Harper's Bungle

[The Terrible Sweal]

Terrible Sweal,

Pierre Trudeau destroyed the moral fabric of this country. This is NOT the country my father and gradfather fought for in the two world wars.

I disagree. To me Trudeau ameliorated many failings Canada laboured under, for example

-kowtowing to the 'senior' international partners Britain and the U.S. to the detriment of Canada's best interests;

-unwarranted deference to prosecution-side interests in criminal law;

-remnant moralistic statism; and

-persistence of a hereditary underclass.

Canada should be showing the class and backbone of the UK and Australia & Poland not kowtowing to Islamofascistsand globalists in the spirit of France and Germany.

I see no evidence that Canada is kowtowing to Islamofascists. Furthermore, the UK, Australia and Poland have all followed the U.S. into an illegitimate, ill-conceived war which in no way serves the interest of their citizens. Canada was right to recognize it had no business mixing into such a mess.

Jean Charest's government is bent on making sure Quebec becomes the most socially liberal jurisdiction in North America.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Neal.F.]

Sweal, Canada needs to pull its weight in the world, and not leave all the heavy lifting to others. Australia is a country roughly the same size as canada, geographically and in terms of population, yet they show common sense, resolve and character.

In addition to backing the USA in the war against Terrorism and islamofascism, domestically, they have had a sensible immigration policy. It is one of the most difficult countries to get into, and as a result it does not face the serious threat canada now faces because of Trudeau's multiculturalism at all costs policies, and allowance of a dual immigration policy.

W never kowtowed to the US and Britain's intersst, due to affinities resulting from historical development it is in all of our common interest to protect Judeo-Christian western civilization from atheistic, utilitarian humanistic socialism and fascism in whatever form it takes. Nothing cheapens life more than atheism and utilitarianism.

Remnant moralistic statism? Abortion, for example is not about religion. it is about civil rights... the most basic one of all: the ruight to life, from conception until natural death. By legalizing abortion the right to be free of an "inconvenience" that results (in the forfeit of an innocent life) from one's own actions, supersedes the right to life. I don't see that as progress.

the War against terrorism and Islamofascism served the citizens of these countries in many ways. by taking the fight TO them, the initiative and momentum is on the side of right now. Afghanistan is now free, Iraq is free, and on its way to democracy. Islamic police states are now under threat from within. get rid of the enabling police states and you weaken the terrorists.

Charest: Yes i think it is a bad thing when a government voluntarily goes about dismantling the traditional nuclear family by bringing in gay marriage, and by brining in a "physician" who is trained in partial birth abortions, and will require taxpayers to fund this horrific practice.

[Neal.F.]

Maplesyrup, Paul Martin may have been BORN in Windsor, he is truly a Quebecer in every way. That is a charade.

Official bilingulaism is grossly unfair, and a huge waste of time and money.

I grant you that knowledge of more than one language is an asset, but for someone in BC, for example, it would make more sense to speak English and Chinese, or English and Punjabi, and in Saskatchewan, Ukrainian would be more useful than French.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, Canada needs to pull its weight in the world, and not leave all the heavy lifting to others.

I support improvements in Canada's military capabilities. For example, among other things, we should add a nuclear deterent capabilility, and a rapid deployment force capable of protecting Canadian citizens and interests in remote parts of the world.

That would be good. What would not be good is interpreting Canadian interests to be whatever a U.S. president may assert at any given time, no matter how mad or foolish.

Australia is a country roughly the same size as canada, geographically and in terms of population, yet they show common sense, resolve and  character.

You use these terms like they necessarily equate with your preferences. But such assumptions don't really advance a discussion. I can equally well say that it showed 'common sense' 'resolve', and 'character' to decline to participate in the Iraqi quagmire.

It is one of the most difficult countries to get into, and as a result it does not face the serious threat canada now faces because of Trudeau's multiculturalism at all costs policies, and allowance of a dual immigration policy.

Well, that's all spelled correctly and your grammar is good, but the content is lacking. What threat?

... it is in all of our common interest to protect Judeo-Christian western civilization  from atheistic, utilitarian humanistic socialism

It is in our common interest to divest ourselves of archaic superstitions which stand in the way of reason-based humanistic policies that offer the best chance of improving life for the greater number of people. History (for example, the 30 years war) demonstrates the dangers inherent in basing public policy on the convoluted, irresoluble irrelevancies represented in religious dogma.

Nothing cheapens life more than atheism and utilitarianism.

Nothing cheapens human life more than placing unprovable aesthetic doctrines above the actual interests of persons.

Remnant moralistic statism? Abortion, for example is not about religion. it is about civil rights... the most basic one of all: the ruight to life, from conception until natural death.

Your assertion that fetuses should be accorded the civil rights of full-blown humans is an example of placing a doctrine before the interests of actual persons (i.e. the women, my fellow citizens, you would enslave to the service of mythology.).

Charest: Yes i think it is a bad thing when a government voluntarily goes about dismantling the traditional nuclear family by bringing in gay marriage, ...

On another thread, I asked if anyone could please explain to me what actual harm would happen to marriage or families by allowing same-sex marriage. I wish someone (perhap you?) would at least attempt to explain that.

[Neal.F.]

Sweal, I don't expect you to accept my answer about why gay marriage is detrimental, but here it is.

Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society. There are loyalties that transcend generations.

The utilitarian forces that are trying to adbvance alternative lifestyles are doing their best to drive wedges into families. It will facilitate their end game of eliminating the weaker member of society, ie: the old and infirm via euthanasia (After all if it's grandpa and yoiu bnever really knew him anway since he moved downeast to be with his 3d common law wife, the decision comes from a more detached persepective) or abortion, for children that are less than perfect...

Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit.

we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all. As I said earlier it depersonalizes things.

I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions.

The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, , and psychiatrists.

Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle.

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm

I believe in traditional values because they are time tested to produce the best results, not because of any "superstious beliefs" I further believe that God gave us the Bible in part to teach us the best way to live, for ourselves, and the benefit of others. It also serves to give us a long term perspective on things, rather than an expedient "what course of action serves ME best at this time?"