Canada/China Relations

[Argus]

Harper, and his party voted against a very broad bill which adds homosexuals to a protected list of groups where anyone who speaks against them could be charged. This was due to a concern that religious people would be charged. After all, there are plenty of nasty anti-gay pasages in most major religious texts. And given the tendency of our Liberal judges to take the law into their own hands and "interpret" things any way their political ideology drives them, this is a valid concern.

In addition to anti-gay passages, various religious texts also have rather uncharitable statements about other religions. For example, some religions don't look kindly on members of other religions or even denominations marrying in their church. And more alarmingly, the Koran doesn't look kindly on those who convert from Islam to another religion. If I'm not mistaken, the Koran suggests the death penalty. Therefore, if we are sincerely opposed to sexual orientation being on the hate speech list, shouldn't we also be opposed to religion being on the hate crime list in the interests of free speech?

I am against anything being on the hate crime list. But the philosphical underpinning behind allowing religion as opposed to sexual orientation is that there has been, in the not very distant past, strong efforts at killing all the members of a given religion, whether in Yugoslavia or Nazi germany.

Now while the Nazis killed homos too, that was incidental to their efforts to improve the human race ,and I don't believe there was any widespread effort to kill all the homos as there was to round up and kill off all the Jews.

And btw, if you are against hate speech laws it seems pretty goofy of you to be constantly whining that Harper opposed putting homosexuals under the protection of a law you don't accept the need for anyway.

[normanchateau]

Must say tho he's good at spinning webs.

Thank you southerncomfort. That's the kindest thing you've ever said about me since we both joined this site on November 28, 2005. I feel honoured that you followed me to this site. I'm not worthy.

[normanchateau]

Now while the Nazis killed homos too, that was incidental to their efforts to improve the human race ,and I don't believe there was any widespread effort to kill all the homos as there was to round up and kill off all the Jews.

And btw, if you are against hate speech laws it seems pretty goofy of you to be constantly whining that Harper opposed putting homosexuals under the protection of a law you don't accept the need for anyway.

The efforts of the German Nazis to kill homosexuals, while fairly widespread, were indeed not nearly as vigorous as their efforts to kill Jews. My hypothesis is that this reflected the relatively large number of homosexuals within the upper Nazi echelons. As you probably know, the controversy as to whether Hitler himself was a homosexual remains unresolved.

I disagree with your characterization as "goofy" my complaints about Harper's opposition to C-250. Paradoxical or ironic perhaps. I continue to see Harper's opposition as discriminatory, inconsistent and socially conservative that religion, race, and ethnicity should be defended but not sexual orientation, notwithstanding the anti-homo references in religious texts.

[southerncomfort]

Must say tho he's good at spinning webs.

Thank you southerncomfort. That's the kindest thing you've ever said about me since we both joined this site on November 28, 2005. I feel honoured that you followed me to this site. I'm not worthy.

Your welcome LOL but I think you followed me here I'm kinda surprised your not posting on Rabble you'd get less opposition.

[normanchateau]

Must say tho he's good at spinning webs.

Thank you southerncomfort. That's the kindest thing you've ever said about me since we both joined this site on November 28, 2005. I feel honoured that you followed me to this site. I'm not worthy.

Your welcome LOL but I think you followed me here I'm kinda surprised your not posting on Rabble you'd get less opposition.

If you look in the left hand column you'll see that I'm member 1353 and you're member 1357, suggesting you followed me.

I've never even visited Rabble but I gather I'd not receive much opposition there. That would be no fun at all.

[jdobbin]

China cancels meeting with Canada.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061115/...nada_china_apec

And some people here said it wasn't a problem.

It looks like a problem.

[normanchateau]

China cancels meeting with Canada.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061115/...nada_china_apec

And some people here said it wasn't a problem.

It looks like a problem.

Given the extent of trade between China and BC, I anticipate this will really hurt Harper in BC. I wonder how Emerson views this. Emerson has always been gung ho on improving relations with China. I expect he'll be silent.

[jefferiah]

I think it was passed in Manitoba or Saskatchewan courts that the verses in the bible calling homosexuality sinful are "hate literature" so I can understand Harper wanting to exclude homosexuals from this list. I think hate crime legislation is kind of crazy anyway. Perhaps it is needed, but it also must be kept in check. Hate crime legislation could end up meaning "if you want to hurt someone you had best be sure they are of the same race, gender, and sexual orientation as you." I believe a pastor in Alberta was charged for a letter of complaint he wrote to the government about his tax dollars funding Gay movements. This is the danger. As for Harper and China. Way to go Harper!

[jdobbin]

I think it was passed in Manitoba or Saskatchewan courts that the verses in the bible calling homosexuality sinful are "hate literature" so I can understand Harper wanting to exclude homosexuals from this list. I think hate crime legislation is kind of crazy anyway. Perhaps it is needed, but it also must be kept in check. Hate crime legislation could end up meaning "if you want to hurt someone you had best be sure they are of the same race, gender, and sexual orientation as you." I believe a pastor in Alberta was charged for a letter of complaint he wrote to the government about his tax dollars funding Gay movements. This is the danger. As for Harper and China. Way to go Harper!

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[jbg]

I think the democratic free world has gotten impressively little out of ties with China, other than goods made with slave labor, and another belligerant seat at the UN Security Counsel. Finally, on Israel and on China, Canada has better policies in place than my country.

Way to go, Harper!!!

[jdobbin]

I think the democratic free world has gotten impressively little out of ties with China, other than goods made with slave labor, and another belligerant seat at the UN Security Counsel. Finally, on Israel and on China, Canada has better policies in place than my country.

Way to go, Harper!!!

Not so quick, it would seem. There is still talk that Harper will have a meeting with the Chinese president.

[Canadian Blue]

I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity. Compared to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Indonesia is a democracy.

Once again, the Afghani government had changed the decision after a massive uproar from the international community. I think this is then tenth time you've been made aware of this. Yet for some reason you fail to provide the name of the man who would have been executed.

QUOTE(scriblett @ Nov 12 2006, 07:36 AM)

The CPC has stated that human rights would be prominent in the policy still being developed.

Yeah, their support of Islamic theocracies where human rights don't count if they're "contary to Islam" shows that the CPC really cares about human rights.

The CPC and the Liberals can be blamed equally for that, even though it isn't true. I'm not sure why the UN would help make a nation similar to Iran which is what your claiming.

To paraphrase Article 318, it is a hate crime to kill people because of their sexual orientation. As you are perfectly aware, Mr. Harper voted against the legislation which lead to the article 318 amendment.

WRONG

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Promote and Advocate are different then actually murdering a person.

I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity. Compared to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Indonesia is a democracy.

So is Afghanistan, which has been pointed out to you more times then I can count. The last elections were in 2004, and the UN oversaw those elections to ensure fairness. As well 28% of the parliment is made up of women. The UN also helped setup the constitution, but apparently the UN is in the business of making theocracies.

Here's something of interest on our involvement in Kosovo. The group we helped support the KLA was also accused of war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army

As late as 1997, the KLA had been recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organisation supported in part by heroin trafficking.[4] United States President Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, described once the KLA as, "without any questions, a terrorist group" [4]. Nevertheless, by February 1998, the KLA had been removed from the United States State Department's terrorism list [5]. According to reliable sources, KLA representatives had already met with American, British, and Swiss intelligence agencies in 1996, and possibly "several years earlier".[5] In the same year, a British weekly newspaper, The European, stated that "German civil and military intelligence services have been involved in training and equipping the rebels with the aim of cementing German influence in the Balkan area."[6] Former senior advisor to the German parliament Matthias Küntzel proved later on that his country secret diplomacy had been instrumental in helping the KLA since its creation.[7] According to The Sunday Times of London, "American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia"

Several former KLA members have been indicted on war crimes charges. Fatmir Limaj, one of the senior commanders of the KLA to have gone through a trial process in The Hague, was acquitted of all charges in November 2005 [11]. He is now a key member of the opposition. Another KLA member, Haradin Bala, was also indicted by the ICTY at the same time for having participated in the detention of Serb civilians and perceived Albanian collaborators at the Lapusnik Prison Camp, where Bala was a prison guard commander [12]. He was found guilty of torture, cruel treatment, and murder, and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment [13]. His appeal against the verdict is still pending

So then was Chretien wrong for getting Canada involved in the former Yugoslavia?

Well that certainly changes everything. I guess he's not the intolerant so-con I mistook him for.

Intolerant, how would you know? Has Harper asked for homosexuality to be outlawed, or certain cultural groups? If not, then he probably isn't intolerant unless you have some inside information to the contrary.

showing an unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own

Hold the phone, based on that definition of tolerance, you are actually intolerant. Am I correct?

[normanchateau]

To paraphrase Article 318, it is a hate crime to kill people because of their sexual orientation. As you are perfectly aware, Mr. Harper voted against the legislation which lead to the article 318 amendment.

WRONG

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Promote and Advocate are different then actually murdering a person.

Well this certainly changes everything. Mr. Harper merely voted against making it a hate crime to ADVOCATE or PROMOTE the killing of a homosexual. And you think this is good.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm simply pointing out your ignorance on the issue Norman, when proved wrong the best thing is to not answer the question but instead insult those that prove you wrong.

Norman, grow up and try acting like an adult.

[normanchateau]

I'm simply pointing out your ignorance on the issue Norman,

So you still think that Harper did NOT vote against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals?

Or do you think repeatedly denying that he voted this way will eventually convince someone that he did not vote against the legislation?

Or do you think that using words like ignorance adds credence to your denials?

[Canadian Blue]

Well Normie, I think the fact you couldn't figure out the difference between hate speech and actual murder is a good indication of your ignorance on the issue.

Denying that he voted which way, against C-250, well he did vote against C-250 Normie. But I believe objections were raised over the bill by religious groups and free speech advocated.

Or do you think that using words like ignorance adds credence to your denials?

I just use it to describe people who think they know everything, yet show they know very little. So far all of your responses are simply bashing Harper instead of providing anything useful. Why don't you try to generate a debate on C-250, and say whether you would vote against or for it and why.

So you still think that Harper did NOT vote against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals?

This was more about hate speech then actual murder Normie. Once again the issue was what could be considered hate speech. Harper doesn't promote killing gays as you seem to like to believe.

As well you ommitted a large portion of the actual bill.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction...

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

( if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Nov 17 2006, 10:01 AM)

I'm simply pointing out your ignorance on the issue Norman,

So you still think that Harper did NOT vote against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals?

Harper did vote against the legislation. When did I say Harper voted in favor of C-250.

You were saying that Harper voted against making it a hate crime to kill gays which was untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250

[normanchateau]

I'm simply pointing out your ignorance on the issue Norman,

So you still think that Harper did NOT vote against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals?

So based on your last post, now you do agree that Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Good, we both agree on this point.

[normanchateau]

As well you ommitted a large portion of the actual bill.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction...

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Thanks CB for posting the relevant details in Section 318 and providing confirmation that Harper voted against this legislation.

Even you can't deny it now.

[Canadian Blue]

When was I denying it.........

I think you were confused between murder and violence, you know actual violence, and hate speech.

Have you been smoking pot???

Deny what, what the hell are you talking about. Nobody on here denied Harper was voting against C-250, name one person who said Harper didn't vote against C-250.

We were debating the merits of C-250, but you were confused about the bill as you are confused about many things.

[normanchateau]

We were debating the merits of C-250, but you were confused about the bill as you are confused about many things.

My you certainly are twisting and turning again. I stated earlier in this thread that one of the provisions of C-250 was that it made it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Harper voted against that. You agree that he voted against that and I agree that he voted against that.

[watching&waiting]

It has been a longday for you Nroman, you are again bringing up the hate speech crap and gay again. We all know Haper voted against this bil as we all believe he should have voted against it. Since you have no idea or understanding of what this bill was about, it is not surprising that you once againhave be proven wrong. I asked earlier if you were new at this as it sems you have very little of life experiences to give you a background on most topics.

You just seem way too blindered to things Harper and not the real issues that are involved. Ypou look for things taken out of context so you can twist them to what you want. Too many older people here to let you get away with that. Also the up and coming guys are a whole lot more informed then you seem to be. In time maybe you will see what I mean

[normanchateau]

we all believe he should have voted against it.

Fortunately a majority of Canadian MPs felt otherwise and voted for Bill C-250. That's why it is now a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals.

And when you say "we all believe that he should have voted against it", you forget that not all Canadians are so-cons. The legislation passed because fortunately, not all Canadians are so-cons.

[Canadian Blue]

I said nobody was denying Harper voted against bill C-250. As well the bill wasn't as simple as you make it out to be. Nothing is black and white Norman, neither was that bill. You are simply pointing to the one line of the bill that makes Harper sound like a bigot, despite the fact the bill encompasses more then that.

Do you honestly believe that all people who were opposed to bill C-250 are raving socons. Even the ACLU would have been against this bill, and they are civil libertarians.

Nothing is black and white, nothing, and until you realize that you will get a better understanding of the world.

[normanchateau]

I said nobody was denying Harper voted against bill C-250. As well the bill wasn't as simple as you make it out to be. You are simply pointing to the one line of the bill that makes Harper sound like a bigot, despite the fact the bill encompasses more then that.

As you know, C-250 had two components, one of which lead to changes in section 318 and the other of which lead to changes in section 319. My focus has indeed been on section 318 which makes it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. If Harper actually favours the component of C-250 which lead to changes in section 318, I'd be most interested in seeing the evidence.

[Argus]

It has been a longday for you Nroman, you are again bringing up the hate speech crap and gay again.

I think we would all be better off if we stopped replying to this person whenever his favorite obsessions come up. I'm tired of trying to correct his misconceptions about hate crimes and homosexuals, and very tired of having him bring them onto every imaginable thread. If people would simply stop replying maybe he would go away or confine himself to the actual topic under discussion.