Harper Speech

[Guest eureka]

All this defense of the speech is pretty pathetic. It reveals Harper for what some of us know him to be already.

However, I would agree that it will not have legs since it is only those who care who would be enlightened.

It seems that not many do care about more than the contents of their wallets.

[Argus]

Even before this revelation,

it was generally accepted that he hated Canada... or didn't love it... whatever... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, by morons.

[Argus]

last election it was:

We're going to stop the abortions....

Gee, I guess I must have missed that. Please show me a cite where the Conservatives, or even the Alliance, or even the Reform Party ever said they were going to stop abortions.

[Argus]

I think you are exactly right. But most of us didn't realize the depth of his hatred toward Canada and Canadians. :angry:

To paraphrase Harper "canuckcat and depth are not words one would normally place in the same sentence".

[Argus]

Whoever pointed out that speech to The Canadian Press did it on condition that he won't be identified.

More likely, the researcher was in fear of his career or possibly his life.

Remember that the CPC is really only a branch plant of the Republican Party...

they have a nasty reputation for torture, disappearances and death...

to say nothing of what they could do to one's career...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I vote canuckcat as the next troll be be booted off Mapleleaf island.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Report on another board is crediting the release of this speech to Belinda Stronach.

Don't know if its true, but she should have been able to find better dirt than this under Peter's pillow.

Or maybe there wasn't any?

[scribblet]

It not hard to figure that the speech was pretty light hearted and I am surprised that Martin's Flying Monkey Media Spin Squad didn't dredge up the following quote from the same speech 'you Americans know almost nothing except for your own country..., which makes you knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians [ bar ump-bump], or would it have been too obvious by inclusion that the entire speech was for entertainment purposes only, at least entertainment at the dryer- than- a- vermouth -martini -without -booze -dryness that passes for humour amongst economists, statisticians, actuaries and morticians.

SH went on from that quote to trash the NDP, Supreme Court, Senate, the appointed GG and just about every liberal fascist sacred cow, including the regionalism and ethnic nationalism of Canada that fractionalizes the politics of our country, fostering the concessionalism that has characterized the governing coalitions since at least Trudeau.

[Netherlands]

Wow, this little post generated more replies and debate than I thought it would. A few points to clarify:

The article was from CP, not Toronto Star, and it was picked up by all news media.

The Conservatives did confirm that it was Harper we all know and love who gave this speech, and not some other 'Steven Harper'

You can probably find the speech using a cached version from Google.

As for my take on it, and I am a Liberal supporter:

The fact that he gave it 8 years ago does not make it irrelevant. In politics, that is not a long time. It does not matter if you were a member of political party when you said it, nor if you were speaking to a non-Canadian audience. If you make a statement before the public, you can't ignore later.

I get the impression from this speech that Harper sees himself as a kind of Republican Party member who lives in Canada - he clearly believes that neo-con values and ideas are the way to go.

Now here is the question of the day - does Harper still hold these views, or has he changed in his beliefs? I think deep down that Harper still holds these same ideas, but he believes (correctly) that Canadians would never elect him if he does. This gives rise to the whole hidden agenda thing and the thinking that whatever the conservatives put on their website as their platform, it is just window dressing while they would implement far more drastic changes when they get into office (ie. do away with social programs, break down the government, bring in private health care, etc)

That is my view. The other view is that Harper's own views have mellowed, and that he understands that Canada is not, nor should be, a clone of rightwing America. If you believe that, then you can accept the Conservatives at their word when they say they will uphold medicare, etc.

Any thoughts?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Any thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought it was pretty damning of Harper too & I'm a Conservative supporter.

He may not have held office at the time, but he has always been a politician & policy wonk, so it's not like he hadn't studied the issues until recently. He can't use the "I was a private citizen" excuse like Michael Ignatieff could. Or his even lamer one ... "it was a joke". Not funny Steven.

If this was widely read in Ontario I think we might just as well crown Martin, and get ready to elect a new leader of the Opposition.

[Kiraly]

Any thoughts?

I rather enjoyed it.

I thought it was a pretty good description of the political reality that existed in this country in the mid-nineties.

[canuckcat]

<<Harper eases up on same-sex fight>>

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/Canad...1352977-cp.html

A surprising show of flexibility in tonight's debate...

Maybe a trade-off instead of being viewed in the light of an 8-year-old speech as a rigid conservative...

or maybe he's just older and wiser...

[kimmy]

I saved a copy of the speech. If anybody wishes, I could find someplace to host it.

The points that the article singles out for criticism:

“The important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.”

He's quite obviously correct, although it might not be politically correct to say so this bluntly.

“Forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.”

Lessee. A right-wing speaker entertaining a right wing audience by jesting about the lefties... this is the stuff of controversy? uh...

The Liberal party has “put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.”

Was he wrong?

“The leadership of the Conservative Party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand.”

These are all facts, are they not?

“Canada is ... a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory.”

Sounds like something Eureka has been trying to convince me of for a long time. Eureka often argues that there's no way a country with provincial and federal divisions of power as they are in Canada can continue to exist. And yet it does.

—“Canada, in spite of its ongoing social democratic, welfare-state mentality, will continue to move to the right on fiscal, economic and social policy.”

Harper notes that Canada, in 1997 under Chretien and Martin, had already begun moving to the right in fiscal and economic policy; whether Harper is correct on the subject of social policy depends how broadly one defines the term.

Is there any debate as to whether Chretien and Martin had been taking the country on a decidedly right wing economic and fiscal course in the mid 1990s? In a speech at the U of A this past year, the CBC's Avi Lewis singled out Martin's 1995 budget as the single biggest victory in history for Canada's right wing.

As to whether Canada was moving to the right socially in 1997, well, that's debateable. In 1997, we did not yet have same sex marriage, there has been no change or attempt to change abortion access in Canada since Mulroney was in power. And a variety of measures were being taken towards "victim's rights" and "getting tough on crime", probably in some measure due to appease voters who got all riled up because of Reform's enthusiasm for these issues. In some respects Canada could certainly have been said to be moving to the right on social issues at the time, though Harper was wrong in predicting that this would continue.

Really, none of this stuff seems terribly controversial. To me it seems maybe more like looking back through old high school yearbooks and receiving a painful reminder that you really were that dorky back in 1997. Harper, like your fugly highschool mugshot, tells the truth, as painful as it might be.

-k

[Kiraly]

I saved a copy too.

[kimmy]

I saved a copy too.

In that case, if anybody would like to get a copy hosted, ask Kiraly to do it.

-kimmy

[scribblet]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...42-36b38d3bdebd

The National Post has a good editorial on this, I'll post a couple of pertinent pararaphs.

.....Harper apparently gave little thought to returning to public office. So he clearly didn't speak in the carefully parsed language of most politicians -- as evidenced by the 1997 speech to an American conservative group distributed to media this week, which was more noteworthy for its lame attempts at humour than anything telling about his ideology. (See John Duffy's column, below, for the Liberal spin on it).

snip

After providing historical context, Harper laid out his hope for economic and social conservatives to unite in common cause, and outlined the hurdles they face. "The real challenge is not economic, but the social agenda of the modern Left," he suggested. "Its system of moral relativism, moral neutrality and moral equivalency is beginning to dominate its intellectual debate."

Canada was now in the clutches, he went on to suggest, of something "much darker" than even moral relativism. "The Left" was leading us into "a moral nihilism -- the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic Western civilization."

snip

Clearly, there's no easy answer. But responsible voters should at least have a look for themselves at what Harper has said, rather than entrusting the Liberals to deliver his message.

[normanchateau]

The media have been bending over for Harper in this campaign, letting him choose his agenda.  It's time the lazy media started reminding Canadians about Harper's beliefs...and not just Harper's stated beliefs during the current campaign.  Given the media's dazed inattention, you'd think every hateful  position he had ever expressed had suddenly evaporated into thin air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. The media has already been reporting on Harper's past only because it was Harper's recent statements that prompted the appropriate research. If the media on its own accord just starts to dig out Harper's past, they'll be accused of media-bias harder than they are already now.

Harper already has overwhelming coverage and Layton, almost none. The only coverage the Liberals get is the gaffes and the controversies. If I had the time, I would clock the coverage each party gets in a one-week period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points Daniel. On further reflection, the more the media remind us of Harper's past positions, the more they'll be accused of bias. Perhaps that's why they've failed to remind Canadians that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation.

The media do appear biased in terms of providing far more coverage to a party to the right of the Liberals than parties to the left such as the NDP and BQ.

[kimmy]

Good points Daniel.  On further reflection, the more the media remind us of Harper's past positions, the more they'll be accused of bias.  Perhaps that's why they've failed to remind Canadians that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation.

The media do appear biased in terms of providing far more coverage to a party to the right of the Liberals than parties to the left such as the NDP and BQ.

It's been proven to you repeatedly that the bill had nothing to do with gay bashing, and addressed only the issue of broadening the definition of propaganda.

Harper's concern-- that the bill infringed on religious speech-- is a valid one, and I posted a critique from lawyers who feel that the protection promised religious speech in the revised law is inadequate.

click here for details.

quick recap:

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)

Norman, you continue to peddle the line that the bill was about gay bashing. Why is that? Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you honestly not know any better?

-k

[Slim MacSquinty]

quote:

In a speech at the U of A this past year, the CBC's Avi Lewis singled out Martin's 1995 budget as the single biggest victory in history for Canada's right wing.

According to Dalton Camp, he lifted the vast majority of that buget from Michael Wilson's policy.

As for social policy, lets hope we can dig ourselves out from the ridiculous "free thinking" left's ban everything we don't do ourselves mentality.

[scribblet]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's been proven to you repeatedly that the bill had nothing to do with gay bashing, and addressed only the issue of broadening the definition of propaganda.

Harper's concern-- that the bill infringed on religious speech-- is a valid one, and I posted a critique from lawyers who feel that the protection promised religious speech in the revised law is inadequate.

click here for details.

quick recap:

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

(emphasis added by me)

Norman, you continue to peddle the line that the bill was about gay bashing. Why is that? Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you honestly not know any better?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People who continue to peddle that line probably do know better, but use it as a way to stiffle dissent, just as people use the term racist or bigot to stop a discussion. Being against redefining marriage, does not equate to "gay bashing", neither is it 'homophobic' whatever that is. Same argument goes for disagreeing with Bill C-250, it is also incorrectly tarring people with a broad brush, which is a form of intolerance isn't it?

Personally, I think there are much higher priority issues to consider than SSM, it isn't an issue for me in any election.

[southerncomfort]

Kimmy said: Norman, you continue to peddle the line that the bill was about gay bashing. Why is that? Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you honestly not know any better?

Now, we know that no one on the internet would ever beintentionally dishonest don't we.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Personally, I think there are much higher priority issues to consider than SSM.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would Martin, Layton and Duceppe consider it a "human rights violation" not to let gays "marry"?

Just asking.

[BubberMiley]

It doesn't really matter what they think. It's what the supreme court thinks the charter says and whether they would use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter.

[scribblet]

The Supreme Court did not respond to Paul Martin’s fourth question regarding whether or not the traditional definition of marriage in common law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They handed this question back to Parliament to decide, and made it clear that the definition of marriage is Parliament’s to deal with .

POINTS OF INTEREST ON THE LIBERALS ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL

- The Supreme Court did not declare the present definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) to be unconstitutional;

- The Supreme Court agreed with the position of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada that any change in the definition had to come from Parliament, not the Courts. The Supremes refused to do Paul Martin's messy work;

- The present federal definition does not rob people of their rights. No right is absolute, not even the right to marry. An adult cannot marry a child. A brother cannot marry his sister. An adult cannot marry another adult who is already married. A Moslem in Canada cannot marry more than one person even though his religious beliefs permit him to;

- It is not unconstitutional to limit the right to marry. We do it in many instances;

- Provinces can (and have) legalized many types of unions, including same sex;

- However, only the federal government can change the definition;

- Many homosexuals support the present definition of marriage and want it left alone.

If it is a violation of 'human rights' why isn't it take up as such by the U.N. human rights tribunals?

The CPC said it will seek to amend same-sex marriage legislation to provide the following if these amendments were not accepted. (they were not)

A clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage;

Full recognition of equivalent rights and privileges for non-traditional relationships;

Iron-clad protections for religious institutions.

They also said that public officials, who for religious reasons, feel that they cannot perform same-sex marriages, must also be explicitly protected from reprisal if they refuse. Liberal Deputy House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Mauril Bélanger, stated that he believes public officials who refuse should be fired or reprimanded. The CPC disagree with that.

Most conservatives as with liberals et al don't have a problem with equal rights of same sex unions, what they were against is blatant intolerance against people offering other opinions and a concern about what could happen for stating differing opinions.

[Riverwind]

Liberal Deputy House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Mauril Bélanger, stated that he believes public officials who refuse should be fired or reprimanded.  The CPC disagree with that.

Any one acting as an official of the gov't cannot pick and choose which Canadian citizens they will provide service to. If they don't like that then they can find another job.

Most conservatives as with liberals et al don't have a problem with equal rights of same sex unions.

Refusing to use the same term for SSM is discrimination because it basically says same-sex relationships are less worthy than heterosexual relationships. That is why the supreme court will eventually strike down any seperate but equal definition passed the CPC because the justices will recognize that the anti-SSM movement is based entirely on fear and hatred of homosexuals.

[Slim MacSquinty]

quote]Refusing to use the same term for SSM is discrimination because it basically says same-sex relationships are less worthy than heterosexual relationships. That is why the supreme court will eventually strike down any seperate but equal definition passed the CPC because the justices will recognize that the anti-SSM movement is based entirely on fear and hatred of homosexuals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if you were a Justice of the Supreme Court it would be awfully presumptuous of you to conclude what their decision would be in advance.

In the face of the presented facts (thanks scriblet) your arguement is moot.