Comparison of Political Parties

[maplesyrup]

We need to keep an updated list of the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats positions on social issues, in order to be able to contrast them with each other, and also to have them handy, just so we don't forget what they are:

1 - Legalization of Marijuana:

Harper/Cons - status quo, does not want to reintroduce the Liberal legislation

Layton/New Dem - decriminalize what (details?)

Martin/Libs - status quo, Liberals had 11 years to deal with this, done nothing, and they have run out of time

2 - National Daycare Program

Harper/Cons - (tax credit of $2,000. annually which amounts to, is this a reduction in tax or taxable income?)

Layton/New Dem: Yes (Details?)

Martin/Libs - status quo, had 11 years to implement a program, time has run out (sort of, $5 billion annually?)

(Daycare program based on the progressive Quebec approach, or something to that effect.)

3 - Capital Punishment:

Harper/Cons: ("Yes--in clear cases of DNA (Stockwell Day, 2000), but let's not talk about it, anybody is free to have a free vote on it. (Harper, 2004)")

Martin/Libs: No. (Strongly)

NDP: No. (Very strongly)

Abortion:

Harper/Cons - Free Vote ?

Layton/New Dem - woman's right to chose

Martin/Libs - Unsure

Supportive of Bill C-250 (can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, is this correct?)

Harper/Cons - No

Layton/New Dem - Yes

Martin/Libs - Yes

Same-Sex Marriage

Harper/Cons - Free vote (No?)

Layton/New Dem - Support

Martin/Libs - referred to Supreme Court (Yes?)

[

Another Issue

Harper/Cons

Layton/New Dem

Martin/Libs

Another Issue

Harper/Cons

Layton/New Dem

Martin/Libs

Maybe some people would like to help me construct this summary post.

Send me your imput and I will attempt to keep the first post up to date. Short, precise, and sweet please.

I don't pay a lot of attention to these issues, but it appears they are turning into major campaign issues. Anyway, I am going to have to rely on some of your assistance here.

Thanks.

[takeanumber]

National Daycare Program

Harper/Cons: No.

(Free market principle. Augment tax credit by 2000, as though that will pay for daycare.)

Martin/Libs: Yes. (sorta)

(5 Billion costed for it, which is woefully inadequate.)

Layton/NDP: Yes.

(More robust than the Liberals, but the costing is pretty sloppy.)

[maplesyrup]

What about Capital Punishment?

What are the various parties position here?

[takeanumber]

Capital Punishment:

Libs: No. (Strongly)

NDP: No. (Very strongly)

Cons: ("Yes--in clear cases of DNA (Stockwell Day, 2000), but let's not talk about it, anybody is free to have a free vote on it. (Harper, 2004)")

[maplesyrup]

Conservative MP slips on party's hate law view

In an interview with CTV News, Ottawa-area Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant said she thinks Canada's newly amended hate law -- which added "sexual orientation" to the list of groups protected from hate propaganda -- should be changed back.

"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.

What's this?

[takeanumber]

She's of the opinion that homosexuals are pedos.

Goes to show her ignorance.

[DAC]

Supportive of Bill C-250 (can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, is this correct?)

No, it's not correct.

Actually, Bill C-250 added homosexuality to the categories covered under hate crimes. The reason many conservatives oppose it is that today virtually any statement against homosexuality is called hate talk. That means that with this law, people will be prosecuted for a hate crime because they dare to say that homosexual action is wrong.

While the law specifically protects those who speak on the basis of religious teaching such as the Bible's clear statements on the subject, the Supreme Court of Canada has already shown it is willing to override the constitutional protection of religious freedom on this issue.

That makes it very likely that some Sunday a pastor will move from preaching that ugly gossip is a sin to preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and find himself charged and convicted of a hate crime.

Surprise! those who do not hate homosexuals but do believe their choices are sinful do not like this provision in the present social situation.

Actually, I don't think I like any hate crime legislation. it is too nebulous an issue. How do you prove you do not hate? I think we should stick to legislation about speech which does measurable harm to others.

[maplesyrup]

NDP to take aim at Conservative social policies

While Harper has tried to gain approval with moderate voters in the two weeks since the election was called, he's had to repeatedly switch into damage-control mode as his MPs expressed contentious opinions on topics ranging from bilingualism to abortion.

On Saturday, Ottawa-area Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant said she thinks Canada's newly amended hate law -- which added "sexual orientation" to the list of groups protected from hate propaganda -- should be changed back. Gallant says the inclusion could theoretically protect pedophiles.

A party spokesman said the Conservatives were not planning to move to repeal the act, but the Gallant gaffe was just the latest example of Harper apparently having to put a lid on his MPs opinions.

Last week, the party's health critic, Rob Merrifield, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail that mandatory counselling would be "valuable" for women considering aborting their pregnancies.

Harper was forced to reaffirm his party's position that a Conservative government would not introduce legislation to restrict access to abortions or hold a referendum on the issue. But he said he would not prevent a free vote on abortion if it arose in a private member's bill.

Later, Hamilton Mountain Conservative candidate Tom Jackson said he would like to see capital punishment return to Canada.

Again, Harper was forced to make the point that his government would not propose death penalty legislation.

Also, last month, Conservative Party Critic for Official Languages Scott Reid said bilingual services from coast to coast should be reconsidered. Reid also said he didn't think senior civil servants should have to be bilingual.

Harper defended the Conservative MP, saying he was just expressing a personal opinion. But he also had to assure voters that his party supports official bilingualism. Reid later resigned from his critic position.

These public debates or discussions about the various political parties and what they represent, who they represent, and what issues they represent, are quite helpful for the Canadian voters as they mull over what to do on June 28th.

These gaffes/issues are starting to add up. Are the wheels beginning to fall off the Conservative wagon?

[takeanumber]

While the law specifically protects those who speak on the basis of religious teaching such as the Bible's clear statements on the subject, the Supreme Court of Canada has already shown it is willing to override the constitutional protection of religious freedom on this issue.

This is an incorrect interp. of bill C-250.

Bill C-250, as the current section of the Criminal Code, protects hate speech if it is religious hate speech.

Check out the Criminal Code sometime.

[DAC]

Bill C-250, as the current section of the Criminal Code, protects hate speech if it is religious hate speech.

Actually, Bill C-250 protects religious speech, not religious HATE speech -- but I'm nit-picking.

There is a double problem.

The first part is that there is a strong element in the homosexual lobby which insists that any statement such as "Same sex intercourse is morally wrong" is hate speech. That means that any opposition to their choice is likely to bring criminal charges.

The second is that the Supreme Court has already demonstrated a willingness to override the constitution on this issue. Religious freedom is explicitly protected in the constitution. Same sex issues are not even mentioned, and deliberately so. The issue was raised and refused when the constitution was being written.

But in a court case a few years ago, a Roman Catholic College in Alberta was refused the right to fire a professor who came to be known as a homosexual. Their religious protection under the constitution was rejected in favour of a right of sexual orientation which did not even appear in an regular statute, let alone the constitution.

When the SCC takes that liberty, tell me what value a statutory (not constitutional) protection will add, when now there are laws protecting sexual orientation explicitly, and particularly including it among things protected against hate crimes?

Add a further factor. How do you prove, if accused, that you do not hate gays? This is a fundamental problem with all hate crime legislation. The accusation is exceedingly hard to defend against.

[mirror]

I wonder if any of the party positions have changed since June, 2004, the date of the previous national election.

I wonder what the party positions now are on:

child care

Canadian troops in Afghanistan

gun control

importance of UN

global warming

taxes

health care

tuition fees for education

R & D

softwood lumber

Devil's Lake

BSE

security

taxation

incentives for small business

Wal-Mart

drugs, legalization of

foreign ownership

trade agreements such as NAFTA, FTA

[mirror]

Correct me if I am wrong but this is my take on the different political party's positions on health care:

Lib - single-tier, publicly funded

NDP - single-tier, publicly funded

Bloc - single-tier, publicly funded

Con - two-tier, publicly and privately funded