Tory MP claims his fingernails are clean

[August1991]

And French Canadians have been know for their tolerance?

Dobbin, you picked up on my implicit insult of English Canadians. (I called them "smug" which I think is apt.)

But here's my point. On this forum alone, I have heard every manner of insult of Quebec and Quebecers. Wikipedia has an entry for Quebec-bashing and someone just a wrote a book about it in Quebec. He cites numerous English Canadian journalists who regularly bash Quebec.

According to some, Quebecers are lazy thieves who extort money from honest, hardworking, upright English Canadians.

What does this have to do with this thread? Political correctness is flavour of the month. It's all about some agenda to change people's thoughts or ideas about something. Thoughts, ideas and symbols are often ephemeral. They change.

At the moment, it's politically incorrect to disparage gays but it's OK to bash Quebecers. Some 40 years ago, it was different. In 2048, it will be different again. These are passing fads that have more to do with style than substance. There is something called the real world where people live. I think we should be more concerned about that.

It's about the wacko left and our media looking for any excuse they can to downgrade the reputation fo the party.

They're a paper tiger, mikedavid.

Harper isn't going to budge on this. Harper has a reputation for backing his people. Moreover, the guy apologized. He's just an MP and at most a parliamentary secretary. In a month or two, he may lose his status as Parliamentary Secretary if Harper wants to send a message to the others.

Ultimately, it is for the voters in his riding to judge these comments.

These are arguments against any hate crime legislation. However, Harper does not oppose hate crime legislation when it's based on religion, race or ethnicity. If he opposed all hate crime legislation, he'd merely be taking the libertarian position. But he specifically opposed hate crime legislation in reference to lesbians and gays.

For the record, the logic of hate crimes is that a member of a "visible minority" may be a victim simply because they are identifiable. For example, the penalty for violence against a policeman must be greater than violence against an ordinary person since someone, angry with the police, may target anyone dressed as a policeman. By this logic, an undercover cop or an offduty cop would not enjoy the same protection.

I'm not sure that gays should receive hate crime protection. Is it clear who is a gay? (Does gaydar really exist?)

Edited April 5, 2008 by August1991

[Alta4ever]

I've always said that the "right-wing" element are worse than little kids! So called men with a very immature mentality! Bunch of grown men running around like little kids! Good grief! No wonder the world is going to hell! ANd just think! Women actually associate and marry these things!

And here is an example of left wing arrogance, people running around telling others how to think, and scolding those who do not hold the same beliefs as you. Sounds really mature.

[BubberMiley]

At the moment, it's politically incorrect to disparage gays but it's OK to bash Quebecers.

"Political correctness" is a fantasy dreamt up by the right to use when they feel defensive about their lack of consideration for others. If there is such a thing as "political correctness," it means it is not okay to bash any group whatsoever. So your persecution fantasy is all in your head.

[Alta4ever]

"Political correctness" is a fantasy dreamt up by the right to use when they feel defensive about their lack of consideration for others. If there is such a thing as "political correctness," it means it is not okay to bash any group whatsoever. So your persecution fantasy is all in your head.

A fantasy hmm, do you think that it is someones human right not to be offened? I would rather speak my mind then have to candy coat it for someone who has such thin skin. I would love to see your reaction after talking to a texan.

[August1991]

"Political correctness" is a fantasy dreamt up by the right to use when they feel defensive about their lack of consideration for others. If there is such a thing as "political correctness," it means it is not okay to bash any group whatsoever. So your persecution fantasy is all in your head.

No, political correctness is the Leftists' term for morality or what religious people call sin.

The smugness surrounding modern political correctness is similar to the smug morality of the temperance movement of the past century. It's like campaigns to make people stop smoking cigarettes.

My objection to political correctness is that it changes according to fads and it is wrongly concerned with image - not substance. Perhaps most of all, I object to the hidden agenda of political correctness: it aims to change the way people think.

----

I don't want to hijack this thread. A minor Canadian politician said something stupid 16 years ago. He has apologized. The CBC has gone on and on about this. Will this affect Tory standing in the polls? Doubt it.

[BubberMiley]

No, political correctness is the Leftists' term for morality or what religious people call sin.

Funny. I've only ever heard people on the right use the term.

[Alta4ever]

Funny. I've only ever heard people on the right use the term.

Then I guess you have you ears closed.

[edit] In the U.S. New Left

Some U.S. New Left proponents adopted its usage. One 1970 example [2] is in Toni Cade Bambara's essay The Black Woman: "a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist too", illustrating its usage in gender and identity politics, rather than solely about general political orthodoxy.

Yet, soon afterwards, the New Left re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: "Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives ... used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts".[9][1][2] Hence the phrase's popular usage in English [2] and Bobby London's usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, while the alternative term, ideologically sound, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon's satirical comic strips.

In typical left-wing usage, Ellen Willis says: "in the early '80s, when feminists used the term political correctness it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement's efforts to define a 'feminist sexuality' ".[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

[August1991]

Funny. I've only ever heard people on the right use the term.

Bubbler, you raise an interesting point.

How did the Left become the moral arbiters of modern society? It's the last remaining position of the Left because they have lost all others. The Left is no longer trusted for economic ability, integrity or political acumen. No one now believes socialism is inevitable or even that socialism will eventually combine with capitalism and make peace. Yet the Left is still the default position for morality. We defer to Leftists on moral questions.

[BubberMiley]

Sounds like you're fighting something that existed 25 years ago. You must be older than I thought.

Edited April 5, 2008 by BubberMiley

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you picked up on my implicit insult of English Canadians. (I called them "smug" which I think is apt.)

I personally don't see anything to be smug about in pointing out that many people here don't seem to have a problem with gay bashing.

But here's my point. On this forum alone, I have heard every manner of insult of Quebec and Quebecers. Wikipedia has an entry for Quebec-bashing and someone just a wrote a book about it in Quebec. He cites numerous English Canadian journalists who regularly bash Quebec.

I think I should point out that many of the people who bash Quebec are right wingers.

According to some, Quebecers are lazy thieves who extort money from honest, hardworking, upright English Canadians.

Quebec politicians have sometimes said that it good to keep a knife at the throats of Canadians.

I'm not sure that gays should receive hate crime protection. Is it clear who is a gay? (Does gaydar really exist?)

Do you think Jews deserve hate protection? Did they not get sent to the same camps as the Jews?

Edited April 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Sounds like you're fighting something that existed 25 years ago. You must be older than I thought.

So now that you have been proven wrong, its something different and we are fighting something that is in the past.

You should expand your reading beyond John Wilson.

[BubberMiley]

So now that you have been proven wrong, its something different and we are fighting something that is in the past.

You should expand your reading beyond John Wilson.

I wasn't aware of its etymology, but in terms of its usage by the left, it appears to be archaic at best. Therefore, yes, it is clearly something in the past.

But who's John Wilson?

[Alta4ever]

I wasn't aware of its etymology, but in terms of its usage by the left, it appears to be archaic at best. Therefore, yes, it is clearly something in the past.

But who's John Wilson?

He wrote poorly reasearched book The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education.

Much of the book is based around that last few post you have made. John thinks that the term came aboiut in 1991.

But the fact of the matter is that political correctness exists, and the term was coined by the left.

It is all about shaming people for not telling it like it is, we are suppose to beat around the bush so we don't inadvertaly hurt someones feelings, which sounds noble. The you start talking with people that are not from Canada, and they have a hard time with it, they don't know if we're telling them really what we think, or what we think they want to hear. It seems like people can't be upfront and honest with eachother.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Alta4ever

[BubberMiley]

How does it differ from what we used to call "being considerate"?

[Alta4ever]

How does it differ from what we used to call "being considerate"?

The problem is that we can take it too far.

[scribblet]

The fact is, saying "homosexual faggots" spread disease with their dirty fingernails qualifies as "homophobic" in the popular usage of the term. I don't see why you think categorizing such statements is unfair and stifles debate, because no one is stopping you from defending him.

I agree, it was 'homophobic', but it was years ago, he's apologized twice, but they want blood. Actually, what is happening now is about as intolerant as it comes, I bet most of us years ago have made comments that we regret, or would never say now, nobody is perfect. This is simply a pack of wolves howling after blood because out of political desperation and malice, so desperate they have to dig through old files to come up with something - anything. Of course we know if these were disparaging comments about Christians, nothing would be said.

Maybe the NDP should apologize for Tommy Douglas's views from years ago.

[DangerMouse]

And here is an example of left wing arrogance, people running around telling others how to think, and scolding those who do not hold the same beliefs as you. Sounds really mature.

The whole right or left stuff is crap! Im just straightforward and honest! All you fools are so dictated by money!

[jdobbin]

Of course we know if these were disparaging comments about Christians, nothing would be said.

Really. If he had said anything about Jews and Christians, I doubt he would have lasted the day in caucus.

Maybe the NDP should apologize for Tommy Douglas's views from years ago.

They should.

Edited April 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Really. If he had said anything about Jews and Christians, I doubt he would have lasted the day in caucus.

Never would have made the National media.

[August1991]

I agree, it was 'homophobic', but it was years ago, he's apologized twice, but they want blood.

Blood? No, it's politics circa 2008.

I think that this is now a losing proposition for the Left. The Canadian public is about to censure the CBC, the CHRC and the political correct. They've had enough. It's like McCarthy's Red Witch Hunt.

[jdobbin]

Never would have made the National media.

Really. I'm sure the lawsuits from various Jewish groups would be difficult to ignore. Anti-Christian or perceived anti-Christian views get stomped on pretty quick. Even innocuous ones like the upside down church artwork drew the media attention.

[Who's Doing What?]

Gays did not cause the AIDS epidemic. It was caused by socially awkward 15 year old boy in the jungle who was left at home to take care of the monkeys while his parents were away.

Actually it started with contaminated vacines. Thew wrong type of monkey blood was used to make them. The distribution of these vacinations corisponds with the initial outbreaks of HIV in Africa.

[MontyBurns]

I think that this is now a losing proposition for the Left. The Canadian public is about to censure the CBC, the CHRC and the political correct. They've had enough. It's like McCarthy's Red Witch Hunt.

This can't happen fast enough.

[Argus]

I think you have it nailed. There seems to be a lot of anger about this being an attempt to smear the Tories over long ago made remarks. However, the fact is that the right wing has had very little tolerance of gays and lesbians and that continues to this day.

And the Left wing has always had very little tolerance for personal freedoms - including freedom of speech - and that continues to this day. I think that makes your sort considerably more dangerous.

[Argus]

Yes, I'm well-aware that bible thumpers support Harper's irrational fears and delusions.

I'm an agnostic. But I see nothing irrational whatsoever. Gays have already had religious figures tried for just such things, and given the makeup of the Supreme Court - with judges specifically appointed because they were so gay friendly - without any other qualifications required - I don't see how they could not worry.

It was only a few years ago the Liberals were assuring the House that the new marriage legislation would absolutely preclude being used to justify gay marriages.

I gather your point is that Harper's opposition to making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of gays and lesbians is mediated by religious fears and extremism rather than homophobia.

It is an always has been illegal to advocate the killing of anyone. That is not what the legislation is about.

Why do you suppose the Liberals, NDP, BQ and many Progressive Conservatives, Peter MacKay included, did not have these irrational fears?

Uh, because they don't care what happens to religious figures - especially when compared to the chance to win votes.