Harper's plan to court the immigrant vote

[normanchateau]

I like Harper making these apologies.

Why just ethnic communities and immigrants? If Harper is indeed a strong leader and not just someone who grovels for votes, why not apologize to homosexuals?

Canada imprisoned individuals prior to 1967 for engaging in homosexual behaviour. Maybe he should apologize for that. In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Maybe he should apologize for that. In December, 2006, Stephen Harper became the first Prime Minister of Canada to attempt to take away their legislated right to marry. Maybe he should apologize for that.

Perhaps the reason he's willing to apologize to certain immigrant groups is because he believes that they share Harper's so-con values. Apologizing to homosexuals would offend not only his so-con voters but would contradict his own values.

[noahbody]

In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up.

[normanchateau]

In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up.

Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. For some reason, he won't apologize for that but he's more than willing to apologize for Canada preventing the entry of illegal immigrants in 1914.

And Conservatives wonder why their ineffective leader is even less popular today than when he was elected...

[Guest chilipeppers]

Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

An amusing deflection from you and a huge pile of doo doo, this type of villification does not deserve the dignaty of a rebuttal.

[normanchateau]

Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

An amusing deflection from you and a huge pile of doo doo, this type of villification does not deserve the dignaty of a rebuttal.

It is indeed difficult if not undignified to rebut the fact that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Here's the legislation he voted against:

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

[mikedavid00]

The reason these particular immigrants were greeted by a warship and told to go home is, quite simply, that they were brown.

And the reason you are not allowed to marry into these peoples families is, quite simply, becuase you are white.

I suspect the issue is religion rather than race. Sikhs are no keener on having Hindus marry into their families.

Only 50% of Sikh's are religious. Hindu's are allowed to marry outside their religion. Go try marrying into them.

And oh yes. Muslim men are allowed to marry Jewish woman. Let's see that happen!

It's all a farce. It's stone age mentality. The mantality that the west worked so hard to rid ourselves of. We didn't come all this way to go back to racisim and social bigotry of the third world.

[Guest chilipeppers]

It is indeed difficult if not undignified to rebut the fact that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Here's the legislation he voted against:

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

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try .

[geoffrey]

It is indeed difficult if not undignified to rebut the fact that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Here's the legislation he voted against:

Off topic. Or do you imply that all immigrants are homosexual?

Start a new thread if you want to whine about a minorities unprivledged status. Here is the question you should answer in it: should any gay that kills a straight person be charged with a hate crime?

[normanchateau]

It is indeed difficult if not undignified to rebut the fact that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Here's the legislation he voted against:

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

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try .

Interesting that you failed to produce a shred of evidence to debunk my point. Instead you referred to the facts I presented as "garbage", "pap", "nonsense" and "smears".

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

[g_bambino]

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try .

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

Pointing out whether your statement is true or not is completely beside the point; it's your attempt to imply that Harper is against "homosexuals" (whatever those are) that is the focus. Harper may well have voted against the bill in question, but, and here's the crux of the matter, you have no idea why. But, of course, that doesn't stop you; you fill in the void with your own take on Harper's opinions and then treat it as fact. Fortunately, most other people here don't seem to buy it.

[normanchateau]

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try .

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

Pointing out whether your statement is true or not is completely beside the point; it's your attempt to imply that Harper is against "homosexuals" (whatever those are) that is the focus. Harper may well have voted against the bill in question, but, and here's the crux of the matter, you have no idea why. But, of course, that doesn't stop you; you fill in the void with your own take on Harper's opinions and then treat it as fact. Fortunately, most other people here don't seem to buy it.

This appears to be your long-winded way of acknowledging that my statement is factual. The previous poster was apparently incapable of this and instead resorted to terms like "garbage' and "pap" and "nonsense" in order to deflect the actual evidence.

So should Harper now apologize for the fact that homosexual behaviour was a criminal offence subject to incarceration prior to 1967?

Why does that not deserve an apology whereas Sikhs of today deserve an apology because illegal Sikh immigrants were denied entry to Canada in 1914?

[scribblet]

As was said in this thread about the same obsessions and diverting of threads.

"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."

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....92entry155692

[normanchateau]

These next two questions have absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes.

Should Harper now apologize for the fact that homosexual behaviour was a criminal offence subject to incarceration prior to 1967?

Why does that not deserve an apology whereas Sikhs of today deserve an apology because illegal Sikh immigrants were denied entry to Canada in 1914?

[g_bambino]

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

Pointing out whether your statement is true or not is completely beside the point; it's your attempt to imply that Harper is against "homosexuals" (whatever those are) that is the focus. Harper may well have voted against the bill in question, but, and here's the crux of the matter, you have no idea why. But, of course, that doesn't stop you; you fill in the void with your own take on Harper's opinions and then treat it as fact. Fortunately, most other people here don't seem to buy it.

This appears to be your long-winded way of acknowledging that my statement is factual. The previous poster was apparently incapable of this and instead resorted to terms like "garbage' and "pap" and "nonsense" in order to deflect the actual evidence.

So should Harper now apologize for the fact that homosexual behaviour was a criminal offence subject to incarceration prior to 1967?

Why does that not deserve an apology whereas Sikhs of today deserve an apology because illegal Sikh immigrants were denied entry to Canada in 1914?

It seems you have a penchant for putting words in people's mouths. I never once confirmed or denied that your claim was factual; as I said, its veracity was irrelevant.

Now I fail to see what link there is between Harper's vote on Bill C-250 and past gross indecency laws.

However, my stance on apologies is this: Harper should not be apologizing for anything. First off, we are not responsible for the actions of our predecessors, and so should not be admitting to some kind of guilt today. Secondly, even if one upholds the argument that the State is a continuous entity, and therefore can be held to account for past actions, it isn't the PM who should be offering apologies, but instead the Governor General or the Queen. Still, even then, past decisions were made in different times, with their own circumstances and paradigms. Hence, why apologize now for something that seemed completely logical and fitting for the time in which it was done?

I was pleased with the fact that the Queen never apologized for the deportation of the Acadians - something they'd been seeking for decades. Instead, a proclamation was issued recognizing the Great Upheaval, and making a day of commemoration. Admission of a factual event, yet no apology for it's happening. Seemed like a perfect compromise to me.

[normanchateau]

I never once confirmed or denied that your claim was factual; as I said, its veracity was irrelevant.

And of course if you had evidence that my statement was false, you'd fail to produce it.

[normanchateau]

However, my stance on apologies is this: Harper should not be apologizing for anything. First off, we are not responsible for the actions of our predecessors, and so should not be admitting to some kind of guilt today. Secondly, even if one upholds the argument that the State is a continuous entity, and therefore can be held to account for past actions, it isn't the PM who should be offering apologies, but instead the Governor General or the Queen. Still, even then, past decisions were made in different times, with their own circumstances and paradigms. Hence, why apologize now for something that seemed completely logical and fitting for the time in which it was done?

We agree.

[g_bambino]

I never once confirmed or denied that your claim was factual; as I said, its veracity was irrelevant.

And of course if you had evidence that my statement was false, you'd fail to produce it.

Uuuuhmm... okay....

[normanchateau]

What about Canada's first nations people? Should Harper apologize to them?

They were subjugated, put on reserves, and forbidden by law from singing their songs or performing their dances. They were not allowed to vote. Their children were taken from their homes and sent to residential schools to be "civilized and Christianized."

[noahbody]

In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up.

Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

This part of the bill was already covered by the crimal code. The objection to the bill had to do with free speech and religious rights. This is why your accusation is false. Please apologize at once.

"Counselling an Offence

(Section 22 Criminal Code)

1. It is illegal to advocate violence against anyone in Canada. Section 22 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to counsel, procure, solicit or incite people to commit assaults or other offences, whether or not the offences are actually committed. Moreover, under Section 810 of the Criminal Code or common law authority to exercise preventive justice, a judge can require someone who incites others to commit assaults or property damage to enter into a recognizance with conditions that will put an end to the counselling activity. Those who refuse to sign such a recognizance can be jailed, and if they violate the conditions imposed by the judge they can be arrested and charged. "

[Figleaf]

This discussion, particularly the excellent contribution of normanchateau, serves to confirm one thing quite clearly:

Harper's apologies are an other example of his willingness to sacrifice our institutions and honour for short-term political gains for the Conservative Party.

I can't think of any other prime minister who has been as recklessly partisan as Steve. If this is how he conducts himself with a minority government, it's obvious that he can never be trusted with a free hand.

[normanchateau]

This part of the bill was already covered by the crimal code. The objection to the bill had to do with free speech and religious rights. This is why your accusation is false. Please apologize at once.

Which accusation is false? Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals.

[Guest chilipeppers]

I did a search on this person he/she uses this technique consistently. He/she manipulates the thread inserting references to the same subject (homosexuality usually) imputing ( or attributing/ascribing) imaginary reasons for Harper voting against the bill. We all know the reasons as you stated you'll get no apology as he/she obviously delights in trolling and baiting. As long as people rise to his bait he/she will continue to deflect and manipulate.

In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

Stephen Harper wants to put soldiers on the streets to murder homosexuals. We're not making this up.

Amusing deflection but of course it does not change the fact that Stephen Harper in 2003 voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

This part of the bill was already covered by the crimal code. The objection to the bill had to do with free speech and religious rights. This is why your accusation is false. Please apologize at once.

"Counselling an Offence

(Section 22 Criminal Code)

[Figleaf]

I did a search on this person he/she uses this technique consistently. He/she manipulates the thread inserting references to the same subject (homosexuality usually) ...

1. Normanchateau's references to homosexuality on this thread are carefully chosen counter-examples that make a strong point about Harper's courting of votes through inappropriate apologies.

2. Your complaint is inconsistent. You say he uses the 'same' subject consistently, and yet you then admit that it is really only 'usually'.

I conclude on the basis of these two points that you are making a collateral attack on the poster since you find yourself unable to answer his argument.

[Guest chilipeppers]

ROTFLMA so I didn't word the post that well you only like him because he manipulates almost all threads into an anti-harper homosexuality thing. His/her words are carefully chosen all right, chosen to manipulate a thread and bait people.

[BornAlbertan]

It is indeed difficult if not undignified to rebut the fact that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Here's the legislation he voted against:

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

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try .

Interesting that you failed to produce a shred of evidence to debunk my point. Instead you referred to the facts I presented as "garbage", "pap", "nonsense" and "smears".

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore:

(1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals?

(2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

So is it legal to promote or advocate the killing of heterosexuals? I think if you would think about it, alot of the votes they made were not because they were against something but rather for something a little broader; Promoting or advocating the killing of ANYONE is wrong but to be illegal? Maybe if you are a teacher, minister or some other person of influence. I personally am FOR the death penalty for people like Robert Pickton and Paul Bernardo. Does that mean I should go to jail because I hate these vile pieces of sh*t?

And what makes gays so special that they need laws that don't already protect them any more than they already are? The whole concept of hate crime is foolish. You have the right to hate anyone or anything you want...that is a consitutionally prected right. But the law is the law and if you act against that law you are guilty of that law. If you kill someone out of hatred, you should be charged with murder...your hatred is your motive...it should not be an additional crime! I mean, hate crime is just one step closer to policing thought.

Gays, straights, white, black etc... should all be protected under the same laws without enforcing policing of thought.