Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons

[scribblet]

According to the Sierra club, http://www.sierraclub.ca/bc/media/item.shtml?x=692 Government Inaction Threatens Great Bear Rainforest Agreement

“Most British Columbians think the Great Bear Rainforest is protected because both the NDP and Liberal governments said they would do precisely that,” stated Merran Smith of ForestEthics. “Inaction threatens the stability of the agreements and leaves us no choice but to communicate these dismal grades to the Canadian public and international marketplace.”

The former Liberal gov. spent a lot of effort talking about environmental issues but took little action.

This whole 'theocon' 'socon' business is nonsense, straw man arguments to deflect away from Harper's accomplishments . Nothing but drive by smears based on innuendo and futile attempts to tie Harper in with some visit by an American preacher. Its amazing how people put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.

[newbie]

The former Liberal gov. spent a lot of effort talking about environmental issues but took little action.

This whole 'theocon' 'socon' business is nonsense, straw man arguments to deflect away from Harper's accomplishments . Nothing but drive by smears based on innuendo and futile attempts to tie Harper in with some visit by an American preacher. Its amazing how people put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.

And Harper, when in opposition, denied global warming and would not question the Liberal party on its so-called lack of initiative re climate change. There is plenty of blame to go around here. But Harper is the one looking ridiculous and hypocritical with his sudden (poll driven) global warming conversion.

[Catchme]

John Ibbitson is quite correctly raising alarm bells about Harpers, move to theo-con judiciary.

Setting the stage for a judicial battleground

By stacking deck with Tories, Ottawa puts the court system at risk,

By JOHN IBBITSON

There isn't any other way to put it: The Harper government, by perverting the rules and by appointing party loyalists to key positions, intends to stack Canada's courts with conservatives.

For people who care -- and we should all care passionately -- about an independent judiciary, this ideological contamination of the justice system must be seen as by far the worst misdeed committed by this administration.

The Canadian judicial system is one of the most respected in the world, admired for its professionalism, impartiality and freedom from partisan political influence, which is why its judgments are cited regularly by the American, British, South African, Israeli, Australian and other high courts.

...If Stephen Harper has had to trim his socially conservative sails on gay marriage, and embrace environmental activism more than is his wont, on law-and-order issues he is determined to indulge himself, by leavening the court with social conservatives and strict constructionists. To do that, he has completely transformed the judicial advisory committees. The committees were created to prevent political interference in the selection process. Now they will do exactly the opposite.

The Conservative government is putting at risk the independence of, and international respect for, the Canadian judiciary. It is an appalling misjudgment that must be reversed.

Harper's theo-con mindset is about to destroy the Canadian judical system, please write your MP today

And excellent article and more here below:

Partisans filling judge nomination committees

The Conservative government has loaded the committees that determine who can become a judge, selecting a series of Tories including former politicians, aides to ministers, riding association officials and defeated candidates.

The influential but little-known judicial advisory committees were created in 1988 to take partisan politics out of the appointment of judges. But half -- at least 16 out of 33 -- of the people chosen by the federal justice minister as his nominees are conservative partisans, a review by The Globe and Mail has found.

And many of the non-partisans chosen by Ottawa seem to share Prime Minister Stephen Harper's oft-expressed desire to change the face of Canada's judiciary

Partisan appointments include defeated Tory candidates such as Mark Bettens, a firefighter from Glace Bay, N.S., whose résumé lists one year at Cape Breton University and two runs for the provincial Tories. There are three Quebeckers who worked as Tory political staffers during Brian Mulroney's government and the Conservative Party's long-time Alberta lawyer, Gerald Chipeur.

Harper over steps his mandate, and is doing grievous harm to Canada.

[Wilber]

According to the Sierra club, http://www.sierraclub.ca/bc/media/item.shtml?x=692 Government Inaction Threatens Great Bear Rainforest Agreement

“Most British Columbians think the Great Bear Rainforest is protected because both the NDP and Liberal governments said they would do precisely that,” stated Merran Smith of ForestEthics. “Inaction threatens the stability of the agreements and leaves us no choice but to communicate these dismal grades to the Canadian public and international marketplace.”

Actually there was never any such thing as the "Great Bear Rainforest" It is a name invented by environmentalists.

[Catchme]

Apparently, the Canadian Jewish community is on board with Harper's theo-con support for Israel.

PM says Tories will always back Israel

Prime Minister Stephen Harper...staked out pre-election positions unambiguously supporting Israel's right to exist. In courting the Jewish vote, Harper should remember that Jewish people would no more endorse the phrase "Israel, right or wrong" than "My country, right or wrong."

Rather, they are, as a group, passionate about social justice and tend to vote to the left of their pocketbook.

This is why, even with the Bush administration's continual lip service to Israel's interests, the Republicans have never been able to garner more than a quarter of the votes of American Jews

http://www.thestar.com/article/179346

[scribblet]

And Harper, when in opposition, denied global warming and would not question the Liberal party on its so-called lack of initiative re climate change. There is plenty of blame to go around here. But Harper is the one looking ridiculous and hypocritical with his sudden (poll driven) global warming conversion.

I agree he's done an about face on global warming, and bowing to the hysterical enviro nazis

As for the asinine suggestions about Harper' and 'theocons' (which is an interesting use of U.S. propaganda, guess the U.S. has uses after all when it suits the purpose) how exactly could Harper or anyone else impose these supposed beliefs on those who don't share them, considering our constitution and Canada's secularism.

Some of the points from that article take away any credibility it might have had, it is just not possible for Canada to be turned into a theocracy unless the demographicws change substantially, and that isn't happening. Contrary to the hysterical liberal scare mongering, conservatives are not tied to the religious right - Harper has always been a fiscal conservative and does not pander to the social conservatives.

People generally support Israel because it is the only democracy in an area and is threatened with genocide and terrorists.

[Figleaf]

When going to Church is a bad thing, our country is in serious trouble.

Depends on what the church is like, doesn't it?

Harper is no more directed by Christian evangelicals as Dion is by France.

Poor analogy. Dion is a French citizen by happenstance, and it doesn't imply any particular beliefs or attitudes. Harper is religious by choice, and that does imply particular beliefs and attitudes.

Harper has been extremly moderate on social issues.

Relatively inactive does not necessarily equal moderate.

[Figleaf]

Harper is in FAVOUR of gay marriage, he just wants to call it civil unions.

So he's in favor of gay civil unions, not marriage.

Why doesn't he want to call it marriage?

[guyser]

When going to Church is a bad thing, our country is in serious trouble.

It might as well be with the numbers going. What , maybe 17% ?

It may not be a bad thing (I think it is but thats IMO) but it certainly is not a mainstream thing

[Figleaf]

I have two thoughts: why does the Left always look for fancy new names to describe old things. The term Neo-Cons has now become Theo-Cons. Why? (And why such terms as Neo-Con or Theo-Con anyway?)

Interesting that you credit the left with all linguistic creativity. Anyway, 'theocons' is a play on the word 'neocons'. They refer to two different types of conservatives.

[Figleaf]

Yes, it grows very close to the time when this government should be disbanded.

Considering:

Harper's secretive movement towards deep integration and trying to do it and trying to pull the wool over Canadians eyes. Exampled by giving out NO BID contracts.

Harper's chucking aside for NO reason decades long Canadian foreign policy, with NO mandate to do, or indeed to do anything much at all.

Harper's failure to to acknowledge and do anything about the state of the environment.

Harpers failure to meet his 5 promises in his election campaign.

Harper's quite obvious Theo-con agenda which appears to be motivating his actions.

Harper's failure to create any accountability in government.

Harper's failure to be open and transparent to Canadians.

Harper's and the CPC continuing to make QP and the HoC a mockery, with their lies, yelling and conduct unbecoming.

Harper's war mongering and outrageous labelling of peoples in the world.

This list goes on please feel free to add to it people.

Don't forget his program to politicize the judiciary.

[Alexandra]

Apparently, the Canadian Jewish community is on board with Harper's theo-con support for Israel.

'"Prime Minister Stephen Harper...staked out pre-election positions unambiguously supporting Israel's right to exist. In courting the Jewish vote, Harper should remember that Jewish people would no more endorse the phrase "Israel, right or wrong" than "My country, right or wrong."

Rather, they are, as a group, passionate about social justice and tend to vote to the` left `of their pocketbook."

Apparently not all of the jewish community is on board with Harper! Apparently the jewish community according to the Star reporter tend to vote LEFT.

[Catchme]

Apparently, the Canadian Jewish community is on board with Harper's theo-con support for Israel.

'"Prime Minister Stephen Harper...staked out pre-election positions unambiguously supporting Israel's right to exist. In courting the Jewish vote, Harper should remember that Jewish people would no more endorse the phrase "Israel, right or wrong" than "My country, right or wrong."

Rather, they are, as a group, passionate about social justice and tend to vote to the` left `of their pocketbook."

Apparently not all of the jewish community is on board with Harper! Apparently the jewish community according to the Star reporter tend to vote LEFT.

And your point would be what?

[Wilber]

I have two thoughts: why does the Left always look for fancy new names to describe old things. The term Neo-Cons has now become Theo-Cons. Why? (And why such terms as Neo-Con or Theo-Con anyway?)

Interesting that you credit the left with all linguistic creativity. Anyway, 'theocons' is a play on the word 'neocons'. They refer to two different types of conservatives.

Interesting how "liberals" catagorize a persons politics according to their religious views. Thats very "liberal" of them.

[scribblet]

Interesting that you credit the left with all linguistic creativity. Anyway, 'theocons' is a play on the word 'neocons'. They refer to two different types of conservatives.

Interesting how "liberals" catagorize a persons politics according to their religious views. Thats very "liberal" of them.

Theo-con is an American term intended as a pejorative - meant to send shivers up every liberal spine. The theo-cons are coming, theo-cons are coming, you know how it goes.

If you're one of those unhappy people who suffers from BDS or HDS (Bush/Harper derangement syndrome)but never the less, feels compelled to emulate U.S. politics, it will creep into your vocabulary. After all, there is a 'deep integration' with the U.S. you know...

[Figleaf]

Interesting how "liberals" catagorize a persons politics according to their religious views.

It makes sense, doesn't it? Many people of certain religious persuasions make their political choices completely based on their faith.

Theo-con is an American term intended as a pejorative - meant to send shivers up every liberal spine. The theo-cons are coming, theo-cons are coming, you know how it goes.

No, the word is supposed to be clever and mocking, not 'scary'. To be scary you'd use the term 'theocrat'. And indeed, theocracy would be a terror.

[Wilber]

It makes sense, doesn't it? Many people of certain religious persuasions make their political choices completely based on their faith.

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game.

[scribblet]

It makes sense, doesn't it? Many people of certain religious persuasions make their political choices completely based on their faith.

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game.

It is I guess, and these labels are rather stupid labels, especially as it speaks to the intolerance of the left. These terms are rather fake labels used by desperate liberals to scare poor old Canucks into believing that the Conservatives still have that scary hidden agenda. booga booga

[Figleaf]

It makes sense, doesn't it? Many people of certain religious persuasions make their political choices completely based on their faith.

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game.

I don't think it would surprise anyone to find that conservatives don't cherish the separation of church and state the way liberals do. Indeed it's one of the many things conservatives are wrong about.

[Figleaf]

It makes sense, doesn't it? Many people of certain religious persuasions make their political choices completely based on their faith.

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game.

It is I guess, and these labels are rather stupid labels, especially as it speaks to the intolerance of the left. These terms are rather fake labels used by desperate liberals to scare poor old Canucks into believing that the Conservatives still have that scary hidden agenda. booga booga

The polls tell us that the objectionable Conservative agenda is not so well hidden anymore.

[Wilber]

I don't think it would surprise anyone to find that conservatives don't cherish the separation of church and state the way liberals do.

And it wouldn't surprise others that they are not prepared to use it as a straw man.

[scribblet]

The polls tell us that the objectionable Conservative agenda is not so well hidden anymore.

Personally I don't find the CPC agenda all that objectionable, in fact I'm down right euphoric over the funding cuts to some SIGs, and look forward to eventual senate reform and tax cuts. I sure don't look forward to nanny state liberal policies.

Maybe you would care to look at the actual CPC policies and tell me which ones you particularly object to:

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-...DECLARATION.pdf

[Canadian Blue]

I thought we still had seperation of church, I haven't seen any moves showing we are heading in that direction.

Or is it preferable that all Christian's be barred from running for political office.

[Catchme]

You see wilbur there is a huge scale in self identified believers in God/Christians, and the same could be said for any religion, even Muslim.

Non-practising

Minimal practising - religious holidays, baptisms etc.

Moderates - attend church 2 or more time a month but believe a relationship with God is personal and not to be imposed upon others

Strong moderates - attend church every Sunday and comprise church boards, and volunteer regularily for church activities but believe a relationship with God is personal and not to be imposed upon others

Fundamentalists - those that believe that nations should be a theocracy or as close to it as possible and who believe that all should be of their religious flavour.

Canada has no state religion, politicians have no business bringing their flavour of religion into it.

[Wilber]

Canada has no state religion, politicians have no business bringing their flavour of religion into it.

I want people running for office to be honest about what they believe in. Don't you? If people decide not to vote for them because of it, that is their business.