Well, Not A Bad Day, Eh?

[Kiraly]

People begrudgingly voted for Chretien the last two elections, so I don't see why they wouldn't give the new boy a try.

New boy? Are you referring to Paul Martin as a new boy?

[Neal.F.]

Michael, I don't agree with you often, but I think you are right when you say it'll be the PC party all over again at the end of the day, albeit Brian Mulroney's PC party, not Jolly Joe's. IT will be fiscally conservative, and will play down any activism obn the social issues. It wont be socially liberal like under the Grand Marshal of the Calgary gay pride parade, but alot of good people who formed the backbone of Reform, under the impression they'd stand for life issues will be disappointed.

Nevertheless, For the health of the system, we need ton end one-party-rule.

If the pro-lifers find that the Conservative party is not really much of a home for them, the Christian Heritage Party will welcome them. While the CHP has no chance of winning an election at this point, they may eventually elect some MPs, who just MIGHT , one day hold the balance of power in a minority CPC situatioin.

And why not? The New Dumbocruds have propped up Liberal governments, and exacted a price for it.

The CHP may end up being the best vehicle through which social conservatives can achieve their ends.

[Michael Hardner]

New boy? Are you referring to Paul Martin as a new boy?

Tongue-in-cheek. Yes.

[Michael Hardner]

Nevertheless, For the health of the system, we need ton end one-party-rule.

The system is already healthier. Martin won't be able to allow boondogges, gaffes and theft the way Chretien did.

If the new CPC party convinces Canadians that it is socially neutral, then power is within its grasp.

[Neal.F.]

Unfortunately, I think the CPC will take the coward's way out and go neutral on social issues, which is tantamount to permitting the advance of the culture of death. I think they will nevertheless keep in check better than the Liberals, but this could be the opportunity for the CHP to make some gains, and elect even a hanful of members in a few isolated pockets. Just enough to say, possibly hold the balance of power one day. So-cons who will not compromise may want to lookn in their direction.

[Lost in Manitoba]

It may boil down to the role of government. If a party wants to promote or restrict society then there will be people on either side opposed to it.

It depends on what you think Canada needs: economic/fiscal change, a global strategy, political accountabillity/responsibillity, social change.

I, myself, thing social change is the least of Canada's problems, one way or the other. If social issues stay on the back burner for the next 4yrs, no big deal. We need a major overhaul of our government finance, spending, and taxation. We need efficiancy within our government. We need a definitive plan of where we want to be in the world, as in allies, millitary/peacekeeping, foreign affairs. We need a better, more representative, democracy in Canada.

Paul Martin seems to be portrayed, wether it is true or not, as the guy who can settle some of these issues. To me, I really don't care very much what his stance on social issues are, as long as there isn't a lot of policy change. As a lot of people claim, Harper is a smart guy who can solve these issues as well. He might just be able to, but if he pursues social policies which can be seen as regressive, even by many PCers, why would I vote for him?

[Neal.F.]

I nearly choke every time I see the blatant misuse of the adjective

"progressive". When used by those who incline to the left on social issues,

it is assumed to mean that those who apply it to themselves represent

abortion rights, gay rights and relaxation of drug laws, among other

positions.

This contradiction inherent in the misuse of "progressive" reminds me of

the slogans of "The Party" , from George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty

Four"

"War is peace" "Freedom is Slavery" ""Ignorance is Strength" . If anything

the term that should be used to describe so-called "progressive" social

policy, is the exact polar opposite" REGRESSIVE

What is so "progressive" about promoting the butchery of the unborn as a

means to avoid the consequences of ones actions? Isn't the wonton taking of

innocent life a form of neanderthal barbarism? What about the promotion of

the homosexual lifestyle? Isn't promoting a dangerous behaviour which cuts

lifespans in half, and urges primitive animalisticic unrestrained sexuality,

ie: promiscuity?

The Liberal government under Chretien has been aggressively attacking traditional judeo-Christian values at every chance it gets. I don't tjink the Martin regime will be any different... a controversial issue comes up? Easy... toss it to our liberal courts.

I hope that a Conservative party government would try to undo the damage that the Liberals have done, but at the very least they must be counted on to stop the assualts on tradiotion and family and keep us in a holding pattern until people come to their senses.

I hope men and women of integrity like Jason Kenney , maurice Vellacott, Elsie Wayne etc. can hold the regressives at bay. If they fail the result will be Liberal Lite.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I find it hard to believe that 100,000 Canadian's, went and died, fighting against the commies in Korea, the nazis in Europe, and also fought in the trenches in world war 1. Yet today most Canadian's 44%, I believe said they strongly believe that this country is not worth dying for.

When my family came to this country, we thought that we were going to live in a country where life was respected above all else, we would be free to work, and that this country would value families. Not anymore!!! Now those on the social left have nearly destroyed the country that my family, helped build, social liberals have turned this country into a moral sewer. In Edmonton the mayor did not want to have a gay pride parade, and the people of Edmonton agreed with him, yet once again a HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION said that you are violating human rights if you do not allow a gay pride parade. Pierre Trudeau also turned this country into a sewer, he was a commie, and supported the nazis in world war 2. Now he is the "man who made Canada", he did not have anything to do with Canada, my family helped build this country into what it is today, the only thing that he did was piss on this country, and its values.

This is the type of country I believe that Canada should be

A country built on hard work, and free enterprise, not welfare.

A country built on traditional values and the family, and not a moral sewer.

A country with a proud history, and a strong military

A Canada which strongly values the sanctity of life above all else.

I guess some people are going to say, oh your such a nazi, and a bigot for having those views. Well than go down to your Legion, and tell that to the war vets.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess they should have declared war on homosexuals right after World War II. That would have nipped it in the bud right there.

Honestly, don't you think it's a bit of hyperbole to declare this great country ruined because they're acknowledging gay rights ?

[Neal.F.]

Gays are human beings, and as such have the same inalienable RIGHTS as any other person. Marriage, is not a right. it is a sacrament, and it is not something that can ever be for homosexuals. Period.

The most disturbing apsect of the whole "gay rights" movement is that they are asking for special treatment because of a behaviour.

And it is a dangerous behaviour. to themselves and to others. It should never have been given sanction by the state.

Elsie Wayne put it so well: They should just go live together and shut up about it.

We don't need them flashing their lifestyle in our faces, and holding parades in the town square celebrating a sexual behaviour, and a deviant one at that. These things should be kept behind closed doors.

They always say the State should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation.... The corrolary to that is, the nation should keep its bedroom doors closed!

[Lost in Manitoba]

As long as this is the type of attitude prevailent in the CA, it will remain on the sidelines as a club for angry white guys :angry: . For once, try to have a debate about politics without using any reference to religion. You know, just to humour us poor unenlightened heathens.

[Michael Hardner]

Gays are human beings, and as such have the same inalienable RIGHTS as any other person. Marriage, is not a right. it is a sacrament, and it is not something that can ever be for homosexuals. Period.

Churches administer sacraments, not states. A church can decide not to administer marriage to gays if it wants to.

The state, though, can't discriminate.

The most disturbing apsect of the whole "gay rights" movement is that they are asking for special treatment because of a behaviour.

Not special, equal.

And it is a dangerous behaviour. to themselves and to others. It should never have been given sanction by the state.

Elsie Wayne put it so well: They should just go live together and shut up about it.

We don't need them flashing their lifestyle in our faces, and holding parades in the town square celebrating a sexual behaviour, and a deviant one at that. These things should be kept behind closed doors.

They always say the State should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation.... The corrolary to that is, the nation should keep its bedroom doors closed!

It sounds like you want to legislate politeness.

[Neal.F.]

Gays are human beings, and as such have the same inalienable RIGHTS as any other person. Marriage, is not a right. it is a sacrament, and it is not something that can ever be for homosexuals. Period.

Churches administer sacraments, not states. A church can decide not to administer marriage to gays if it wants to.

The state, though, can't discriminate.

The most disturbing apsect of the whole "gay rights" movement is that they are asking for special treatment because of a behaviour.

Not special, equal.

And it is a dangerous behaviour. to themselves and to others. It should never have been given sanction by the state.

Elsie Wayne put it so well: They should just go live together and shut up about it.

We don't need them flashing their lifestyle in our faces, and holding parades in the town square celebrating a sexual behaviour, and a deviant one at that. These things should be kept behind closed doors.

They always say the State should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation.... The corrolary to that is, the nation should keep its bedroom doors closed!

It sounds like you want to legislate politeness.

Angry white guys?

I can tell you that most new immigrants want nothing to do with special rights for sexual deviants, or anyone else.

But yes I am angry with what this Liberal government has done to the social fabric of the country. May Trudeau and his ilk burn in hell for what they've done to destroy the character of a once-great nation, and the way they shit on the memorory and values of those who fought for Canada in the two world wars.

They did not fight so men could marry men, several people or even their dog, of perhaps one day, their own child.

[Michael Hardner]

They did not fight so men could marry men, several people or even their dog, of perhaps one day, their own child.

I'm sure the Liberals won't introduce the dog-marrying bill until at LEAST Martin's second term.

[Neal.F.]

They won't need a "bill". The precedent is there. If the traditional definition of marriage, ie: one man and one woman is abolished, what's stopping a polygamist from going to court and arguing on the same grounds as the gays did? Sooner or later someone will argue the same thing about marrying their dog.

[Michael Hardner]

Is beastiality protected under the Charter ?

[Neal.F.]

it is not spelled out in the charter, but we have seen how liberal judges have interpreted it in the past.

in law, precedent is everything.

[Michael Hardner]

Well if you truly believe that the Liberals are taking us on the road to beastiality then give yourself a vote for the new CPC.

I'm sure that party will corner the vote of that sector of the Canadian populace that shares your concerns.

By the way, speak out loudly and speak out often for your new party. Canadians who are curious about what they stand for will get a good sense of it from you.

I'd like to see you standing outside the Eaton Centre in Toronto railing on about the Liberals' plan to introduce dog marriage. You'll earn them a vote for every passerby.

[Neal.F.]

You laugh as you look down the end of your sneering liberal nose.... but 10 yesrs ago, if you said gay marriage was just around the corner, you'd be laughed off stage.

I REPEAT, for the slower among us, the Liberals are never going to introduce a LAW permitting dog marriage, polygamy, communal marraige or anything like that.

They don't have to. The Trudeau Charter of Rights, as interpreted by liberal activist judges will do it for them.

The liberal courts have already set a dangerous precedent that they'll have trouble backing off from when these cases are put to them by radical activists in the not to distant future.

IT's been how many weeks since Massachusetts courts said that, according to them gay marriage is just jim-dandy, there are already polygamists in Utah suing on the grounds that if its OK for gays, why not for them?

The Conservative Party needs to campaign on curbing the activist judiciary and remaking it into an objective court of law once more.

[Hugo]

The Trudeau Charter of Rights, as interpreted by liberal activist judges will do it for them.

Question: where does it mention in the Charter that homosexuals are protected from discrimination and granted the right to marry?

Answer: it doesn't say it anywhere. Liberal judges "read in" those rights and made court rulings appropriately. They defended themselves by stating that they were acting in accordance with the "spirit of the Charter" in creating a Canada free of prejudice.

So, to paraphrase. The Courts acted in accordance with a non-existent law and when questioned, claimed to have read the mind of Trudeau and to know exactly what he wanted to put into the Charter but didn't, and then claimed the right to ignore the letter of the law in favour of what they feel the law should be, their feelings of what the law is trying to accomplish, and their personal vision of what Canada ought to be like.

When you ask, Michael,

Is beastiality protected under the Charter ?

the answer is, "it does not matter", because as far as the courts are concerned the Charter can mean anything you want it to mean.

I don't think bestiality will be the first thing. My initial predictions for the deepening of the Canadian moral cesspool:

NAMBLA, in conjunction with the very powerful and well-funded gay-rights umbrella organisation they are now a part of, will get involved in a high-profile court case in which they will make a defence of a pedarastic relationship. The liberal court will rule in favour of this after much crying and wringing of hands in the leftist press, public debates over what "love" is, and whether a 10-year-old has the right to be "happy" in this "fulfilling and loving relationship with an older man" and lower the age of consent (probably to 8, rough guess, since that's what NAMBLA says they are going for). Parliament will ignore the issue and leave it up to the courts.

[Michael Hardner]

You laugh as you look down the end of your sneering liberal nose.... but 10 yesrs ago, if you said gay marriage was just around the corner, you'd be laughed off stage.

Legislation was starting to be introduced on that issue around ten years ago, so I don't agree that you would have been laughed off the stage.

And forgive me for laughing, but the issue of dog marriage, though it may be high on the CPC list of concerns, doesn't strike me as a serious one.

I REPEAT, for the slower among us, the Liberals are never going to introduce a LAW permitting dog marriage, polygamy, communal marraige or anything like that.

They don't have to. The Trudeau Charter of Rights, as interpreted by liberal activist judges will do it for them.

The liberal courts have already set a dangerous precedent that they'll have trouble backing off from when these cases are put to them by radical activists in the not to distant future.

Then why vote for the CPC vs the Liberals on the issue of dog marriage.

How many judges have expressed interest in the dog marriage issue ?

Cat marriage ?

IT's been how many weeks since Massachusetts courts said that, according to them gay marriage is just jim-dandy, there are already polygamists in Utah suing on the grounds that if its OK for gays, why not for them?

The Conservative Party needs to campaign on curbing the activist judiciary and remaking it into an objective court of law once more.

The answer is: amend the constitution.

And... are judges more 'liberal' then then 50% of the population who doesn't seem bothered by this ?

Answer: it doesn't say it anywhere. Liberal judges "read in" those rights and made court rulings appropriately. They defended themselves by stating that they were acting in accordance with the "spirit of the Charter" in creating a Canada free of prejudice.

So, to paraphrase. The Courts acted in accordance with a non-existent law and when questioned, claimed to have read the mind of Trudeau and to know exactly what he wanted to put into the Charter but didn't, and then claimed the right to ignore the letter of the law in favour of what they feel the law should be, their feelings of what the law is trying to accomplish, and their personal vision of what Canada ought to be like.

No. They struck down a law that wasn't compliant to the constitution.

the answer is, "it does not matter", because as far as the courts are concerned the Charter can mean anything you want it to mean.

I believe the phrase that they acted on was something like "discrimination against any group".

This could work in favour of conservatives groups as well. If you think it's a bad thing, electing the CPC wouldn't fix it. Changing the charter would.

I don't think bestiality will be the first thing. My initial predictions for the deepening of the Canadian moral cesspool:

NAMBLA, in conjunction with the very powerful and well-funded gay-rights umbrella organisation they are now a part of, will get involved in a high-profile court case in which they will make a defence of a pedarastic relationship. The liberal court will rule in favour of this after much crying and wringing of hands in the leftist press, public debates over what "love" is, and whether a 10-year-old has the right to be "happy" in this "fulfilling and loving relationship with an older man" and lower the age of consent (probably to 8, rough guess, since that's what NAMBLA says they are going for). Parliament will ignore the issue and leave it up to the courts. 

Right. We're on the verge of legalized pedophilia, dog marriage etc. etc. This is hysteria.

And if the CPC was elected today, the charter would still stand.

[Neal.F.]

Just as easily as that old bastard Trudeau replaced the Diefenbaker Bill of rights with this horrid charter, it too, can be replaced, and the sooner the better.

At this point we have conservative premiers in 7 provinces, a liberal in one, and New Democrats in two.

I believe the amending formula needs 7 out of 10 provinces to ratify it.

And most importantly, Parliament must stand up to the activist judiciary, and show some leadership instead of being a rubberstamp for the PMO and the courts.

Hugo is right that NAMBLA and like groupos will use the courts just like the gays did, and that most liberal canadians will take the "whatever floats your boat" attitude, "Who cares as long as they're in love" etc.

Can you imagine custody battles between parents and perverts over 9 year old little boys and girls? Once the bastards can legally marry your children what legal leg will you have to stand on?

It won't happen overnight, but such is the nature of the slippery slope.

[Hugo]

They struck down a law that wasn't compliant to the constitution... I believe the phrase that they acted on was something like "discrimination against any group".

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

That's what the section they referred to actually says. You will notice that the groups mentioned do not include homosexuals or persons discriminated against because of sexual orientation.

It does say that every individual has this right, however, the particulars are noted because that is what the grounds are supposed to be to make a discrimination case stick. Otherwise, if I kill you and am found guilty in court of law, I can argue that my Charter rights were violated: I was discriminated against in court because I was guilty. Nonsensical.

So therefore that section is qualified, and you see that the court did not act in accordance with those qualifications, despite the fact that they claim that they did.

Right. We're on the verge of legalized pedophilia... This is hysteria.

Actually, we already have legalised pedophilia, nevermind being on the verge. The age of consent is 14, without qualification (i.e. it doesn't matter if the other party is 14 or 40). A 14-year-old is, legally, a child. They can't vote, can't drink, can't drive, can't smoke, can't get a job, can't claim welfare. All NAMBLA (and the gay rights groups that back them) wants to do is make more children into victims of that legalised pedophilia.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, by all means start a drive to change the charter. I'm sure the "conservative" premiers like Charest will be all for it.

As for the charter, I was under the impression that there was another clause that had the phrasing "other groups".

To give you an idea of how intellectually honest I am, I was actually arguing AGAINST the Supreme Court decision until someone on another board quoted the section I'm referring to. Unfortunately, I didn't note it and that board is gone now.

If you're indeed correct, that there isn't any reference to 'other' groups then I concur that the judges exceeded their authority.

I still think gays deserve equal marriage, but I think that the legal process needs to be followed, and not leap frogged.

Does anybody know what my former adversary may have referred to ?

[Hugo]

Michael,

If you want to see the full text of the Charter it can be found here.

If you're indeed correct, that there isn't any reference to 'other' groups then I concur that the judges exceeded their authority.

Those are indeed the only groups mentioned. I don't believe there are even any plans to modify this at present, Bill C-250 adds homosexuals as a group that cannot be victimised by hate speech however, that is an amendment to the Criminal Code and not the Charter.