Jean Lapierre Resigns

[Ricki Bobbi]

Oh..This from Larry Zolf in 2004.

When Diefenbaker fell from 205 seats in 1958 to 116 in 1962 he leaned on the 31 Social Credit and 18 NDP seats. In both cases there was no unbridgeable gap between Diefenbaker and the smaller parties. Diefenbaker was no Stephen Harper. Diefenbaker was not a fire-eating social conservative as Harper is.

Not only is Zolf wrong on the history, but his bias against Harper is painful and hypocritical.

Look at his last dozen columns about Harper they all use the term social conservative, socially conservative or radical conservative *EXCEPT* for when he is tripping over himself to praise Harper for his stand on Israel. Those terms never get thrown out in those cases.

Why is it Zolf through's in those red flag terms in every column about every topic but one? Could it be his religion.....

[Canadian Blue]

So voting against making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals is not a socially conservative position?

No, it's a libertarian one.

So wanting permanent criminal records and jail sentences for possession of a few grams of marijuana is not a socially conservative position? Harper's position on this issue is unequivocally socially conservative if not irrational.

Yes, however just because one position is socially conservative does not make a person a "social conservative". Look at Guiliani, he was tough on crime, however supports civil union's, and is pro-choice.

I disagree with the government's position on marijuana, however it's not based on a "socially conservative" philosophy as the government has not been especially socially conservative.

To add on to that the biggest motivation for social conservatism is "family values" which is the belief that the family is the most important part of a society and must be nurtured. As well it can be said that "Socon's" would support government law's which help enhance the ability for the traditional family to flourish.

Here is the best definition I could find:

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

Social conservatism, often abbreviated Socon or So-Con, is a political philosophy that focusses on support for traditional morality and social mores, the biological family, and the protection of human life in modern society. Social Conservatives do not necessarily believe that whatever is past is best, despite their general sympathy for Tradition. Nor are they opposed to social change per se, but believe that any changes should be directed in such a way as to enhance the protection of human life and the human family.

I don't find anything particularly alarming about social conservatism. I can see their point, and they have a right to believe what they want.

[normanchateau]

So voting against making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals is not a socially conservative position?

No, it's a libertarian one.

The libertarian position is no hate crimes legislation...period. But Stephen Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on religion, ethnicity or race.

[geoffrey]

So voting against making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals is not a socially conservative position?

It's actually a crime to advocate killing anyone, so I don't see your point. Why the special treatment for homosexuals? I thought they wanted equality, not superiority. Killing a gay and killing a straight person, or advocating that people do so, should bring an equal sentence... as it does now.

I'm frankly quite sick of this dream of many of the leftists in Canada to live in a completely offenseless society. Once you realise the multitude of freedoms you must abandon to do so, no reasonable person would go there.

Are you comfortable with legislation that prevents criticism of religion too norman? Or does it just apply to gays?

So wanting permanent criminal records and jail sentences for possession of a few grams of marijuana is not a socially conservative position? Harper's position on this issue is unequivocally socially conservative if not irrational.

The law is the law, people that break it are socially deviant, whether or not the practice is widely accepted. Either legalise it, or deal with the consequences of it. No party is willing to legalise it yet, so obviously it's still too questionable a policy to risk votes on.

[normanchateau]

Are you comfortable with legislation that prevents criticism of religion too norman? Or does it just apply to gays?

Are you not aware that there is already hate crimes legislation in place which makes it a crime to advocate or promote the killing of people based on their religion? Harper supports that legislation. He also supports hate crimes legislation based on race or ethnicity. But he opposes hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation.

[Canadian Blue]

The libertarian position is no hate crimes legislation...period. But Stephen Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on religion, ethnicity or race.

I'm not sure what his position is on that, and I'm not about to accuse him of homophobia due to his vote against the legislation.

As well the issue with regards to the legislation being used to sue religious group's, or ban some religious texts due to those texts being judgemental of homosexual behavior.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I disagree with the government's position on marijuana, however it's not based on a "socially conservative" philosophy as the government has not been especially socially conservative.

Rightly said. I don't think it is fair to say advocating the status quo is pushing for "permanent criminal records and jail sentences" for simple possession.

The status quo is one of benign disinterest. Those laws are technically on the books but haven't been truly enforced for decades. There has been no push by the Government to start enforcing tose laws more strictly. No public advocacy of such.

Technical decriminalization of simple possession with nothing else done to address the supply and distribution of pot is ridiculous. The Hell's Angels and other organized crimes groups make tons of money off of pot. To

The Senate committee that came up with the first proposal on pot showed how out of touch they were by recommending an ounce of pot as the limit for simple possession.

[Canadian Blue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-cannabis-laws.png

Here's an interesting link about pot.

I think we should decriminalize it, and if it show's that its a benefit, legalize it.

[Ricki Bobbi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-cannabis-laws.png

Here's an interesting link about pot.

I think we should decriminalize it, and if it show's that its a benefit, legalize it.

It's not a high priority right now, but it will happen one day.

Harper probably doesn't really have an issue with decriminalization. That would fit with his Libertarian philosophy on life.

That map is interesting...

[normanchateau]

I disagree with the government's position on marijuana, however it's not based on a "socially conservative" philosophy as the government has not been especially socially conservative.

Those laws are technically on the books but haven't been truly enforced for decades.

Canadian Cannabis Arrest Statistics

1.5 million Canadians have criminal records for simple possession.

Approximately 50,000 Canadians are arrested each year for marijuana related crimes. (49,639 in 2001 - Statistics Canada)

65% of Canadians arrested for marijuana related crimes are for simple possession (under 30 grams of cannabis).

More than 30,000 Canadians are charged with simple possession annually - about 5% of these go to jail

Even if it were true that these laws "haven't been truly enforced for decades", why breed contempt for the law by having laws which are not enforced? In any event, the 30,000 Canadians charged annually would disagree that these laws are not enforced.

[Canadian Blue]

Even if it were true that these laws "haven't been truly enforced for decades", why breed contempt for the law by having laws which are not enforced? In any event, the 30,000 Canadians charged annually would disagree that these laws are not enforced.

I think it depend's on what the individual is doing. If your smoking weed out in public, or while your driving then you should expect to be charged.

Usually if you do it in the privacy of your own home, the police probably won't bother.

[Ricki Bobbi]

65% of Canadians arrested for marijuana related crimes are for simple possession (under 30 grams of cannabis).

More than 30,000 Canadians are charged with simple possession annually - about 5% of these go to jail

Where does this come from?

The quantites involved are a big issue. An ounce of pot is still considered simple possession but that is a lot of weed.

If yoiu are going to throw out stats like this please provide a link. The context to where they come from is very important....

[normanchateau]

If yoiu are going to throw out stats like this please provide a link. The context to where they come from is very important....

Suppose I provide a link and the link comes from a source promoting the decriminalization of marijuana.

Would you believe the statistics in the link?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Suppose I provide a link and the link comes from a source promoting the decriminalization of marijuana.

Would you believe the statistics in the link?

I would look at them with an open mind. If that source provided their source, it would at least allow for the credibility of the information to be judged.

[blueblood]

If yoiu are going to throw out stats like this please provide a link. The context to where they come from is very important....

Suppose I provide a link and the link comes from a source promoting the decriminalization of marijuana.

Would you believe the statistics in the link?

I think things regarding marijuana are fine where they are, it's cheap to get, not really enforced. Why should the gov't piss around after this. Why not decriminalize cooking moonshine?

I fear if the pot laws are tampered with it will lead into escalation of more harder drugs wanting the same thing, harder drugs in pot's "place" would be catastrophic and I really don't want to be supporting junkies.

[mikedavid00]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-cannabis-laws.png

Here's an interesting link about pot.

I think we should decriminalize it, and if it show's that its a benefit, legalize it.

I do not believe in legalization. I do believe in decriminalization.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I do not believe in legalization. I do believe in decriminalization.

I think that decriminalization is really a half measure.

It just makes it easier for bikers to profit of the trade in the business.

Decriminalizion just doesn't make sense.

It is ok for me to own something, but a punishable offence to buy it or sell it???

I favour legalization with a regulated production industry and very strict laws for large scale illegal growing operations and unlicensed vendors.

[mikedavid00]

I do not believe in legalization. I do believe in decriminalization.

I think that decriminalization is really a half measure.

It just makes it easier for bikers to profit of the trade in the business.

Decriminalizion just doesn't make sense.

It is ok for me to own something, but a punishable offence to buy it or sell it???

The idea is that you will cultivate your own. From what I read years back this is how it works in Alaska and it seems to work well.

If pot is legalized like a tabacco product, kids will go to the cafe's, drive under the influence, and cause needless deaths which infringes on other peoples rights. This works great for Europe where everything is transit and people don't own cars, but here in the GTA, especially with all the young punks, it would be disasterous.

I just don't feel we need a pot industry for many reasons. Including looking worse inforont of the Americans.

[blueblood]

If pot is legalized like a tabacco product, kids will go to the cafe's, drive under the influence, and cause needless deaths which infringes on other peoples rights. This works great for Europe where everything is transit and people don't own cars, but here in the GTA, especially with all the young punks, it would be disasterous.

If pot's legalized, what's the next drug to rush in and take its place. It was booze, then pot, then ???

Keep it where it is, we don't need to waste the gov'ts time and taxpayers dollars on nonsense like this

[Ricki Bobbi]

If pot's legalized, what's the next drug to rush in and take its place. It was booze, then pot, then ???

Keep it where it is, we don't need to waste the gov'ts time and taxpayers dollars on nonsense like this

I don't really seeing a big rush. In 140 years that's two drugs legalized. Who knows what will come up 50 years down the road.

A legalized, regulated and taxed pot industry would be a net contributor to Government coffers. Make driving stoned as serious an offence as driving drunk.

[blueblood]

If pot's legalized, what's the next drug to rush in and take its place. It was booze, then pot, then ???

Keep it where it is, we don't need to waste the gov'ts time and taxpayers dollars on nonsense like this

I don't really seeing a big rush. In 140 years that's two drugs legalized. Who knows what will come up 50 years down the road.

A legalized, regulated and taxed pot industry would be a net contributor to Government coffers. Make driving stoned as serious an offence as driving drunk.

No it wouldn't, it's much easier to make pot than it is to make booze. It's also easy to get. It wouldn't pay for the government to compete with pot producers, there would be a bootlegging dilemna that would rob the gov't coffers.

[Ricki Bobbi]

No it wouldn't, it's much easier to make pot than it is to make booze. It's also easy to get. It wouldn't pay for the government to compete with pot producers, there would be a bootlegging dilemna that would rob the gov't coffers.

But they get zero revenue and still have all the costs associated with law enforcement and prosecutions at the moment. They would definitley be better off having some revenue than none.

[blueblood]

No it wouldn't, it's much easier to make pot than it is to make booze. It's also easy to get. It wouldn't pay for the government to compete with pot producers, there would be a bootlegging dilemna that would rob the gov't coffers.

But they get zero revenue and still have all the costs associated with law enforcement and prosecutions at the moment. They would definitley be better off having some revenue than none.

And the costs associated with law enforcement and prosecutions of the next big thing... how easy it is for your average joe to grow pot. Cooking moonshine and growing pot are two different things. The government can't afford to compete with the grow ops already in place.

[geoffrey]

Are you not aware that there is already hate crimes legislation in place which makes it a crime to advocate or promote the killing of people based on their religion? Harper supports that legislation. He also supports hate crimes legislation based on race or ethnicity. But he opposes hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation.

I don't support any of these foolish endeavours.

Murder is the highest charge that I know of in Canadian law. Sentences up here are served cocurrently.

So once your charged with killing someone, it really is irrelevant what symbolic charges you place there.

Why can't we just agree that killing anyone is wrong and advocating killing anyone is wrong? What the hell do we need to cut and divide our country into various minorities and make it a bigger deal to kill one of them.

Essientially I'd claim that this is one of the biggest faults in Canadian culture. By trying to become as politically correct and minority friendly as possible, we've actually made ourselves one of the most divided nations in the Western world.

There is no need to recognize advocating the murder of gays in a new law. It's covered in many already, and it's already wasted far too much of our time to even think about it.

[madmax]

Not only is Zolf wrong on the history,

The Chief was brought down by Liberals and members of his own Party whom wanted Nuclear Tipped Warheads, at this time, he lost the support of both the Social Credit and the NDP and his minority government failed.

From Widipedia

Diefenbaker's final term of office saw the escalation of a nuclear arms question brought on by the imported Bomarc missiles and the Voodoo aircraft that had replaced the Avro Arrow. Diefenbaker rejected American nuclear warheads being put in missiles, warplanes and ground-based tactical rockets. The already strained relationship in government deteriorated faster, and a Cabinet split further undermined the government. Social Credit and the CCF withdrew their support of the government,

This does not imply that the SC and NDP/CCF did nothing to aid the Progressive Conservative. Just the opposite, they propped it up, until it collapsed from within.

During the Tories' last year in office, members of the Diefenbaker's Cabinet attempt to remove him from the leadership of the party, and therefore from the Prime Minister's office. In addition to concern within the party about Diefenbaker's mercurial style of leadership, there had been a serious split in party ranks over the issue of stationing American nuclear missiles (see Bomarc missile) on Canadian soil for protection from possible Soviet attack. Diefenbaker and his allies opposed this proposal, while many other Conservatives and the opposition Liberal Party were in favour. Minister of National Defence Douglas Harkness resigned from Cabinet on February 4, 1963, because of Diefenbaker's opposition to accepting the missiles. The next day, the government lost two non-confidence motions on the issue, prompting the election.

And if you have a better version of history.....