Homless Cons

[Canadian Blue]

There is indeed hate and intolerance in Canada, but it shouldn't be fueled by our government.

Yes PT, our government fuels so much hate and intolerance. Before Stephen Harper their was no hate and intolerance in Canada and we all played in the grass under the rainbow with gumdrop smiles.

[Canadian Blue]

Yet you have just demonstrated reasons why this is not the case. And there are others that cross petty party politics. "Hate and intolerance" is very Canadian based on the past, present, and future. Claims to the contrary have no foundation in reality.

Bush/Cheney, you don't understand. Everyone realizes that the human emotions of hate and intolerance are confined to only those people who vote Conservative and go to Church more than once a year. The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party never suffer from the emotions of hatred and intolerance and are only ever compassionate and loving. The research bears this out:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...iberal_giv.html

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Now if only those evil Christian right wingers would stop being so damn charitable and instead let the government handle the work of compassion.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[MontyBurns]

The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party, however never suffer from the emotions of hatred and intolerance and are only ever compassionate and loving.

Liberals and NDP are intolerant of and hate conservatives. NDP hates Jews also.

Edited April 4, 2009 by MontyBurns

[Progressive Tory]

Yes PT, our government fuels so much hate and intolerance. Before Stephen Harper their was no hate and intolerance in Canada and we all played in the grass under the rainbow with gumdrop smiles.

I don't blame Stephen Harper for this, but the new conservative movement in general. The CHRC was established to deal with discrimination and have been the thorn in the side of the movement ever since. When I listen to why they hate the CHRC so much, it boils down to the fact that some (and fortunately much fewer than people believe) churches feel that they have been forbidden from preaching their beliefs, mainly that homosexuality is a sin and an 'abomination'. This inhibits their 'freedom of speech'.

But if I say that churches are wrong and any preacher who promotes this type of intolerance is guilty of a hate crime, I'm persecuting Christians, despite the fact that I'm only persecuting hate based on narrow minded beliefs.

This is not a religous issue. Homosexuality is not a crime, nor should it be, and the gay community have a right to protection. The same thing should happen to the preacher who fires up anti-gay sentiment as it would if he railed against blacks. He should be arrested because he's violating the laws of the land.

The conservatives did not invent intolerance, but shouldn't legitimize it. Church and state must be divided. Politicians need to be concerned with things like the economy, the environment, healthcare, etc. Things that affect ALL Canadians. Saving our souls is not part of the job description.

[Progressive Tory]

Of course not. The hippies take care of this stuff.

Exactly, though 'hippies' rather dates you. I haven't heard that term in decades. However, even a 'hippy' who is pro-choice is probably more 'pro-life' than the anti-abortionists, because they care about things like war and poverty. 'Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception but then can end whenever the hell it wants. It's no longer their problem. Starve, get slaughtered. Who cares? Just don't raise his taxes.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't blame Stephen Harper for this, but the new conservative movement in general. The CHRC was established to deal with discrimination and have been the thorn in the side of the movement ever since. When I listen to why they hate the CHRC so much, it boils down to the fact that some (and fortunately much fewer than people believe) churches feel that they have been forbidden from preaching their beliefs, mainly that homosexuality is a sin and an 'abomination'. This inhibits their 'freedom of speech'.

Probably because it does inhibit their freedom to speech and religion. What you're basically saying is that parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children as they wish, then you might as well ban parenting and the Church and replace it with the state. If someone doesn't approve of homosexuality, anal sex, or other promiscuous lifestyles, they shouldn't be punished by some bureaucrat for it. I don't approve of sexuality aimed at children in advertising and some sexual behaviors, it hardly means I'm guilty of a hate crime.

But if I say that churches are wrong and any preacher who promotes this type of intolerance is guilty of a hate crime, I'm persecuting Christians, despite the fact that I'm only persecuting hate based on narrow minded beliefs.

Yes, people who argue that sexual promiscuity, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality, are immoral should be guilty of hate crimes. That would make our society so much better.

This is not a religous issue. Homosexuality is not a crime, nor should it be, and the gay community have a right to protection.

What? I have not seen any mainstream church's which have supported criminalizing homosexuality in Canada, that might be true of the dominionist movement but not of Christianity in general. I've heard plenty of religious people argue that their children shouldn't be exposed to pro-gay material at an early age due to a conflict of religious beliefs, but that's hardly an example of criminalizing homosexuality.

The same thing should happen to the preacher who fires up anti-gay sentiment as it would if he railed against blacks. He should be arrested because he's violating the laws of the land.

Relatively recent laws by the way. If a person says something stupid they shouldn't be jailed for it, they should be ridiculed. Believe it or not Progressive Tory you don't have ownership of other peoples tongues. This idea that we should give all power over to the state when it comes to what we say is authoritarian at best. I'd even go so far to say that you're far more authoritarian than must Christian's in Canada considering you opposition to freedom of speech, thought, and religion.

The conservatives did not invent intolerance, but shouldn't legitimize it. Church and state must be divided.

You just stated Church and State shouldn't be divided, and that it's perfectly reasonable for the state to shutdown Church's and imprison religious folk who dissaprove of non-traditional sexual behaviors. What you're essentially saying is that the state should have supreme control over the Church in all matters. Therefore you do not believe in a separation of Church and state.

Politicians need to be concerned with things like the economy, the environment, healthcare, etc. Things that affect ALL Canadians.

Yes, I really wish politicians would discuss those things. Is this just some pleasent fiction you have where everyone that disagrees with you is evil. Anybody who pays attention to politics will realize that the lionshare of political debate in the commons is about the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

Exactly, though 'hippies' rather dates you. I haven't heard that term in decades. However, even a 'hippy' who is pro-choice is probably more 'pro-life' than the anti-abortionists, because they care about things like war and poverty. 'Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception but then can end whenever the hell it wants. It's no longer their problem. Starve, get slaughtered. Who cares? Just don't raise his taxes.

This has already been disproven PT. You still can't argue coherently and continue to hold this belief that Conservatism has it's basis in the Jacobins and the Cult of Reason instead of Edmund Burke and the Monarchy.

First of all, the hippies who are protesting war aren't really protesting war as much as our involvement in it. They really don't care if 250,000 people get slaughtered in Sudan as long as Canadian soldiers don't intervene. With reference to poverty, once again it's easy to walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty," any idiot can do that. But it takes far more time and commitment to actually work at a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, to actually put your own money towards charity, and to fund a daycare for single mothers as many Churches in my community have done. This might come as a shock to you but people who might disagree with your political viewpoints are sometimes compassionate and charitable and not the evil demagogues you make them out to be.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Progressive Tory]

Funny thing is that George Grant would likely never be welcomed in your group. More or less because he was absolutely opposed to abortion and supported a public role for Christianity.

I don't know who George Grant is but will find out. However, abortion is a legal issue, not a religous issue in terms of government (state) intervention. I am pro-choice and while to many that means pro-abortion, it is absolutely not. The billboards with the babies is excellent. I even liked the ad that was for some reason scrapped for the superbowl about Obama and the single mom. I have no problem with any groups offering alternatives, as long as they are willing to take it past the simple birth.

I am also not implying that all Christians hate homosexuals, because I know that they do not. I'm referring to the 'conservative' movement in Canada that hates the CHRC because it inhibits their rights to preach that homo-sexuality is a sin. Clerics have a great deal of power over their followers, and if simple common decency doesn't tell them that it is wrong to preach intolerance, than someone has to step in.

Charitable acts are one thing, and I'm glad that you like to help out at soup kitchens, etc. My sister is on the board of our local one and it is very successful. However, while it is not the gov't's responsibility to save our souls, it is their responsibility to protect their citizens. Social programs are a must, and meaningful attempts to keep all citizens fed should always be a priority. Hunger is the basis of revolutions, so keeping the wolf away from their door, might keep them away from yours.

[Progressive Tory]

NDP hates Jews also.

What exactly are you basing that on?

[Progressive Tory]

Yes, I really wish politicians would discuss those things. Is this just some pleasent fiction you have where everyone that disagrees with you is evil. Anybody who pays attention to politics will realize that the lionshare of political debate in the commons is about the economy, the environment and healthcare.

The debate might be about those things, but it's mostly the current gov't dodging those issues while reading statements from Ignatieff's books out loud in an attempt to discredit him.

BTW: I never said 'evil'. Just hypocritical.

[capricorn]

Church and state must be divided.

This is true as regards our governmental institutions and legislation. But try as you may, you can't separate politicians from their religion. Example, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper have been known to celebrate Christmas in the Christian sense. Yet, it is Harper that has come under scrutiny for his religious beliefs and observances.

IMO failure to respect the right of politicians to practice their religion is a form of intolerance.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't know who George Grant is but will find out. However, abortion is a legal issue, not a religous issue in terms of government (state) intervention.

Yes, I've never heard of ethics ever coming into the abortion debate. [this is sarcastic for a reason]

I am also not implying that all Christians hate homosexuals, because I know that they do not. I'm referring to the 'conservative' movement in Canada that hates the CHRC because it inhibits their rights to preach that homo-sexuality is a sin.

Do you know anything about Christianity? Do you know how many sins one is capable of committing, according to Christian, Jewish, and Islamic, doctrine homosexuality is considered a sin in the same vein as sex before marriage and adultery. Why you think religious people shouldn't be able to hold those beliefs amongst their community is beyond me. Needless to say I'm sure with your ilk you wouldn't mind jailing Mennonites, Hutterites, Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, and many others who view homosexuality as a sin.

By the way, plenty of people hate the CHRC. Including Johann Hari, a gay journalist in the United Kingdom who was vehemently opposed to the case brought against Macleans. Perhaps he's a homophobe in league with the conservatives as well.

Charitable acts are one thing, and I'm glad that you like to help out at soup kitchens, etc. My sister is on the board of our local one and it is very successful. However, while it is not the gov't's responsibility to save our souls, it is their responsibility to protect their citizens.

Protection is relegated to the police service and military, everthing else is secondary. Protection is a different concept than providing welfare for citizens and abolishing the duties and responsibilities of citizens to their fellow man.

Social programs are a must, and meaningful attempts to keep all citizens fed should always be a priority. Hunger is the basis of revolutions, so keeping the wolf away from their door, might keep them away from yours.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself in that you pointed out that voluntary organizations are able to keep people fed but should essentially be abandoned in favour of a bureaucrat in Ottawa attempting to redistribute food.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

The debate might be about those things, but it's mostly the current gov't dodging those issues while reading statements from Ignatieff's books out loud in an attempt to discredit him.

BTW: I never said 'evil'. Just hypocritical.

How is reading statements from Ignatieff's book akin to the government "saving souls."

But you basically have stated people who disagree with you are evil. Much like when you stated all pro-lifers only care about human life up until the actual birth, which has been thoroughly refuted.

Either way, I love how you talk up this fanciful notion that you're a "Red Tory." Which doesn't really ring true considering your support for a massive managerial state in Ottawa to run peoples lives instead of the communitarian conservative based upon tradition and prudence which was once espoused.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[capricorn]

With reference to poverty, once again it's easy to walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty," any idiot can do that.

Some people protest everything. Some of them even do it for a price. The usual suspects can be found at just about every rally.

In Calgary, what began as an anti-seal hunt protest quickly transformed into a rally against Canada's troops being in Afghanistan.

Fifteen minutes before the anti-war rally was scheduled to begin, a line of protesters held placards calling for an end to the seal hunt. Moments later, they swapped their signs and spoke out against the war.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/346570

[Canadian Blue]

Hold on, Progressive Tory is on to something, recently noted social conservative/religious fundamentalist/neoconservative intellectual Noam Chomsky has stated his opposition to Human Rights Commissions.

PJ: Speaking of censorship, what do make of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and section 13(1) in particular? Here's that section:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I wonder if you have any thoughts on this particular section.

NC: I think it's outrageous, like the comparable European laws. It's also pure hypocrisy. If it were applied the media and journals would be shut down. They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?

PJ: About Canada's human rights act, you wrote: "I think it's outrageous, like the comparable European laws. It's also pure hypocrisy. If it were applied the media and journals would be shut down. They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?"

That last part may not be applicable in this case.

The law is specific about what groups cannot be exposed to hatred or contempt. Under the CHRA, you can't expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, pardoned criminal conviction (http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/grounds-en.asp)

Maybe you could offer a bit of clarification about what you mean by "They don't expose current enemies of the state to hatred or contempt?"

NC: The provision of law that you sent me referred to "persons," not just a person. Hence groups. I think that was the legal basis for barring Rushdie's Satanic Verses briefly, until it was overturned. There are also other mechanisms, like the devious argument used to ban Zundel on grounds of incitement of race hatred that made him a security threat.

The media and journals are constantly exposing Arabs to hatred and contempt. And that's been consistent practice for years with regard to enemies of the state.

I'll look up the NP story when I have a moment. I'm more familiar with Britain, where the primary technique for silencing unwanted opinion, even putting a small newspaper out of business, is the disgraceful libel laws. If a book or article appears in the US, and then is going to be republished in England, it's necessary to get a battery of lawyers to review it to see if anything might be actionable. Some of the things they demand be removed are remarkable. I recall being asked to cut out a sentence saying that Henry Kissinger is guilty of war crimes, which is about as controversial as saying that grass is green.

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...ion-period.html

[jbg]

You still can't argue coherently.....

Well stated

First of all, the hippies who are protesting war aren't really protesting war as much as our involvement in it. They really don't care if 250,000 people get slaughtered in Sudan as long as Canadian soldiers don't intervene.

Exactly. What transpired in Vietnam and Democratic Campuchea was not peace but the U.S. hippies, including those that fled to Canada didn't seem to mind or protest.

With reference to poverty, once again it's easy to walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty," any idiot can do that. But it takes far more time and commitment to actually work at a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, to actually put your own money towards charity, and to fund a daycare for single mothers as many Churches in my community have done. This might come as a shock to you but people who might disagree with your political viewpoints are sometimes compassionate and charitable and not the evil demagogues you make them out to be.

Many people of PT's ilk are not particularly compassionate.

[waldo]

Funny thing is that George Grant would likely never be welcomed in your group. More or less because he was absolutely opposed to abortion and supported a public role for Christianity. A Red Tory is someone who is socially conservative with reference to conserving institutions like the monarchy, church, and tradition, while economically nationalist. They favour a communitarian verson of conservatism. I wish people would stop bastardizing conservatism to mean implicit support for the central managerial state.

I don't know who George Grant is but will find out. However, abortion is a legal issue, not a religious issue in terms of government (state) intervention.

Yes, I've never heard of ethics ever coming into the abortion debate. [this is sarcastic for a reason]

what's your ethics target from the above (sarcastic or not)?

[waldo]

Well stated

Many people of PT's ilk are not particularly compassionate.

yes, your sycophantic comment and personal denigration is, as you say, well stated... indeed.

[jbg]

yes, your sycophantic comment and personal denigration is, as you say, well stated... indeed.

What personal denigration? And I didn't mention you unless you have multiple posting identity disorder.

[benny]

Homeless Conservatives should never forget the Libertarian Party of Canada.

http://www.libertarian.ca/

[waldo]

Well stated

Many people of PT's ilk are not particularly compassionate.

yes, your sycophantic comment and personal denigration is, as you say, well stated... indeed.

What personal denigration? And I didn't mention you unless you have multiple posting identity disorder.

ahem! I didn't take it personally; however, a personal denigration... is a personal denigration, whether it applies to me, uhhh... personally, or not.

hey now! On the other hand, since you felt all-inclusive with your "ilk" reference... and since I wholeheartedly consider myself one of, as you say, "PT's ilk" (if she'll have me ), then... yours was a group-slam personal denigration - wasn't it?

carry on

[Canadian Blue]

hey now! On the other hand, since you felt all-inclusive with your "ilk" reference... and since I wholeheartedly consider myself one of, as you say, "PT's ilk" (if she'll have me ), then... yours was a group-slam personal denigration - wasn't it?

You mean you feel superior to other people based soley on the fact that you walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty" instead of actually working at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen?

[Visionseeker]

Yet you have just demonstrated reasons why this is not the case. And there are others that cross petty party politics. "Hate and intolerance" is very Canadian based on the past, present, and future. Claims to the contrary have no foundation in reality.

My post discounted the notion that Conservatives are, by definition, intolerant while accepting the premise that intolerant Conservatives have a significant influence over the party. Hate can be found in the corridors of every party. But in the Conservative party, some of those corridors are the one's wielding power.

[bush_cheney2004]

My post discounted the notion that Conservatives are, by definition, intolerant while accepting the premise that intolerant Conservatives have a significant influence over the party. Hate can be found in the corridors of every party. But in the Conservative party, some of those corridors are the one's wielding power.

Which would be the case if Conservatives were out of power as well, same as the other parties. Oftentimes "intolerance" or "hate" just reflects whose ox is currently being gored.

[Visionseeker]

Which would be the case if Conservatives were out of power as well, same as the other parties. Oftentimes "intolerance" or "hate" just reflects whose ox is currently being gored.

Out or in power, the influence of the Conservative "fringe" is what keeps them too far away from the centre. And yes, many an ox have been executed at the hand of hypocrites, just as many a fair butcher have been wrongfully maligned while acting in good faith.