Liberals need to move left

[OddSox]

We used to have our own 'big' businesses until NAFTA. Relatively speaking, of course.

Yes and some of them are even bigger now, because of NAFTA.

[William Ashley]

Yes and some of them are even bigger now, because of NAFTA.

Like what?

A lot of huge Canadian Businesses were bought out such as Seagrams and Labatt. Hudson Bay went out of business.

Lots of others too.

Which Canadian Megacorps have grown as a result of NAFTA

[cybercoma]

The Liberals for a long time had sought the Cinderella voter. "This chair is too big! This chair is too small! This chair is just right!"

I think you mean Goldilocks, otherwise, your post is spot on and anyone who understands Canadian politics would be hard-pressed to dispute it.

[cybercoma]

This is why the Bloc is such an important factor. More power to them and regionalism in general if it prevents ideological majorities

The Conservative Party is hardly ideological. They're much closer to the center than the NDP or Greens. Do you care to qualify your claim?

[cybercoma]

Like what?

A lot of huge Canadian Businesses were bought out such as Seagrams and Labatt. Hudson Bay went out of business.

Lots of others too.

Which Canadian Megacorps have grown as a result of NAFTA

The irony in your statement is that Seagrams only got to be as big as they were because of how much liquor they were exporting under Samuel Bronfman during prohibition in the 20s. NAFTA aims to make that kind of business (international trade not rum-running) easier.

Edited October 24, 2008 by cybercoma

[segnosaur]

An excellent point and perhaps I should modify my hypothesis and/or my terminology. I suspect that the average Canadian is both fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Why exactly do you think Canadians are 'socially liberal'? Compared to what?

Consider the following social issues:

- In some polls, the majority of Canadians favor some degree of private health care (51%, vs. 42% who oppose it)

- Prior to the vote on same sex marriage, most polls showed the majority of Canadians did not support the changes to the definition of marriage that the Liberals passed

- Even though the majority of Canadians oppose capital punishment, its certainly not an overwhelming majority. In fact, if every person who supported the death penalty voted conservative, they'd probably get an overwhelming majority (44% favour the death penalty, 52% are opposed, a difference of less than 10%)

- Gun control? There are polls that show the majority of Canadians thought the gun registry should be scrapped (52% vs. 43%)

- It is true that most Canadians favor legalization of pot... but again, its not an overwhelming majority (only between 51-55%), and the vast majority of Canadians oppose legalizing other drugs

- Most Canadians (60%) exhibit either moderate or high degree of religious belief

- The polls surrounding Canada's military have been mixed, but at least one (dating from before the Conservatives first took power) showed that Canadians favoured increased defense spending

So, in those 6 areas of social policy (ones I consider significant), either the majority of Canadians have beliefs that would be considered 'right wing', or the number of people holding 'socially liberal' views is in a majority, but the majority is slim. About the only major area that I can think of where Canadians do hold an overwhelming 'liberal' belief is abortion, but changes in abortion policy are nowhere on any party's platform (not even the conservatives)

Edited to add: I wanted to point out that I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with any of these policies or positions; I was only attempting to demonstrate that there are significant social areas where Canadian views are not exactly 'left wing liberal/socialist')

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini...004&no_ads= (poll showing Canadians favour scrapping the gun registry)

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-0...gious.htm#index (survey showing most Canadians are 'religious')

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30688...lize_marijuana/ (poll showing most Canadians favour legalizing pot, but the majority is slim, and oppostion to legalizing other drugs is high)

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/death...four_countries/ (poll showing those opposed to the death penality is a majority, but the majority is slim)

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...8a-17e447c651ca (poll showing most Canadians support privatizing some aspects of health care)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homssmpoll04.htm (polls showing most Canadians opposing the Liberal same sex marriage plans. Note that this site is not exactly a 'main stream' site; however, they do refer to polls conducted by reputable polling firms)

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vo...o4/pdf/46_e.pdf (poll showing support for higher military spending)

Yet the "Conservative" vote, from 1997 to 2008, really has not increased in any meaningful way. In my opinion it has remained flat because the current CPC government has failed to alter the perception of nonCPC voters.

Again, I think the most important word in the above sentence is 'perception'. As I've illustrated above, the ideals of the 'average' conservative voter (at least on social issues) is not significantly different than that of the 'average' Canadian.

CPC has convinced a large segment of the Canadian population, probably a majority, that they are fiscally conservative. This is an incredible accomplishment given that their spending to date has outpaced that of the previous Liberal government. Harper's major accomplishment is that Canadians perceive CPC as fiscally conservative despite evidence to the contrary.

At the risk of derailing this thread, I should point out that while the Harper government has increased spending, much of that was in necessary areas:

- Defense, which had suffered under the Liberal government and required significant refits and new equipment

- health care, restoring spending to areas that the Liberal government had

So why has the number of "Conservative" voters not increased? Perhaps it is because more than 60% of Canadians view themselves as socially liberal and neither Manning, Day nor Harper, all party leaders at one time and all perceived as fiscal conservatives by a majority of Canadians, will ever convince Canadians that they are socially liberal. Quebecois will be especially difficult to convince.

Quebec has always been a province that has had strong left-wing views (both socially and economically), as well as a very strong trend of supporting 'native' Quebecers. Given than, I'm surprised the conservatives did as well as they did.

Edited October 24, 2008 by segnosaur

[August1991]

This entire thread, even the post of the inestimable kimmy, shows a tremendous English-Canadian bias - and a tremendous ignorance of Canada. On second thought, the thread even shows an ignorance of English Canada.

The key problem in your whole argument is the assumption that people automatically vote according to their position in the left-right political spectrum.

Segnosaur comes closest to the point.

Canada's federal politicals are not driven by ideology, they are driven by regionalism. (Should I repeat that?) Ideology does not determine Canada's federal politics; regionalism does.

Any federal politician/bureaucrat in Ottawa understands this immediately. (French/English, East/West, Toronto/elsewhere, Maritimes... )

Norm's OP is very good but it misses this key fact of Canada. In federal elections, Canadians don't vote on ideological grounds. They vote according to their region. IOW, it is impossible for a provincial premier (whatever the party) to become federal PM unless they come from the Maritimes. No Ontario, Quebec or Alberta PM could ever become Federal PM. Could Lougheed, Klein, Harris or Bourassa ever become Canada's PM? No. They are too identified with their region.

----

Let me put this in more practical terms.

Harper had the chance to win a majority in the past election but Quebecers chose reluctantly instead to vote once again for the BQ. In the next election, they'll probably choose the Liberals (assuming the Liberals choose a credible leader).

I could say the same of many Ontario voters.

Ideology has nothing to do with this.

Edited October 24, 2008 by August1991

[normanchateau]

Why exactly do you think Canadians are 'socially liberal'? Compared to what?

The comparison group I had in mind were Americans. Canadians are socially more liberal than Americans:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...29?hub=Politics

On most criteria indicative of social liberalism, e.g., views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc., I'm sure you would agree that Canadians are more liberal.

A majority of Americans will not vote for a Presidential candidate who is an atheist:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...on_or_atheist_/

By contrast, 68% of Canadians will vote for a Prime Minister who is an atheist versus only 63% of Canadians who will vote for an Evangelical (Stephen Harper of course is an Evangelical):

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...on_in_politics/

Most Americans oppose same sex marriage but 59% of Canadians support it and 62% do not feel that Harper shlould have reopened the issue:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/same_..._say_canadians/

While 35% of Canadians view drug use as a crime, 65% of Canadians view it as an illness in need of treatment and prevention:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...ness_not_crime/

Although Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals, 62% of Canadians support adding sexual orientation to the equality rights section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...ion_in_charter/

A majority of both Americans and Canadians favour marijuana decriminalization. However, unlike Americans, most Canadians favour outright legalization. In one study, 57% of Canadians supported legalization and another 32% favoured decriminalization:

http://www.nanosresearch.com/news/in_the_n...2025%202004.pdf

That leaves only 11% of Canadians on the social conservative side with respect to the continued criminalization of marijuana. Stephen Harper is one of the 11%. He has steadfastly refused to reintroduce the marijuana decriminalization bill introduced by the Liberals and indeed it was part of his platform when he campaigned for election in 2006 . His position has not changed. Given a choice between the libertarian and socially conservative position, Harper went with the social conservative position.

[August1991]

The comparison group I had in mind were Americans. Canadians are socially more liberal than Americans:

...

That leaves only 11% of Canadians on the social conservative side with respect to the continued criminalization of marijuana.

Norman, you are not Canadian. You are an American who lives in Canada. Return to America and argue your opinions there.

In Canadian federal politics, the debates concern regions.

IOW Norman, you have to find a way to make your marijuana obsession a regional issue. Then, you'll have political traction in Canada.

[Are all English Canadians so clueless about federal politics?]

[normanchateau]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I should point out that while the Harper government has increased spending, much of that was in necessary areas:

And much was in unnecessary areas:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals.

Other agencies include:

• The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006.

• The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent.

• The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals.

• The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent.

And then there's the $4.1 billion Harper promised to give Quebec annually beginning in 2008 in his 2007 budget:

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html

In retrospect, had Harper not given that huge sum straight from the budget surplus to Quebec, it could have gone to income tax cuts for all Canadians. Instead, Jean Charest took the 4.1 billion and passed it on to Quebecers in the form of tax cuts.

I'm sure Harper supporters felt that shovelling billions to Quebec was a necessary cost of winning a majority. Yet Harper continues to be perceived as a fiscal conservative.

[segnosaur]

The comparison group I had in mind were Americans. Canadians are socially more liberal than Americans:

Hey, I agree, Canadians are more likely to have views that are more liberal both socially AND economically. However, to me, that should not be relevant to the issue at hand. What SHOULD be relevant is how well the social policies of the conservatives match up with the beliefs of the Canadian voter.

(The only relevance in comparing the situation in Canada with the situation in the U.S. is for anyone who wants to demonize the conservatives by incorrectly characterizing them as pro-Bush wingnuts.)

On most criteria indicative of social liberalism, e.g., views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc., I'm sure you would agree that Canadians are more liberal.

Yes, I would. However, again the issue souldn't be how close Canada is to the U.S., but how close the conservatives are to the Canadian 'average' (if such a thing exists).

As I pointed out before, the conservatives have no plans to re-open the debate on abortion, so their 'views' on the issue aren't really out of step with the average Canadian. And it is true that the conservative policy on stem cell research IS different than the preferences of Canadians. However, in my opinion the issue of stem cell research is a relatively minor issue, and not one that would affect a significant number of voters. (And lets face it, stem cell research is a complex scientific subject that most Canadians probably aren't qualified to really judge.)

Most Americans oppose same sex marriage but 59% of Canadians support it and 62% do not feel that Harper shlould have reopened the issue:

You should keep a few things in mind considering those 'statistics'.

The percentage of people who 'support' same sex marriage varies according to how the question is worded. I had published a reference to a site that had multiple polls covering the issue, all taken before the vote. When there were only 2 options (gay marriage or not), there was usually an even split (or even a majority who supported SSM). However, when there were 3 options (SSM, no SSM, or a 3rd option of a legally recognized 'civil union'), the number of people who supported SSM actually dropped to around 30-40%. Because of that, the conservative policy of the time (they supported a legally recognized civil union) was actually closer to what the 'majority' of Canadians wanted than what the Liberals or NDP voted in.

As for 'reopening' the issue, the Conservatives have no plans to do so, so their policy on the issue is pretty much in line with what the rest of Canadians want.

Although Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals, 62% of Canadians support adding sexual orientation to the equality rights section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Keep in mind that there is a difference between laws regarding 'hate crime' and adding sexual orientation to the charter of rights and freedoms.

Laws such as bill C-250, while they may have had the noble goal of preventing harm, would have also had the side effect of causing a decrease in free speech. Similarly, any changes to the charter (such as adding 'sexual orientation') do run the risk of having unexpected side effects.

A majority of both Americans and Canadians favour marijuana decriminalization. However, unlike Americans, most Canadians favour outright legalization. In one study, 57% of Canadians supported legalization and another 32% favoured decriminalization:

I've already dealt with the drug issue, when I pointed out that while the conservative policy on marijuana was more 'right wing' than the Canadian average, the majority who favour legalization is certainly not overwhelming.

[segnosaur]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I should point out that while the Harper government has increased spending, much of that was in necessary areas:

And much was in unnecessary areas:

Hey, I totally agree...I do think that spending increases on arts and culture were unnecessary. (Ironically, arts spending is one that's sometimes thought of as being a 'social' issue, so in this way the conservatives are exhibiting a 'left wing' side.)

The way I see it though:

- The other parties were also likely to increase spending in those same areas (as well as others)

- In a minority government, the ruling party may have to put forward legislation it does not totally agree with in order to get various bills passed. Before I judge the conservative government on how fiscally responsible they are, I'd have to see them operate in a situation where they don't have to deal with various pro-spending parties in order to survive.

[normanchateau]

I've already dealt with the drug issue, when I pointed out that while the conservative policy on marijuana was more 'right wing' than the Canadian average, the majority who favour legalization is certainly not overwhelming.

Not only do a majority favour legalization but if one combines the percentage favouring legalization with the percentage favouring decriminalization, that percentage is greater than 80%. Yet a social conservative like Harper favours continued criminalization, a position completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Canadians.

I suspect that Harper's position on this issue puts him at odds even with some members of his own party.

The challenge for the Conservatives in the next election is that they will once again go into another election with a leader who is more socially conservative than a majority of Canadians on a number of issues.

This month Harper defeated arguably the weakest Liberal leader in a generation yet failed to capture a majority.

The Conservatives are stuck in the 30's percentage wise until they go with a leader like Brian Mulroney who was not perceived as a social conservative.

That Harper supporters do not perceive him as a social conservative dooms them to perpetual minority status until they are once again defeated by a Liberal leader whose views are in line with those of most Canadians.

[eyeball]

The Conservative Party is hardly ideological. They're much closer to the center than the NDP or Greens. Do you care to qualify your claim?

All parties are ideological, and I wouldn't want a NDP majority any more than I want a Conservative or Green one. The so-called center is the most relative thing there is in politics - a moving target if there ever was one. Politics looks more like a game of whack-a-mole. As soon as someone pronounces to the electorate where the center is it suddenly pops up somewhere else.

[normanchateau]

- In a minority government, the ruling party may have to put forward legislation it does not totally agree with in order to get various bills passed. Before I judge the conservative government on how fiscally responsible they are, I'd have to see them operate in a situation where they don't have to deal with various pro-spending parties in order to survive.

Your argument here appears to be that it's premature to judge whether Harper's government is fiscally conservative or not but even if they're not, it's the fault of the other parties. For Harper to survive, he must spend and spend and spend in order for his government to survive.

Let's suppose I buy that argument. Doesn't it follow logically that it's premature for you to judge whether Harper is socially conservative or not? For Harper to survive in a minority government, he must appear not to be a social conservative in order to survive.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

[eyeball]

Ideology has nothing to do with this.

I agree regionalism is a huge factor but I can't agree that ideology has no bearing whatsoever on Canadian politics. How do you explain the ideological division that seems to exist between rural and urban Canadians? This appears to be similar right across the country no matter what the region.

Politicians and many of their supporters certainly aren't above behaving in a ideological or partisan manner.

[normanchateau]

Laws such as bill C-250, while they may have had the noble goal of preventing harm, would have also had the side effect of causing a decrease in free speech.

C-250 passed because the Liberals, NDP, BQ and PCs voted for it. Harper and the Canadian Alliance voted against it.

The law is in place. Whose free speech has been decreased? When C-250 finally passed, amendments had been put in place to protect religious freedom.

During discussion in the House of Commons of the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals, Evangelicals like Harper argued that such legislation would prevent churches from being able to preach against homosexuality.

Accordingly, Liberal MP Derek Lee proposed an amendment to C-250 which was adopted. It created a defense from prosecution for opinions expressed 'in good faith' or based on a belief in a religious text like the Bible.

In other words, C-250 passed with amendments guaranteeing the rights of religious groups to discriminate and preach against homosexuality. Despite that Harper voted against it.

If Harper generally opposed hate crime legislation, one could argue that this is merely a free speech issue. But Harper favours hate crime legislation based on religion, ethnicity, race, etc. The only hate crime legislation he opposes is that based on sexual orientation.

Peter MacKay was then a PC and of course voted for C-250. Harper is a conservative even relative to other Conservatives. Or maybe it's just homophobia or his Evangelical beliefs. Either way, he's out of step with most Canadians.

[drewski]

- In a minority government, the ruling party may have to put forward legislation it does not totally agree with in order to get various bills passed. Before I judge the conservative government on how fiscally responsible they are, I'd have to see them operate in a situation where they don't have to deal with various pro-spending parties in order to survive.

thats true in theory. but as we've seen, there's another option, political blackmail. instead of passing other parties legislation to get support for your own, you can just make every contentious bill a confidence motion which could trigger an election the people dont' want if it wasn't passed.

[segnosaur]

In a minority government, the ruling party may have to put forward legislation it does not totally agree with in order to get various bills passed. Before I judge the conservative government on how fiscally responsible they are, I'd have to see them operate in a situation where they don't have to deal with various pro-spending parties in order to survive.

thats true in theory. but as we've seen, there's another option, political blackmail. instead of passing other parties legislation to get support for your own, you can just make every contentious bill a confidence motion which could trigger an election the people dont' want if it wasn't passed.

When you're talking about budgets and other monatary bills, I believe they are already considered issues of confidence.

Now, whether such a game of "chicken" over potential spending cuts between a conservative party and left-wing parties depends on how deep the cuts go, what other 'perks' there are, etc.

[segnosaur]

I've already dealt with the drug issue, when I pointed out that while the conservative policy on marijuana was more 'right wing' than the Canadian average, the majority who favour legalization is certainly not overwhelming.

Not only do a majority favour legalization but if one combines the percentage favouring legalization with the percentage favouring decriminalization, that percentage is greater than 80%. Yet a social conservative like Harper favours continued criminalization, a position completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Canadians.

First of all, Keep in mind that the article you referred to, while it was done by a reputable polling firm, was conducted on behalf of NORML, a pro-marijuana party. The article itself even mentions other opinion polls show a much lower level of support for decriminalization, so at this point we can't really tell if this is a true reflection on Canadian's attitudes or some outlier.

Secondly, I've already agreed/admitted that most Canadians differ from the Conservative party on the issue of marijuana. However, they are just as likely to agree with the conservative party on other issues of law and order (the gun registry, as I've pointed out before, and on minimum sentencing.)

I suspect that Harper's position on this issue puts him at odds even with some members of his own party.

I'm sure it does.

Heck, if I remember correctly, even the NDP party had at least one MP who opposed the same sex marriage laws. (Wasn't able to vote against it though, as the party enforced solidarity.)

The challenge for the Conservatives in the next election is that they will once again go into another election with a leader who is more socially conservative than a majority of Canadians on a number of issues.

Yes he is more socially conservative on a number of issues. On other issues though, his policies actually do line up with what the 'average' canadian wants. (I've given several examples of that before. Continually picking on the drug issue doesn't change that fact.)

Simply portraying the conservatives as some right-leaning wing nuts without anythign in common with the average Canadian is inaccurate and arrogant.

This month Harper defeated arguably the weakest Liberal leader in a generation yet failed to capture a majority.

And he was fighting against 4 (count 'em 4) opponents, including the Bloc Quebecois. Given the fact that Quebec has a trend of supporting Quebec-born politicians, its not suprising that the Conservatives would have had an up-hill struggle gaining a majority.

- In a minority government, the ruling party may have to put forward legislation it does not totally agree with in order to get various bills passed. Before I judge the conservative government on how fiscally responsible they are, I'd have to see them operate in a situation where they don't have to deal with various pro-spending parties in order to survive.

Let's suppose I buy that argument. Doesn't it follow logically that it's premature for you to judge whether Harper is socially conservative or not? For Harper to survive in a minority government, he must appear not to be a social conservative in order to survive.

I never actually claimed Harper or the conservative party didn't have 'socially conservative' views or policies. What I've pointed out is that whatever views he has are not necessarily outside the range of what is considered 'average' in Canada

Defence? Before the conservatives first got into power most Canadians favoured an increase in defence spending.

Law and order issues? Yes, the conservative opinion differs from the 'average' Canadian when talking about marijuana laws, but Canadians were more likey to agree with scrapping the gun registry.

Same sex marriage? Already pointed out that while Canadians don't want the issue reopened, had it been put to a referendum at the time it was passed, the Liberal's same sex marriage law would have failed.

I myself have libertarian leanings. But I'm not so arrogant as you to assume that everyone else in the country is necessarily going to share my social beliefs.

[segnosaur]

C-250 passed because the Liberals, NDP, BQ and PCs voted for it. Harper and the Canadian Alliance voted against it.

The law is in place. Whose free speech has been decreased? When C-250 finally passed, amendments had been put in place to protect religious freedom.

Mine has.

I'm an athiest. To be honest, I have no problem with homosexuality. Its a natural thing, and people should have the right to do with their life as they choose.

However, I should have the ability to make any sort of insane anti-homosexual remarks that I wish, even though those remarks have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Its not a freedom that I had any intention of using, but its still a loss of freedom. By telling me I cannot make any sort of crackpot remarks unless I have some religious belief tells me that my freedom of speech is worth less than someone who uses a bible.

[Mr.Canada]

Mine has.

I'm an athiest. To be honest, I have no problem with homosexuality. Its a natural thing, and people should have the right to do with their life as they choose.

However, I should have the ability to make any sort of insane anti-homosexual remarks that I wish, even though those remarks have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Its not a freedom that I had any intention of using, but its still a loss of freedom. By telling me I cannot make any sort of crackpot remarks unless I have some religious belief tells me that my freedom of speech is worth less than someone who uses a bible.

Well said. Freedom of speech and of the press is paramount.

[guyser]

Mine has.

I dont think it has.

However, I should have the ability to make any sort of insane anti-homosexual remarks that I wish, even though those remarks have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

You do have that ability. What you cannot do is incite hatred against a group

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

[segnosaur]

I dont think it has.

However, I should have the ability to make any sort of insane anti-homosexual remarks that I wish, even though those remarks have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

You do have that ability. What you cannot do is incite hatred against a group

You see, here's the problem... the term 'incide hatred against a group' is an extremely vague term. If I said 'group X is evil', is that inciting hatred? Why or why not? Look at the controversy that surrounded Ezra Lavant and others regarding claims of 'hate speech' by Muslim groups... hundreds of hours, thousands of dollars spent.

If we truly have freedom of speech, then we should only restrict such speech when there is a clear case for immediate harm (e.g. if I tell someone to attack someone right now). Of course, such situations are probably already covered under other laws (such as criminal conspiricy, etc.)

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

That's the problem:

- Opinions (such as "group X is evil" can never really be proven true or false, so part A does not apply

- Secular opinions would not be covered due to part B

- Satire/humour (or similar 'speech') would not be covered due to part C

- Part D only applies to certain types of 'speech'

So we have a law that can punish people for making certain public statements, and the number of exceptions does not cover all potential situations.

Of course, this whole issue does have the risk of derailing the thread. Ultimately, I think its irrelevant to the discussion. I don't know why certain conservatives oppose adding homosexuality to hate crime legislation. But its such a minor issue, and one in which Canadians are probably not that well educated. (i.e. they may claim they want to stop 'hate speech' against homosexuals, but they'd probably also complain if people were prosecuted over 'free speech' issues.)

[M.Dancer]

You do have that ability. What you cannot do is incite hatred against a group

You see, here's the problem... the term 'incide hatred against a group' is an extremely vague term. If I said 'group X is evil', is that inciting hatred? Why or why not?

I think the law as written is well written.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of...

I think you can say "Homos are evil and their fashion advice should be taken with a grain of salt."

But not..."homos are evil and they should be shunned or stoned."