Canada/China Relations

[sideshow]

Maybe its that Harper is only newly in his position and is still attempting to get his feet wet? I think any person, from any party has a HUGE learning curve, regardless of their past portfolio. Running a Country cannot be an easy thing. I think Harper should be given a chance. And in case anyone feels that I am a righty; I supported the NDP last election.

[Argus]

Policies of 'neglected opportunities' to increase trade predate the current gov't. The CPC has stated that human rights would be prominent in the policy still being developed.

Hasn't there been a recent problem with China heisting our technology; they now are peddling a Redberry, a rip off of our Blackberry. Probably a lot more to all of this than we really know.

All this spinning of issues is making me dizzy -

Prior to the Conservative government though there had been high level discussions over such things are human rights and trade issues.

Can you give us a rundown on how effective those talks where, on what they accomplished?

[Argus]

My comments dealt with Islamic theocracies, not mere contact with Islamic peoples. Not all Islamic countries are theocratic. The largest Islamic country in the world population-wise, Indonesia, is not a theocracy. Most of North Africa is not particularly theocratic. Iraq was secular but post-Saddam, they brought in an Islamic constitution.

There is severe discrimination against Catholics and (Chinese) Buddhists in Indonesia. The country does not hae ties with Israel. The prosecution of the Bali bombings was a joke.

It has many if not all of the hallmarks of a theocracy.

I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity.

No, they just kill Christians in batch lots for being Christian.

[Higgly]

My comments dealt with Islamic theocracies, not mere contact with Islamic peoples. Not all Islamic countries are theocratic. The largest Islamic country in the world population-wise, Indonesia, is not a theocracy. Most of North Africa is not particularly theocratic. Iraq was secular but post-Saddam, they brought in an Islamic constitution.

There is severe discrimination against Catholics and (Chinese) Buddhists in Indonesia. The country does not hae ties with Israel. The prosecution of the Bali bombings was a joke.

It has many if not all of the hallmarks of a theocracy.

I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity.

No, they just kill Christians in batch lots for being Christian.

Excuse me? Examples please.

[Argus]

And your defiant ignorance regarding what a theocracy is impresses no one.

Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states that no laws can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

That's pretty much standard in all Muslim countries, and it does not make Afghanistan a theocracy.

This rather significant clause gives the religious leaders of Afghanistan, both official and nonofficial mullahs, sway over all human rights and every action that they deem contrary to their beliefs. Perhaps this satisfies your definition of a democracy but others disagree, e.g.,

A theocratic state is one run by the clergy. Afghanistan is most obviously not run by the clergy. It is run by a secular president elected by the people, except in areas where unelected warlords hold sway - none of them clergymen either. The clergy in Afghanistan have exactly what powers the government and warlords permit them to have, for as long as they feel they're no threat. The instant they prove to be a threat they wind up dead.

Is this too complicated for you?

Of course your lack of knowledge and credibility on substantive issues does not entirely surprise me after you characterized as an absolute fabrication on my part the amended article 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada. 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.

Your continued shrill dishonesty regarding this point is rather revealing. It has already been pointed out to you by multiple people on multiple threads that your claims regarding this legislation are entirely false.

No one makes those claims but you.

[Argus]

I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity.

No, they just kill Christians in batch lots for being Christian.

Excuse me? Examples please.

Indonesian Christians; persecution and despair

[normanchateau]

I have no argument with your criticism of Indonesia. But they don't condemn Muslims to death for converting to Christianity.

No, they just kill Christians in batch lots for being Christian.

Excuse me? Examples please.

Indonesian Christians; persecution and despair

This is not evidence of the government of Indonesia killing Christians. It is evidence of Muslims in Indonesia killing Christians. Nor does the government of Indonesia sentence to death those who convert to Christianity.

[normanchateau]

A theocratic state is one run by the clergy.

Wrong again. That's your narrow definition of theocracy. Here's mine:

http://www.answers.com/topic/theocracy

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan fits this definition perfectly.

[normanchateau]

And your defiant ignorance regarding what a theocracy is impresses no one.

Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states that no laws can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

That's pretty much standard in all Muslim countries, and it does not make Afghanistan a theocracy.

It's certainly not standard in all Muslim countries and it does, by definition, make the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan a theocracy.

[jbg]

There is severe discrimination against Catholics and (Chinese) Buddhists in Indonesia. The country does not hae ties with Israel. The prosecution of the Bali bombings was a joke.

It has many if not all of the hallmarks of a theocracy.

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.

But they don't prosecute murders of Muslims who do convert.

[gerryhatrick]

There is severe discrimination against Catholics and (Chinese) Buddhists in Indonesia. The country does not hae ties with Israel. The prosecution of the Bali bombings was a joke.

It has many if not all of the hallmarks of a theocracy.

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.

But they don't prosecute murders of Muslims who do convert.

What?

[normanchateau]

Of course your lack of knowledge and credibility on substantive issues does not entirely surprise me after you characterized as an absolute fabrication on my part the amended article 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada. 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.

Your continued shrill dishonesty regarding this point is rather revealing. It has already been pointed out to you by multiple people on multiple threads that your claims regarding this legislation are entirely false.

No one makes those claims but you.

No, the claim is absolutely true. As a result of Bill C-250, which Harper voted agianst, Section 318 now adds sexual orientation to hate crimes involving the killing of homosexuals. I've posted the link multiple times. Here it is again:

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

You are welcome to state what it is in the link that you believe is dishonest. But of course you won't since you think repeated and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient.

[Alexandra]

It's certainly not standard in all Muslim countries and it does, by definition, make the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan a theocracy.

As a homosexual which muslim country would you choose to live in, Afghanistan or Iran? Would Iran be considered a theocracy by your definition of a theocratic state, Normanchateau,

?

[Argus]

Your continued shrill dishonesty regarding this point is rather revealing. It has already been pointed out to you by multiple people on multiple threads that your claims regarding this legislation are entirely false.

No one makes those claims but you.

No, the claim is absolutely true. As a result of Bill C-250, which Harper voted agianst, Section 318 now adds sexual orientation to hate crimes involving the killing of homosexuals. I've posted the link multiple times. Here it is again:

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

You are welcome to state what it is in the link that you believe is dishonest. But of course you won't since you think repeated and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient.

You keep citing a poorly written CBC report. I have shown you the criminal code and the bill itself, which shows pretty plainly that it in no way involves s718. S718 was changed to add sexual orientation in 1995. Is understanding this so utterly beyond your capabilities? Anyone capable of the most basic of searches is free to google C-250 and they will find the same.

[scribblet]

You are welcome to state what it is in the link that you believe is dishonest. But of course you won't since you think repeated and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient.

So now you've hijacked the thread on China relations .

Never in the last couple years have I read anything as spurious or malicious as your charactization of opposition to Bill C-250, not even the NDP misinterpreted it so.

However, endless repetition of these views does not improve their veracity.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Getting this thread back on track the upcoming APEC conference was mentioned on Question Period. Craig Oliver said there would be no doubt that there would be meetings between Harper and Hu Jintao.

Supposedly Hu Jintao wants to chastise Harper for his vote on C-250.

Oh wait Normie's fascination with this issue only matters to him. And the 2% of the Canadian population who might base their voting decision on C-250. Not that they ever would have considered voting Conservative anyways...

[normanchateau]

Your continued shrill dishonesty regarding this point is rather revealing. It has already been pointed out to you by multiple people on multiple threads that your claims regarding this legislation are entirely false.

No one makes those claims but you.

No, the claim is absolutely true. As a result of Bill C-250, which Harper voted agianst, Section 318 now adds sexual orientation to hate crimes involving the killing of homosexuals. I've posted the link multiple times. Here it is again:

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

You are welcome to state what it is in the link that you believe is dishonest. But of course you won't since you think repeated and unsubstantiated denials are sufficient.

You keep citing a poorly written CBC report.

Obviously poorly written since it supports my point. Apparently there are many such "poorly written" reports. Here's another link:

http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/S...eches_Oct27.htm

A speech by a Senator opposing C-250. Read the first paragraph.

[Argus]

You keep citing a poorly written CBC report.

Obviously poorly written since it supports my point. Apparently there are many such "poorly written" reports. Here's another link:

http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/S...eches_Oct27.htm

A speech by a Senator opposing C-250. Read the first paragraph.

Once again, Cools is speaking about hate speech in s318.

Sentencing provisions for violent offenses are contained in s718. It is this section which allows for more severe sentencing in light of circumstances (ie, if the crime was racially motivated).

[normanchateau]

You keep citing a poorly written CBC report.

Obviously poorly written since it supports my point. Apparently there are many such "poorly written" reports. Here's another link:

http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/S...eches_Oct27.htm

A speech by a Senator opposing C-250. Read the first paragraph.

Once again, Cools is speaking about hate speech in s318.

line 3, "...to add sexual orientation to the list of identifiable groups against whom genocide can be committed."

[normanchateau]

Sentencing provisions for violent offenses are contained in s718. It is this section which allows for more severe sentencing in light of circumstances (ie, if the crime was racially motivated).

So what you are saying is that Harper did not vote against a bill making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime but rather he voted against a bill making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals.

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

[Argus]

You keep citing a poorly written CBC report.

Obviously poorly written since it supports my point. Apparently there are many such "poorly written" reports. Here's another link:

http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/S...eches_Oct27.htm

A speech by a Senator opposing C-250. Read the first paragraph.

Once again, Cools is speaking about hate speech in s318.

line 3, "...to add sexual orientation to the list of identifiable groups against whom genocide can be committed."

She is speaking to the suggestion that homosexuals should not be defined in the same categories as groups which could conceivably by subjected to genocide (or cries for genocide) as they are not a race or ethnic/religious group. How, then, can you commit genocide against them? Therefore, why would it be illegal to call for "genocide" against those who are not a people.

It's a little subtle for you, Normie. Best forget it.

[southerncomfort]

Once again, Cools is speaking about hate speech in s318.

It's a little subtle for you, Normie. Best forget it.

There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.

[Argus]

Sentencing provisions for violent offenses are contained in s718. It is this section which allows for more severe sentencing in light of circumstances (ie, if the crime was racially motivated).

So what you are saying is that Harper did not vote against a bill making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime but rather he voted against a bill making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals.

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

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.

It is conceivable that some judge will decide that a priest quoting from the bible in his church should be arrested for giving an "anti gay hate speech". Harper considered that more important than gays having their feelings protected.

The whole hate speech is nothing more than pandering to stupid people by stupid people. It serves no useful purpose and, in the wrong hands, is quite dangerous.

The hate sentencing provisions for violent offenses themselves are also stupid. If you hit someone over the head with a club you should be punished FOR HITTING SOMEONE OVER THE HEAD WITH A CLUB. I see no reason whatever why your sentence should depend on whether you hit them because you wanted to rob them, or because you were just mean and wanted to hurt them, or because you thought they were funny looking, or because they were gay or black.

If you look at the recent case (last weekend) where two morons were found not guilty of murder for beating a pair of elderly Sikhs to death with baseball bats, you'll see how absurd it is that if the idiot judge had decided they had done so because they hated Sikhs, as opposed to just wanting to rob them, they should have gotten more severe penalties.

In fact, they should have both been shot behind the ear and dumped inot a hole. Regardless of their motivation.

[southerncomfort]

Normies always had a preoccupation with lesbians and Grewal and a hate on for Harper go back to before the election, Not healthy to obsess like that and completely misinterpret opposition for the bill. Okay deliberately misinterpret opposition to the bill he knows what has been said he chooses to spin it negatively against Harper. Must say tho he's good at spinning webs. Sorta like Warren Kinsella before Chretien got the boot.

[normanchateau]

Sentencing provisions for violent offenses are contained in s718. It is this section which allows for more severe sentencing in light of circumstances (ie, if the crime was racially motivated).

So what you are saying is that Harper did not vote against a bill making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime but rather he voted against a bill making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals.

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

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 see no real need for any hate speech laws but if we're forced to have them, I would not want to exclude sexual orientation any more than I'd exclude race. I could be mistaken but I do recall hearing of some racist passages in more than one religious text.