Harper Just Lost the Election

[Shakeyhands]

I'm glad that they plan to look at the issue of SSM again, I mean after all... its had such a detremental affect on my life!

Now, if we can get them to relook at Healthcare too we'll be set!!

[kimmy]

relook

Relook?

I agree: SSM is an issue of such little significance that I can't imagine why we'd be talking about it when there's so many real issues to be addressed. However, the Liberals will be talking about it and so the press will be asking about it.

-k

[Slavik44]

Why is this a bad move on harpers part???

Support for gay marriage law:

Quebec 62

Ontario 56

B.C. 53

Atlantic 48

Alberta 41

Man./Sask. 39

Opposed to new definition:

Alberta 62

Sask./Man. 62

Atlantic 46

Ontario 43

B.C. 43

Quebec 39

Theoreticaly speaking if harper made the election a referendum on SSM, the NDP, Liberals, and bloc would be left fighting over about 55% of the vote.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a situation exists where certain special interest groups get protection above the rest of Canadians, there is no equality. If someone gets murdered because he's hated for being gay, how it that any worse than a straight guy getting murdered because someone hates him. Hate is hate. Both crimes are just as wrong.

Both crimes are just as wrong but the penalty for them should be different because the situation surrounding the crimes is different.

In one case the crime was commited because you were gay, it was motivated solely by the fact that the person was gay. The person who commited the crime saw you come out of a gay bar got so enraged that he killed you.

On the other hand the second crime you described could have occured because you were caught cheating at a poker game and the guy lost his last pay check because of it.

See the fact is that hate can be motivated by different things, perhaps you were murderd for money, perhaps you were killed for love...but the fact is you were not killed solely because you were a part of a minority community, and you death does not signify a warning of I am out to get you. In the second case the murder was for personal reasons in the first case the murder was motivated not only be more public reasons but worked as a message to incite fear with in the gay community.

[normanchateau]

Let's look at the numbers that really count.

1997 Election -  25 Reform MPs, 6 Libs, 3 NDs

2000 Election - 27 Reform, 5 Libs, 2 NDs

2004 Election - 22 CPC MPs, 8 Libs, 6 NDs, 1 Ind

Hmmm, if the CPC stays at their mid 30s support level in BC they still have at least 60% of the MPs in BC. So much for the historic Liberal breakthrough. 

With Harper at the helm, CPC has managed to drop into the high 20's territory in BC in the last few months. First Harper lost the PCs and now even the Reform/Alliance types are slipping away. Great leader of the "unite the right". Bye bye CPC.

[normanchateau]

relook

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Relook?

I agree: SSM is an issue of such little significance that I can't imagine why we'd be talking about it when there's so many real issues to be addressed.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're talking about it in part because it's CPC policy. At their last major policy convention, CPC approved opposition to C-38 as part of their platform Obviously they think it's a real issue.

[shoop]

Lying won't get you anywhere Norman. You are lying about what Harper said and why we are talking about it.

A promise of a free vote on the issue in the next parliament is just that. I wonder if Paul Martin would ever have the balls to allow his MPs to represent his constiuents on the issue .... Nah!

We are talking about it because you are a one-note pony. Give it up.

We're talking about it in part because it's CPC policy.  At their last major policy convention, CPC approved opposition to C-38 as part of their platform  Obviously they think it's a real issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

When a situation exists where certain special interest groups get protection above the rest of Canadians, there is no equality.  If someone gets murdered because he's hated for being gay, how it that any worse than a straight guy getting murdered because someone hates him.  Hate is hate.  Both crimes are just as wrong.

You've missed the point as to why Harper opposes bill C-250. C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. He's 100% in favour of hate crimes legislation for crimes motivated by a person's race, ethnicity or religion. He only opposes it if it's for gay bashing. So Harper favours hate crimes legislation if someone is killed for being Christian, or Chinese or Irish. But he opposes it if someone is killed for being gay. With that kind of logic, it's no wonder that Harper will never, never appeal to a majority of Canadians. Most Canadians are logical and fair-minded.

[shoop]

Nobody cares Norman!

You've missed the point as to why Harper opposes bill C-250. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[politika]

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing if he wants to be leader of opposition. However, hell will freeze over before a bush style extremist gets elected as PM. If Harper wants to win he has to become a moderate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Say that again after January.

[sharkman]

We know the media brought up the gay marriage issue on day one of the campaign, but what questions of substance did they ask? They asked Harper if he loves Canada. I read it today in the National Post. Obviously trying to get some kind of rise out of him. *Sigh* If anything it will be the Canadian media that makes this an ugly campaign. All of us conservatives know they hate conservatives in general and the CPC in particular.

[shoop]

The fact that the CBCs first clip from the campaign last night was of Martin's "My opponent has trouble saying it, but I love Canada!" Speaks to how biased the CBC coverage is and how much the CBC is in bed with the Liberals.

With the blatant exception of the CBC, most of the coverage I have seen so far has been pretty fair.

We know the media brought up the gay marriage issue on day one of the campaign, but what questions of substance did they ask?  They asked Harper if he loves Canada.  I read it today in the National Post.  Obviously trying to get some kind of rise out of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Nobody cares Norman!

You've missed the point as to why Harper opposes bill C-250. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure CPC supporters don't care and would much prefer that the rest of Canada forgets where Harper stands on gay bashing.

[Biblio Bibuli]

3) The SSM is symbolic of other things. Many Canadians may find the idea of two men getting married may be distasteful to many Canadians but they will support it simply because the Americans don't like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Over 95% of the world doesn't like it.

Nor drug legalization, or legalized prostitution.

The Dutch like it though, so does little Belgium, and that's where Canada looks for these half-brained ideas that are sure-fire incitements to anger the Americans.

The Dutch legalized euthanasia in 2001, followed by Belgium.

The Dutch are now so advanced in euthanasia that they are even killing babies with spina bifida. (I hope our Mayor Sam Sullivan is not planning a trip to check out the drug sites in Amsterdam.)

Isn't it about time we mimicked them on that also, to really piss off the Americans?

[Black Dog]

Considering it is the duty of Parliament and all MP's to represent us and write the laws, on serious issues such as this, which changes the standards of our society as a whole, we need a free vote.

I'm still trying to figure out how an issue that affects one small group of people (that is: gay Canadians who wish to marry) has any effect on society as a whole.

The liberals allowed the courts to dictate those standards, not the people. We can write to our MP's and make our views, known, we cannot influence the court.

Here's where I start to get leery of this whole "vote the wishes of he constituents" thing. Any squeaky wheel (or big, well-funded lobby group) can influence individual politicians.

Over 95% of the world doesn't like it.

Nor drug legalization, or legalized prostitution

And...?

The Dutch like it though, so does little Belgium, and that's where Canada looks for these half-brained ideas that are sure-fire incitements to anger the Americans.

Yeah that's what keeps us up at night: finding ways to piss of the Yanks (who never seem to notice or care anyway).

[Argus]

There is really nothing for the liberals to base their accusations and 'labels of religious right wing extremists'  on etc. etc.    One think I'll say about Harper, he keeps his religion and views private

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

[Argus]

Without equality, there are no rights, majority or minority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Demonstrably wrong.

[Argus]

When a situation exists where certain special interest groups get protection above the rest of Canadians, there is no equality.  If someone gets murdered because he's hated for being gay, how it that any worse than a straight guy getting murdered because someone hates him.  Hate is hate.  Both crimes are just as wrong.

You've missed the point as to why Harper opposes bill C-250. C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. He's 100% in favour of hate crimes legislation for crimes motivated by a person's race, ethnicity or religion. He only opposes it if it's for gay bashing.

Bill C-250 was not about hate crimes, ie gay-bashing, except figuratively. It was about hate propaganda. Adding gays to the hate speech laws would have made it a crime to say things unflattering about homosexuals or homosexuality.

The other day, a priest in Norway, I believe it was, was finally found not guilty of hate crimes by their supreme court. He had preached in his church, against homosexual acts (as opposed to homosexuals). He was earlier acquitted by a court, then convicted on appeal. The main reason the supreme court found him not guilty was because, they said, it was most unlikely a conviction would be sustained by the European Court.

Granted, people in many European nations, having had socialist party rule for some time, have far and away less personal freedoms than we have here. There is little freedom of speech, for example, on "sensitive" issues. You can literally go to jail for years for speaking or writing an unflattering opinion about some kind of minority. In France, any private citizen or group can sue anyone who says anything unflattering about their minority group. And organized ethnic groups have done just that to silence voices which might otherwise say things they didn't like. The mere threat of the suit is usually enough to stifle free speech.

What Harper is clearly worried about are politically active homosexuals trying to get religious figures arrested for merely preaching what is in their religious books. And there is no question whatsoever this would have happened.

[cybercoma]

The foundation of democracy is equality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless of course you're applying for a government job.

[Argus]

It appears Harper is anxious to let the Liberals win the next election since he has not figured out that even mentioning the same sex issue will lose him votes in places where he desperately needs votes: the large cities. See:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2006/

Harper should know better. The people who care about SSM are going to vote for him anyways but by trying to play to this audience he just paints himself as a bush-style religious extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As has already been mentioned, he was asked a question, and he answered. It's not like he called a press conference to announce another go at the SSM problem.

In any event, there is no way in hell this would not have come up. Much better for the Tories to get it out in the open now. By the time the election rolls around things will have turned to more important matters, and the Liberals will have much more difficulty dragging it back up and trying to show the Tory stand as extremism or a "hidden agenda".

[shoop]

Completely agreed. Interesting how the fact it came up in a question during a press conference cannot be found anywhere on the CBC Web site. Or is it?

As has already been mentioned, he was asked a question, and he answered. It's not like he called a press conference to announce another go at the SSM problem.

In any event, there is no way in hell this would not have come up. Much better for the Tories to get it out in the open now. By the time the election rolls around things will have turned to more important matters, and the Liberals will have much more difficulty dragging it back up and trying to show the Tory stand as extremism or a "hidden agenda".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Please demonstrate that to me, Argus. We have to go through this democracy thing so often that I forget what your objection to actual democracy is.

[Riverwind]

If the question here is whether Harper should answer questions about this issue directly, or whether he should try to evade the question, well, I think the former is better.

There are many ways Harper could have answered that would have been both honest but not bite the hook offered by the media. For example, he could have said that SSM would be an extremely low priority issue for his gov't and that his gov't would be focusing on restoring integrity to public office. If pressured, he could acknowledge that some members could put forward a private members bill, however, he as PM would encourage his caucus to focus on the big issues facing Canadians.

was quite acceptable to the silent majority of Canadians.

Every poll that I have seen on the subject seems to confirm the results that the people paying for the poll wanted. I suspect that the vast majority of Canadians (>75%) could not care less about SSM and would answer questions either way depending on how the question was asked. That said, the SSM issue is a symbol of other policies that Canadians do care about. For example, if Harper wants to reverse the decision on SSM then does that mean an abortion ban is next? That is how come this issue will lose votes for the Conservatives and why it was dumb to fall into the trap set by the media.

[theloniusfleabag]

I asked a customer about the election yesterday, joking about him voting NDP, since I know he is very 'right wing'. In fact, about 3 days a go he told me he attended a conference put on by the Fraser Institute, and he said that I would be appalled if I found out how much money 'goes East' ....( I bit my tongue regarding my thoughts on the impartiality as to how those numbers must have been presented).

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]".

Wacky. Last time round, I voted Green. I would vote Conservative this time, but...

[normanchateau]

Bill C-250 was not about hate crimes, ie gay-bashing, except figuratively. It was about hate propaganda. Adding gays to the hate speech laws would have made it a crime to say things unflattering about homosexuals or homosexuality.

What Harper is clearly worried about are politically active homosexuals trying to get religious figures arrested for merely preaching what is in their religious books. And there is no question whatsoever this would have happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C-250 added sexual orientation to the list of criteria in hate crimes legislation. The legislation is now in place because the Liberals, NDP and PQ unanimously supported it.

It is not a crime to say unflattering things about homosexuals nor was it a crime before C-250. However, if someone physically assaults or murders an individual merely because he's gay, C-250 stiffened the penalties. Harper opposed that, i.e., he opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. This issue has especially inflamed voters in Quebec and BC who believe such intolerance, motivated by irrational religious motives, are not the characteristics they want in a Prime Minster. :angry:

[shoop]

So you favour tolerance, except when it comes time to practicing freedom of religion as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights? Can you please provide us with a list of all the freedoms guaranteed in the Charter you support and those which you oppose?

This issue has especially inflamed voters in Quebec and BC who believe such intolerance, motivated by irrational religious motives, are not the characteristics they want in a Prime Minster.  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>