Harper's socially moderate image under attack

[Argus]

Told you so.

(They couldn't keep their hidden agenda hidden for very long.)

Now write it in Klingon, why dontcha?

Harper has been consistent for his entire political life in opposing party stands on moral issues and advocating individual decision making by party members and MPs. There's nothing hidden there. He opposed the Reform party putting an anti gay-marriage plank in its platform ten years ago, even while admitting he was against gay marriage. He has not changed his stand a whit. Moral issues are for the individual to decide.

[Argus]

So you would think that such people would be very carefully scrutinized, that only the most wise and knowledgeable, the most unbiased and learned would be considered.

You must have more faith in people. Not everyone is a stark ideologue (Nazi, man-hating feminist) some people are quite reasonable, most people in fact we just usually don't hear from them.

I was deliberately using extremes to point out how little protection the Supreme Court is when the ruling party gets to appoint whomever they want to that body. Chretien has appointed 6 of the 9 justices. Had he been of a mind to do so he could have appointed 6 absolutely yes-men and then gone on to do whatever he wanted.

"The Supreme Court today ruled that the government did not violate the Charter of rights by closing parliament and throwing all opposition party members in prison"

As to scrutinization, I'm not sure the Bourque incident among others gives me a lot of faith in US style confirmation hearings, what is the point really.  Are there cases of the Americans finding important legal biases through these hearings?.  And if you want to elect them then you might as well get rid of them all together and put nine politicians in their place. 

I think where US style confirmation hearings work is that presidents have to be at least somewhat careful about appointing extremists and unqualified people to the bench. Look at some of the people Bush has wanted to appoint over the last four years. Had he his way, had he been able to simply appoint anyone he chose to any federal judgeship without anyone else having a say, well, can you imagine the kind of far-right religious zealots we'd see in the federal courts? Some of the people he got appointed are bad enough.

It's interesting to note that in their pathetic acceptance of the gag rule which violated freedom of speech,

I believe the argument was that while they agreed that it did violate freedom of speech that that violation was justified under S. 1. The freedom from people with money monoploizing the democratic process outweighed the freedom to people being able to spend without limits on advertising. This is the kind of blancing the SCC must do.

Did you read the decision? It was full of fearful statements about what rich people might do, and how ignorant Canadians would be helpless before their propaganda machines, how we would be "oppressed" by these potential rich people. It read like a socialists paranoid delusions. As for balancing acts, the amount which private groups or individuals are allowed to spend was so ludicrously low that there was no balance. In effect, the SC banned all private advertising during election time. That is not a balance. Had they wanted a balance they could have said that the law was acceptable except that the amount given was unfairly low. The total was about $350k. The Liberal party spent $4m in advertising just in the run-up to the election.

Furthermore I recall that the Liberals weren't overly impressed with the SCC decision on gay marriage.  In

Well, to begin with it was not an SCC decision. It was an Ontario Appeals court decision. I think Chretien's party was quite content with the ruling. They put little effort into winning the case, and immediately said they'd not appeal it to the SC. Then they forced a decision through commitee supporting the judgement, replacing members who had been opposed to same-sex marriage with those in favour. Some individual Liberal MPs were opposed, but Chretien never gave a damn what his individual MPs thought anyway. It's only now that Martin is worried about political backlash in an election year that they regret it.

This is different from Harper who blitely states that he will use the not withstanding clause as he sees fit.  I think Harper's position on the unlimited use of S. 36 should send up a lot of red flags for those of us who believe in the Charter and limits on parlimentary power.

No, Harper's stance is quite clear, and has been since he entered politics. He believes moral issues are up to individual MPs, and should be made by free votes in the Commons. He has always opposed unelected judges making such decisions for us. He believes it's undemocratic. Individual MPs, responding to the wishes of their constituents should be the ones deciding. And with his belief in the superiority of the House of Commons over an unelected Supreme Court (which I share) he hasn't got a problem with using the nothwithstanding clause to overrule the Court.

Again, this is not dangerous, in my opinion. If we don't like their decisions we can toss them out next election. What can we do if we don't like SC decisions? Nothing.

[Argus]

Nevertheless there are a lot of the old Alliance-Conservative crowd who have been cropping up with all sorts of opinions. I think these opinions could become law in a majority but never in a minority.

If Harper had been the PM during the runnup to the Iraq war, in spite of his snarky back-tracking and historical revisionism, we'd be there.

So what? The Australians have a couple of thousand troops there and they've taken no casualties. We, on the other hand, have lost people in Afghanistan.

[Argus]

To have no opionion is A) to have an opinion that you have no opinion to leave a vacuum wide open to be filled by the loudest voices on either side.

I believe Mr. Harper was adamently against the SCC in the gay marriage debate because it was parliament's jobs to make laws.  How can he now want to govern and have no opinion on a law like abortion, that invites the SCC to make the decision for him if he has no opinion.  If elected it would be his job to have an opinion on behalf of himself or his party.

Harper is against same-sex marriage. Back in 1994 when the Reform party was meeting and coming up with policies he opposed putting an anti-same-sex-marraige policy in place. Although he said he was personally opposed to same-sex marriage.

However, he did not want what he called a morals litmus test for party members. He believed moral decisions were up to the individual. His stand since then has been entirely consistent. He wants a free vote so that the individual MPs can choose on behalf of their own conscience and their constituents wishes where to stand.

And he has always opposed an unelected SC to make decisions like this. He believes it is Parliament's place.

BTW, the SCC has never ruled on the gay marriage thing.

[falling leaf]

Maplesyrup

Stephen Harper is setting a better example than both Paul Martin or Jack Layton.

[Goldie]

Things are really shaping up nicely for Harper. this article by John Ivison really spells it out for ya.

[caesar]

Harper setting a good example?????? that's ridiculous. He has done nothing but rant and rave while in opposition, I read where he now claims to have supported Chretien"s decision to not join in on the invasion of Iraq. Yeah right. Harper would finish off the job his buddy Mulroney started and sell off whatever is left to American control. Did I say sell; I should say give away. NO NO NO to Harper. The other leaders do not thrill me but Harper would be disastrous to Canadian soveriegnty.

[Argus]

The difference is clear in the terminology used by the judge upholding the appeal and the dissenting judges in Harper v. Canada.  The dissenters keep refering to "the citizen's" rights while the majority talks of certain groups or affluent citizen's rights.  So lets apply the common sense test shall we?

Have you read the decision? The talk from the majority does not so much concern the rights of the affluent as the desperate need of the rest of the country to be protected from rich people - or at least, from the possibility that some day, for some reason, some rich person or people, or at least some who are moderately well-off, might choose to make their voices heard with such vigour we will all be "oppressed" by it and be unable to make any proper decisions about who to vote for. It was the kind of reasoning which makes on shake ones head in sadness at the lack of intelligence and judgement on that court.

Name one group of citizens who've ever gotten together to purchse major election time advertising (which seems to be all anyone is concerned about) that are not affiliated with a major body.  Be that body Focus on the Family or the NCC.

What's wrong with the NCC? Isn't that a group of citizens? What about anti-abortion groups or anti free-trade groups?

The law is intended (along with the campaign funding law) to muzzle corporations from speaking as citizens where they ought not be entitiled to do so.

The law was intended to stop groups like the NCC and the Taxpayer's federation from reminding voters about how the Liberals have misused their money. It had no other purpose. Corporations didn't even enter into the thinking except as a fig leaf of cover for what the Liberals were doing.

The NCC (much like the Fraser Institute) will not release membership lists to prove that it is funded by average citizens because it is in fact funded by corporations.  Corporations' money comes from the prices you and I pay for things. 

The money business earns belongs to the owners of that business. You, as a customer or client have absolutely nothing to say on how it is spent, nor should you.

Practically, affluent people have less opportunity to advertise under this law.

Unless, of course, they own a newspaper and TV network like Asper. But then, "practically", affluent people don't need to advertise to influence the public to influence politicians. Instead they toss money at politicians to influence them directly.

Practically the average citizen has as much opportunity to buy national newspaper ads as they ever have and won't notice the difference between before the law was in force and after.

Unless, of course, they belong to a group which had wanted to make some arguments over the environment or free trade, or abortion or same-sex marriage. There are lots of little groups around that might have wanted to do so.

Practically elections should be about the ideas of the politicians, not what a third party buisness lobby thinks about the ideas of politicians.  To argue for third party election advertising is to argue for paternalism. People ought make up their own mings.

You clearly didn't bother reading the decision. For it was the most patternalistic mound of crap I've read in a long time, presuming, as it did, that ordinary citizens were dullards who would easily be persuaded to think whatever they were told after viewing a couple of ads on TV.

In a purely theoretical world this might be a bad law, but in the real world the only people this law affects is the buisness lobby and maybe some large religious lobby organizations.  Therefore it is a good law to keep money's influence a little farther away from the democratic process and let more people be heard.

What people are able to now be heard? I'd like names, please. One? Even one? No?

What this law does is set a precedent. The government can ban anyone from trying to rouse public opinion against the government. Not because of harm, but because of a possibilty of some kind of vauge "oppresion" on the people. What this law does is make Canada less free. What this law does is make it easier for the ruling party to control what information we get. Hell, the Liberal Party already controls, either directly, or through its friends, all three TV networks and all major newspapers.

[Argus]

Harper setting a good example?????? that's ridiculous. He has done nothing but rant and rave while in opposition, I read where he now claims to have supported Chretien"s decision to not join in on the invasion of Iraq. Yeah right. Harper would finish off the job his buddy Mulroney started and sell off whatever is left to American control. Did I say sell; I should say give away. NO NO NO to Harper. The other leaders do not thrill me but Harper would be disastrous to Canadian soveriegnty.

Nice to see you put such calm, thoughtful considerations into your decision there, fellah.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I've gotta a better idea, and this will make all New Democrats and leftists happy. Lets get rid of democracy, you guy's don't believe that people should have power so lets have a dictatorship, made up of a few people who will have control over everything we do and say.

So lets get rid of democracy and live an a judicial dictatorship were leftists can run the country that is what the left wing wants.

For the rest of us who believe in democracy we'll have to move to the United States.

[Alliance Fanatic]

A social moderate is a person who cannot think for themselves and believes that anything the media, or elite tell them is right. What does being socially moderate exactly mean? I think that it means being

100% Pro-choice and reccomending abortion to all women with unwanted pregnancies

100% supportive of gay marriage, even if it means that a traditional institution that has been around for hundreds of years.

100% supportive of multiculturalism

100% supportive of a soft criminal justice system

100% Against death penalty

That does not sound moderate, it sounds like social liberalism and it is.

A new-Anti-liberal is a defender of new inequality. Things like, discriminatory hiring practices...hiring people based solely on the color of their skin with disregard to equality.

Really so you hate left wingers, you hate right wingers, basically anybody that does not believe in your opinion. Even if I said I am against discriminatory hiring practices such as the RCMP's you would still be screaming about people being a holocaust denier.

It seems to me that you think your on a higher pedastal then everybody else simply because your part of the "echo" generation, well your not. What has you generation done good for the world. Last time I remember crime rates were up, and rapes on the rise. 2/3 women are raped by the time their 21 don't you know.

Not to mention all of the drugs and such.

[idealisttotheend]

Argus I think some of your points are good (ty for pointing out that the same sex marriage decision was not SCC I forgot). I realize that it is not cut and dried either way but I disagree very much with some of your last points.

Have you read the decision?

I read the summary and some parts of the legalease but not the entire thing. I think I read enough to get the gist of it though.

Some rich person or people, or at least some who are moderately well-off, might choose to make their voices heard with such vigour we will all be "oppressed"

Some would argue this happening now vis a vie media concentration. In any case since there is a finite amount of media space that the average citizen will 'consume' it is a real danger that rich people would and do dominate the democratic discussion. As you yourself have pointed out the net effect of this law is to make advertising nearly impossible so the issues must be debated by other means. Furthermore the party financing law would not work without this legislation since the Cons could just get the NCC et al. to do their advertising for them. Kudos to Chretien for recognizing this.

What's wrong with the NCC? Isn't that a group of citizens? What about anti-abortion groups or anti free-trade groups?

My spider sense is telling me you will disagree vigorously but there is no doubt in my mind that the NCC is not a group of citizens but a group of corporations and wealthy individuals. This really isn't debatable or the NCC would release verifiable membership lists and donation amounts that cover all it's operating expenses. It only supports positions that help corporations, including striking down this law. In fact the reason I dislike it so much, is that be using Citizen's coalition in it's name it tries to appear as something it is not in the best Orwellian fashion. As to the other groups they are supported by major donors such as unions or church groups and not individual donations from citizens. All institutional.

The law was intended to stop groups like the NCC and the Taxpayer's federation from reminding voters about how the Liberals have misused their money

That's the job of the other parties. If the other parties can't do that then the Liberals deserve to be re-elected.

You, as a customer or client have absolutely nothing to say on how it is spent, nor should you.

If the market exists to meet my demands than I have all the say in how they spend it. If it exists to further the interests of said corporation than what you say is true. I argue for the former as the latter encoaches on fascism.

Instead they toss money at politicians to influence them directly.

And so we have financing reform and this law is an adjunct to it.

that ordinary citizens were dullards who would easily be persuaded to think whatever they were told after viewing a couple of ads on TV.

If ordinary citizens can't be persuaded then why advertise in the first place? Isn't it the assumption of the advertisers that ordinary citizens can be persuaded by the ad on TV and isn't that why they spend citizens' money on such ads?

If the ordinary citizens were such dullards why would their government pass such a law on their behalf? Furthermore, isn't it more paternalistic for the SCC to deny the ordinary citizens the right to pass such laws through the Commons? Is upholding the democratically elected government's legislation paternalistic?

What people are able to now be heard? I'd like names, please. One? Even one? No

Mine and yours. Perhaps people who read and participlate in this forum will think more of my arguments and yours than the 30sec spot sponsered by the NCC on any given subject. They will agree or disagree but maybe we can dumb up the debate.

Maybe the leadership debate will hold more sway, maybe water cooler talk among ordinary citizens will carry more weight, maybe someone will question the candadate who comes to their door more closely. I suppose I am arguing for demand-side politics. People will get their information from somewhere, and if that somewhere has nothing to do with advertising by the people who can afford it by virtue of controlling large amounts of money, I am all for it.

P. S. If you really were thinking of mortgaging your house to buy adveritising, what does it say about democracy that you need to do that? What does it say about democracy that it is the bank who will ultimately decide whether you may or may not do that advertising? What does it say that your mortgage will not buy you very much 'voice' at all anyway?

[DAC]

the NCC is  not  a group of citizens but a group of corporations and wealthy individuals

According to my birth certificate I'm a citizen. According to my bank statement and my income I'm far from wealthy - like retirement's coming and I'm wondering how I'm going to get by with very little beside OAS & CPP to live on.

But I am a member of the NCC, and contribute their minimal membership amount each year - I forget whether it is $25 or $35 now. My father-in-law is another in similar circumstances. If you are so sure of your suspicions, I would REALLY like you to find my hidden millions for me!

It [the NCC] only supports positions that help corporations, including striking down this law. In fact the reason I dislike it so much, is that be using Citizen's coalition in it's name it tries to appear as something it is not

Wrong again. I'm not a corporation, but the things it supports help me - and you, whether you realize it or not. What you are saying seems to be the traditional left wing big lie. The theme is that only the wealthy and corporations are restricted, so you ignore individuals like me who are neither but are restricted.

[idealisttotheend]

All right I apologize to DAC, the NCC does have some citizens as members. But the majority of it's funds do not come from people paying the $35/ year or month. If it is otherwise, the NCC would open it's books and it outright refuses to do this. Unless of course people like DAC are ashamed of their membership?

[Argus]

Some rich person or people, or at least some who are moderately well-off, might choose to make their voices heard with such vigour we will all be "oppressed"

Some would argue this happening now vis a vie media concentration. In any case since there is a finite amount of media space that the average citizen will 'consume' it is a real danger that rich people would and do dominate the democratic discussion.

A finite amount of media space? I question that. What percentage of media advertising do political advertisements consume? One tenth of one percent, perhaps? And in my view the mere "possibility" that rich people might try to dominate an election is not good enough to supress the right of free speech for all Canadians. Show me a demonstrable danger, not one you merely fear, and maybe I'll show more sympathy for draconian legislation.

As you yourself have pointed out the net effect of this law is to make advertising nearly impossible so the issues must be debated by other means.  Furthermore the party financing law would not work without this legislation since the Cons could just get the NCC et al. to do their advertising for them.

This presuposes that the NCC is a mere front of the Tories, which i question, and that the tories don't have any problem with breaking the law.

Kudos to Chretien for recognizing this. 

What's wrong with the NCC? Isn't that a group of citizens? What about anti-abortion groups or anti free-trade groups?

My spider sense is telling me you will disagree vigorously but there is no doubt in my mind that the NCC is not a group of citizens but a group of corporations and wealthy individuals. This really isn't debatable or the NCC would release verifiable membership lists and donation amounts that cover all it's operating expenses. It only supports positions that help corporations, including striking down this law.

The problem I have with this argument is that it's all based on --- nothing. You have no evidence about who makes up the NCC, or what corporations may or may not be supporting it. And the NCC has taken positions which I believe in on any number of occasions. In fact, I support most of its positions.

No, this law was not intended to stop rich people. It was specifically targeted at anti-Liberal groups like the Taxpayer's Federation and the NCC. Nor was it ever designed to prevent the public from being overwhelmed by third party ads. If that were the intention the limit would be set at some reasonable figure which would allow some advertising, but not enough to threaten domination. Instead the amount was set at a level which would basically allow NO advertising.

You, as a customer or client have absolutely nothing to say on how it is spent, nor should you.

If the market exists to meet my demands than I have all the say in how they spend it. If it exists to further the interests of said corporation than what you say is true. I argue for the former as the latter encoaches on fascism.

If I take the time and effort to set up a business which provides a service to clients and get I get paiid, why do you believe you have the slightest right to tell me how I spend my pay? Because the only way you can support even a thread thick string of logic is by stating outright that your employer has an equal right to tell you how to spend your paycheque, and that the government has the right to tell anyone on welfare, UIC, etc, how to spend their money as well.

What people are able to now be heard? I'd like names, please. One? Even one? No

Mine and yours. Perhaps people who read and participlate in this forum will think more of my arguments and yours than the 30sec spot sponsered by the NCC on any given subject. They will agree or disagree but maybe we can dumb up the debate.

Maybe the leadership debate will hold more sway, maybe water cooler talk among ordinary citizens will carry more weight, maybe someone will question the candadate who comes to their door more closely. I suppose I am arguing for demand-side politics. People will get their information from somewhere, and if that somewhere has nothing to do with advertising by the people who can afford it by virtue of controlling large amounts of money, I am all for it.

Before I accept that the ruling party has the right to ban people from speaking out effectively against it I want more than suggestions that "maybe" some soft, indefinable, gooey sort of good thing "might" happen as a result.

P. S. If you really were thinking of mortgaging your house to buy adveritising, what does it say about democracy that you need to do that?  What does it say about democracy that it is the bank who will ultimately decide whether you may or may not do that advertising?  What does it say that your mortgage will not buy you very much 'voice' at all anyway?

Who says I'd need to mortgage my house? The limit per riding is about $3500. I don't need to mortgage my house for that. Suppose I know the Liberal candidate (or NDP or Tory) and know him as a miserable, selfish, lying prick? Suppose he's running on being a solid family man but I happen to know he's had four divorces for cheating on his wives, and his children are in poverty because he's hidden his assets in Bermuda. Suppose I want to make that known to others in my riding? With the amount of money allowed I can't even print up flyers and have them delivered to my neighbours. Heck, suppose one of his ex wives wants to tell everyone that he was a wife beater. She can't do that either.

[takeanumber]

Alliance Finatic wrote:

Really so you hate left wingers, you hate right wingers, basically anybody that does not believe in your opinion. Even if I said I am against discriminatory hiring practices such as the RCMP's you would still be screaming about people being a holocaust denier.

It seems to me that you think your on a higher pedastal then everybody else simply because your part of the "echo" generation, well your not. What has you generation done good for the world. Last time I remember crime rates were up, and rapes on the rise. 2/3 women are raped by the time their 21 don't you know.

Not to mention all of the drugs and such.

Let's go through it one piece at a time:

Really so you hate left wingers, you hate right wingers, basically anybody that does not believe in your opinion.

Not sure if I do hate either.

I strongly disagree with the far right and the extreme left.

I never said that I hate anybody who doesn't believe in my opinion.

Even if I said I am against discriminatory hiring practices such as the RCMP's you would still be screaming about people being a holocaust denier.

I shout holocaust denier at anybody who denies the holocaust.

I say that those who say that holocaust denial should be permissable are new anti-Liberals. (And I'm indeed a new anti-Liberal on that point. I fully confess that. I just can't stomach the thought that we should allow something like Holocaust denial to be even spoken. It's aweful, but I just can't do it. I have many liberal (small 'l') bones in my body, but every time I put that thought in my mouth, my jaw just won't clamp around it. I gag.

RCMP quotas are anti-Liberal.

I don't see how RCMP quotas are linked to Holocaust denial. You can be against one and for the other, and vice versa.

It seems to me that you think your on a higher pedastal then everybody else simply because your part of the "echo" generation, well your not.

I am part of the Echo generation. It's okay to leave the quotations off it.

Does that put me on a higher pedastal? Nah.

What has you generation done good for the world.

Afghanistan.

Last time I remember crime rates were up, and rapes on the rise. 2/3 women are raped by the time their 21 don't you know.

Crime rates are down. Sexual assault figures are probably on the rise.

As for the 2/3 of women being raped, it's interesting you should mention that, in light of the Judge scandal in Prince George (and the disgusting actions of the Crown and sluggishness of the police.)

I wonder who's doing the bulk of the assaulting.

Not to mention all of the drugs and such.

See: 1960s

See: 1970s

See: 1980s

See: 1990s

See: 2000s

Jaundiced view?

Again, I've stopped making blankes assumptions about all Conservatives because I met somebody who is a counter-example.

If you want to carry on the tract of general attacks, have fun.

That said:

On Harpers Moderate Image:

It's just that. An image.

If anybody is familiar with the Calgary school of Conservative Thought on the SCC, they should give the briefing.

[Argus]

All right I apologize to DAC, the NCC does have some citizens as members. But the majority of it's funds do not come from people paying the $35/ year or month. If it is otherwise, the NCC would open it's books and it outright refuses to do this. Unless of course people like DAC are ashamed of their membership?

Do you have the right to know who I vote for? What I support? I don't think so. So maybe you don't have the right to know who belongs to the NCC or Taxpayers' Federation either.

[Argus]

I shout holocaust denier at anybody who denies the holocaust.

I never denied the Holocaust and you had no problem suggesting I was a Nazi who would be happier in Austria as a member of the Freedom Party.

I say that those who say that holocaust denial should be permissable are new anti-Liberals.  (And I'm indeed a new anti-Liberal on that point.  I fully confess that.  I just can't stomach the thought that we should allow something like Holocaust denial to be even spoken.

How noble. But in all fairness, if you get to put people in prison for speaking their opinion about the Holocaust, shouldn't I get to put people in prison for expressing some view I don't like? What about Alliance Fanatic, DAC, Maplesyrup or August? Don't they get to put people in prison for expressing views they hate? No? Only you? That hardly seems fair.

Suppose Maplesyrup says "Anyone who tries to argue against affirmative action programs is a racist and should be put in prison." Is that fair enough? Hell, he's NDP. He probably does believe anyone who argues agaist affirmative action programs is racist.

[idealisttotheend]

Do you have the right to know who I vote for? What I support? I don't think so. So maybe you don't have the right to know who belongs to the NCC or Taxpayers' Federation either.

Oh really. So then you are ashamed. Surely if you are defending the NCC's right to advertise their views to the general populace, on your behalf, and with your money, you would be proud to have everyone know that you support them. In fact it would be necessary to acknowledge that you are one of the citizens supporting the NCCs message otherwise people might simply assume it was rich people and corporations. Either you support them or you don't, anonymous membership conveys no benefit whatsoever if you do support them and your argument holds no water.

I will source my accusations that the NCC is funded moslty by corporations if it is necessary but the source I want are their membership lists and funding records which they refuse to provide me. Nevertheless, as Leonard Cohen put it "Everybody knows......."

[takeanumber]

How noble. But in all fairness, if you get to put people in prison for speaking their opinion about the Holocaust, shouldn't I get to put people in prison for expressing some view I don't like? What about Alliance Fanatic, DAC, Maplesyrup or August? Don't they get to put people in prison for expressing views they hate? No? Only you? That hardly seems fair.

Suppose Maplesyrup says "Anyone who tries to argue against affirmative action programs is a racist and should be put in prison." Is that fair enough? Hell, he's NDP. He probably does believe anyone who argues agaist affirmative action programs is racist. 

I'm a supporter of freedom of speech, like a true liberal.

I have a nasty, anti-liberal streak in me when it comes to Holocaust denial, and come to think of it, general hate crimes (distribution of hate pamplets).

So yeh.

But when it comes to other things, like critisizing affirmative action programs, I'm alright with that. It's not hate speech, and it's not holocaust denial.

My whole thing is the single version of history and the relative caustic effects of hatred to society in general.

And I'm not saying that anything that comes out of Argus', or AF's mouth that I disagree with should be sent to prison. I don't think I ever implied it.

This whole attempt to paint me as a Leftist Stalin or a Socialist Lenin is starting to get pretty fun though, so if the personal attacks arn't going to stop, could you try to go more in that direction more often, because it's pretty fun to read and easier to dismiss. Thx.

[Argus]

Do you have the right to know who I vote for? What I support? I don't think so. So maybe you don't have the right to know who belongs to the NCC or Taxpayers' Federation either.

Oh really. So then you are ashamed. Surely if you are defending the NCC's right to advertise their views to the general populace, on your behalf, and with your money, you would be proud to have everyone know that you support them.

Maybe it would be dangerous for people to know that I support certain aspects of what this or that group stands for. Suppose I'm a government employee (I actually am), and am concerned lest my boss, a strong party supporter, find out I am a member of a group he despises. Suppose one of my tasks is to apply a law which the NCC despises. Maybe I work for the RCMP in the firearms registry. Do you think belonging to the NCC would go over well with my bosses there? Suppose I belong to a group which campaigns against bilingualism. There is one, I think called Language Fairness, or something. Suppose me and the other members of Language Fairness wanted to take out adds against Official Bilingualism. Do you think that would go over well where I work? Hey, maybe I'm gay and want to lobby for same sex marriages, but, darn it all, I am a priest, and my bishop would be totally pissed at me.

[Argus]

Suppose Maplesyrup says "Anyone who tries to argue against affirmative action programs is a racist and should be put in prison." Is that fair enough? Hell, he's NDP. He probably does believe anyone who argues agaist affirmative action programs is racist. 

I'm a supporter of freedom of speech, like a true liberal.

Just not all free speech.

I have a nasty, anti-liberal streak in me when it comes to Holocaust denial, and come to think of it, general hate crimes (distribution of hate pamplets).

So yeh.

But when it comes to other things, like critisizing affirmative action programs, I'm alright with that.  It's not hate speech, and it's not holocaust denial.

Oh yeah? Well suppose I say it is hate speech, that you're targeting those poor minority people who got the job you wanted with the RCMP. No more talking against affirmative action!!

And I can assure you that while I have no idea what Maplesyrup thinks of it, I have often heard those on the left denounce anyone opposing affirmative action as racist.

And we wouldn't want people making racist speeches, now would we? To prison with you!

Because, you see, if you can ban one kind of speech, you can ban other kinds of speech. The precedent is set. This speech endangers public order, and well, hey, guess what, so does that speech, and that speech, and that speech. And it is not, after all, YOU who gets to decide what particular topic is verbotten.

My whole thing is the single version of history and the relative caustic effects of hatred to society in general.

Single version of history? There are lots of versions of history. And a lot of them aren't very pleasant. Is there a single version of the Armenian slaughter in WW1? Not if you ask the Turks. Hey, do you ever wonder why we never see any movies or TV shows about the American revolution? I mean, think about it for a minute. There have been so many movies on almost every aspect of American history, but no one has done one on the Revolutionary war except that dumb Australian Mel Gibson, and his was a historical joke. Because the thing is, well, the Revolution was really, really nasty. And some of the stuff done by the victors is not really something many people want to celebrate. Even at this distance, it would make a lot of people uncomfortable. You'd get protests. Hell, maybe even violence.

But I digress. The point is that not everyone agrees completely on every event in world history. So why single out one particular event and make it a crime to disagree with the establishment view? Because by doing that you're setting a dangerous precedent, and I just don't see the need.

[takeanumber]

Oh yeah? Well suppose I say it is hate speech, that you're targeting those poor minority people who got the job you wanted with the RCMP.

Say that you say it is hate speech.

That's one of the problems with definitions, they can be greyed. That's one of the reasons why it's so anti-liberal to be a proponent of them. In fact, often, hate crime legislation is turned against the very people it's meant to protect.

But I can't support the distribution of neo-Nazi material. I just can't do it. I won't stand up and defend that.

So yeh, I support anti-hate legislation so long as it's used as it's intended. There's no guarantee of it being so. That makes me an anti-liberal. I'll admit it. But I won't change my opinion to suit neo-Nazis. I won't do it.

As to your point about different versions of history. Alright.

But we only have one version with respect to the Holocaust. It happened.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a good thread, but it's all over the place.

On Harper's "image":

Goldie says:

Media is currently in panic mode and they will stop at nothing. I would like to encourage all conservatives to counter these hidden agenda claims.

I think that it's more than fair to find out what exactly the plan is for social issues. I don't think I would call Harper's agenda "hidden", but it's not completely visible either.

According to Argus:

Harper has been consistent for his entire political life in opposing party stands on moral issues and advocating individual decision making by party members and MPs. There's nothing hidden there. He opposed the Reform party putting an anti gay-marriage plank in its platform ten years ago, even while admitting he was against gay marriage. He has not changed his stand a whit. Moral issues are for the individual to decide.

This speaks well for his consistency in his beliefs, but the fact of the matter is he still has control over his MPs and can control the agenda. We've already seen him discipline his MPs over remarks on homosexuality and bilingualism so it's clear he's not going to give them completely free reign.

The question is: when does he decide, and when does he let the MPs vote freely ? Well, the choice is ultimately his...

So, the media should be asking questions about what exactly his plans are.

Kula says:

Bravo to Harper! At least he's got the guts to make a stand.

But we should know if his stand is to deliberately push off responsibility for social legislation to free votes and so on.

Would he allow a free vote on sending Canadian troops to Iraq ? Even though a majority of Canadians would be against it, I doubt that.

Argus says:

Let it be a free vote. What's wrong with that?

What would be wrong would be a leader, knowing the leanings of MPs, and the electorate, chosing to submit legislation under a "whatever will pass" system, using either free votes, public opinion, or - as a last resort - "showing leadership".

This, of course, is politics. But many criticized Chretien for these kinds of manipulations.

Argus says:

Because the left despises democracy. The left is made up of intensely arrogant people who believe they know best - for everyone - on every issue, and feel almost religious about their particular decisions. They loath the thought of people actually debating it, much less getting to vote on it in the same way the Pope would loath the idea of Catholics getting to vote on his interpretations of Christian theology.

Harper would have gone into Iraq against the will of the Canadian people. What's good for the Liberal goose is good for the CPC Gander.

Remember that the people most outraged by the concept of restrictionis on abortions are also people who would never vote for them anyway. So the Conservatives don't have to care what they say or think.

Doesn't this quote of yours conflict with your assertion that the left doesn't care about democracy ? Are you saying that the CPC doesn't have to listen to Canadians ?

Finally, Alliance Fanatic says:

I've gotta a better idea, and this will make all New Democrats and leftists happy. Lets get rid of democracy, you guy's don't believe that people should have power so lets have a dictatorship, made up of a few people who will have control over everything we do and say.

So lets get rid of democracy and live an a judicial dictatorship were leftists can run the country that is what the left wing wants.

For the rest of us who believe in democracy we'll have to move to the United States.

I guess you don't realize that the US is also bound by a constitution. See prayers in the schools and so forth...

[Alliance Fanatic]

I'm a supporter of freedom of speech, like a true liberal.

I have a nasty, anti-liberal streak in me when it comes to Holocaust denial, and come to think of it, general hate crimes (distribution of hate pamplets).

So yeh.

But when it comes to other things, like critisizing affirmative action programs, I'm alright with that. It's not hate speech, and it's not holocaust denial.

My whole thing is the single version of history and the relative caustic effects of hatred to society in general.

And I'm not saying that anything that comes out of Argus', or AF's mouth that I disagree with should be sent to prison. I don't think I ever implied it.

This whole attempt to paint me as a Leftist Stalin or a Socialist Lenin is starting to get pretty fun though, so if the personal attacks arn't going to stop, could you try to go more in that direction more often, because it's pretty fun to read and easier to dismiss. Thx.

You said that the 15% of Canadian's who were socially conservative were people that wanted to put "jews and gays in the oven" if I recall. I'm not sure where you got 15%. You also went on to say Stockwell Day is a huge bigot and holocaust denier even though he is very supportive of Isreal and Bnia Brith. Was'nt Ezra Levant Jewish???

You also said that we need a judicial dictatorship so "those conservative bastards would'nt kill jews and gays like they used to".

Than when we asked you to provide a qoute for bigotry produced by us, you said we already proved it by disagreeing with you.

So I guess in your mind anybody who wants to lower immigration, is pro-life, supports the traditional definition of marriage, and supports values such as community and family are all holocaust deniers, or support holocaust deniers.