suggest that Albertans just sit at home and collect royalty cheques for a living.
Obviously oil is Alberta's most profitable industry right now, which shouldn't be very surprising considering what is happening to the agriculture and forestry industries right now. However it is hardly the only industry here. Alberta is still a resource based economy, but that is slowly changing. All of Canada used to be a resource based economy at one time.
One of the reasons the west is still so heavily dependent on resources and agriculture is that it's how the west was settled. And it has been the federal governments' policy of development for this region for a long time. My grandparents came to Alberta (from Minnesota, ja know
) for the land, that was being given away to anybody who was willing to cultivate it. Which is a fine way of getting the new territory started, but the government did not exactly do much to promote growth. I could be wrong but I think that the national railways used to be subsidized to ship raw materials west to east, and to ship finished goods east to west. Which was to promote manufacturing in the east, and helps resource producers in the west, but removed any incentive for a manufacturing industry to grow in the west.In the old days, Ontario used its advantages (population and location) to go from a resource economy to a diverse economy. Now Alberta is trying to do the same using our advantage: the prosperity that our resources bring.
This happens in several ways! Low taxes and operating costs for businesses make this one of the most attractive places in Canada for companies to set up shop. I work for an American information company that decided to open a location in Alberta because of low operating costs.
As well, Alberta's prosperity has created some of the best educational institutions in Canada. There are several first-rate technical schools. The University of Alberta is one of the top research universities in Canada, particularly in medicine. Alberta has growing industries in many areas of medical and chemical technology.
Things are going well right now but Albertans understand that the oil isn't forever. We want to make the most of our advantage to create lasting prosperity here. We want to make the best of it while we still can. That is why many people here object to seeing so much of our revenues taken away to support failing industries in other parts of the country. We don't mind helping other Canadians out but it seems like what is happening is that a lot of what should be used to build for our future is instead being spent to help others cling to their pasts.
Albertans are trying to build a diverse economy, thank you very much. And to those who say "You'll all be poor again when the oil dries up," I can only respond
-
Hi! I'm new here! I've read through this thread and wanted to say a few things.
I am an Albertan, and I only know a few people who seriously support separation, but lots of people talk about it. It is an idea that people don't support right now, but people don't write it off either. They are starting to think about the possibilities instead of just the negative parts.
Nobody is really getting into separation yet, but everybody thinks elections in Canada are a joke. People here voted for Conservatives because they want things to change. I think that if you look at the election results the biggest % that comes out of the results is not what party got what % of the votes, the biggest % is that 40% of voters didn't even bother. It is the 2nd straight election with record low voter turnout! I think that this proves that Canadians all over, not just in Alberta, are unsatisfied with politics in Canada.
But most Canadians elected Liberal MPs who are against change! That is the strange part.
Some comments that were made earlier on about stereotypes. I lived in Ontario for a while, and went to highschool there for a year. And I don't think that the Ontario people here who said there aren't negative stereotypes about Albertans are not telling the whole story.
Often my classmates asked me things and expressed opinions that showed they didn't have a very good picture of what Alberta is really like. Did my dad work on an oil rig? Were we farmers? Do I listen to country music? Or have a cowboy hat or cowboy booties? Do I own a gun? Ride horses? Were there people who weren't white back home?
I don't think anybody meant any harm, but I think the sorts of things people asked me come from an image that Alberta is a rural, white, Christian place that hasn't been touched by immigration or anything modern.
I also heard a radio personality use "Alberta public school education" to describe somebody who wasn't very smart, and I once saw a TV show where somebody said "hey, go back to Alberta" as a response to somebody who was being culturally insensitive. It was just a couple of isolated comments, but to me it seems like remarks like that wouldn't have been made if there wasn't some underlying assumption that an "Alberta public school education" is a poor education, or that somebody who is culturally insensitive probably came from Alberta.
I am not whining or trying to make a big deal about it, but I am pointing this out because from my experience, I disagree with the people who said that people in Ontario don't have stereotypes about Albertans.
-kimmy
Christian Heritage Party
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
In this conversation I use the word extremist in the sense that it was used in the recent election (meaning, if many Canadianns decided not to vote for the Conservatives because they found the party's stance on social issues extreme, then how will they react to the Christian Heritage Party?)
I don't think you can argue that several of the positions on their page are outside the range of mainstream Canada.
I mentioned issues where their stance is unacceptable to the courts and to mainstream Canada. The fact that it might make for good soundbites doesn't make it any less relevant.
I understand the distinction you are making. However, the webpage we are discussing doesn't limit itself to "heritage". God and the Bible are used over and over as justification for their policy positions. That's not Christian "Heritage", that's Christian *Beliefs*.
Can you think of any reason why in-vitro fertilization would be incompatible with Christian *Heritage*? Their objection seems to be merely that "it's not how God planned it", which again isn't *heritage*, it's belief.
Those aren't Christian principles. They're universal to just about any legal or moral system you could name, *including* secular humanism. They obviously want some kind of change from the way the current corrective system operates (which at least nominally includes each of the elements you mention) so again, what are they proposing?
My argument is that most Canadians (and the law) support
-acceptance of homosexuals
-legal access to abortion
-the right of adults to decide what they want to read or watch
(As for being "anti-justice", I guess that depends on whether you consider capital punishment to be justice.)
I won't bother getting into an abortion debate because that never solves anything. However, I'd like to point out the following quote taken word for word from the very same page:
"We believe that the human body is the property of God, and that no one but God has the authority to terminate human life except in accord with the express provisions of the Bible. No person, institution, or government shall tolerate, encourage, or decree death by means such as abortion, euthanasia, or suicide. "
Does that really seem compatible with capital punishment? The human body is God's sacred property, and no one has the right to mess with it (except when it's convenient.)
And what about if a gay person is fired from his job? Currently, Canada's laws provide gays with protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The passage I quoted says in black and white that they don't believe gays are entitled to that protection.
They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.