Nothing to fear but fear itself

[JMH]

I'm baffled by some Canadians hysterics when it comes to Mr. Harper becoming the next PM.

What exactly do these people think is going to happen? Is it realistic to think that Harper will "throw away" his political career by enacting radical right wing policies? Is he running for PM in order to be bounced out on his can in 18 months? Pretty silly if you ask me.

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm. If Mr. Harper were to head in any direction beyond "moderate", he and the Conservative Party would become extinct as a political species in this country.

Be assured chicken little, the sky is NOT falling.

[Hicksey]

I'm baffled by some Canadians hysterics when it comes to Mr. Harper becoming the next PM.

What exactly do these people think is going to happen? Is it realistic to think that Harper will "throw away" his political career by enacting radical right wing policies? Is he running for PM in order to be bounced out on his can in 18 months? Pretty silly if you ask me.

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm. If Mr. Harper were to head in any direction beyond "moderate", he and the Conservative Party would become extinct as a political species in this country.

Be assured chicken little, the sky is NOT falling.

But Mr. Dithers says it is. And as you know he never lies ...

[tml12]

I'm baffled by some Canadians hysterics when it comes to Mr. Harper becoming the next PM.

What exactly do these people think is going to happen? Is it realistic to think that Harper will "throw away" his political career by enacting radical right wing policies? Is he running for PM in order to be bounced out on his can in 18 months? Pretty silly if you ask me.

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm. If Mr. Harper were to head in any direction beyond "moderate", he and the Conservative Party would become extinct as a political species in this country.

Be assured chicken little, the sky is NOT falling.

You must remember, JMH, that the Liberals have brainwashed us into thinking we need them.

It will be a change, I hope, for the better. We need a fresh face and new policy initiatives in Ottawa. However, the Liberals have been in power so long that there will have to be an adjustment for sure.

Overall, I think voting Conservative is the right choice in this election.

[Argus]

I'm baffled by some Canadians hysterics when it comes to Mr. Harper becoming the next PM.

What exactly do these people think is going to happen? Is it realistic to think that Harper will "throw away" his political career by enacting radical right wing policies? Is he running for PM in order to be bounced out on his can in 18 months? Pretty silly if you ask me.

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm. If Mr. Harper were to head in any direction beyond "moderate", he and the Conservative Party would become extinct as a political species in this country.

Be assured chicken little, the sky is NOT falling.

These accusations are having little or no affect in the west and Quebec. But parts of Canada have been conditioned over the last several election campaigns, to think the conservatives are "scary", that they're some kind of wild-eyed "extremists" who are threats to Canada. Thus Martin's repeated statements, often couched in self-righteous platitudes, that Harper would be a threat to human rights in Canada. In Ontario, we had the Ontario (Liberal) attorney general sternly talking about how Canada has a history of independance in our judiciary, and how any threat to that is extremely dangerous. Uhmm, but Harper never made any threats to the independance and neutrality of the judiciary... But you see how it works. Harper mentions in passing how the judiciary is stacked with Liberals. Martin immediately pounces on it by proclaiming himself as the great defender of judicial independance, by accusing Harper of wanting an AMERICAN (eek!) style of judicial appointments, by wanting to stack the courts, and, of course, by wrapping himself in the flag and portraying himself yet again as the mighty and noble defender of our sacred charter OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS! He's defending our rights and freedoms, damnit!

Which of course, implies Harper is a threat to our rights and freedoms.

Never mind that no man in Canadian history has been as blatant about stacking the Supreme Court as Paul Martin. Never mind that the federal judiciary in particular is full of worn out Liberal MPs, party bagmen and party suckups. It's really quite revolting to see how craven this man is, how low he will stoop to smear his opponent in a desperate effort to cling go power.

[I miss Reagan]

The stupidity of people in this country never ceases to amaze me. How the Liberals can even be in the running is a sad commentary on Canadian intelligence. The gullability of Canadians is almost comical to watch as the media sways them from one side to the other. Little has changed between the Liberals and Cons. of this year and the Liberals and Cons. of last year yet for some reason the press has decided to push for the Conservatives this year and Canadians followed along. Not surprisingly the press is, at the last minute, now pumping up the whole fearmongering of "Harper is a scary guy" and it appears that the Canadian sheep are following along.

[Chimera]

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the conservative candidates are far from socially liberal:

G&M article

I particularly like this quote:

Mr. Sweet is a former president of Promise Keepers Canada, an evangelical Christian organization that believes homosexuality is a sin.

In a November, 2001, edition of Christian Week magazine, he wrote: "[M]en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow."

Wow. belittling homosexuals AND women at the same time. There's social progress for you.

I think it is time for a change to a FISCALLY conservative gov't, however, many Canadians are afraid of the social conservatism baggage that appears to be coming along for the ride.

[Hicksey]

I hope Candians are smart enough not to believe the half-baked truths and scare-mongering going on by the Liberals, liberals and NDP.

Anyone with half a brain knows that with minority Harper cannot do all the things all you Liberals/liberals accuse him of lest he bring his life in politics to an abrupt screeching halt.

Even with a majority there's the liberal supreme court to overrule anything he does that doesn't pander to any number of minority groups.

IMO, all this fear mongering is being used because their ideas are inferior and they know it.

[I miss Reagan]

I hope Candians are smart enough not to believe the half-baked truths and scare-mongering going on by the Liberals, liberals and NDP.

Anyone with half a brain knows that with minority Harper cannot do all the things all you Liberals/liberals accuse him of lest he bring his life in politics to an abrupt screeching halt.

Even with a majority there's the liberal supreme court to overrule anything he does that doesn't pander to any number of minority groups.

IMO, all this fear mongering is being used because their ideas are inferior and they know it.

I don't think the Liberals have any real ideas of their own. They tend to make promises based on other parties' ideas and then renege on them once they get power back. Their whole agenda is to maintain power to keep plush appointments and jobs for themselves and their buddies. It's basically an elected mafia.

[Hicksey]

I hope Candians are smart enough not to believe the half-baked truths and scare-mongering going on by the Liberals, liberals and NDP.

Anyone with half a brain knows that with minority Harper cannot do all the things all you Liberals/liberals accuse him of lest he bring his life in politics to an abrupt screeching halt.

Even with a majority there's the liberal supreme court to overrule anything he does that doesn't pander to any number of minority groups.

IMO, all this fear mongering is being used because their ideas are inferior and they know it.

I don't think the Liberals have any real ideas of their own. They tend to make promises based on other parties' ideas and then renege on them once they get power back. Their whole agenda is to maintain power to keep plush appointments and jobs for themselves and their buddies. It's basically an elected mafia.

That sounds about right. I find it hard to believe the Liberals could come up with anything on their own. Considering if you split the brain trust between two seperate factions of the party they can't run an election let alone a whole country.

[Black Dog]

The stupidity of people in this country never ceases to amaze me. How the Liberals can even be in the running is a sad commentary on Canadian intelligence. The gullability of Canadians is almost comical to watch as the media sways them from one side to the other. Little has changed between the Liberals and Cons. of this year and the Liberals and Cons. of last year yet for some reason the press has decided to push for the Conservatives this year and Canadians followed along. Not surprisingly the press is, at the last minute, now pumping up the whole fearmongering of "Harper is a scary guy" and it appears that the Canadian sheep are following along.

Boy: how could Canadians not embrace this positive agenda? 'fes sup: was the original campaign slogan going to be "Stand up for Canada, you fucking morons!" until cooler heads prevailed?

You CPC types need to get a handle on your own contradictions. Either Canadians are easily-swayed idiots, or they are smart, savvy people who don't need big government telling them what to do and how to spend their money. Depicting them as the former (as no less than three Con supporters here have done) really blunts your outrage over "beer and popcorn"-type sentiments.

[I miss Reagan]

The stupidity of people in this country never ceases to amaze me. How the Liberals can even be in the running is a sad commentary on Canadian intelligence. The gullability of Canadians is almost comical to watch as the media sways them from one side to the other. Little has changed between the Liberals and Cons. of this year and the Liberals and Cons. of last year yet for some reason the press has decided to push for the Conservatives this year and Canadians followed along. Not surprisingly the press is, at the last minute, now pumping up the whole fearmongering of "Harper is a scary guy" and it appears that the Canadian sheep are following along.

Boy: how could Canadians not embrace this positive agenda? 'fes sup: was the original campaign slogan going to be "Stand up for Canada, you fucking morons!" until cooler heads prevailed?

You CPC types need to get a handle on your own contradictions. Either Canadians are easily-swayed idiots, or they are smart, savvy people who don't need big government telling them what to do and how to spend their money. Depicting them as the former (as no less than three Con supporters here have done) really blunts your outrage over "beer and popcorn"-type sentiments.

That one got to ya eh BD The problem with your post is that I do not represent or speak for the CPC. I'm not trying to convince Canadians of anything. Fortunately the CPC realizes you have to coddle the fools in Ontario and tell them how smart they are...

[JMH]

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the conservative candidates are far from socially liberal:

G&M article

I particularly like this quote:

Mr. Sweet is a former president of Promise Keepers Canada, an evangelical Christian organization that believes homosexuality is a sin.

In a November, 2001, edition of Christian Week magazine, he wrote: "[M]en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow."

Wow. belittling homosexuals AND women at the same time. There's social progress for you.

I think it is time for a change to a FISCALLY conservative gov't, however, many Canadians are afraid of the social conservatism baggage that appears to be coming along for the ride.

I suppose that the Christian right can say what they will, but it doesn't change anything concerning Mr. Harpers mandate (Political suicide isn't on the agenda). That being said, I find it interesting that you seem to feel that this group of religous folks (of witch I am not a member) is bull-dozing the rights of gay people.

I say to the contrary. " Marriage" is a religous function, period. Same sex couples were offered all the legal rights and benefits that exist in Canada today-Civil Unions- (by all parties in Gov.); but that wasn't good enough. The more radical gay folks demanded that the Gov. cross the line of "church and state" and force the church to perform Gay "Marriages". So who is treading on who's rights here? If Gay people need to be married in the church.........take it up with the church for christs sake! ALL parties of the Gov. have done everthing that can be done . This is NOT a political issue........PERIOD!

[August1991]

That one got to ya eh BD The problem with your post is that I do not represent or speak for the CPC. I'm not trying to convince Canadians of anything. Fortunately the CPC realizes you have to coddle the fools in Ontario and tell them how smart they are...

BD needs no help in ana rgument but the point is valid.

The stupidity of people in this country never ceases to amaze me.

Despite that comment, I wouldn't consider you to be stupid IMR, and I suspect in your daily life you're probably quite smart - certainly as smart as your neighbours, other people in this country.

And IMR, whether you speak for the CPC or not is irrelevant.

I particularly like this quote:

Mr. Sweet is a former president of Promise Keepers Canada, an evangelical Christian organization that believes homosexuality is a sin.

In a November, 2001, edition of Christian Week magazine, he wrote: "[M]en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow."

Wow. belittling homosexuals AND women at the same time. There's social progress for you.

Look, if I step a way from the partisan nature of this debate, how is that comment any more radical than the various comments of Sven Robinson? Tom Wappel and other Liberal candidates, Bev Desjaralais and Ed Schreyer have also said things roughly similar.

Canada is a big country, and our parliament is going to have people with a variety of viewpoints. Many, many Canadians share the views of this Sweet candidate. Chimera, do you mean that such people cannot express their views?

Harper has said that if he is PM, same-sex marriage will be subject to a free-vote in the House at some point in the future, but it's not a priority. If Canada were to adopt the traditional definition of marriage, gays and lesbians would still be entitled to civil unions and all the same legal rights of straight people - just like in the UK, Norway, Denmark and other so-called "progressive" countries.

To describe Harper's Conservative Party as scary, or extreme right wing, is to say that the Swedish Social Democratic Party is "extremely right wing".

Paul Martin, David Herle and Scott Reid are using these terms for purely electoral purposes. They are debasing the language. This kind of dishonesty is part of Canada's problems.

[justcrowing]

What is "Reality Check"?

"You have to try to bluff the public, and the public knows and expects this. In other words, you can't say anything sensible. It's got to be all bullshit during an election campaign." That is exactly what we are hearing from the Liberals during this campaign.

yuk! yuk!!

[Melanie_]

" Marriage" is a religous function, period.

Many marriages function just fine without religion, believe it or not (I suspect you will not). You don't need to have a religious ceremony to be joined in marriage, but the word still applies. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry someone who doesn't conform to their beliefs, and that still stands, which is why they can't have the monopoly on the word "marriage" - it is accessible to all, regardless of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Do we really need to have this debate again?

[Slim MacSquinty]

Elections are generaly only about one maybe two actual issues, remember the last few, corruption vs scary, before that Kim Cambell's "election campaigns are no time to talk about issues" vs Chretiens I'll be safe, before that free trade vs no free trade.

Remeber why we are having an election, this government was found to be corrupt, how deep it runs and how much they stole we are not sure. But it is suffice to say money was stolen confidence was lost. The smear and fear has diverted media attention from the root issue, the Liberals well know that there is really no effective way to counter the accusation of the "hidden agenda", yet they (the CPC) are forced to try and answer which just confuses the average voter who spends much less time thinking about elections than the average internet poster.

The end result is that doubt replaces anger and the past becomes vague, and it is the Liberals only effective tool to counter the very well run CPC campaign. This will be their last opportunity to use this strategy as each time its used it becomes a little less effective and the polls bear this out.

The truly sad thing is that the media fall for it and unwittingly or otherwise become co-conspirators, the facts are that these are generaly generational issues, both sides have virtually identical positions, there is nothing in the Liberal platform that says they support abortion, the SSM issue has significant opposition within both parties, so in many ways its a moot point between the two main parties. The only really scary thing in the whole campaign is the palpable (and often misplaced) hatred the reactionary left demonstrates to their opponents and the media's inability to research what extreme right wing might really mean both here and in other countries, because we do not have a right wing party in Canada.

The bottom line is we have to clean up partisan politics in this country, clearly this election demostrates that smear debases the real issues that deserve debate, we need to clean up government to remove patronage and cronyism to have effective and efficient government.

[Harare]

" Marriage" is a religous function, period.

Many marriages function just fine without religion, believe it or not (I suspect you will not). You don't need to have a religious ceremony to be joined in marriage, but the word still applies. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry someone who doesn't conform to their beliefs, and that still stands, which is why they can't have the monopoly on the word "marriage" - it is accessible to all, regardless of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Do we really need to have this debate again?

I agree, Melanie we don't. But if an MP wishes to raise a private members bill then I will fully support his/her right to do so. And if the majority of MP's vote against it as I suspect they would, it would truly be a closed issue. Same goes for polygamy SSM or capital punishment.

I'm just happy to support any party that will make this place a more democratic country.

[Melanie_]

I agree, Melanie we don't. But if an MP wishes to raise a private members bill then I will fully support his/her right to do so. And if the majority of MP's vote against it as I suspect they would, it would truly be a closed issue. Same goes for polygamy SSM or capital punishment.

I'm just happy to support any party that will make this place a more democratic country.

The problem with true democracy is that majority rules. This leaves the rights of minorities open to be trampled and ignored. It promotes a culture of bullying, with a corresponding culture of victims. Don't ask me for a better system, I haven't got one, but the imperfections of democracy need to be recognized.

[Argus]

I agree, Melanie we don't. But if an MP wishes to raise a private members bill then I will fully support his/her right to do so. And if the majority of MP's vote against it as I suspect they would, it would truly be a closed issue. Same goes for polygamy SSM or capital punishment.

I'm just happy to support any party that will make this place a more democratic country.

The problem with true democracy is that majority rules. This leaves the rights of minorities open to be trampled and ignored. It promotes a culture of bullying, with a corresponding culture of victims. Don't ask me for a better system, I haven't got one, but the imperfections of democracy need to be recognized.

Of course the majority has to rule. And of course that leaves the minority at the mercy of the majority. How could it possibly be otherwise in a democratic state? Because the Charter protects them? Feh! Nonsense! The idea that a piece of paper is going to protect minorities from the will of the majority is simply absurd. It is not the Charter which protects minorities. It is the will of the majority. If the majority decides otherwise the Charter is so much tissue paper, easily cast aside. It is our civilized society and its value set which protects minorities from abuse. But that majority also gets to dictate the rules of society and how it functions. You can't have it any other way. Majority rules. Don't like that? Think it's dangerous? Come up with something better. But don't downgrade democracy because you fear that some of the decisions made by the majority won't be to your liking.

[JMH]

" Marriage" is a religous function, period.

Many marriages function just fine without religion, believe it or not (I suspect you will not). You don't need to have a religious ceremony to be joined in marriage, but the word still applies. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry someone who doesn't conform to their beliefs, and that still stands, which is why they can't have the monopoly on the word "marriage" - it is accessible to all, regardless of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Do we really need to have this debate again?

Well Melanie, I was "married" to my wife in a civil ceremony (it was the best day of my life). As my post indicates quite clearly, I'm not in the least bit........religous. My post (if you read and understood it) is quite simple. Special interest groups have no buisness whatsoever in using Gov. in an atempt to modify doctrines of "the church" (they may be nuts, but thats the way they are.........kumbaiya!). Conversely, the church (a special interest group also) has no buisness manipulating Gov. in the name of GOD concerning "homosexuality".

So, if what you are saying is accurate, we wouldn't be discussing it would we? There has been immense pressure on the "more open minded church communities" to preform these "marriages". Many members of clergy have been fired for taking a stance on either side. And for what? So radical gay couples can add a WORD to their movement.

My wife and I have many gay freinds (Vancouver), and a male gay couple we've known for 20 years are our finest of freinds..............and guess what? They don't agree with you. In their opinion, your stance undermines the original purpose of the gay movement; acceptance and equality within the populace.........equal not special........live and let live.

These days, you just piss people off and create issues within a media that is starving for fluff so FUCK YOU.

[Melanie_]

Well, you were articulate and reasonable until the end - there's no need for personal attacks. If I misunderstood your post, a simple correction is all that is required.

Churches have the right to decide who they will and won't marry. If I'm not Catholic, I can't get married in a Catholic church.

There obviously is a divide in the gay community on the issue. Being gay doesn't mean there is a standard agenda for all.

[Harare]

I think Melanie only likes democracy when it means minority rule under the guidance of the Liberals, even if they lie cheat and steal. Frankly it is quite beyond comprehension. Are you or are you not against back-room deals, corruption, life time appointed Senate jobs, big pensions and as if that's not enough - to have a pattern of determining the results of elections thru bribery, cheating and lying.

[Melanie_]

Wow, Harare, I had no idea you were studying my posts so carefully, that you can sum up my beliefs in just a few sentences.

[Harare]

Wow, Harare, I had no idea you were studying my posts so carefully, that you can sum up my beliefs in just a few sentences.

Just a wild guess, Melanie and besides I could not see where you were going with democratic rule by minority....perhaps a trip to any number of African or Arab counties would change y our mind.

As for your hero Mandela, unlike my hero and his hero Mahatma Ghandi who used no violence Mr Mandela did and called Mr Castro and Col Gadaffi his best buddies. Perhaps Robert Mugabe was also once one of your heros?

Mandela welcomes brother Gaddafi

[JMH]

Well, you were articulate and reasonable until the end - there's no need for personal attacks. If I misunderstood your post, a simple correction is all that is required.

Churches have the right to decide who they will and won't marry. If I'm not Catholic, I can't get married in a Catholic church.

There obviously is a divide in the gay community on the issue. Being gay doesn't mean there is a standard agenda for all.

My sincere apoligies Melanie.

I felt that you were attacking me for what I deem is simply reasonable. I'm very sorry.

I suppose that my summation on the topic would be that the political road concerning this issue had come to an end long ago (unnanimously in parliment-in your favour.....witch I agree with); you won!

The Religious aspect however, is just that. Some people beleive in GOD Melanie. Our own charter dictates that they function without interference from others, so that they may live in peace unto their following. These words are telling. Ironiclly, these same chartered rights are used against the church in the name of Homosexual rights. This is my point..........; neither party has the legal chartered right to impose its dogma upon the other .

All that can be done-should be done, has been done. The effect of witch , I consider to be amongst the most progresive in the world. We are not Europe. We are not the U.S.A.. We are Canada. We are fortunate to be privy to the failings of other democracys and our ability to learn and adapt.

Again, please accept my apology

JMH