Harper's plan to court the immigrant vote

downtoit · June 14, 2007

I thought this was about the immigrant vote how did we get so sidetracked it does not compute. The vote against the hate crime bill was for fear of limiting free speech and freedom of religion, such is allready limited in Canada, we do not have the first amendment rights.

I do not agree with apologizing for policies long ago enacted, I'm sure it was to court the immigrant vote to draw them from the Liberals. All governments do such things to win votes it is not particular to the conservatives.

BornAlbertan · June 14, 2007

I do not agree with apologizing for policies long ago enacted, I'm sure it was to court the immigrant vote to draw them from the Liberals. All governments do such things to win votes it is not particular to the conservatives.

Well...let's get back on track then

***TONGUE IN CHEEK HERE***

I think we should have the Asian community apologize for having their youth run rampant in Asian gangs.

I think we should have the Muslim community apologize for the soldiers that have died in Afghanistan since 9/11.

Hmmm....lets see....

I think we should also have the "First Nations" apologize for...well...I won't go there.

Point is...Canada and the evil white man has provided a pretty damned good life for many non-whites and yet the white man....regardless of where he came from or what he thinks, says or does...is the asshole who always has to apologize to everyone else.

I am sick of it. I can apologize for wrongs I have done. I can even apologize for wrongs my government has done. I have no problems with that. But I will be damned if I will apologize (or support an apology) for actions of governments that predate my parents or any living relative for that matter and then be told that my tax dollars have to pay reparations to some people who did not suffer one iota!

ScottSA · June 14, 2007

I am sick of it. I can apologize for wrongs I have done. I can even apologize for wrongs my government has done. I have no problems with that. But I will be damned if I will apologize (or support an apology) for actions of governments that predate my parents or any living relative for that matter and then be told that my tax dollars have to pay reparations to some people who did not suffer one iota!

Very well put.

Figleaf · June 14, 2007

ROTFLMA so I didn't word the post that well ...

The problem was not mere wording. The ideas you expressed were the issue.

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

I do not agree with apologizing for policies long ago enacted, I'm sure it was to court the immigrant vote to draw them from the Liberals. All governments do such things to win votes it is not particular to the conservatives.

I also don't agree with apologizing for every historical injustice. However, it's not true that all governments do this. It's a Conservative policy designed to reverse the previous Liberal policy of "no apologies".

Here's the link:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...7c606c5&k=65329

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

So is it legal to promote or advocate the killing of heterosexuals?

No, it is not legal to promote or advocate the killing of heterosexuals. Here's C-250:

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

The way the legislation was worded, it is a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of anyone based on sexual orientation. Therefore it is a hate crime to promote the killing of someone simply because they're heterosexual just as it's a hate crime to promote the killing of someone merely because they're homosexual.

I think your objection is with hate crime legislation in general. That position I can understand and I would not object if Stephen Harper opposed ALL hate crime legislation.

But Stephen Harper has no objection to hate crime legislation based on race. He has no objection to hate crime legislation based on religion. He has no objection to hate crime legislation based on gender. He has no objection to hate crime legislation based on ethnicity. But he has an objection to hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. That's discriminatory in my opinion.

scribblet · June 14, 2007

Paul Martin got a lot of press for apologizing in a Fairchild radio interview, for the head tax. Their policy was starting to change, other liberals were speaking out, it was a matter of time before they too would have done the same thing. http://www.gunghaggisfatchoy.com/blog/_arc.../4/1602039.html

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

ROTFLMA so I didn't word the post that well ...

The problem was not mere wording. The ideas you expressed were the issue.

Precisely!

sharkman · June 14, 2007

ROTFLMA so I didn't word the post that well ...

The problem was not mere wording. The ideas you expressed were the issue.

Precisely!

Yeah right. Norm is a big one issue person. He does indeed inject the gay agenda into many topics that have nothing to do with it. Last year he also pushed legalizing pot into many threads.

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

Yeah right. Norm is a big one issue person. He does indeed inject the gay agenda into many topics that have nothing to do with it. Last year he also pushed legalizing pot into many threads.

Your post is internally inconsistent. Sounds like two issues to me by your own admission.

In any event, you missed the point of why homosexuality was introduced in this thread which, incidentally, I started. Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. My point, which paradoxically you view as irrelevant, is that he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., how our first nations people were subjugated, how women couldn't vote, how homosexuality was a criminal offence.

scribblet · June 14, 2007

yeah right. Norm is a big one issue person. He does indeed inject the gay agenda into many topics that have nothing to do with it. Last year he also pushed legalizing pot into many threads.

Precisely!

sharkman · June 14, 2007

Uh, these aren't emails, they are posts. And you are currently a one topic person. I will let you know if it changes. The rest of your post is just more of the same convoluted logic by which you introduce your pet topic. Does it do tricks?

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

The rest of your post is just more of the same convoluted logic by which you introduce your pet topic.

Your failure to comprehend the logic does not make it convoluted.

sharkman · June 14, 2007

I take it the answer is no. If you are patient it may learn some.

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

I take it the answer is no.

I take it that you fail to comprehend the logic.

normanchateau · June 14, 2007

The rest of your post is just more of the same convoluted logic by which you introduce your pet topic.

Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. In my opinion, he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., historically our first nations people were subjugated, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was a criminal offence.

What makes this convoluted logic?

sharkman · June 14, 2007

The rest of your post is just more of the same convoluted logic by which you introduce your pet topic.

Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. In my opinion, he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., historically our first nations people were subjugated, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was a criminal offence.

What makes this convoluted logic?

The fact that you consider a sexual preference to be the equivalent to an ethnic group. As an aside, homosexuality itself wasn't an offense, only buggery was. Correct me if I'm wrong.

noahbody · June 15, 2007

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.

Here are your words: "In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals."

This is like saying the Liberal Party voted against giving any more assistance to natives since they voted against the budget. The Liberal Party hates natives.

normanchateau · June 15, 2007

The rest of your post is just more of the same convoluted logic by which you introduce your pet topic.

Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. In my opinion, he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., historically our first nations people were subjugated, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was a criminal offence.

What makes this convoluted logic?

As an aside, homosexuality itself wasn't an offense, only buggery was. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right. Homosexuality wasn't an offence. Homosexual behaviour was. Similarly, pedophilia isn't a criminal offence. Pedophiliac behaviour is. Really important distinction and a major contribution to the debate. :lol:

normanchateau · June 15, 2007

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.

Here are your words: "In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals."

This is like saying the Liberal Party voted against giving any more assistance to natives since they voted against the budget. The Liberal Party hates natives.

So you no longer deny that "In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"?

normanchateau · June 15, 2007

The fact that you consider a sexual preference to be the equivalent to an ethnic group.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further?

geoffrey · June 15, 2007

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further?

Maybe you should stop living in the past.

gc1765 · June 15, 2007

Maybe you should stop living in the past.

You mean that homosexuals aren't discriminated against anymore? Or that certain races aren't discriminated against anymore?

normanchateau · June 15, 2007

Maybe you should stop living in the past.

Tell Stephen Harper. He's the one who thinks that we should apologize to Sikhs today because we barred some illegal immigrants in 1914. I think we shouldn't.

geoffrey · June 15, 2007

You mean that homosexuals aren't discriminated against anymore? Or that certain races aren't discriminated against anymore?

Not as a measure of government policy (besides benefits being given to certain races, ie. Indians). You can't ever legislate tolerance. If individuals don't like homosexuals for whatever reason, you can't pass a law that changes that. It's the big mistake of the left. They think that a government can create a most tolerant society... I disagree. Change comes from within.

Whenever a government has attempted to speed along the general progression towards a more open society, it's been meet with a counter-productive backlash. You've got to let people see the error in the ways on their own... telling them that they are all backwoods hicks just entrenches their beliefs.

Tell Stephen Harper. He's the one who thinks that we should apologize to Sikhs today because we barred some illegal immigrants in 1914. I think we shouldn't.

I agree with you.