Stephen Harper, Conrad Black & Richard Perle (aka Darth Vader)

[tml12]

"Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

If he was talking about the UN Commission which dithers and doesn't attack many Arab policies against human rights then I can't say I blame him...

[The Honest Politician]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

He views them as an attack on his personal freedoms, like not wanting to see gays get married to each other.

The statement drives home the point that Harper does not value minority rights, or the organizations that stand up for them.

[cybercoma]

It is not a conspiracy theory. I have posted a couple of times about the fact that a meeting in California in 1973 ended with the determination of a number of wealthy American families to gain control of the media and to found several Right Wing foundations.

They did that and brought about the election of Reagan and the rise of the Republican Party.

There are ties between some Right Wing elements in Canada and that group. More than that I do not know, but they have been effective as evidenced by the commentary of Right Wingers here which has swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

My god, the birth of the "secret government" was almost 33 years ago!

Perhaps when you're supreme ruler of the universe you can eliminate all right-wing thinkers. It'll be a leftists utopia!

[tml12]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

He views them as an attack on his personal freedoms, like not wanting to see gays get married to each other.

The statement drives home the point that Harper does not value minority rights, or the organizations that stand up for them.

Gay marriage is a most personal issue and one I do not believe should be defined by the state.

I was raised with the Catholic definition of marriage and, frankly, if the left wants to call me a racist well then so be it.

[Guest eureka]

The next time your store has a sale on drills, Cybercoma, buy one and give yourself a lobotomy. At least make a hole to release the pressure.

[scribblet]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

He views them as an attack on his personal freedoms, like not wanting to see gays get married to each other.

The statement drives home the point that Harper does not value minority rights, or the organizations that stand up for them.

Gay marriage is a most personal issue and one I do not believe should be defined by the state.

I was raised with the Catholic definition of marriage and, frankly, if the left wants to call me a racist well then so be it.

I posted this in another thread:

Martin won't force gay marriages on churches

Government to ask Supreme Court if civil union is a viable alternative Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, December 19, 2003 Article tools

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages.

"Oh, yes I would," Martin said Thursday on CBC Radio when asked whether he would use the clause.

"I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right," he said, explaining that it would be used only under extreme circumstances.

He also said

"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

[cybercoma]

Harper and Black are clearly soulmates:

Black's Giant Media Chain Backs Harper and continually advances the neo-con agenda.

Harper was at 2003 Bilderburg Meeting holding Black's hand along with Perle and Wolfwitz

Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

How does Black's media chain back Harper? Do they fabricate news? Or is it monetary contributions?

Last I checked businesses were allowed to make political contributions in this country. Not that Conrad Black is the greatest guy in Canada, but he's allowed to donate money where he sees fit. And if it's the corporations, then the executive boards are allowed to donate the money where they see fit.

Please give me examples of how he "advances the neo-con agenda" through his "Giant Media Chain".

Harper was at a 2003 Bilderburg Meeting, stop the presses. So was all those other people listed, including the one from Newsweek and Indigo/Chapters. Hell, even Martin and Chretien have been.

Tell me, was Harper actually holding hadns with Black, Perle and Wolfwitz? Were they singing kumbaya, or were they praying? Or is it just figurative since they attended the same conference? In that case does it mean Martin, Chretien and Axworthy were holding hands with Black, Wolfowitz and Kissinger in 1996, since they all attended the conference then?

Hell in 2004 Kevin Lynch Deputy Finance Minister was there and Frank McKenna former premier of New Brunswick was there. I guess they're holding hands with Conrad Black and those others as well, right?

Strange how this conference not only houses Conservatives, but even the year following the 2003 appearance of Harper, we see two prominent Liberals there. If we go back even further Martin, Chretien and Axworthy all made an appearance. Are they holding hands with Harper maybe? Dun dun DUNNNN...

And please, for the millionth time post Harper's words about Human Rights in their entirety. Even Martin himself has bashed the UN for not doing enough about Human Rights and can you blame him? When you have countries like Syria that can chair the commission, do you truly expect anything to be done? So post Harper's quote in its entirety so we can assess the context and evaluate why he said it.

As for the rest of the stuff I cut out, I could give a crap less what a couple criminals did to Hollinger. We're talking about the Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper, not Hollinger.

[cybercoma]

The next time your store has a sale on drills, Cybercoma, buy one and give yourself a lobotomy. At least make a hole to release the pressure.

The next time I'm in a store doing an audit, I'll check into it. Perhaps I could mail it to you so you could deflate your ego.

[Guest eureka]

You can't argue so you try to deflect this to the UN? It is perfectly obvious what Harper meant and I suggest that you do get yourself that drill.

[cybercoma]

You can't argue so you try to deflect this to the UN? It is perfectly obvious what Harper meant and I suggest that you do get yourself that drill.

People have already explained what he meant in this thread, even without me stretching it with the UN comment. I want the person who posted the original "snippet" to post the entire speech, so that everyone may evaluate Harper's words in context. Is that too much to ask?

Oh that's right, I'm not deserving of any respect because I work for a retail corporation.

[Argus]

Did Martin make a speech full of ultra right rhetoric at the convention?

Dunno. What did he say? Do you know?

[Argus]

It is not a conspiracy theory. I have posted a couple of times about the fact that a meeting in California in 1973 ended with the determination of a number of wealthy American families to gain control of the media and to found several Right Wing foundations.

And yet, the major media continues to present a largely liberal message to Americans and Canadians.

[Argus]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Nonsense. Human Rights Agencies have nothing to do with rights and freedoms. Their task is to supress rights and freedoms and require private individuals, organizations and businesses act in accordance with government regulations.

[Argus]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

He views them as an attack on his personal freedoms, like not wanting to see gays get married to each other.

The statement drives home the point that Harper does not value minority rights, or the organizations that stand up for them.

Gay marriage is a most personal issue and one I do not believe should be defined by the state.

I was raised with the Catholic definition of marriage and, frankly, if the left wants to call me a racist well then so be it.

I posted this in another thread:

Martin won't force gay marriages on churches

Government to ask Supreme Court if civil union is a viable alternative Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, December 19, 2003 Article tools

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages.

"Oh, yes I would," Martin said Thursday on CBC Radio when asked whether he would use the clause.

"I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right," he said, explaining that it would be used only under extreme circumstances.

He also said

"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

And Martin would never lie to us. Oh no, not him. And all of those who follow him will feel bound by his promise - to the same extent he will.

[The Honest Politician]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Nonsense. Human Rights Agencies have nothing to do with rights and freedoms. Their task is to supress rights and freedoms and require private individuals, organizations and businesses act in accordance with government regulations.

Nice attitude. Human Rights agencies supress rights and freedoms of thse who want to discriminate and segregate. That is of course if you believe discrimination and segregation are human rights.

[cybercoma]

Nice attitude. Human Rights agencies supress rights and freedoms of thse who want to discriminate and segregate. That is of course if you believe discrimination and segregation are human rights.

Is it possible to discriminate and segregate white people, particularly males? Enforcing practices which prohibit the hiring of white males IS discrimination, but the bleeding hearts would have you believe that it's not.

I'm opposed to discrimination of any kind, regardless of colour or culture or any other difference you can imagine.

[Argus]

He is talking about organizations which stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Nonsense. Human Rights Agencies have nothing to do with rights and freedoms. Their task is to supress rights and freedoms and require private individuals, organizations and businesses act in accordance with government regulations.

Nice attitude. Human Rights agencies supress rights and freedoms of thse who want to discriminate and segregate. That is of course if you believe discrimination and segregation are human rights.

Human Rights agencies supress freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, among other things. They, and the laws they enforce, are dangerous infringements on human rights all in the name of barring people from offending other people.

In Europe, where human rights laws are far more stringent than here, where even a private individual can be arrested and go to prison for saying unkind things about minorities, those anti-racism/anti-discrimination laws have actually encouraged the expansion of anti-semitic, and racist groups. Neo-Nazi groups are far more prevelent in Europe than in America or Canada. Outright racism and violent anti-semitism are commonplace. There is no Canadian or American groups with the success of the BJP in Britain or France's Le Pen.

[The Honest Politician]

Imprisonment for spreading hate is a bad thing?

The fact the hate continues to spread is another problem. It shows a lowbrow mentality of most likely disenfranchised youth who are ready to believe propaganda fed to them about how it is the imigrants fault he can't get a good job and not the complete lack of education he personally has.

I find it absolutly hilarious when these racist spew off about imigrants taking their jobs when they wouldn't work for minimum wage anywhere.

So are you a proponent of Hate Organizations or Human Rights Organizations?

Oops You have already made it clear you believe Hate is a freedom of speech.

So is it fair to say, with the comment he made, Harper also believes Hate is a freedom of speech.

[River_God]

Nice attitude. Human Rights agencies supress rights and freedoms of thse who want to discriminate and segregate. That is of course if you believe discrimination and segregation are human rights.

Is it possible to discriminate and segregate white people, particularly males? Enforcing practices which prohibit the hiring of white males IS discrimination, but the bleeding hearts would have you believe that it's not.

I'm opposed to discrimination of any kind, regardless of colour or culture or any other difference you can imagine.

On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.

Freedom is dying.

Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt, which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" .

He is awaiting trial.

Such cases compare with others that remain secret and beyond any form of justice: those of the foreign nationals held at Belmarsh prison, who have never been charged, let alone put on trial. They are held "on suspicion." Some of the "evidence" against them, whatever it is, the Blair government has now admitted, could have been extracted under torture at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. They are political prisoners in all but name. They face the prospect of being spirited out of the country into the arms of a regime which may torture them to death. Their isolated families, including children, are quietly going mad.

Last October, an American surgeon, loved by his patients, was punished with 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr. Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, according to Unicef, had caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. The then-Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft, called Dr. Dhafir, a Muslim, a "terrorist," a description mocked by even the judge in his politically-motivated travesty of a trial.

The Dhafir case is not extraordinary. In the same month, three US Circuit Court judges ruled in favour of the Bush regime's "right" to imprison an American citizen "indefinitely" without charging him with a crime. This was the case of Joseph Padilla, a petty criminal who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at Chicago airport three and a half years ago. He was never charged, and no evidence has ever been presented against him. Now mired in legal complexity, the case puts George W. Bush above the law and outlaws the Bill of Rights. Indeed, on 14 November, the US Senate effectively voted to ban habeas corpus by passing an amendment that overturned a Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantánamo prisoners access to a federal court. Thus, the touchstone of America's most celebrated freedom was scrapped. Without habeas corpus, a government can simply lock away its opponents and implement a dictatorship

there should be some indepentdant body to at least evrify the "top secret" ecidence that is being used to disappear people.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/senate.patriot.ap/

Like US Senator Feingold said "I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,"

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."

[newbie]

In Europe, where human rights laws are far more stringent than here, where even a private individual can be arrested and go to prison for saying unkind things about minorities, those anti-racism/anti-discrimination laws have actually encouraged the expansion of anti-semitic, and racist groups.

So censoring James Keegstra and Ernst Zundel will ultimately lead to more of the same?

[cybercoma]

Imprisonment for spreading hate is a bad thing?

The fact the hate continues to spread is another problem. It shows a lowbrow mentality of most likely disenfranchised youth who are ready to believe propaganda fed to them about how it is the imigrants fault he can't get a good job and not the complete lack of education he personally has.

I find it absolutly hilarious when these racist spew off about imigrants taking their jobs when they wouldn't work for minimum wage anywhere.

So are you a proponent of Hate Organizations or Human Rights Organizations?

Oops You have already made it clear you believe Hate is a freedom of speech.

So is it fair to say, with the comment he made, Harper also believes Hate is a freedom of speech.

You're treading into dangerous territory when you start banning speech which offends. Where do you draw the line? What happens when you get to the point that dissenting viewpoints cause turmoil and should therefore be banned? Anyone should be able to say anything they want, just like anyone else can say anything they want against them. When you start enforcing laws that tell people what they can and cannot talk about, you set a dangerous precedent.

[cybercoma]

On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.

"Bow Street magistrates gave her a conditional discharge."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/4507446.stm

What other things have you posted that were lies? She wasn't given a criminal record, nor was she fined.

And had she taken the appropriate actions by seeking police consent for her demonstration, she would not have been arrested.

If you read that article, you'll see why they made the law:

"The new law was initially intended to remove Brian Haw, an anti-war protester who has camped in Parliament Square for four years."

Freedom is dying.

Only those freedoms that impose on the life and liberty of others.

Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt, which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" .

He is awaiting trial.

The t-shirt said, "Bush Blair Sharon to be tried for war crimes torture human rights abuse".

Sure the arrest was probably uncalled for, but can you honestly support taking up Bush and Blair on human rights abuses? Where do these people come from?

Where's the protesters with shirts about the actual human rights violators all throughout the arab world, south america and africa? I don't see people protesting Kim Jon Il or Saddam Hussein. Yet regularly you get these idiots that are trying to impede nations that are working to stop the real human rights violators.

Such cases compare with others that remain secret and beyond any form of justice: those of the foreign nationals held at Belmarsh prison, who have never been charged, let alone put on trial. They are held "on suspicion." Some of the "evidence" against them, whatever it is, the Blair government has now admitted, could have been extracted under torture at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. They are political prisoners in all but name. They face the prospect of being spirited out of the country into the arms of a regime which may torture them to death. Their isolated families, including children, are quietly going mad.

When you figure out the difference between enemy combatants and criminals, come back to me with this. Besides, if you look up the most recent Belmarsh prison story on the BBC website they state, "The government has now reached agreement with Jordan that deportees will not be persecuted, and is in negotiation with 10 other countries, including Lebanon and Algeria."

"The Memorandum of Understanding reads: "It is understood that the authorities of the United Kingdom and of Jordan will comply with their human rights obligations under international law regarding a person returned under this arrangement." "

Those people held at Belmarsh were detained because of known terrorist activities. For example, Abu Qatada, a radical Jordanian cleric was held there. In jordan he was sentence to life in prison for a series of explosions there.

Quite obviously Britain should wait until he commits crimes on their soil before detaining him. They should wait until a subway, bus or airplane explodes before making arrests. Forget security.

And so on...and so on....

Look, it's quite obvious you refuse to actually analyze these situations and you care more about being "rebellious" and "edgy". You'd rather stick it to the man, then actually stand up for the true human rights abusers. But that wasn't what we were originally talking about.

We were talking about reverse discrimination and how it's masked as a way of supporting human rights when really it just abuses a different group of people.

Do you support descriminating against whites to give other colours and ethnicities a chance?

Do you believe other cultures and ethnicities are so incompetent that they need to be coddled?

Do you believe that the government should be allowed to tell private citizens what they can and cannot say?

Do you believe the government should tell you how to think, feel and act?

That was the original point that you so gracefully heaped a bunch of crap not related to the subject onto.

Actually, I shouldn't say not related....it is related, so long as it fits within your ideas and opinions. As soon as the answers to those questions remain the same, but are from the opposite side of the coin...you change your answers.

[Argus]

In Europe, where human rights laws are far more stringent than here, where even a private individual can be arrested and go to prison for saying unkind things about minorities, those anti-racism/anti-discrimination laws have actually encouraged the expansion of anti-semitic, and racist groups.

So censoring James Keegstra and Ernst Zundel will ultimately lead to more of the same?

Who would have ever heard of them without those laws?

Let me clue you in on an earlier use of hate laws. They had them in Germany. They were used against Adolph Hitler. He spent time in jail, as did members of the Nazi party. Did it stop them? Hell no. It made martyrs out of them, gave them a bigger pedestal, made them more newsworthy. And by the way, such laws, by their nature, tend to be broadly written and broadly interpreted - which adds to their danger. When Hitler got in power, he and his judges were able to use the very same laws to put many of his opponents into concentration camps.

[Argus]

Imprisonment for spreading hate is a bad thing?

Imprisonment for expressing your opinion is a TERRRIBLE thing, no matter how stupid or ignorant that opinion is. Opinions are fought with coherent argument, not silence. Laws against freedom of speech are extremely dangerous. You should have a look at the laws tyrants put in place around the world. They are so simliar in nature to the hate speech laws it's scary - or should be. Many of them use disingenuous language which is open to interpretation. They imprison people for "contributing to public disorder" for "inciting the public towards violence", for "damaging public unity and harmony".

And so we put in place laws against freedom of speech at our peril, and only when we can show the need. But there is no need, and in fact, such laws not only don't do what the idiots who support them say they do but do the opposite. As we can see in Europe.

The fact the hate continues to spread is another problem. It shows a lowbrow mentality of most likely disenfranchised youth who are ready to believe propaganda fed to them about how it is the imigrants fault he can't get a good job and not the complete lack of education he personally has.

I find it absolutly hilarious when these racist spew off about imigrants taking their jobs when they wouldn't work for minimum wage anywhere.

This is simple ignorance on a number of fronts. First, your cliche about hate groups being made up of uneducated rabble, while true to a degree, is superficial and lacks any shades of gray. You are putting up cardboard cutouts and judging their actions based on your own cliched views. Second, it's unquestionably true that mass immigration, particularly of unskilled workers, badly damages the lower class in every country. You say these people won't work for minimum wages? Well, all the jobs immigrants do used to be done by these people. Someone used to drive taxis and clean floors, you know. What mass immigration does is help supress the wages for unskilled jobs to such a degree only the desperate take them.

So are you a proponent of Hate Organizations or Human Rights Organizations?

Oops You have already made it clear you believe Hate is a freedom of speech.

So is it fair to say, with the comment he made, Harper also believes Hate is a freedom of speech.

I am a proponent of freedom of speech, as, perhaps, is Harper.

Clearly you are not.

[The Honest Politician]

Spreading Hate is not free speech.

Promoting Hate cannot be sloughed off as oppinion, because it is not. It is the base upon which violence against minorities is built. Therefore you could look at Spreading Hate as the premeditation of violence towards others. That is way beyond simple free speech.