Harper Just Lost the Election

[kimmy]

Oh really?  Then why did Harper and his party vote against C-250?

And why has he promised to revisit C-38? And why does the party have a huge number of religious zealots, anti-abortionists and Focus on the Family types running in this election? See:

http://www.valleysceptic.com/conservatives...by_zealots.html

Seing as how your link doesn't work, could you provide us with exactly how many "religious zealots" are in the Conservative party? Also, what constitutes a religious zealot? Someone who goes to church?

I'm not sure what happened to the link. The portion of the link I typed was conservatives_hijacked_by_zealots but when it appeared on mapleleafweb it became conservatives...by zealots

Actually, I think the problem is your spelling. I assume that you didn't mean to type "sceptic" and were trying to say either "skeptic" or "septic"-- most likely the latter.

Try this, whiz-kids.

-k

[normanchateau]

Compromise:  not having any union at all vs full blown marriage = civil union.  If Elton's not squawking about it, maybe it's a good thing.  Let's remember, the vast majority of nations don't have any kind of gay marriage at all.  Maybe we went too far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All Canadian adults currently have the right to marry. To take away those human rights from one group is outrageous, not a compromise.

[normanchateau]

Compromise?  You refer to taking away someone's right to marry as a compromise.

The last time I heard someone referring to removal of human rights as a "compromise" was when I read a history of German legislation between 1933 and 1945.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman, should we cut all relations with Japan, France and Russia since these countries don't accept gay marriage?

The issue is no longer whether or not we accept gay marriage. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in Canada. Harper's plan is to strip away those rights by re-visiting the C-38 legislation. In other words, he's looking to take away human rights which already exist. When in recent Canadian history has a leader of the Opposition campaigned on a platform of taking away existing human rights? And it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad, that any CPC supporter would view taking away those rights as a "compromise"?

Japan, France and Russia are not fighting an election based on taking away human rights. Gays and lesbians never did have the right to marry in those countries. If they did have that right, it would be an exceedingly unwise politician who chose to start his election campaign by promising to "revisit" the human rights of one minority group.

Canada did not cut off relations with Germany when Germany began to strip away the human rights of their nonAryan citizens. It was not until Germany invaded Poland in 1939 that Canada's relations with Germany took a serious turn for the worse.

[scribblet]

Does anyone know what the CPC position is on same sex civil unions as opposed to marriage, which they feel is defined as a man and woman(and rightly so I might ad)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The CPC believes in a seperate definition of a SSM. They're only opposed to the use of the term "marriage".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which seems to be lost on some people. There are lots of smear artists around the internet as it gives them the freedom to spread their propaganda, hate or innuendo pretty well at will, it gives anonymous twerps the ability to spew out invective and destroy real debate about valid issues.

I still havn't seen any actual facts on how many CPC members are these so called 'religious zealots' and no definition of what one of these is, or a definition of a Christian fundamentalist. These terms are bandied around too easily with no source or backup to prove them. Simply because some says that in a blog, or a liberal newspaper 'journalist' decides to promote that theory, it isn't necessarily true. The liberals have their share of those 'nasty Christians' too. It appears that Anti Christian bigotry is the last allowable prejudice, and its showing on here with a lot of the same spam or dare I say, zealotry.

[normanchateau]

That being said, he told me that this election 'we're screwed'. He said,

"The Liberals are a bunch of crooks, but Harper is a madman. He is way, way too right-wing".

I asked him if he thought that Klein made the comments that he did with this sort of thinking in mind. He replied "Absolutely, Klein is on his way out, so he has nothing to lose [by saying such things]".

I don't think he's a madman. It's just that Harper's positions are so extremely socially conservative that he makes Paul Martin look left wing. This is Jack Layton's biggest problem. Canadians are angry with the Liberals but many left wingers will vote for them anyway for fear that not voting for Martin will help Harper.

[cybercoma]

The CPC believes in a seperate definition of a SSM.  They're only opposed to the use of the term "marriage".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, marriage should be reserved for "real" people, not gays and lesbians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you go troll over at rabble.ca

[cybercoma]

That's a perfectly reasonable compromise, I believe that's the type of law that Elton is going to use to form a union with his partner.  If Elton thinks it's okay, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Compromise? You refer to taking away someone's right to marry as a compromise.

The last time I heard someone referring to removal of human rights as a "compromise" was when I read a history of German legislation between 1933 and 1945.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but show me where marriage is a fundamental "human right"....

[cybercoma]

Compromise?  You refer to taking away someone's right to marry as a compromise.

The last time I heard someone referring to removal of human rights as a "compromise" was when I read a history of German legislation between 1933 and 1945.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman, should we cut all relations with Japan, France and Russia since these countries don't accept gay marriage?

The issue is no longer whether or not we accept gay marriage. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in Canada. Harper's plan is to strip away those rights by re-visiting the C-38 legislation. In other words, he's looking to take away human rights which already exist. When in recent Canadian history has a leader of the Opposition campaigned on a platform of taking away existing human rights? And it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad, that any CPC supporter would view taking away those rights as a "compromise"?

Japan, France and Russia are not fighting an election based on taking away human rights. Gays and lesbians never did have the right to marry in those countries. If they did have that right, it would be an exceedingly unwise politician who chose to start his election campaign by promising to "revisit" the human rights of one minority group.

Canada did not cut off relations with Germany when Germany began to strip away the human rights of their nonAryan citizens. It was not until Germany invaded Poland in 1939 that Canada's relations with Germany took a serious turn for the worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For God's sake man...it's not a HUMAN RIGHT.

And Harper is not saying that gays and lesbians can't live together nor have the benefits associated with marriage. The party just does not agree with using the term "marriage", which until a year ago was reserved for a union between man and woman, to be used for a same-sex couples. Call it a civil union, call it whatever the heck you want...but calling it marriage puts a lot of religious institutions between a rock and a hard place.

[normanchateau]

For God's sake man...it's  not a HUMAN RIGHT.

If it's not a human right, why then don't we take away the legal right to marry from all Canadians? Or how about if we just take that right away from you? Or better still, since some religious conservatives view procreation as one function of marriage, why not take away this nonhuman right from those incapable of procreation? For Harper to campaign on taking away legally granted rights (be they human or nonhuman) from one minority group guarantees that he'll never be Prime Minister. Even Ralph Klein acknowledges that Harper is unelectable.

[scribblet]

Compromise?  You refer to taking away someone's right to marry as a compromise.

The last time I heard someone referring to removal of human rights as a "compromise" was when I read a history of German legislation between 1933 and 1945.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman, should we cut all relations with Japan, France and Russia since these countries don't accept gay marriage?

The issue is no longer whether or not we accept gay marriage. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in Canada. Harper's plan is to strip away those rights by re-visiting the C-38 legislation. In other words, he's looking to take away human rights which already exist. When in recent Canadian history has a leader of the Opposition campaigned on a platform of taking away existing human rights? And it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad, that any CPC supporter would view taking away those rights as a "compromise"?

Japan, France and Russia are not fighting an election based on taking away human rights. Gays and lesbians never did have the right to marry in those countries. If they did have that right, it would be an exceedingly unwise politician who chose to start his election campaign by promising to "revisit" the human rights of one minority group.

Canada did not cut off relations with Germany when Germany began to strip away the human rights of their nonAryan citizens. It was not until Germany invaded Poland in 1939 that Canada's relations with Germany took a serious turn for the worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For God's sake man...it's not a HUMAN RIGHT.

And Harper is not saying that gays and lesbians can't live together nor have the benefits associated with marriage. The party just does not agree with using the term "marriage", which until a year ago was reserved for a union between man and woman, to be used for a same-sex couples. Call it a civil union, call it whatever the heck you want...but calling it marriage puts a lot of religious institutions between a rock and a hard place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thre's a good article today by Charles Adler which I think speaks to this issue. The only other thing I can say, is just not to feed the troll who appears to be stalking every post on this issue, and who seems to be exhibiting his own form of bigotry. Is that allowed on here?

http://winsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Adl...02/1334933.html

snipped from the article:

While I am OK with gays wanting to get under the marriage tent, I am not OK with gay rights advocates declaring that everyone I know who is opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe.

Declaring that others have a mental disorder simply because they don't agree with you is not only rude. It's bigotry. And when all the usual suspects come forward to tell you that gay marriage is a human right, that's just flat-out stupidity.

Human beings understand what human rights violations are. They don't need them interpreted by Liberal-appointed judges or other Liberal hacks who never concern themselves with marshalling the soldiers of reason in the battle theatre of ideas.

[normanchateau]

snipped from the article:

While I am OK with gays wanting to get under the marriage tent, I am not OK with gay rights advocates declaring that everyone I know who is opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe.

In other words, Charles Adler is OK with gays being "under the marriage tent." So are most Canadians. But Stephen Harper is not.

And I for one agree with Charles Adler that not all opponents of gay marriage are homophobes. Most I'm sure are not. To me, what is far worse than opposing gay marriage is opposing even including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation. Most Canadians would not, I expect, have a problem with that since it would stiffen the penalties for physical gay bashing. But Stephen Harper did oppose C-250 which passed anyway thanks to the Liberals, NDP and BQ. Harper's opposition to C-250 suggests his social intolerance extends beyond merely opposing gay marriage.

[Argus]

Compromise?  You refer to taking away someone's right to marry as a compromise.

The last time I heard someone referring to removal of human rights as a "compromise" was when I read a history of German legislation between 1933 and 1945.

I'm sorry, but show me where marriage is a fundamental "human right"....

Gay marriage became a fundamental human right when Chretien and Martin decided it would be good election rhetoric and could help smear the Alliance. Prior to that they and the Liberal Party had been dead set against it, and had included clauses in the new marriage act to insist that marriage had nothing to do with homosexuals.

[sharkman]

Norman, you get your knickers in a twist over nothing! Civil unions would be loved by gays in all nations where they aren't recognized yet, and the only difference in Canada is we went too far, allowing marriage to be used. But Harper will fix that.

[willy]

“Most Canadians would not, I expect, have a problem with that since it would stiffen the penalties for physical gay bashing.”

The only party with any credibility for toughening sentences for violent crime is the Conservatives. Chuck Cadmen spent the last years of his life to ensuring those that commit crimes pay for it. Randy White also has spent his career working for victim’s rights and accountability for criminals. These men will not be back the legacy will continue only if a Conservative party is elected. All people deserve the protection of the law; this of course includes gay Canadians.

The Liberals still battle any legislation that has mandatory minimum sentences for violent crime. The NDP thinks the whole problem is just a stigma issue for the poor and with adequate social housing the criminals will go away.

(FYI they have a very active group of gay activists in Vancouver who work hard for the Conservative Party. These men and women believe in our democratic rights, lower taxes, and safe streets.)

[normanchateau]

“Most Canadians would not, I expect, have a problem with that since it would stiffen the penalties for physical gay bashing.”

I stand by my statement that most Canadians do not have a problem with C-250, the legislation that added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. I suspect even Harper knows he's in the political wilderness on this one. Perhaps that's why he plans to revisit C-38 but not C-250. But the fact that Harper and his party opposed C-250 shows just how completely out of touch they are with the average Canadian.

Why did Harper oppose C-250? Was it for religious reasons? If it wasn't for religious reasons, what were the reasons?

[sharkman]

I believe the reasons were it didn't offer enough protection for religious types to speak their conscience on the gay issue without being arrested for hate crimes. Of course the Liberals can be accused of catoring to another minority groups for the sole purpose of trying to influence votes come an election. This is all the more true since only 6 or 7 nations in the whole world had any kind of legal gay unions at the time.

[normanchateau]

I believe the reasons were it didn't offer enough protection for religious types to speak their conscience on the gay issue without being arrested for hate crimes.

In fact the Liberals/NDP/BQ put in a series of amendments to C-250 for that very reason. Harper still voted against it. The amendments obviously worked.

[sharkman]

The amendments weren't enough for the radical left wing judges Martin has been appointing. They will find loop holes unless the protections are more than they are.

[willy]

The amendments obviously worked.

Did they work? Two women won a law suit against the Knights of Columbus this week after their wedding plans were canceled due to religous reasons. These women when booking would have know that the KofC would not support same sex marriages in there facilities. This is a slipery slop and the case law will now build in the favour of "human rights" and not religous freedom.

[kimmy]

Most I'm sure are not. To me, what is far worse than opposing gay marriage is opposing even including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation.  Most Canadians would not, I expect, have a problem with that since it would stiffen the penalties for physical gay bashing.  But Stephen Harper did oppose C-250 which passed anyway thanks to the Liberals, NDP and BQ.  Harper's opposition to C-250 suggests his social intolerance extends beyond merely opposing gay marriage.

Norman continues to peddle misinformation as to what Bill C-250 actually contains. Bill C-250 amended the sections of the criminal code that deal with hate speech. There's no mention of physical gay bashing, or broadening the definition of hate crimes. Bill C-250 is irrelevant to the prosecution of gay-bashing incidents unless the perpetrators gave public speeches on the topic beforehand.

    An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)

    Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

    1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

    (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

    2. Paragraph 319(3)(b ) of the Act is replaced by the following:

    (b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

for reference:

  (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

  (b ) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

That doesn't sound so bad, right? Bill C-250 expressly protects religion, right? These religious types must be worried about nothing, right?

Let's have a closer look. Or at least have some lawyers have a closer look for us.

Media reports indicate that the proposed changes to the Code will exempt anyone expressing an anti-same sex perspective based on a religious text. The Bill's author has repeatedly assured the public that religious leaders will continue to have this protection as a result of the exemption in subsection 319(3). However, even a cursory examination of subsection 319(3) clearly indicates that this protection only applies to someone charged with the "promotes hatred" offence under subsection 319(2), not in relation to the "communicating" offence under subsection 319(1). Further, the "promotes hatred" offence has an additional legal safeguard in subsection (6) which requires the consent of a Provincial Attorney General. In contrast, the "communicating" offence in subsection 319(1) requires only that a peace officer have reasonable and probable grounds or that a private citizen is able to convince a Justice of the Peace to commence the criminal process. What follows from these observations is that free speech, or "communicating" about sexual orientation within a church or religious organization will not be protected.

(emphasis added by me)

(source: http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb02.htm )

In other words, Bill C-250 expands the definition of "identifiable groups", and protects religious speech from punishment under 318.2, but does not protect religious speech from punishment under 319.1.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b ) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In summary, the religious groups worried about Bill C-250 had reason to be concerned.

-kimmy

[normanchateau]

The amendments obviously worked.

Did they work? Two women won a law suit against the Knights of Columbus this week after their wedding plans were canceled due to religous reasons. These women when booking would have know that the KofC would not support same sex marriages in there facilities. This is a slipery slop and the case law will now build in the favour of "human rights" and not religous freedom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the rest of the story, i.e., the part you omitted. The Knights of Columbus originally agreed to allow them to marry so the women printed invitations and incurred other costs based on the assumprtion that the wedding would occur that day. When they were subsequently told they couldn't marry there, they sued to recover their costs. The court upheld the religious rights of the Knights of Columbus but asked them to reimburse the women's costs. The women, by the way, had no idea that the Knights of Columbus was a religious organization. They even acknowledged that they never would have booked the hall had they know the Knights were a religious group.

[Riverwind]

Did they work? Two women won a law suit against the Knights of Columbus this week after their wedding plans were canceled due to religous reasons. These women when booking would have know that the KofC would not support same sex marriages in there facilities. This is a slipery slop and the case law will now build in the favour of "human rights" and not religous freedom.

If the the KoC offer their facilities to the general public for profit then they must abide buy the same rules that every other business must abide by. In other words they cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

[normanchateau]

If the the KoC offer their facilities to the general public for profit then they must abide buy the same rules that every other business must abide by. In other words they cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point Sparhawk but the court put the religious freedom of KofC to discriminate ahead of the rights of the lesbians. That was the intent of the Liberal/NDP/BQ amendments to C-250 and show that they're working. Despite that, Harper and his party voted against C-250 which suggests that perhaps their "religious freedom" rationale for opposing C-250 is entirely bogus and was designed to conceal other motives.

[justcrowing]

The amendments obviously worked.

Did they work? Two women won a law suit against the Knights of Columbus this week after their wedding plans were canceled due to religous reasons. These women when booking would have know that the KofC would not support same sex marriages in there facilities. This is a slipery slop and the case law will now build in the favour of "human rights" and not religous freedom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, it seems freedom of religion comes with socialist restrictions. Do as we say and not do as your beliefs command.

[normanchateau]

The amendments obviously worked.

Ah, it seems freedom of religion comes with socialist restrictions. Do as we say and not do as your beliefs command.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What restrictions? The court upheld the right of the Knights of Columbus not to rent their hall to lesbians.

How does this relate to socialism?