Harper's End of Year Speech

[jbg]

Certain posters here flaunt the rules repeatedly yet still stick around.

Yes, two in particular, one from each gender.

[Argus]

The Liberals don't care for human rights in Canada? That's funny, considering they created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and have played such a major role in Human Rights in the world.

No. The Liberals have played _NO_ role in human rights in the world. Prior to the election of Harper Canada was known as a mealy mouthed nation which had no balls, which only criticized human rights violations in weak nations where it had no major business interests and where it wouldn't cause any problems with immigrant groups. We liked to portray ourselves as the world's great moral compass, and did so at every opportunity, but we sat on our hands whenever money or ethnic votes were at stake, be it China, Indonesia or the middle east.

As for home grown - a party which breaks the law to arrest legally protesting people in order to spare a dictator embarrassment, a party which sics the federal police on a law-abiding man who has merely caused the PM embarrassment, and tries to have him imprisoned, is not a party that respects human rights.

[Argus]

I guess we have your viewpoint on religion and religious organizations.

I personally liked Chretien through most of his time in office. I disagreed with several of his policies over the years and more vehemently later on in his last term.

Chretien's time in office was a time of wasted opportunities. You liked him? Why? This was a man who had so much money he literally didn't know what to do with it, a booming economy, massive surpluses, a huge majority and a weak, divided opposition. Chretien could, basically, have done virtually anything he wanted to do for this country. Instead he did - well - nothing. He played golf, took a lot of holidays and trips abroad, and directed a lot of money into the pockets of his friends. Meanwhile, Canada's social safety net was collapsing, our military was going into rust-out, and our reputation abroad was turning to mush. I don't think any prime minister in history ever had so much opportunity and did so little with it.

However, there was no way I was going to back the PCs who basically walloped Manitoba when Mulroney was in office. I looked into the Reform party and while I found Manning to be mostly a decent man, some of people that ran for his party were stark staring fringers. Ditto when the Alliance was around. They ran Betty Granger in my riding and she drew so much notice for her views than even her fellow right wingers distanced themselves.

The only reason the Reform Party had a reputation for fringers was because it had the naive belief that its people ought to be able to actually speak their minds on things. The other parties, meanwhile, particularly the Liberals, didn't let any of their people utter a word which hadn't been carefully sanitized, spinned and run through the polling machines. As for Granger, from what I've read she was a basically decent person without a mean bone in her body, completely open to other races (including within her family) who was simply the victim of taking a quote out of context and the deliberate attempt to smear her and the party as racists.

Harper doesn't seem to have lines of discussion open with China. Many of the official lines closed even before China took a Canadian prisoner. Harper's focus on human rights in China is curiously focused. It is odd considering how his government brushes aside just as bad or worse abuses elsewhere...including Afghanistan.

Lines of communication? He's cut the phone lines has he? What a load of BS. The previous Liberal government's never uttered a single word to the Chinese about human rights. They didn't care and don't are now. They were beholden to their corporate backers and were required to do whatever was necessary to please China.

And the Tories have put more more at stake over human rights than the Liberals ever have. The Liberals never showed much interest in human rights anywhere, occasionally making mealy mouthed noises only where it couldn't cost them anything. Harper's conservatives have not hesitated to criticize, regardless of whether that will cost them ethnic votes - which it does - or whether that will please foreign dictators and their local corporate interests.

You won't find Harper, for example, attending a terrorist fund raiser, as Paul Martin did, and protecting a terrorist group in order to please local ethnic voters, as both Chretien and Martin did.

[Argus]

Reform and Alliance both had their share of nutbar problems. I voted PC in 2000 because of the nutbar Alliance leader.

That is one of the positive things of Harper's leadership. No nutbars....

Living in Ottawa, and with relatives and friends working on Parliament Hill, I can tell you in all honesty that all the parties have nutbars in them, and always have had. However, they're kept as far from the press as possible, and in general, the press doesn't try to seek them out (except for conservatives) for fear it will ruin their cozy relationship with the parties involved.

The relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the politicians is beyond incestuous.

[Argus]

Sponsoring the United Nation's call for the abolition of the death penalty,

Yes, a meaningless act which costs them nothing. This is pretty typical of how the Liberals operated. They were all for human rights - just so long as it wouldn't offend ethnic voters or any nation with which Canada had strong business interests.

ratified the UN's "Discrimination Against Women", sent our troops on peacekeeping missions, and created a reputation that has caused people from many countries to put our flag on their bags/hats ect.

That last was always pretty much a myth, you know, but then almost everything about our "international reputation" was a myth. Our peacekeeping reputation was a myth, too. Many nations put a lot more effort and resources into it than we did. Even before the Tories were elected we were something like the world's 22nd most active peacekeeping nation. Hard to be a peacekeeping nation with no troops, of course, and no equipment, and a government which did nothing it didn't think would get it votes or campaign donations.

[Argus]

Regarding the flags, a lot of Americans put the maple leaf on their belongings. Just the past year, I travelled to Europe, and saw a few maple leaf flags on their bags. I asked where they were from, and they said Germany, and Austria. You can ask people who've done a bit of travelling, and they'll also tell you that quite a few people who aren't Canadian, wear the flag.

Oh bullshit. Why on earth would an Austrian wear a Canadian flag? Most Austrians have probably hardly even heard of Canada. What do most Austrians know about Canada? About as much as most Canadians know about Austria! The only people known to have put a Canadian flag on their bags were Americans who were not so much enamored of Canada as wary of the violently inclined who disliked America.

Regarding the cuts to womans programs, I made an error when I said they cut all funding, but they did cut a substantial amount, that resulted in womans groups from across the country angry with the minister responsible for Womans issues.

From what I understand they cut nothing from actual women's programs. What they cut funding to were advocacy groups, ie, lobby groups which were affiliated with the other parties anyway and did nothing of value.

[Michael Bluth]

Living in Ottawa, and with relatives and friends working on Parliament Hill, I can tell you in all honesty that all the parties have nutbars in them, and always have had. However, they're kept as far from the press as possible, and in general, the press doesn't try to seek them out (except for conservatives) for fear it will ruin their cozy relationship with the parties involved.

The relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the politicians is beyond incestuous.

I know you are correct. It would probably had been better if I said 'nutbar incidents'.

Harper has instilled a degree of discipline that probably contributed to the Liberals lasting in power as long as they did.

I spoke to an MP a couple months after the election and before Garth was sh*tcanned. Garth was kicked out for the potential of a nutbar incident.

To quote the MP "Why the f*ck does Garth think he's special? We all want to talk to the press, but we do what's in the best interest of the team." The ability to instill that discipline has been Harper's greatest strength and is the reason he is still in his first term today.

[Argus]

I think more women with families are upset about the total failure of the Conservative daycare program which even they admit cannot create daycare spaces. It is "undoable" according to the minister responsible.

Maybe one day the Liberal Party will develop a child care program. I won't hold my breath, though.

[Argus]

I have mentioned to the new poster to expect the personal attacks. I just recommend reporting them as they happen.

As far as cuts go, the Tories cut women's advocacy groups.

Yes, but that is quite different from cutting womens programs. These so-called "advocacy groups" generally have a very tight relationship with the Liberals. Basically, the Liberals give them money, and the advocacy groups then support the Liberals and put out press releases criticizing the other parties. In other words, most are merely fronts for the Liberal Party.

[Argus]

I corrected my error, and edited my post. However, I didn't lie when I said the Conservatives have cut funding to woman groups across the country.

The reason I italicized peacekeeping is because that's what we were doing under Martin and Chretien. Do I prefer soldiers with flowers at the end of their weapons? Yes, if were living in a world that doesn't include wars. Under Harper, deaths of soldiers have sharply increased, and we've moved away from our peacekeeping/rebuilding missions to a combat mission, like the United States.

To be fair - though I'm not sure that's your intent - the current mission in Afghanistan is a LIBERAL mission. They agreed to the combat role, they sent the troops in. Harper merely inherited it. Yes, he has extended it. But the extension has not even taken effect yet. Therefore, all the current casualties are due to the Liberals. It's also not at all clear that Martin would not have extended the mission had he won office.

[Argus]

There is always the ignore button. Some posters will insult you regardless and often they aren't worth engaging.

Not all Tories are like this but it is a case of "it comes down from the top." Harper has shown his penchant for the jugular and that is why the National Post mused last week that he might be "too mean" to gain a majority.

Chretien was notoriously vicious and vindictive. Hell, he had a man fired and tried to put him in prison for calling in a government loan to a business partner. Martin was known for his red-faced screaming rages wherin he would actually yell so violently into the faces of subordinates he would get spittle in their faces.

[Michael Bluth]

Martin was known for his red-faced screaming rages wherin he would actually yell so violently into the faces of subordinates he would get spittle in their faces.

That one was very well known.

Supposedly when some of his advisors tried to talk him out of the Michaelle Jean selection he went off on one of his more infamous tantrums.

Impotent in decision making and unable to be a decisive leader. That's probably why he was such a disaster as PM.

[Topaz]

Merry Christmas to everyone! Now, are you guys saying that Harper didn't cut 5 Millions out to women and closed 12 regional offices which directly affects women who have been abused by their hubby's and have to live in women's shelters???? The media keeps saying woman will not suppose Harper in the next election and when people see how their rep is voting, I can see alot of the members not being elected.

[jbg]

Maybe one day the Liberal Party will develop a child care program. I won't hold my breath, though.

They'll model it on Cuba's. Remember Elian Gonzales?

[jdobbin]

Yes, but that is quite different from cutting womens programs. These so-called "advocacy groups" generally have a very tight relationship with the Liberals. Basically, the Liberals give them money, and the advocacy groups then support the Liberals and put out press releases criticizing the other parties. In other words, most are merely fronts for the Liberal Party.

I find that hard to believe. Do you have a citation for that?

[jdobbin]

Maybe one day the Liberal Party will develop a child care program. I won't hold my breath, though.

It seems the two years the plan was in effect that it was doing its job.

[jdobbin]

Chretien's time in office was a time of wasted opportunities. You liked him? Why? This was a man who had so much money he literally didn't know what to do with it, a booming economy, massive surpluses, a huge majority and a weak, divided opposition. Chretien could, basically, have done virtually anything he wanted to do for this country. Instead he did - well - nothing. He played golf, took a lot of holidays and trips abroad, and directed a lot of money into the pockets of his friends. Meanwhile, Canada's social safety net was collapsing, our military was going into rust-out, and our reputation abroad was turning to mush. I don't think any prime minister in history ever had so much opportunity and did so little with it.

The only reason the Reform Party had a reputation for fringers was because it had the naive belief that its people ought to be able to actually speak their minds on things. The other parties, meanwhile, particularly the Liberals, didn't let any of their people utter a word which hadn't been carefully sanitized, spinned and run through the polling machines. As for Granger, from what I've read she was a basically decent person without a mean bone in her body, completely open to other races (including within her family) who was simply the victim of taking a quote out of context and the deliberate attempt to smear her and the party as racists.

Lines of communication? He's cut the phone lines has he? What a load of BS. The previous Liberal government's never uttered a single word to the Chinese about human rights. They didn't care and don't are now. They were beholden to their corporate backers and were required to do whatever was necessary to please China.

And the Tories have put more more at stake over human rights than the Liberals ever have. The Liberals never showed much interest in human rights anywhere, occasionally making mealy mouthed noises only where it couldn't cost them anything. Harper's conservatives have not hesitated to criticize, regardless of whether that will cost them ethnic votes - which it does - or whether that will please foreign dictators and their local corporate interests.

You won't find Harper, for example, attending a terrorist fund raiser, as Paul Martin did, and protecting a terrorist group in order to please local ethnic voters, as both Chretien and Martin did.

I never voted for Chretien as leader but liked him regardless. I wasn't happy about the cut but like a lot of Canadians, I wanted to rid the country of the deficit.

I'm afraid my personal encounter with Granger and experience with her was far from you've read about. Her time as a school trustee was... colourful. And she did that all on her own. She didn't need any help from the media.

Harper's China policy has not changed on Tibet.

I'd say it was an exaggeration that Chretien didn't raise the issues of human rights with China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1161466.stm

The Canadian prime minister, Jean Chretien, has raised the issue of human rights with his Chinese counterpart, Zhu Rongji, on the second day of his visit to China.

Mr Chretien reportedly questioned the Chinese premier about Beijing's repression of the spiritual movement, Falun Gong.

Later, Mr Chretien told journalists that Mr Zhu had described Falun Gong as a social administrative problem and not Canada's concern.

Mr Zhu also said, in response to urgings from the Canadian leader, that he was ready to hold talks with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, if certain pre-conditions were met.

It may have been insufficient to yours or my liking but he did do it.

Harper's Conservatives recruited a Tamil to run in the last election. It was a Tamil who supported the organization that Harper later put on the black list.

[jdobbin]

Chretien was notoriously vicious and vindictive. Hell, he had a man fired and tried to put him in prison for calling in a government loan to a business partner. Martin was known for his red-faced screaming rages wherin he would actually yell so violently into the faces of subordinates he would get spittle in their faces.

It is probably why the criticized in the media like Harper is for being control freaks with temper problems.

[Argus]

It seems the two years the plan was in effect that it was doing its job.

This is simple dishonesty. There was no plan and there is none now. If you had a plan or if there had been one you would be able to provide some details. Despite asking you repeatedly you have been unable to do so. Your party site has no details either.

[Argus]

I never voted for Chretien as leader but liked him regardless.

Really? Was it his vindictiveness to those who dared disagree with him you liked? His habit of strangling small men who got in his way? The way he siced the police on political opponents? Perhaps the corruption struck your fancy? All that money he had put into his riding - and gave to his friends? Or perhaps the ludicrously bad lies he told? What exactly did you like about this man?

I wasn't happy about the cut but like a lot of Canadians, I wanted to rid the country of the deficit.

That happened early on due to the GST and resurging economy. Then what? What about all those years of health care and education deterioating while Chretien and Martin played accounting games to try to hide all the huge surpluses? What did he do with his whopping majority and huge surpluses while the country's social fabric fell apart? Nothing.

Harper's China policy has not changed on Tibet.

I'd say it was an exaggeration that Chretien didn't raise the issues of human rights with China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1161466.stm

It may have been insufficient to yours or my liking but he did do it.

Harper's Conservatives recruited a Tamil to run in the last election. It was a Tamil who supported the organization that Harper later put on the black list.

A newspaper report that he "reportedly raised the issue" is essentially meaningless. There's no evidence he ever raised the issue at all, and on the surface of it, given his cozy relationship with the Chinese government and his evident lack of concern about human rights even in Canada, it seems unlikely.

[Argus]

It is probably why the criticized in the media like Harper is for being control freaks with temper problems.

I don't believe I've seen any reports about Harper having a temper problem. However, reports have surfaced about Dion's prickly nature and his inability to accept criticism.

[Argus]

Merry Christmas to everyone! Now, are you guys saying that Harper didn't cut 5 Millions out to women and closed 12 regional offices which directly affects women who have been abused by their hubby's and have to live in women's shelters???? The media keeps saying woman will not suppose Harper in the next election and when people see how their rep is voting, I can see alot of the members not being elected.

There is an entire thread devoted to this topic. I suggest you read the first post for your answers.

[jdobbin]

I don't believe I've seen any reports about Harper having a temper problem. However, reports have surfaced about Dion's prickly nature and his inability to accept criticism.

I guess suit yourself on what you believe.

[jdobbin]

This is simple dishonesty. There was no plan and there is none now. If you had a plan or if there had been one you would be able to provide some details. Despite asking you repeatedly you have been unable to do so. Your party site has no details either.

Sorry if you have not been able to find it in the links I showed you.

Ken Dryden outlined the plan in 2004.

http://www.kendryden.parl.gc.ca/detail.asp...ss&sid=2106

All governments understand that the most important investment we can make is in our children. That’s why, even when we were fighting the deficit, the federal government established the National Child Benefit – the most significant national social program since Medicare. It’s also why, in its election platform, the Liberal Government committed to $5 billion over five years to bring accessible early learning and child care programs to Canadians.

On November 1st and 2nd 2004, Ministers and officials from every province and territory came together for an historic meeting with the federal Government, to work toward a national system of early learning and child care.

Their meeting laid the groundwork for a nation-wide system that embraces the shared principles of quality care, universal inclusiveness, accessibility and an emphasis on development and learning. They also agreed that a formal plan must include measurable goals, strong accountability and provincial/territorial flexibility so that the needs of all families can be met.

Recognizing that finalizing this plan will require a long-term effort, Ministers agreed to meet again early in 2005 to reach a consensus on the details of the plan. Their aim is an aggressive timetable, which will result in a formal agreement in the 2005-06 fiscal year.

These were all the agreements struck by Dryden when he was minister.

http://www.childcarecanada.org/res/issues/...ndchildcare.htm

The Harper government promised to honour another year of the already in progress agreements as per the link I showed once already.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0202?hub=Canada

The Conservative minority government said it will stop the child care payments to the provinces after one year, but will have to pass a new law to do so. However, it is unlikely the other parties will vote with them on the issue.

I think the BQ did vote for them on this but I can't find that link.

Edited December 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Sorry if you have not been able to find it in the links I showed you.

Anyone interested in fostering debate and honourable behaviour would simply re-post. Have fun playing your little games.