Tory MP claims his fingernails are clean

[scribblet]

Free speech is very much under attack, this particular lawsuit is one example. There are examples of attacks underway now on blogs and forums.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12567

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/09/mark-st...-from-the-left/

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/art...6_105422_105422

[WIP]

In the second part of your post you put your finger on the difficulty with the first part. Clearly, many that self-identify as "gay" are in fact "bi" and thus, to an extent, making a choice.

You're wrong on both counts! Bisexuals would not be making a conscious choice for how they are sexually aroused, anymore than heterosexuals and homosexuals. They just feel attractions in varying ratios to both sexes. Sexual attraction is about as primal a force as fear of death. That's why someone like recently disgraced Governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer, would risk everything he has worked for because he was turned on by a high price hooker he seen in an ad, and according to the rumour that he wanted anal sex - he wanted something that the wife probably said NO to!

And did you consider that many who identify themselves as straight, are to some extent, bisexual? Many psychologists have long suspected that the most homophobic, anti-gay agitators are in this category. They believe that homosexuality is a sin, and are horrified about homosexual impulses they sometimes have!

I think I know someone in this category, since I recently was asked by a friend at work to help clean up his computer, which had been hacked and loaded with trojans and viruses. This guy had no knowledge of internet security (no antivirus software was on), and yet he was moved to join a gay discussion forum so he could argue with and verbally assault "fags" online! I already knew his religious beliefs, since we debated these sort of issues previously, but I cannot get a satisfying answer for why he felt so compelled to join a forum so he could vent at homosexuals. He doesn't like Muslims, but never bothered to try this on a Muslim forum; he's a young-earth creationist, but he has never joined forums where he can vent at evolutionists. I promised that I would not discuss any of this with people at work, and I am fairly convinced I'm dealing with someone who is in denial and motivated to attack others for things he may feel guilty about.

[WIP]

I have to agree... it's not much of a stretch (IMO) for a heterosexual woman to orgasm with another woman, but (once again IMO) a heterosexual male would have a difficult time getting "ready" let alone having an orgasm.

Amen to that! I've heard this before that a heterosexual woman can still enjoy a sexual encounter with another woman. This would not work for the average guy! I would not be able to have an orgasm with a guy under any circumstances, and I'm betting that most heterosexual men would feel the same.

The way women feel about sex is foreign territory for men, and we're always mystified about what works and what doesn't work. For guys it's pretty much a straightforward physical response, we can have sex with someone we don't love( if there are no consequences), and women, like that Governor's wife I mentioned previously, are going to take it personally and either feel that their husband doesn't love them any more, or they did something wrong.

[jdobbin]

Brad Wall drops threat of lawsuit.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...07?hub=Politics

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says he is dropping plans for a defamation lawsuit against The Canadian Press over its coverage of the release last week of an old videotape containing offensive comments.

In a brief statement released Monday, Wall also says he will make a statement in the legislature regarding "the events of last week."

Wall's lawyers, in a letter to the national news agency last Friday, had alleged a headline on the initial stories by The Canadian Press about the 16-year-old tape was false and defamatory. The headline, published Thursday, read, "Tape with Sask premier and Tory MP has racist, sexist, homophobic comments: NDP."

Didn't seem like a lawsuit that was going to stick.

[WIP]

Free speech is very much under attack, this particular lawsuit is one example. There are examples of attacks underway now on blogs and forums.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12567

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/09/mark-st...-from-the-left/

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/art...6_105422_105422

You should have expanded on this a little! Your links are specifically to Muslim groups like the C.I.C., which is trying to push the more moderate Canadian Muslim Council aside and talebanize Canadian Muslims.

For the record, the threat against free speech can just as quickly come from Christian fundamentalists. In England, the Anglican, Catholic churches and even evangelicals have been the most vocal advocates of enforcing archaic blasphemy laws, for example:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle3003799.ece

That's why many of us who are less than 100% motivated by religion, are wary of the continual call of fundamentalist Christians to attack Islam.

Here, in Canada, the C.I.C. would not have even been able to raise this case if it wasn't for the hate-speech laws. I know Trudeau and all the Liberals had some utopian vision that people would act nicer if they weren't allowed to say mean things in public, but these laws are counter-productive, especially in the age of the internet when agitators can bypass the mainstream media and go online with their propaganda.

The hate speech laws were first designed to shut down holocaust deniers, but instead this has given them undeserved credibility, since many people will buy into any form of conspiracy theory that is attacked by the government. If you check on the white supremacist and pro-nazi sites the first thing you will find is statements revelling in how the authorities wouldn't be persecuting them unless they were telling the truth. The hate speech against Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, or any other group should be out in broad daylight where it can be challenged and refuted.

The other problem with hate speech rules is that they have to recognize the groups before they are protected against attack. Right now, any kind of stupid hate speech can be directed against atheists, agnostics etc., because people with no religion are not recognized as needing protection. At Ryerson College last year, there was an incident when the director of the college secular society was attacked by two Muslim students who were offended that he was putting up posters advertising an upcoming event. The R.C.M.P. informed him that the attack would have to be prosecuted as simple assault, and not a hate crime, since secularism is not a religion! I rest my case.

[M.Dancer]

For the record, the threat against free speech can just as quickly come from Christian fundamentalists. In England, the Anglican, Catholic churches and even evangelicals have been the most vocal advocates of enforcing archaic blasphemy laws, for example: ....

OFFICIAL:

You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...

CROWD:

Ooooh!

OFFICIAL:

...you are to be stoned to death.

CROWD:

Ahh!

MATTHIAS:

Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'

CROWD:

Oooooh!

OFFICIAL:

Blasphemy!

[Chrissy1979]

Free speech is very much under attack, this particular lawsuit is one example.

I agree that this lawsuit would have been a terrible attack on free speech in this country. Harper set a terrible precedent by suing the official opposition for their criticism of him. Now it appears politicians feel they can justifiably sue the media even when they report the truth, as it appears the CP did in this case.

Imagine if the Liberals sued the media for reporting on Adscam. I find it unconscionable that Wall would even suggest that he would take this matter to court. Fortunately somebody quickly straightened him out.

[scribblet]

I agree that this lawsuit would have been a terrible attack on free speech in this country. Harper set a terrible precedent by suing the official opposition for their criticism of him. Now it appears politicians feel they can justifiably sue the media even when they report the truth, as it appears the CP did in this case.

Imagine if the Liberals sued the media for reporting on Adscam. I find it unconscionable that Wall would even suggest that he would take this matter to court. Fortunately somebody quickly straightened him out.

My links where not in reference to Harper .

Harper was not suing for criticism, he was suing for libel, slander,and defamatory publications made outside of the House, a much different kettle of fish. Under Canadian libel law, they have to prove the truth of their accusations. and, up to now, there ain't no proof. He is still suing the Liberal Party, last I heard.

I look forward to hearing the Liberals defend themselves, as all they have to do is provide the evidence to back up their claims.

[scribblet]

Interesting to read what Wappel wrote in 1994, I don`t see the Liberals howling for his blood, lucky for them it appears he is not going to run again.

http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.com/2008/...for-gander.html

MP Tom Lukiwski did a stupid and offensive thing in 1991. He has apologized, and I accept his apology. That's not enough for opposition MPs - they want his head on a platter. Fair enough - but I'll start demanding that the Prime Minister take responsibility for Tom Lukiwski when Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party take responsibility for Tom Wappel.

Wappel is the Liberal MP for Scarborough Southwest, and has been in Parliament since 1988. He has announced that he will not be seeking re-election in the next general election. Much to the embarassment of fellow Liberal travellers, Wappel is a notorious social conservative and has vigourously opposed both abortion and gay marriage. His views on homosexuality are well known. These statements are taken from a policy paper he wrote in 1994 called "Sexual Orientation":

This portion of the paper makes clear the reasons for my objections to those who would force society to regard homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and why I see this as the inevitable result of recklessly (albeit with the best of intentions) adding "sexual orientation", howsoever defined, as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It further outlines my thesis that matters which deal with homosexuality are deeply moral, upon which a free vote must be permitted.
Finally, let me reiterate that my aversion to homosexuality, which is shared by the vast majority of Canadians, does not mean that we hate homosexuals, and certainly not any individual homosexual simply because he or she is a homosexual.
Logically, one can abhor war, without abhorring the individual participants in the war. Similarly, one can abhor homosexuality, without abhorring individual homosexuals.
...
For anyone who professes belief in any religion, this should be a moral issue.
—all major world religions declare homosexuality to be a sin and contrary to the laws of the supreme Deity.
...
It is not a question of "fundamental human rights". It is, however, a question of deeply held moral convictions for the vast majority of Canadians.
...
Most Canadians view homosexuality as abnormal. They are prepared to tolerate legal sexual activity behind closed doors, but they are not prepared to accept homosexuality as normal.
...	cont....

[Shakeyhands]

Interesting to read what Wappel wrote in 1994, I don`t see the Liberals howling for his blood, lucky for them it appears he is not going to run again.

Perhaps because its not even close to being the same? Big difference between someone stating what Wappel did and calling some one a disease spreading faggot, dontcha' think?

[jdobbin]

Perhaps because its not even close to being the same? Big difference between someone stating what Wappel did and calling some one a disease spreading faggot, dontcha' think?

Seems like the Tories are grasping and can't accept that Lukiwski was making slurs that seemed based on hatred and contempt.

[WIP]

Perhaps because its not even close to being the same? Big difference between someone stating what Wappel did and calling some one a disease spreading faggot, dontcha' think?

No! It is the same thing, except that since this was a carefully prepared statement, Wappel was able to pad it with nicer sounding words, like his version of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" drivel that's been peddled since it was first thought up by St. Augustine.

Tom Wappel has always been the Canadian version of Joe Lieberman, a conservative who's tolerated by the Liberal Party because he votes with the party when it counts. No different than red Tories on the East Coast, who talk like Liberals, but vote the way the Alberta leadership wants them to when the party whip tells them to get back in line. A pox on all of their houses!

[jbg]

I agree that this lawsuit would have been a terrible attack on free speech in this country. Harper set a terrible precedent by suing the official opposition for their criticism of him. Now it appears politicians feel they can justifiably sue the media even when they report the truth, as it appears the CP did in this case.

Imagine if the Liberals sued the media for reporting on Adscam. I find it unconscionable that Wall would even suggest that he would take this matter to court. Fortunately somebody quickly straightened him out.

Unfortunately, if a bad law is on the books people will take advantage of it. There is no US-style First Amendment. Until there is, lawsuits, at least, are open season. HRC's are different, since they abide by no rules, and do not obey the Charter.

[BubberMiley]

And now, yet another MP has to apologize for comments he describes as "inappropriate." Doesn't automatically apologizing for your beliefs rather than explaining them make otherwise less-than-incendiary comments seem much worse than they are?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=439695

[capricorn]

And now, yet another MP has to apologize for comments he describes as "inappropriate."

On the scale of "gotcha" politics, perfected by the opposition parties, this one's a yawner.

The allegations leveled against Jason Kenney this week are a classic instance of spotting prejudice where there is none.

------

Please. The very phrase "play the race card" exists because -- well, because people do in fact play the race card. There are plenty of examples of social activists, at one time or another, being too quick to holler racism -- or Islamophobia or anti-Semitism or sexism.

Now, all of these "isms" exist, and need to be taken seriously, which is why it is often members of those targeted groups who get most upset when their community leaders throw around the terms recklessly. The fact some people are now accusing Mr. Kenney of "racism" simply proves the truth of Mr. Kenney's original observations about the politics of race.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/e...ec-500552757433

First a 17 year old tape and now an 8 year old tape. I wonder how many little beavers are digging in the archives searching for the next gem?