Harper is no Bush Clone

[scribblet]

I thought this was a pretty good article,

JOHN IBBITSON

Stephen Harper, a neo-conservative ideologue, has suffered a crippling blow. His fellow traveller in the White House got "thumped" in the midterm elections. American voters repudiated the bellicose, socially conservative and militarist agenda of George W. Bush, signalling a centrist shift in the American consensus, leaving the Canadian Conservative Prime Minister isolated, discredited and facing his own, inevitable comeuppance.

That's the story you're going to hear. Now let's look at reality.

-snip-

First, Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party. Mr. Harper supports a publicly funded health-care system, a publicly funded postsecondary education system, a national welfare system, federal support for child care, and the rights of homosexuals to full civil unions with all of the benefits (though not the name) of marriage.

This puts Mr. Harper on the left of the Democratic Party, the same place where Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Stockwell Day and even Preston Manning would have found themselves had they been transplanted south of the border.

-snip-

But that doesn't make Stephen Harper a George W. Bush clone, any more than the Prime Minister's tendency to say "God Bless Canada" at the end of his speeches makes him a raving theo-con. And it will always be in Canada's interest to seek new markets and other geopolitical partners, both in Asia and in Europe. All of us expect this Prime Minister to pursue that mission.

-snip-

http://tinyurl.com/yc5de3 Globe and Mail

[cybercoma]

Those that actually believe he is a Bush clone do not need to be humoured with a rebuttal. The notion is ridiculous and this article outlines it well.

[normanchateau]

Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party.

Sure, and black is white, and white is black.

For some reason, Mr. Harper felt compelled to vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it. Yet Mr. Harper favours the inclusion of religion in hate crimes legislation so he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. But he opposes it when it specifically pertains to gays and lesbians. Some might view that as evidence of hard-line conservatism but perhaps they're wrong. Maybe he just voted that way because he's a religious extremist and not because he's a conservative. Or maybe he voted that way because he's a homophobe and not because he's a conservative.

For some reason Mr. Harper felt compelled to make Darrel Reid Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Ambrose is neither a social conservative nor a religious extremist. Darrel Reid is. He also ran and lost as a Conservative candidate in January, 2006. He formerly headed Canada's Focus on the Family. He compared Canada to Nazi Germany when the Liberals, BQ and NDP voted to add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. What does Focus on the Family have to do with the environment? In 2005, Focus on the Family issued a statement saying that global warming is an "environmental theory yet to be adequately established."

So perhaps it's just a coincidence that Mr. Harper appointed someone who thinks like him to be Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose.

So is Mr. Harper a hard-line conservative? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on how you define "hard-line".

[White Doors]

Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party.

Sure, and black is white, and white is black.

For some reason, Mr. Harper felt compelled to vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it. Yet Mr. Harper favours the inclusion of religion in hate crimes legislation so he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. But he opposes it when it specifically pertains to gays and lesbians. Some might view that as evidence of hard-line conservatism but perhaps they're wrong. Maybe he just voted that way because he's a religious extremist and not because he's a conservative. Or maybe he voted that way because he's a homophobe and not because he's a conservative.

For some reason Mr. Harper felt compelled to make Darrel Reid Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Ambrose is neither a social conservative nor a religious extremist. Darrel Reid is. He also ran and lost as a Conservative candidate in January, 2006. He formerly headed Canada's Focus on the Family. He compared Canada to Nazi Germany when the Liberals, BQ and NDP voted to add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. What does Focus on the Family have to do with the environment? In 2005, Focus on the Family issued a statement saying that global warming is an "environmental theory yet to be adequately established."

So perhaps it's just a coincidence that Mr. Harper appointed someone who thinks like him to be Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose.

So is Mr. Harper a hard-line conservative? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on how you define "hard-line".

Norman, personal question - are you gay? Do you think Harper hates you because you are gay?

[scribblet]

Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party.

--

So is Mr. Harper a hard-line conservative? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on how you define "hard-line".

I wondered how long it would be before the 'gay bashing' thing would raise its head, but I'm not aware of any 'gay bashing' legislation. If he is referring to Bill C-250 there was legitimate reason for voting against it due to the lack of protection for religious institutions and freedom of speech; there is a big difference between 'gay bashing' and voicing an opinion against SSM, which is the crux of the matter IMO. Being against redefining SSM, while giving civil unions with full and equal protections under the law is not 'gay bashing' nor is it homophobic, whatever that is supposed to mean these days.

Canadians don't have the free speech protection enjoyed in the U.S. but IMHO, the continual references to gay bashing etc. and the scary scary Harper 'theocon' smears are wearing thin.

Daryl Reid has as much right as an atheist to be involved in politics, I thought all groups were entitled to participate in democracy, but evidently freedom of speech and democracy is only for some people, not all.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I wondered how long it would be before the 'gay bashing' thing would raise its head, but I'm not aware of any 'gay bashing' legislation. If he is referring to Bill C-250 there was legitimate reason for voting against it due to the lack of protection for religious institutions and freedom of speech; there is a big difference between 'gay bashing' and voicing an opinion against SSM, which is the crux of the matter IMO. Being against redefining SSM, while giving civil unions with full and equal protections under the law is not 'gay bashing' nor is it homophobic, whatever that is supposed to mean these days.

Only as long as it took Normie to post here.

You also can't forgot the attack on Darrell Reid.

Since Normie seems to support the Liberals, or maybe just any party that isn't the Conservatives, I wonder if that extends to supporting MP Andrew Telegdi and his documented use of the word n*gger???

Or are Canadians of African descent not worthy of your indignation?

[watching&waiting]

You just have to look at Harper to see that he is his own man. While at times he may agree with others on a subject, he raely if ever has given unbritled support to anything from another position. Canada needed a leader who would stand up for Canada and he is doing just that. If you look at the foreign appearances he has made, all have impressed those in attendance. Something the Liberal could never say. They were more of an embarassment to Canada.

This whole Idea of Harper being a clone of Bush is just so way out there, that most see this kind of topic and dismiss it as just another leftwing stunt to insult the PM. If you look around you willl find very few of the public people condemning Harper. It is mostly the left and far left that seem to have a hard on for this type of attack. Most of these people lead very boring lives and find little else to do but critisize, anyone who does not believe as they do.

It will soon become a matter of showing the Canadian people the exact bottlenecks that has kept the accountability ledgislation from being passed, is just another liberal ploy to try and scorch the earth, because they are not in power anymore. people are starting to see this more and more every day. When the writ is dropped and another election is on going, it will be the liberal who will pay dearly for all the stunts they have pulled. By now most of the Canadian public have lost any scarey Harper feelings and will now see that in order to get the job done that was promised, he will need a majority to do so. I have no doubt that this will happen. We will all have the liberal dominated Senate to thank for it. Right after we abolish it as it stands and have elecyted Senate seats from that point on. I personally look forward to the next election and I also want to make it clear that even a new leader for the Liberals will not be able to make the people forget what they did, and they will show it at the polls.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It will soon become a matter of showing the Canadian people the exact bottlenecks that has kept the accountability ledgislation from being passed, is just another liberal ploy to try and scorch the earth, because they are not in power anymore. people are starting to see this more and more every day. When the writ is dropped and another election is on going, it will be the liberal who will pay dearly for all the stunts they have pulled. By now most of the Canadian public have lost any scarey Harper feelings and will now see that in order to get the job done that was promised, he will need a majority to do so. I have no doubt that this will happen. We will all have the liberal dominated Senate to thank for it. Right after we abolish it as it stands and have elecyted Senate seats from that point on. I personally look forward to the next election and I also want to make it clear that even a new leader for the Liberals will not be able to make the people forget what they did, and they will show it at the polls.

Interesting post.

Remember at the end of the last campaign Harper mused about there not being a true Conservative majority in the House of Commons because of Liberal domination of the Senate, judiciary and upper reaches of the civil service.

This was the one major blip in the campaign for him. Maybe cost him a few votes, but the topic is so esoteric that most people really wouldn't get it.

I think Harper needs to focus that line of reasoning on the Senate. Maybe let people know he is open to the idea of abolishing the Senate if need be, but anything is better than the status quo.

The event precipitating a spring election will involve the Senate blocking some initiative of the Government in a very public way.

The only people left who consider Harper scary are those who loathe him and would never vote for him in the future. *scary*, *scary*, *scary* won't work again. Hopefully the Liberals don't figure that out...

[normanchateau]

Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party.

--

So is Mr. Harper a hard-line conservative? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on how you define "hard-line".

I wondered how long it would be before the 'gay bashing' thing would raise its head, but I'm not aware of any 'gay bashing' legislation. If he is referring to Bill C-250 there was legitimate reason for voting against it

Yes, I am referring to Bill C-250. Bill C-250 resulted in the amendment of the criminal code, i.e., 318 (4), such that killing people because of their sexual orientation is now a hate crime. Prior to that amendment, race, religion and ethnic origin were covered but sexual orientation was not.

You are correct that the term "gay bashing" does not appear in Bill C-250. However, most would agree that killing people because of their sexual orientation is an example of gay bashing.

In any event, this is but one example of Mr. Harper's extreme social conservative views. One could have mentioned, for example, his views on marijuana possession and why he believes that posession of even the smallest quantity should result in a permanent criminal record. This attitude on a drug most Canadians have little problem with is, of course, consistent with Bush's zero tolerance policy on marijuana possession.

[Ricki Bobbi]

In any event, this is but one example of Mr. Harper's extreme social conservative views. One could have mentioned, for example, his views on marijuana possession and why he believes that posession of even the smallest quantity should result in a permanent criminal record. This attitude on a drug most Canadians have little problem with is, of course, consistent with Bush's zero tolerance policy on marijuana possession.

Now he's an extreme socon because he doesn't favour legalizing marijuana? Wow, that is really grasping for a reason to call him a social conservative.

Attacking Harper as a *socon* because of his vote on C-250 and he isn't in favour of legalizing pot sounds like a great election strategy. I only hope you are connected enough to pass on this valuable advice to the Liberals so they can incorporate it into their campaign plan for the spring.

[southerncomfort]

In any event, this is but one example of Mr. Harper's extreme social conservative views. One could have mentioned, for example, his views on marijuana possession and why he believes that posession of even the smallest quantity should result in a permanent criminal record. This attitude on a drug most Canadians have little problem with is, of course, consistent with Bush's zero tolerance policy on marijuana possession.

Extreme socialist views - BS normie ,Harper never voted to kill gays or agreed with gay bashing, C250 was never about that, you know damn well it wasn't what the legislation is about, now thats an extremeist statement pure spin and propaganda. You know the operative term was the undefined sexual orientation and about criminalizing opposition and free speech.

Existing law is more than enough to prosecute violence against homosexuals same as it is enough to stop people from advocating violence against anyone else. There is no need to include the term "sexual orientation" in any6 current hate crimes legislation for that purpose. Its just a political ploy and obviously you are using it to distort it.

Pot posesssion, gimme a break, hardly an extremeist view. Your losing it and your extremist views are sure losing you your credibility.

think ole Normie objects to anything that is conservative doesn't matter if its good or bad LOL quite a few Liberals are against SSM too, and a dipper but its only cons. he doesn't like. Ole normie has a one track mind gays and Grewal but at least we are not subjected to Grewal bashing anymore Boy did he stomp all over this forum then, guess he took a vacation and geared up for more. I think he lies in wait then pounces on every post lol who has time for that. Shame, this forum used to be good readin, where are some of the old timers ?

Think I'd better go back to lurking before I say what I really think.

[Ricki Bobbi]

think ole Normie objects to anything that is conservative doesn't matter if its good or bad LOL quite a few Liberals are against SSM too, and a dipper but its only cons. he doesn't like. Ole normie has a one track mind gays and Grewal but at least we are not subjected to Grewal bashing anymore Boy did he stomp all over this forum then, guess he took a vacation and geared up for more.

Like Ibbitson said, the Harper-loathers aren't worth discussing anything with.

[normanchateau]

BS normie ,Harper never voted to kill gays or agreed with gay bashing, C250 was never about that, you know damn well it wasn't what the legislation is about, now thats an extremeist statement pure spin and propaganda.

Of course Harper never voted to kill gays. Has anyone said he did?

Harper did, however, vote against Bill C-250 and one of the provisions of that bill was that the murder of gays and lesbians, merely because of their sexual orientation, was a hate crime. The criminal code was amended, i.e., 318(4), to add killing on the basis of sexual orientation as a hate crime. Previously ethnicity, race and religion were covered but not sexual orientation.

I'm sorry that you view me pointing this out as "an extremist statement." but that does not negate how Harper voted.

[scribblet]

BS normie ,Harper never voted to kill gays or agreed with gay bashing, C250 was never about that, you know damn well it wasn't what the legislation is about, now thats an extremeist statement pure spin and propaganda.

Of course Harper never voted to kill gays. Has anyone said he did?

You said:

You are correct that the term "gay bashing" does not appear in Bill C-250. However, most would agree that killing people because of their sexual orientation is an example of gay bashing.

close enough.

There where a number of Liberals who opposed it and SSM, are they gay bashers too.

Messrs. Chretien and Cauchon did not equivocate on the issue a few yearsa go: "On June 8, 1999, duly elected Canadian Parliamentarians, including the current Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, voted 216-55 in favour of an Opposition motion that, 'It is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.'"

There is really no justification to require the amendment to C-250 in that particular section.

Murder in all cases is tragic for ALL victims; and is unacceptable in our society. It is allready against the law - you know, the one that says its murder and assault. The Criminal Code already punishes people who commit those crimes, and rightly so, but this amendment goes further.

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code says 'A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) a sentence should be increased if there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias or the person's sexual orientation. (abbreviated here)

The Criminal Code already provides that people can get an increased sentence if their motivation in beating someone up or killing them was because the person was a homosexual. In addition to the fact that the Criminal Code already provides penalties, it also provides increased penalties and as such there was no point in reinventing the wheel.

This law is not about hate speech nor hate crimes, it is a gag law. I don't hate homosexuals nor condone gay bashing, neither does Harper; to say he does because he voted against C-250 is a gross unsupported smear.

[normanchateau]

I don't hate homosexuals nor condone gay bashing, neither does Harper; to say he does because he voted against C-250 is a gross unsupported smear.

You're right of course that the mere fact that Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250 is not evidence that he hates homosexuals nor is it evidence that he condones gay bashing. Nonetheless, one of the provisions of Bill C-250 was that the criminal code be amended to include killing people solely because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. It's clear as can be in the amendment to 318(4) of the criminal code resulting from the passage of Bill C-250. Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. He did not indicate that he was opposed to hate crimes legislation but only the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation.

Call it gross, call it unsupported, call it a smear. Mr. Harper voted as he did on third reading of the bill. To his credit, he did not vote at all on the second reading of the bill resulting in condemnation by various extremist groups whom Mr. Harper placated by showing up on the third reading.

[Argus]

For some reason, Mr. Harper felt compelled to vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it.

Why do you find it necessary to flat out lie through your teeth about this issue, again, and again, and again.

It's bee pointed out to you by numerous people many, many times that this is a lie. You never challenge that, but you go on repeating it.

I don't know if you're a fan of Goebbels, but Goebbels' theory about the big lie only worked because everyone who challenged it was shot. So your big lie hope is doomed to failure.

[normanchateau]

Mr. Harper voted as he did on third reading of the bill. To his credit, he did not vote at all on the second reading of the bill resulting in condemnation by various extremist groups whom Mr. Harper placated by showing up on the third reading.

Below is a link to Ron Gray, Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, condemning Mr. Harper and his party from missing second reading of the bill.

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

[Argus]

I wondered how long it would be before the 'gay bashing' thing would raise its head, but I'm not aware of any 'gay bashing' legislation. If he is referring to Bill C-250 there was legitimate reason for voting against it

Yes, I am referring to Bill C-250. Bill C-250 resulted in the amendment of the criminal code, i.e., 318 (4), such that killing people because of their sexual orientation is now a hate crime.

As you well know, because it has been pointed out to you many times, your statement is a complete lie. Bill C-250 was an act to amend hate speech legislation. It had absolutely nothing to do with physical violence or behaviour. It had to do with criminalizing statements which were against homosexuals. This clearly presented problems for religious people, of which Mr. Harper is one.

Bill C-250: An act to amend the criminal code (hate propaganda)

[normanchateau]

For some reason, Mr. Harper felt compelled to vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it.

It's bee pointed out to you by numerous people many, many times that this is a lie. You never challenge that, but you go on repeating it.

Numerous people denying the truth does not make the truth false.

Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Bill C-250 states that killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. Now tell me which of these three statements is a lie.

[Argus]

Nonetheless, one of the provisions of Bill C-250 was that the criminal code be amended to include killing people solely because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime.

A complete and total fabrication on your part.

[normanchateau]

Nonetheless, one of the provisions of Bill C-250 was that the criminal code be amended to include killing people solely because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime.

A complete and total fabrication on your part.

An abysmal lack of knowledge on your part. The killing of people because of their sexual orientation is now a hate crime. It's Section 318 of the Criminal Code. Read Section 318 in the link below. In particular, read

(2)(a) and (4) of section 318.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

There it is in black and white. Harper voted against it. Do you still claim this to be a fabrication on my part?

[scribblet]

The fabrication is your repeated smears saying Harper is advocating that homosexuals be killed, that he advocates gay bashing and genocide because he voted against adding sexual orientation to the act. Flat out lies.

C-250 is bill that makes "hate speech" against an identifiable group illegal but is not applied evenly or equally.

e.g. the bigot Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans-I hate those bastards." According to Merriam-Webster "ethnic" refers to "large groups or people classified according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." This is clearly a case of hate speechprosecutable under C-250 but we can't stifle U.S. bashing can we.

You have been told repeatedly that the reason for objecting to the amendments is because sexual orientation is not defined; that it is a reprehensible restriction of free speech and is nothing more than a gag law. It was brought in specifically to muzzle opponents of SSM - but I guess if you repeat something often enough you'll believe it, or hope others will - but maybe you'd like to see 'political orientation' added to the list too.

Lenin would be proud.

[Canadian Blue]

Norman the problem with the bill was that they were afraid religous rights could be trampled on. Once again, stop with this whole smear campaign. Honestly, Harper doesn't support killing gays, gay bashing, or bigotry against gays.

I'm sure that even the ACLU would be opposed to the bill due to the fact freedom of speech could be trampled on.

[normanchateau]

The fabrication is your repeated smears saying Harper is advocating that homosexuals be killed, that he advocates gay bashing and genocide because he voted against adding sexual orientation to the act. Flat out lies.

Show me where I said, even once, that Harper is advocating that homosexuals be killed and that he advocates gay bashing and genocide. I never said that.

What I did say reappears in my post from yesterday at 6:26 pm. Here is that quote again:

"Nonetheless, one of the provisions of Bill C-250 was that the criminal code be amended to include killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime."

Argus then FALSELY stated: "A complete and total fabrication on your part." He was completely wrong of course. The link I provided makes it perfectly clear that the killing of people solely because they are gay or lesbian is a hate crime. That was one of the provisions of Bill C-250 which Harper voted against.

[scribblet]

Norman the problem with the bill was that they were afraid religous rights could be trampled on. Once again, stop with this whole smear campaign. Honestly, Harper doesn't support killing gays, gay bashing, or bigotry against gays.

I'm sure that even the ACLU would be opposed to the bill due to the fact freedom of speech could be trampled on.

Right on !!!