Harper introduces SSM motion

jdobbin · December 7, 2006

Ah, the old hidden agenda again. You haven't heard anything to the contrary, therefore it must be fact.
Wishful thinking on their part I think, politically it would be just plain dumb and that is one thing Harper is not.

I think hidden agenda means just that. Advocates have been saying that a minority government means they probably won't win this fight but that a Conservative majority means they would. Are they wrong? Has anyone said they're wrong? Does a Conservative majority mean this won't come up again?

normanchateau · December 7, 2006

Dion voted against same sex marriage about 6 years ago but I don't think the Charter and rights has somehow changed.

So Dion's position has changed. Has Harper's position changed that advocating and promoting the killing of homosexuals is not a hate crime, or do you suppose he will he always feel that way?

Promoting the death of anyone is crime, what's your beef?

My beef is that Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals.

The legislation passed because the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for the legislation. Harper voted against it.

Wilber · December 7, 2006

Ah, the old hidden agenda again. You haven't heard anything to the contrary, therefore it must be fact.

Wishful thinking on their part I think, politically it would be just plain dumb and that is one thing Harper is not.

I think hidden agenda means just that. Advocates have been saying that a minority government means they probably won't win this fight but that a Conservative majority means they would. Are they wrong? Has anyone said they're wrong? Does a Conservative majority mean this won't come up again?

Advocates can say whatever they want. They aren't the government and don't have to get re-elected. There is nothing hidden about this, it was a campaign promise made in the last election. Why would he be doing this when he has a minority and when it will fail? Why would he just not wait until he had a majority if getting this through was so important to him? Politically it makes no sense.

However, lets just say that it does pass, would that guarantee that any future government would not bring it up again? Since when have there ever been any guarantees about what future governments might do?

Wilber · December 7, 2006

Deleted

Wilber · December 7, 2006

My beef is that Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals.
The legislation passed because the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for the legislation. Harper voted against it.

It is a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of anyone. Why should homosexuals be singled out? Laws that discriminate according to who they protect from violence are a bad thing.

normanchateau · December 7, 2006

Why would he be doing this when he has a minority and when it will fail? Why would he just not wait until he had a majority if getting this through was so important to him? Politically it makes no sense.

Politically it made no sense for Harper to vote against the legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has a history of politically nonsensical behaviour.

Remiel · December 7, 2006

Could someone remind me why votes aren't free by definition?

jdobbin · December 7, 2006

Since when have there ever been any guarantees about what future governments might do?

No there hasn't. So people who say this case is rested once the vote is done are basically deluded. If the Conservatives get a majority, it will likely be back and voted on again. Harper certainly isn't going to say this is the last vote on the subject.

Wilber · December 7, 2006

Why would he be doing this when he has a minority and when it will fail? Why would he just not wait until he had a majority if getting this through was so important to him? Politically it makes no sense.

Politically it made no sense for Harper to vote against the legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has a history of politically nonsensical behaviour.

It makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it for the reason stated in my last post. I believe that persons who commit violence against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I just don't believe they warrant a special law with their name on it and I don't believe it advances their acceptance into mainstream society.

Wilber · December 7, 2006

Since when have there ever been any guarantees about what future governments might do?

No there hasn't. So people who say this case is rested once the vote is done are basically deluded. If the Conservatives get a majority, it will likely be back voted on again. Harper certainly isn't going to say this is the last vote on the subject.

Why not?

normanchateau · December 7, 2006

Why would he be doing this when he has a minority and when it will fail? Why would he just not wait until he had a majority if getting this through was so important to him? Politically it makes no sense.

Politically it made no sense for Harper to vote against the legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has a history of politically nonsensical behaviour.

It makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it for the reason stated in my last post. I believe that persons who commit violence against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I just don't believe they warrant a special law with their name on it and I don't believe it advances their acceptance into mainstream society.

What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation.

myata · December 7, 2006

OK let's get to the bottom of it. If he makes a promise to those socon people, would that, perhaps, seem like him being sympathetic to their cause? No? Then why make the promise? Then, some may perhaps "feel" that other issues like e.g. (any of of the list of well known and extremely popular on this board) were fasttracked too? How can we be sure Mr Harper won't feel obliged to reopen them as well, should he get in his prized majority situation? And you know what - I think we can't. Period.

There's nothing to get to the bottom of, what more can anyone say, he promised he'd do it to satisfy those who

wanted it - it won't pass - case closed.

If you mean to say that he did it to satisfy the socon fraction in his party then I can but agree.

And no, the case isn't closed (no matter how much he may wish it was) because nothing can assure us now that he won't do the same thing with other issues (for the same reason) if the opportunity arises.

Wilber · December 7, 2006

Could someone remind me why votes aren't free by definition?

I suppose they are but in our system the party leader can boot your ass out of caucus if you don't do as you're told.

Wilber · December 7, 2006

Why would he be doing this when he has a minority and when it will fail? Why would he just not wait until he had a majority if getting this through was so important to him? Politically it makes no sense.

Politically it made no sense for Harper to vote against the legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has a history of politically nonsensical behaviour.

It makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it for the reason stated in my last post. I believe that persons who commit violence against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I just don't believe they warrant a special law with their name on it and I don't believe it advances their acceptance into mainstream society.

What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation.

I don't.

scribblet · December 7, 2006

What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation.

I don't.

Neither do I and obviously neither does Harper, repeating the same old lie often enough doesn't make it the truth.

g_bambino · December 7, 2006

So Dion's position has changed. Has Harper's position changed that advocating and promoting the killing of homosexuals is not a hate crime, or do you suppose he will he always feel that way?

Promoting the death of anyone is crime, what's your beef?

My beef is that Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals.

The legislation passed because the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for the legislation. Harper voted against it.

Um, as geoffrey pointed out, promoting anyone's death, regardless of their chosen sexual orientation, is a crime. Why should homosexuals be protected by separate laws, while heterosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, pansexuals, intrasexuals, asexuals, and all others are not?

Your obsession with Harper's vote on this topic is legendary.

(Later addition: I note others raised a similar point; my apologies for the repetition.)

scribblet · December 7, 2006

Your obsession with Harper's vote on this topic is legendary.
(Later addition: I note others raised a similar point; my apologies for the repetition.)

Noted by a few people, and that this obsession is totally false.

However, as thought, the motion hasn't passed. Interesting to note that without the Bloc it could have, the bloc and the NDP were whipped. So, if Quebec actually separated a lot of issues would be a whole lot different.

Anyway, this should be closure.

Just realized the bloc wasn't a whipped vote.

normanchateau · December 7, 2006

What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation.

I don't.

Neither do I and obviously neither does Harper, repeating the same old lie often enough doesn't make it the truth.

What evidence do you have that Harper opposes hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion?

scribblet · December 7, 2006

What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation.

I don't.

Neither do I and obviously neither does Harper, repeating the same old lie often enough doesn't make it the truth.

What evidence do you have that Harper opposes hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion?

Yawn....zzzzzzzz

normanchateau · December 7, 2006

What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation.

I don't.

Neither do I and obviously neither does Harper, repeating the same old lie often enough doesn't make it the truth.

What evidence do you have that Harper opposes hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion?

Yawn....zzzzzzzz

Oh, that evidence....

jdobbin · December 7, 2006

I wonder how much this vote will alienate Harper's base.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061206/national/same_sex

normanchateau · December 8, 2006

I wonder how much this vote will alienate Harper's base.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061206/national/same_sex

I think they'll be fine with it. Here's one opinion piece on how the theo-cons embrace Harper:

"McVety and others on the religious right are equally convinced that Harper is one of their own. “We’ve got a born-again prime minister,” trumpets David Mainse, the founder of Canada’s premier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street. They see him as an image-savvy evangelical who has been careful to keep his signals to them under the media radar, but they have no doubt his convictions run deep — so deep that only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation."

Source:

http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/poli...the-theocons/2/

Wilber · December 8, 2006

I wonder how much this vote will alienate Harper's base.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061206/national/same_sex

I wonder how much it will expand his base. It's obvious that he is glad to see the last of it which is exactly the way most Canadians feel about it.

CBC

normanchateau · December 8, 2006

I wonder how much this vote will alienate Harper's base.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061206/national/same_sex

I wonder how much it will expand his base.

Sure, I can just see all those Liberal, NDP and BQ voters moving to so-con Harper. :lol:

And of course the Greens, whose electoral platform includes the legalization of marijuana, will now switch their votes as well.

jdobbin · December 8, 2006

I wonder how much it will expand his base. It's obvious that he is glad to see the last of it which is exactly the way most Canadians feel about it.
CBC

Considering the majority of his party doesn't support the bill, not much.