Argus Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Allowing everyone the freedom to say what they want in public is a very scary proposition.Putting people in prison for expression their opinions frightens me a lot more.We as a nation can not allow this sort of behaviour.Uh.... why?Anytime society has allowed hatred towards one group or another, it has lead to the downfall of that society.In point of fact anti hate laws are a fairly modern idea. One of the first was in pre-Nazi Germany. It did not good at all, except to make martyrs out of some Nazis.There is no evidence that anti-hate laws accomplish anything or ever have accomplished anything, protect anyone nor ever will protect anyone. Hate groups and hateful speech is probably more common now than it has ever been before in Canada. And its rise coincided with the rise of anti-hate speech laws. So exactly what have hate-speech laws managed to accomplish? Oh, yes, they have managed to keep the hate speech in the darkness, where it is whispered and passed on away from our dainty eyes and ears. Of course, it exists nonetheless. But now because it's uttered quietly in those private halls and homes there's no one to argue against it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 I for one do not mind admitting that some of the things being proposed by the Reform-Aliance-Conservative Party are, without a doubt, unnerving and given that Mr. Harpur's election promises carry a price tag of 58 billion dollars certainly leaves me wondering if he will find that kind of cash by cutting our social programs or by raising our taxes. He will surely have to rob Peter to pay Paul!First off, I dislike the term "cost" when used to describe tax cuts. Tax cuts don't "cost" anything, but simply return my money to me so I can spend it as I choose. Since it's my money I don't believe that is a "cost". Second, while I'm a cynic, my cynicism has a dash of optimism. I know the Liberals are lying crooks. I have some modest hope the Tories are not. And I credit Harper with enough ambition to not want to be booted out of office by a hostile electorate after four years. I therefore do not believe he will slash social programs.I am also very concerned about Mr. Harpur's intent to pour millions, if not billions, into the military. Today Canada is seen as a peace-keeping nation. Do we really want to become a nation that could possibly be perceived by other countries as becoming a military threat?You mean like, uh, Sweden? Sweden has a very robust military far, far more powerful than ours. How about Switzerland? They've got an awful good military too. In fact, if Harper increases the size of the military by the amount he's talking about we'd still have one the smallest military forces in the Western world.Do we really want to become a prime target for terrorists?According to a news release from Al Quaeda we're number four on their list of countries they want to "punish". So much for hiding back and being ignored, eh! Apparently they don't much care that we self righteously stayed out of the Iraqi thing. They want to kill us anyway.Despite that, the RCMP is woefully underfunded, to the point it has had to take people away from the border. CSIS is woefully underfunded, unable to monitor the number of groups in Canada which symathise with or support terrorists. We eliminated the Ports Police, so you can get almost anything through our ports, and our coast guard is tiny and unarmed, while our navy spends most of its time in port for lack of money and lack of personnel. As for our airports, we're now the only country in the world which trusts to minimum wage, rent-a-cop security guard types to screen for terrorist weapons and bombs. Hmm. How long do you expect our luck to hold out? I also urge all die hard Progressive Conservatives out there to open their eyes to the reality that the party you were once a member of no longer exists...Stephen Harper never was, nor ever will be, a true Progressive Conservative.You mean he's not a corrupt, lying two-faced weasel who'd sell out his own mother for a vote or a dollar? Well... good. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Alliance Fanatic Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Gallant's comments that most of the caucus wants to repeal bill C-250 is a pretty good indication of what a Canadian Alliance government is going to be like. I thought you said you were supportive of free speech. Does'nt C-250 possibly limit free speech turning the bible into hate literature and forcing church's to believe that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. Liberalism has an inherent belief that individuals can do whatever they want as long as it "pleasures" them. However the government must control most aspects of the economy, and also decide who has the right to freedoms, and who does not. Conservatism tends to have a high value on community values, which means that a society shares the same values such as charity, strong families, and supporting victims of crime and punishing those who commit crime. In a conservative society the people are allowed to do as they wish economically, however in the social relm a society must support certain values that preserve human life, tradition, and the family. Quote "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" - George Orwell's Animal Farm
takeanumber Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 And you know what, these laws never go away. They're only added to. Not so sure about this fact. Anyway: the arguement by inductive reasoning is hereby defeated because reason prevails. Where reason ceases to function, we'll have a problem. I have yet to find any evidence that reason has failed to prevail. Therefore, we are not yet in any danger of slipping down that slipery slope. ------------------------------------------ The next parliament is shapping up to be a pretty unstable place. It could be pretty cool to see actually! Quote
Argus Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Forgive me for not being a war monger. What I actually said was that today Canada is seen as a peace keeping nation.Uhhhh, by who? Canada is a peace keeping model for the rest of the world and as such is leading by example the way to world peace.Uhhh, we are? No, sorry, but we aren't. I'm guessing you're what, 40-50 or so? You problably remember the glory days of Canadian peacekeeping operations, you know, when we had a military. Over the last ten years in particular, our contribution to UN peacekeeping operations has been declining, year by year. We once had thousands of people abroad on UN peacekeeping mission. Do you know how many we have now? Just about 300. We are not the top contributor to the UN we once were, nor in the top ten, nor the top thirty, in fact. Take a look.UN Peacekeeping contributors You see, the glory days of UN peacekeeping are over. That was in the seventies and eighties, when people still had some respect for the UN and the idea of peacekeeping. Nowadays UN troops are nothing but targers for every little ratty assed terrorist and guerrila group in the world. UN "peaekeepers" were chained to targets in Serbia, to keep them from being bombed. They were hacked to death in Rwanda. They were massacred by Somalians. Perhaps the low point, the absolute nadir of UN operations came in Srebrenica, when the whole house of cards, the false front the UN had tried to maintain came crashing down. The UN established a safe area for civilians to go. The Serbs surrounded it, moved in, brushed the UN peacekeepers aside, and went on to massacre thousands of people. That pretty much killed the idea of the UN peacekeeping effectively in difficult places, and Rwanda, where they stood around doing nothing put a stake through it. The era of feel-good peacekeeping that a lot of wishy-washy liberals so enjoyed is mostly over. Once it became obvious to the world that UN peacekeepers had no ability to actually do anything they became all-but useless. Now major problems are handled by local groups or by NATO or by the United States. The UN could do nothing about the mess in Yugoslavia until the United States decided to start bombing people. The UN could do nothing about East Timor until the Australians decided to move in and put a stop to it. The UN had 500 "peacekeepers" taken as hostages by a punk ass gang of teenage drug thugs in Sierra Leonne and the British had to send paratroops into the country to free them and establish order. You can't keep the peace in a lot of places nowadays until you establish the peace, and you need force and the willingness to use it in order to do that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Gallant's comments that most of the caucus wants to repeal bill C-250 is a pretty good indication of what a Canadian Alliance government is going to be like.One which respects freedom of speech? I certainly hope so.This is another of those stupid, pointless, feel-good laws which really isn't going to achieve much but which can be extremely dangerous. It is without question going to conflict with freedom of religion, and I am fairly sure that one day not too far in the future (the bill is fairly new) we're going to see priests, rabbis, Imans and the like hauled into court for quoting from their own religious texts. Under this law the Bible itself is hate literature, as is the Koran. When you throw language around about 'traditional values', you risk being lumped in with the neo-nazis, Zundels, and polygamous Mormon cults.I think most people realize traditional values are things like self reliance, hard work, respect, family, charity, etc. Perhaps people of your generation are simply unfamiliar with those concepts, which explains your confusion. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
takeanumber Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 I think most people realize traditional values are things like self reliance, hard work, respect, family, charity, etc. Perhaps people of your generation are simply unfamiliar with those concepts, which explains your confusion. Oh Argus, come now. This is another of those stupid, pointless, feel-good laws which really isn't going to achieve much but which can be extremely dangerous. It is without question going to conflict with freedom of religion, and I am fairly sure that one day not too far in the future (the bill is fairly new) we're going to see priests, rabbis, Imans and the like hauled into court for quoting from their own religious texts. Under this law the Bible itself is hate literature, as is the Koran. It's clear to me that you have not read C-250, nor the relevant section of the Criminal Code it ammends. You're welcome to come on back later when you've familiarized yourself with the legislation and we can have a proper discussion on the subject and the Canadian Alliance position on it. Quote
idealisttotheend Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Well it seems that a COn MP has weighed into this issue. CBC story on Cheryl Gallant "The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses, for example, pedophiles," Gallant said."I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed," she said. How she draws a linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality is...... well beyond comprehension. Another one for SomeConservativeMPsaid.com I guess (not a real website but it could be one). My own opionion is that the hate law is a good law. History shows us that most genocides start with one group inciting hatred against another through various forms of "speech." So strictly defined prohibitions against the incitement of hatred are useful and necessary in a society where all are free. I point out also that we have had laws against defamation and slander in this country for a lot longer than 25 years but those laws don't seem to bother the more committed "free speech" advocates. Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
takeanumber Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 I point out also that we have had laws against defamation and slander in this country for a lot longer than 25 years but those laws don't seem to bother the more committed "free speech" advocates Nope. It's only when it gets extended to homosexuals that it becomes an issue. I wonder why that is? Although, I do find it quite disconcerning when people believe the Alliance about the contents of bill C-250. As somebody who knows the section of the criminal code to be modified, bill C-250, and who watched the debates, I can safely say that religious freedom is in fact preserved. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 And you know what, these laws never go away. They're only added to. Not so sure about this fact. Anyway: the arguement by inductive reasoning is hereby defeated because reason prevails. Where reason ceases to function, we'll have a problem. Oh well duuhh. I guess we won't ever have a problem then. It's not like anyone in government or the courts will ever do anything unreasonable.Why even have your Charter anyway? Clearly as long as people are reasonable it's a big fat waste of money. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Why even have your Charter anyway? Clearly as long as people are reasonable it's a big fat waste of money. The answer to this is so blindingly obvious I can't believe I'm bothering: Because people are seldom reasonable. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 How she draws a linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality is...... well beyond comprehension.The law says nothing about homosexuality. It says "sexual orientation". I think she is referring to a gray area between what we term "sexual orientation" and what we call "fetish" or perversion or... whatever it is that makes people psychologically want to have sex with kids. I mean, paedophiles no more choose their uh, targets, than gays, right? So why isn't it an orientation, too? Anyway, she's afraid that the term orientation will be extended to paedophiles. And before you laugh remember that not long ago homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental illness.My own opionion is that the hate law is a good law. History shows us that most genocides start with one group inciting hatred against another through various forms of "speech." Uh, no it doesn't. Most "genocide" takes place during wars launched by governments, and all genocide takes place at the hands of non-democratic governments. What these laws do is damage democracy and freedom, the very things which prevent genocide. By the way, Germany had a hate crime law before the Nazis took power. It did no good whatsoever. It sent a few Nazis to prison for a bit, but it didn't slow them down in the slightest. So strictly defined prohibitions against the incitement of hatred are useful and necessary in a society where all are free.How wierd we managed to get along without them for most of the history of this country. Can you please tell me how many acts of genocide we commited prior to the enactment of hate crime laws? There must have been a whole passel of them, right?I point out also that we have had laws against defamation and slander in this country for a lot longer than 25 years but those laws don't seem to bother the more committed "free speech" advocates.When's the last time you saw someone put in prison for slander? Those are private laws of tort mean to protect individuals from specific and proveable damage done by falsehoods. People get sued, not imprisoned.Not quite the same thing. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 It says "sexual orientation". I think she is referring to a gray area between what we term "sexual orientation" and what we call "fetish" or perversion or... whatever it is that makes people psychologically want to have sex with kids. I mean, paedophiles no more choose their uh, targets, than gays, right? So why isn't it an orientation, too? Anyway, she's afraid that the term orientation will be extended to paedophiles. And before you laugh remember that not long ago homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental illness. The "gray area" line is an argumentum ad absurdum. Currently, pedophilia is prohibited by law and by society at large. How wierd we managed to get along without them for most of the history of this country. Can you please tell me how many acts of genocide we commited prior to the enactment of hate crime laws? There must have been a whole passel of them, right? Ask the folks who populated North America before we got here. Well, the surviving ones, anyway. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 The "gray area" line is an argumentum ad absurdum. Currently, pedophilia is prohibited by law and by society at large.Oh well then, I guess it could never be legalized. Uh, wait a minute. Wasn't homosexuality illegal, too not that long ago, and condemned by society at large and medical science as a sick perversion? How wierd we managed to get along without them for most of the history of this country. Can you please tell me how many acts of genocide we commited prior to the enactment of hate crime laws? There must have been a whole passel of them, right? Ask the folks who populated North America before we got here. Well, the surviving ones, anyway. And you seriously think HATE SPEECH laws would have made any difference!??! Our ancestors didn't hate the natives; they just wanted the land. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Oh well then, I guess it could never be legalized. Uh, wait a minute. Wasn't homosexuality illegal, too not that long ago, and condemned by society at large and medical science as a sick perversion Are you familiar with the term "consent". It's the reason why there wil be no slippery slide into pedophilia, bestiality and other bugbears of the anti-gay rights crowd. Our ancestors didn't hate the natives; they just wanted the land I never mentioned hate speech laws, just correcting your ridiculous statement that there'snever been acts of genocide in this country. Quote
Argus Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Our ancestors didn't hate the natives; they just wanted the land I never mentioned hate speech laws, just correcting your ridiculous statement that there'snever been acts of genocide in this country. Oh well, that's okay then. Oh, wait a sec, I never made any such statement. And since you are justifying hate speech laws on the basis that they prevent genocide and then bring up the native wars (which weren't genocide, btw) it's more than a little disengenuous to say that you never mentioned hate laws. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
joseph13 Posted June 8, 2004 Report Posted June 8, 2004 Conservatives allways Ran Their Governments Like Their Own Businesses --Giving Our Money To Their Friends and Putting it In Their Own Pockets!!! Quote
Argus Posted June 8, 2004 Report Posted June 8, 2004 Conservatives allways Ran Their Governments Like Their Own Businesses --Giving Our Money To Their Friends and Putting it In Their Own Pockets!!! Good thing the Liberals never did that, right? Tell me, Joseph-13 - that's your age, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
JohnMathew2 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Posted June 9, 2004 If Harper was Elected Then you will see The True Colours of His Alliance Party Skeltons Come Falling out of the Closet--Watch Out! Quote
maplesyrup Posted July 10, 2004 Author Report Posted July 10, 2004 Would We Call Them Progressive Conservatives? Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
caesar Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- they prevent genocide and then bring up the native wars (which weren't genocide, btw)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- The native wars in the USA are considered genocide Quote
August1991 Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 MS, is Andrew Spicer the son of Keith Spicer? I agree with both Spicer and Coyne. My View The Tories have to present an intelligent version of the free market (Harris, from what I could gather, presented the stupid version). Harper is well placed to do that. The Tories also have to go back to the original intent of the BNA Act and the true meaning of a confederation. All Tories have to accept that Canada in the 21st is a socially liberal country but this does not mean that people can live consequence-free. In practical terms, social conservatives should be tolerated and even encouraged to make their case - as long as their case does not rely on mumbo-jumbo. I liked the free vote idea. Lastly, the Tories have to define Canada. Like it or not, juvenile or not, we expect our federal government to explain to us what our country is. In practical terms, the definition should make it plain that we are not American. Since Canadians are not in fact Americans, that shouldn't be hard. Quote
takeanumber Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 Lastly, the Tories have to define Canada. Like it or not, juvenile or not, we expect our federal government to explain to us what our country is. I really wish they didn't. Quote
maplesyrup Posted July 11, 2004 Author Report Posted July 11, 2004 I doubt the Spicers are related, but not sure. Is the Bush administration seeking "regime change" in Canada? Cellucci’s intervention is all the more remarkable in that he concedes that the Canadian government—notwithstanding its official policy of not participating in the US invasion of Iraq—is providing significantly more support to the US war effort than many of those listed as members of the “coalition of the willing.” Canada is currently leading a multination “anti-terrorism” naval task force in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea that is escorting US warships to the Iraqi war theater. More than 30 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) officers are embedded, as part of various exchange programs, in US and British military units that are waging war on Iraq. The recent announcement that some 3,000 CAF personnel will be deployed to Afghanistan to prop up the US-installed regime in Kabul has freed up US logistical and military assets for the invasion of Iraq.That Washington nonetheless feels compelled to strike out against Canada is an indication of the Bush administration’s isolation and sense of vulnerability Having embarked on a drive to reorder the Middle East and the world in the interests of Wall Street, the Bush administration no longer feels bound by the system of multilateral institutions and inter-imperialist alliances through which the US exerted its power in the decades after the Second World War. Instead, it is resorting to bullying against even its closest economic partners and geopolitical allies. In the case of Canada, the Bush White House and the Republican Party have longstanding connections to the political right and big business—connections they are now seeking to use to pressure, if not destabilize, the Chrétien Liberal government. Notwithstanding Cellucci’s breach of diplomatic protocol, the Official Opposition Canadian Alliance and much of the corporate media have seized on the ambassador’s remarks to ratchet-up their attack on the Chrétien Liberal government. Leading the pack has been the ultra-right National Post. The day after Cellucci’s speech, it devoted the front page and most of four other pages to reports and commentaries trumpeting Cellucci’s remarks and charging that the Chrétien government has placed Canada’s principal economic partnership at risk. Later in the week, the Post floated the rumor that Bush might cancel a planned visit to Ottawa next month, ostensibly because of the war, but with the real aim of snubbing the Chrétien government. According to former Canadian trade negotiator Michael Hart, the message of Cellucci’s speech is that the White House has “given up on this particular government [and] we’re waiting for the next one.” Not very cool, boys! Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
maplesyrup Posted July 11, 2004 Author Report Posted July 11, 2004 Calgarians treat Harper to a hero's welcome at parade Waiting near the end of the Calgary Stampede parade route yesterday, Ivana Covic grabbed a piece of cardboard and ran toward Stephen Harper.The federal Conservative Leader, dressed in denim, a crisp white shirt, black leather vest and cowboy hat, smiled and gave his unexpected admirer an autograph. "I was voting for him even though I can't vote," the 12-year-old Calgary girl said later. Her mother, Marica Covic, who is studying to be an educational assistant, showed off pictures on her digital camera of Mr. Harper waving from the passenger seat of a candy-apple red 1950 Jaguar XK120 convertible. "I got to shake his hand," she said, beaming Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.