fellowtraveller

NAMBLA has nothing at all to do with gay rights, SSM or homosexuality. It is about pedophilia. This conveniently overlooks the reality that boys are children, and by law cannot 'freely choose' or have 'consensual relationships'. The correct term is 'statutory rape'. Disgusting pigs.

The difference between McKenna and Segal? Segal isn't running for the leadership of the Liberal Party. McKanna cannot be heard or seen to be overtly involved in Canadian party politics while he's an ambassador. He is there to represent Canada, not further himself. McKenna will likely quit before he's fired. How about Peter Lougheed as ambassador?

Good for you, I'm glad to see you engaged and passionate. Can you tell me how much it costs to join the Liberal Party? I definitely want to vote in their leadership race, though I will struggle mightily to choose between Belinda and Sheila. Maybe if it is only $10 or so I could just join twice.

Nope. You are simply re-opening the can of worms by having the government involved in 'recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution '. There is absolutely no need for the government to define the term marriage, or to be involved in any way other than to register/file the domestic arrangement of any combination of consenting adults. I like to call it a domestic arrangement, even the trendy 'civil union' carries too much baggage. The term 'marriage' is now so weighed down in emotion that it has lost connection with the issue. If a registered arrangement goes on to be 'married' at a church, coven , gathering of elves or whatever - there is no need at all for govt involvement, and no need for the govt to call that second arrangement by any term at all. There's no choice but to define them. There has to be legal definitions to all of this. The only other way would be to abolish the term marriage from government recognition and make all unions of people just that which would leave marriage between people and their churches. Nope. There is always a choice. Canadian society and successive governments have chosen not to have any abortion law at all, and that 'choice not to define', not to force, not to regulate- was and remains, very popular. Why not with SSM. Let the churches decide who is marriageble or not, under their freedom of religion. The only reason to have legal definitions is to control people, and I know that is an absolute compulsion of generations of Canadians weaned on Big Guvmint. But it is a choice for us, not a necessity. Churches may choose to marry gays or not, why do religious adherents insist on trying to ram their views down my throat? Leave the morality to the moralists, you can yak it up all day in church. I agree almost entirely with this minimalist, non moralistic approach, though I would not use the term 'union' for government recognition of a contractual domestic arrangement. As a churchgoer and religious person, you may wish to call your church ceremony a marriage or any other term you choose. That is your freedom, and I grant it to you without reservation. If only we were all so tolerant.

Not only is that a nasty and bigoted statement, it is incorrect. While a relatively high proportion of Catholics, Quebec also has the lowest % of church attendance in Canada. Quebec is the most secular province in Canada.

I wish she does run for the Liberal leadership, and I would join the entire Tory executive in breathlessly but silently hoping she wins the leadership. I'd join the Liberals briefly just to vote for her. The only better leader from a Tory perspective would be Sheila Copps. If you watch her in any unscripted debate, it doesn't take long to relalize Belinda is not the brightest bulb in the Xmas tree string of lights.

You stole my point, but since you made it well I guess I can let it go. This time. Thank you for your graciousness. Too often the only point I have is the one on top of my head.

Nope. You are simply re-opening the can of worms by having the government involved in 'recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution '. There is absolutely no need for the government to define the term marriage, or to be involved in any way other than to register/file the domestic arrangement of any combination of consenting adults. I like to call it a domestic arrangement, even the trendy 'civil union' carries too much baggage. The term 'marriage' is now so weighed down in emotion that it has lost connection with the issue. If a registered arrangement goes on to be 'married' at a church, coven , gathering of elves or whatever - there is no need at all for govt involvement, and no need for the govt to call that second arrangement by any term at all.

"I think he has done a very good job representing Canada in Washington... " He's also done an excellent job of representing himself in Washington. Harper would be a fool to allow Martins likely successor remain in a high profile job with Canadas prime trading partner. How would Harper look if McKenna was the pointman on any resoltuion of a trade issue? Frank will soon be able to campaign fulltime for the leadership of the Liberals.

Mark me down for 3 Tory seats in Quebec.

Done. The place was deserted except for workers.

100% in favour. Love and commitment should never be discouraged among consenting adults. I'd also extend that to polygamy. I'll comment later on how divisive the term 'marriage' has become. The govt has absolutely no business in defining the term , it is what is causing all the grief. Let the individual define it, or some other institution like a church. The govt should apply their own and excellent lead in the abortion issue to same sex marriage- by refusing to create any law, and staying out of the moral debate entirely.

So, we'll have to wait until late tonight to see if Sven Robbingstores has triumphed over the forces of evil?

He'll phone Harper to congratulate him on his victory, and call him Kevin 4 times in a single conversation. Really, we do overestimate US interest in our antics in the frozen North.

The Bloc will be busy preparing for a provincial election in Quebec, followed by a referendum. The Liberals will be busy choosing a new leader, and then getting Frank Mckenna a seat in the House. The NDP will be busy propping up the Cons. So, I agree there will be little pressure for an election.

Tories: 132 Liberals:85 Bloc 59 NDP 32 I don't see the Cons getting more than 2-3 seats in Quebec. oops, edited to make the numbers actually add up.

What does Harper do on Monday. He'll schedule a meeting with Jack Layton, where both will learn what their place in the sun will cost, politically.

And the giant chipmunk aliens will come down from the sky and tell us that they know that Paul Martin drinks human blood for breakfast. DIAND: $7 billion annually, no external audit, reservations in a shambles, an ongoing health crisis in First Nations people...... and it has been going on for decades. All gravy for Ms. Fraser. Harper would be wise to jump all over this early, before it comes back to bite him in the ass. Paul Martin only drinks human blood that has been previously drained from the babies that Harper eats. This is why Harper will not only cancel abortion entirely, but force every woman in Canada to breeed, breed, breed. Food supply for the right of center.......

Keep an eye on Industry Canada and Indian Affairs......... If Sheila Fraser is ever allowed to do a 'value for money' audit in DIAND, it will be a colossal bloodbath. Re: Martin letting it all out -really, isn't this his legacy? What does he have to lose? He knows that if he loses, he is gone within 90 days. If he somehow wins a minority, he'll spend the next few months fighting off many leadership contenders before he is forced out anyway.

Well said, and now watch that be illustrated by the upcoming free vote on same sex marriage. Here is how Harpers pragmatism will be exercised. 1. About 1/2 of Canadians are against SSM, but some of that opposition is soft, they don't really care. The rest are vocal and committed. 2. Harper needs to address this anti-SSM segment of Canadian society forecfully and soon. 3. Any way you count it, less than 1/2 of the new or old MPs in the house will support SSM. Harper can count and knows that he cannot win a vote on SSM. They are not voting on repealing the existing law anyway, just in reviewing it. 4. Harper knows he must placate the social conservatives, yet try to eventually attract the social liberals. 5. He has promised not to use the notwithstanding clause. It's easy to do that because the SSM vote would be defeated anyway. Why else would he handcuff himself in advance? 6. So, in the end, he can tell the social cons: I've done my bit, it was defeated again in the House, now shut up - the governemnt is moving on. 7. Easy peasy. Exactly. Duceppe must be very angry over this turn of events. He was counting on a Liberal win, ideally another minority. Soon his tiny perfect whipping boy, Mr. Martin , will be gone too.

To which I will add: if you can't find any work in the area you'd like to live in, move yourself to a place where there is work. I've done it, more than once and lived to tell the tale. Actually, 'prospered' is a better word than 'lived'. The jobs don't come to you - it's the other way around.

Four voters in our household, and so far it is Green, NDP, Conservative and undecided.

The NDPs best shot is in Edmonton Strathcona, Rahim Jaffers seat. Jaffers is the guy who got caught, or rather his campaign manager got caught, impersonating Jaffer on the radio. Last time in 2004 the race was 3 way, it helps the NDP that the Liberals are weak this time. Jaffer is a bit of a poster boy for the Cons: young, bilingual, handsome/photogenic and visible minority.

Geez, I hadn't heard this one. Shocking.

I'd agree with you if this were January 2005. But it is not. The PQ formally adopted the process I described in June, 2005. All the PQ leadership candidates including the winner, M. Boisclair, endorsed the strategy described in my post.: declaration of independence, then talks with the other country -Canada. They will negotiate, but as a sovereign nation, not a disgruntled subordinate province. Which changes everything, don't you think? But it may not get that far, and the reason is the slight resurgence of federalism behind the Tories. Duceppe was wringing his hands in glee at the prospect of a Liberal minority, the perfect storm for separation. Paul Martin was the absolute ideal Liberal for Duceppe to flay for the year or so leading to the Quebec election. Harper, especially if he can come through quickly on some reforms, will be an opponent of an entirely different magnitude. Even as a Tory minority, it is a different game entirely.