TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »

I'm pretty sure I remember the conservatives launching this poster campaign emphasizing the value of family, and the poster illustrated all these happy couples holing hands and families with children, with this tagline basically meant to convey that "this" was the way the nuclear family should be. Definitely meant to dissuade people from accepting gay courtship. I'm pretty sure it was during Stockwell Day's tenure.

I'm trying to find it...

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory Lets be honest. Our scandal pales in comparison to what's happening in many countries. If it wasn't the gomery inquiry, people would be going off on something else. There are literally millions of people swimming in corrutpion far more grand then we could possibly ever fathom; perhaps we should look to our neighbours to the south. People are dying everyday. Most Afrcian countries don't even have a government to speak of, let alone know the meaning of democracy. let's be honest people, what we deal with is small potatoes. And you can be as disgruntled as you'd like, but I'm sure there are many people who would do anything to switch places with a Canadian. That's all I have to say. discussion closed for me.

Oh, this old story again. Corruption in the LPC isn't as bad as the corruption in the totalitarian 3rd-world dictatorships, so let's vote them back in again!

I'm sorry but what are you on? Small potatoes? We're talking about billions of dollars here that's been taken out of our own pockets. If you ask me, that's EXACTLY what's happening in the dictatorships across the world - the only difference is that most of us had more money in our pockets to begin with.

Who the fuck cares what's happening in Africa? This is a Canadian election, and we're supposed to be voting for the person who best represents OUR interests. It's great that we're doing better than Nigeria and Paraguay, but we're really pretty far behind the rest of the G8, and the Lieberals aren't going to bring us ahead.

Stockwell Day was the CA, which is not nearly the same party as the Conservatives. Stockwell Day is not Stephen Harper. Brian Mulroney is not Stephen Harper. And if Harper did care *that* much about family values to make it a centerpiece of his platform (which he hasn't done), I would consider that a good thing because it's the sorry state of family values that's responsible for so much crime and poverty in the big Canadian cities.

Tell me, why exactly do you "shudder" at the thought of Harper leading this country? What is that based on, other than an obvious knee-jerk reaction to any Conservative?

This is the man you want to elect...

And the last I heard this was a forum where insults were suposed to be limited.

Of course I guess old habits die hard diginut...

Please read this carefully, and process the kind of leader you'd like to elect. I can pull up many articles to back up my "shuddering views" of this party.

And like I said, this is my opinion.

Harper is not being "completely honest"
Challenge from 133 experts in Canada's universities

"Have we no respect for the rule of law? . . . We are supposed to be the party that stands for the rights of individuals. Times have changed and it's time we changed with them."
Marie-Josee Lapointe, former press secretary to Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, "Harper's gay marriage strategy exposes rift among Conservatives", CP, Jan. 27, 2005

Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party, is not being "completely honest" with Canadians about his strategy to fight same-sex marriage. His disingenuous approach conveniently ignores the unconstitutional foundation it is based on.

The Vancouver Sun (Jan. 24) and Toronto Star (Jan. 25) call Harper's approach a "dishonest strategy". The Victoria Times Colonist (Jan. 25, 2005) wrote of "hollow brinkmanship ... He should acknowledge, therefore, that if Parliament denies same-sex marriage rights to all Canadians, the courts will give it to them."

This afternoon in a news conference Harper confirmed he won't use the notwithstanding clause, and he claims his party has "sought legal advice" and Conservative party lawyers support his strategy. Harper apparently should send his lawyers back to school.

Today 133 law professors, including Deans of Law, from Canada's universities, coast to coast, issued a letter challenging Harper to drop the pretense and deliver some straight talk about gay marriage. Harper has a long history of hidden agendas, apparently lacking the courage to be upfront about his radical right-wing agenda aimed at attacking Charter rights and freedoms.

Open Letter to The Hon. Stephen Harper from Law Professors Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

The Hon. Stephen Harper
Leader of the Opposition

Dear Mr. Harper,

The federal government has made it clear that it intends to introduce legislation in the House of Commons to extend to same-sex couples the right to marry. You have indicated that you oppose this legislation, and intend to propose amendments to limit the definition of marriage to only opposite sex couples. You also stated that it would not be legally necessary to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause to protect a statutory definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples. As law professors, we strenuously disagree. You must be completely honest with Canadians about the unconstitutionality of your proposal, which will only guarantee that same sex marriage ends up back before the courts as opposed to being resolved by Parliament. Your position is surprising for someone who has constantly defended the preeminence of Parliament.

Even though the Supreme Court of Canada did not address this issue in the recent same-sex marriage reference, courts in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Yukon are now unanimously of the view that a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The consensus of constitutional experts is that these decisions are correct. You must explain to Canadians how your plan to entrench the traditional definition of marriage will pass constitutional muster. The truth is, there is only one way to accomplish your goal: invoke the notwithstanding clause. Premier Klein has been honest with Canadians on this subject. You must be completely candid with Canadians as well.

If Parliament were to adopt your proposal and define marriage to exclude same sex couples, this legislation would very quickly end up in court, and be struck down as unconstitutional. However, the Charter allows Parliament to have the last word on many issues of fundamental rights, through the notwithstanding clause. Frankly, we do not think this is an appropriate case for the use of this extraordinary provision. However, if you believe that same-sex couples should be prohibited from getting married, you should propose legislative amendments that include a notwithstanding provision.

The fact that you want Parliament to enact clearly unconstitutional legislation and adopt the traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause leads us to suspect that you are playing politics with the Supreme Court and the Charter. The use of the notwithstanding clause would have to be justified to Canadians, who overwhelmingly support the Charter. Not using the notwithstanding clause therefore protects opponents of same sex marriage from political controversy. And if the Supreme Court judgment struck down the opposite sex definition of marriage, opponents of same sex marriage would blame the Court for challenging Parliament's will.

In short, those who oppose same sex marriage without supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause are shifting political accountability from themselves to the Supreme Court. Rather than ending the Supreme Court's involvement, it would further embroil the Court in this issue. You should either invoke the use of the notwithstanding clause, and justify this decision to Canadians, or concede that same-sex marriage is now part of Canada's legal landscape. If you intend to override Canadians' constitutional rights, you at least owe it to them to say this openly and directly. Canadians deserve better.

Sincerely,

Professor Sujit Choudhry, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor Jean-Fran�ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Faculty of Law

Additional co-signers:

Professor Wendy Adams, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Professor Sharryn Aiken, Faculty of Law, Queen�s University Professor Jennifer Bankier, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Benjamin Alarie, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Reem Bahdi, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professeur Andr� B�langer, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professor D. G. Bell, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick Professeure Marie-Claire Belleau, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professor Benjamin Berger, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professor Jeff Berryman, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor W. A. Bogart, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professeur Thierry Bourgoignie, D�partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM
Professor Susan Boyd, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Professor Kim Brooks, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Professor Jutta Brunn�e, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Karen Busby, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Gillian Calder, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professor Angela Campbell, Faculty of Law, McGill University Professor Timothy Caulfield, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Professor Aloke Chatterjee, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Rebecca Cook, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Brenda Cossman, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeure Gis�le C�t�-Harper, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professor Steve Coughlan, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Carys Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professeur Francois Cr�peau, Facult� de droit, Universit� de Montr�al
Professor Robert J. Currie, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professeur Hugo Cyr, Facult� de science politique et de droit, UQAM. Dean Ronald Daniels, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor T. Brettel Dawson, Department of Law, Carleton University Professor Maneesha Deckha, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professeure �dith Deleury, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professor Thomas J. Denholm, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Richard Devlin, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Aaron Dhir, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Bernard Dickens, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Meinhard Doelle, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Susan Drummond, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Professeur Nicole Dupl�, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval
Professor David G. Duff, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor David Dyzenhaus, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Lisa Karen Fainstein, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba
Professor Angela Fernandez, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor M. Michelle Gallant, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Daphne Gilbert, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Joan Gilmour, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professeure Michelle Giroux, Facult� de droit, Section de droit civil, Universit� d'Ottawa
Professor Myron Gochnauer, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Randal Graham, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
Professor Leslie Green, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor Donna Greschner, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
Professeure Sylvette Guillemard, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professeure Paule Halley, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval
Professor Winifred Holland, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
Dean Patricia Hughes, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
Professor Allan Hutchinson, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Professor Frederick Innis, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professeur Pierre Issalys, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval
Professor Martha Jackman, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Richard Janda, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Professor Rebecca Johnson, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professor Darlene Johnston, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Larissa Katz, Faculty of Law, Queen�s University
Professeur Pierre-Claude Lafond, Science politique et droit, UQAM Professeur Christelle Landheer-Cieslak, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval
Professeure Louise Langevin, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professeur Andr� Lareau, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professeure Sophie Lavall�e, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professeure Nicole LaViolette, Common Law, Universit� d'Ottawa Professeur S�bastien Lebel-Grenier, Facult� de droit, Universit� de Sherbrooke
Doyen Pierre Lemieux, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval
Professor Trudo Lemmens, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeure Katherine Lippel, Facult� de science politique et de droit, UQAM
Professor Jennifer Llewellyn, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor A. Wayne MacKay, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Patrick Macklem, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Audrey Macklin, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Kathleen Mahoney, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary Professor Carissima Mathen, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Brian M. Mazer, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Professor Kent McNeil, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor Errol Mendes, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Armand de Mestral, Faculty of Law, McGill University Professor Sophia Reibetanz Moreau, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor Mayo Moran, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeur Christine Morin, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professor Ronalda Murphy, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Roxanne Mykitiuk, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Professor Jennifer Nedelsky, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Ken Norman, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan Professeur Genevi�ve Parent, Facult� de droit, Universit� Laval Professor Debra Parkes, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Karen Pearlston, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Steven Penney, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Lisa Philipps, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Dr. Jo-Anne Pickel, Department of Law, Carleton University
Professor Sukanya Pillay, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Michael Pratt, Faculty of Law, Queen�s University
Doyen Daniel Proulx, Facult� de droit, Universit� de Sherbrooke Professor Ren� Provost, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Professor Melanie Randall, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Denise R�aume, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Arthur Ripstein, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Annie Rochette, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Professor Carol Rogerson, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeure Louise Rolland, Facult� de droit, Universit� de Montr�al Professeur Alain Roy, Facult� de droit, Universit� de Montr�al Professor Bruce Ryder, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor Teresa Scassa, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor David Schneiderman, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Jennifer Schulz, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Martha Shaffer, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Colleen Sheppard, Faculty of Law, McGill University Professor Barney Sneiderman, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Daniel Soberman, Faculty of Law, Queen�s University Professor Lorne Sossin, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Hamish Stewart, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor James Stribopoulos, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Professor David Tanovich, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Myra J. Tawfik, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Lorna Turnbull, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Marcia Valiante, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professeur Jean-Pierre Villaggi, Facult� de science politique et de droit, UQAM
Professor Rose Voyvodic, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Rosemary Cairns Way, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Michelle Williams, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor John A. Yogis, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Claire Young, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Professor Margot Young, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Professor Frederick Zemans, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I see people are scared of her. And you're dead wrong. I did not vote conservative. I always voted for the best person in my riding, and never cared which political party the person I vote for represents. I vote for the person who will speak out on my behalf, who wants to make a change and do something for the region I live in. I didn't vote for her a year and a half ago, because she was new to the scene and inexperienced. I'd never vote for a backbencher who sits on his ass, because he's a member of an admirable party. Harper didn't give a rat's ass about her opinions and her ambitions, so it's her old party's fault she left, not hers. You vote for party? You take that risk of party migration. You vote for a candidate, that person will still work for you. That is why it's the name that's in big bold letters on the ballot, and not the party.

Buddy i dont know what sort of contorted view of reality you have, and judging by you avatar which im assuming is you your a little older and should have realized by now, unless your clueless, not a single politician really gives a rats ass about you or me or anyone else. They care about votes, so dont even kid yourself if you think any of these people are "speaking out on your behalf". Its about votes and which one of them can get into office and find a loop hole in the system to get themselves some extra cash and get a new Benz.

So no matter who you vote for your not gooing to see them do much of what they promise they will, and your just gonna bitch about it in the end anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Mr. Harper (regardless of his merit as a policywog) suffers from a severe lack of style.

While I do believe that he doesn't play the game as well as a party leader should, I'm not sure if it's as severe as some people believe. Have you watched him speak, either in a campaign speech or in parliament, or are you making assumptions based on second-hand information (such as the news media or your peers)?

If you've seen it firsthand, and that's what you believe, then you're entitled to that and I certainly won't press on that issue; however, I think a lot of what we're seeing is exactly what happened with the Kerry vs. Bush campaign in the U.S. The mass media loved (and still loves) to portray Bush as a cowboy who can barely speak English and any competing Democrat (in that case Kerry) as an incredibly well-spoken individual just oozing with great ideas and hard-hitting arguments. But in reality it was the other way around - Bush did screw up from time to time but it was Kerry who really kept putting his foot in his mouth, he couldn't even keep his platform consistent from one day to the next. All he did was bash the Republicans no matter what they did.

Anyway, that may seem like an irrelevant diversion into U.S. politics, but the point I'm making is that Americans actually watched the campaign first-hand and voted based on that. The rest of the world, especially most Canadians, just heard about the campaign filtered through the news media and to this date still believe that Bush has a sub-moronic IQ and that only the "rednecks" voted for him. Harper really isn't that terrible a speaker - he's actually pretty good, even if he's not as suave as Trudeau or Clinton. I'd put him at least on par with Martin, who certainly isn't a public speaking genius.

My problem with Harper is that he's adopting the same pathetic strategy that the Democrats used in the U.S. election - he's just relentlessly attacking the Liberals without addressing the real issues and giving us some numbers and a real agenda. It's too easy for people to talk about his "hidden agenda" when he doesn't tell us his real agenda. And when he does talk about his agenda, it seems to suck, i.e. lowering the GST instead of income tax. But even with that, he *is* just playing the game, because Canadians are accustomed to income tax but everybody hates the GST. So I have reason to be critical of Harper because he doesn't seem to be taking a very fiscally conservative position, but I think he actually IS "playing the game" for all the Joe Sixpacks out there - the problem is, nobody's listening, because after 12 years of Liberal leadership they've simply come to accept the Liberal party as the natural governing party of Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory And the last I heard this was a forum where insults were suposed to be limited. Of course I guess old habits die hard diginut...

Please point me to the insult, because I'm not seeing it. It's starting to look like any real debate is an "insult" to you.

And yes, I read the whiney letter about same-sex marriage. I really don't care. Honestly, it's really not that important an issue compared to our economy, our international relations, and government corruption. It affects maybe 1% of the population. He's barely even mentioned the issue.

All Harper even wants to do is put to a vote. I'm not going to debate here whether or not gays "should" have the "right" to marry - let's just hypothetically say that yes, they should. Fine, but the courts still overstepped their bounds trying to force the issue, and it does involve a constitutional change, which is something that's supposed to be put to a referendum.

Is this an unpopular move for Harper? Definitely. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. Is it really that important? Hardly. It affects neither you nor I nor 99% of Canadians. Milking billions of dollars out of our pockets affects us. Liberal tax-and-spend policies affects us. 6-month waiting lists at hospitals affects us. Gay marriage as a "hot-button" issue is something I really lost interest in about 6 months ago.

Harper SHOULD just let it go, but his stance on that is not going to deter me from the real issues (mainly the LPC's racketeering and how he plans to reform the government, pay off our debt, balance our budget and lower our taxes).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Please point me to the insult, because I'm not seeing it. It's starting to look like any real debate is an "insult" to you. And yes, I read the whiney letter about same-sex marriage. I really don't care. Honestly, it's really not that important an issue compared to our economy, our international relations, and government corruption. It affects maybe 1% of the population. He's barely even mentioned the issue. All Harper even wants to do is put to a vote. I'm not going to debate here whether or not gays "should" have the "right" to marry - let's just hypothetically say that yes, they should. Fine, but the courts still overstepped their bounds trying to force the issue, and it does involve a constitutional change, which is something that's supposed to be put to a referendum. Is this an unpopular move for Harper? Definitely. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. Is it really that important? Hardly. It affects neither you nor I nor 99% of Canadians. Milking billions of dollars out of our pockets affects us. Liberal tax-and-spend policies affects us. 6-month waiting lists at hospitals affects us. Gay marriage as a "hot-button" issue is something I really lost interest in about 6 months ago. Harper SHOULD just let it go, but his stance on that is not going to deter me from the real issues (mainly the LPC's racketeering and how he plans to reform the government, pay off our debt, balance our budget and lower our taxes).

I guess this is where we differ greatly. I do deam moral issues as being important. It paints the identity of this country, and it is imperative that we maintain a mandate of equality.

I am well aware that the liberals have done something awful, but I sincerely believe the same will occur with the conservatives, and that is absolute. I can post many proven conservative failures of years past, provincially and federally. but it will not do anything. Peple will still balk at me and come up with some piece of contradiction.

Evey party has its bout of corruption, and the only reason the liberals are in the spotlight is that they got caught. Please, you really think Harper is using this because he cares about the rest of Canada! c'mon.

Gilles Duceppe may be the only person who actually cares how this affects people, for he is the only won made a fuss before anyone who listened. I am a leftist with pragmatic views, and so far even the NDP fails to see reality.

We will never have exactly what we want, especially in the area of taxes, money, anything financial. If one wants utopia, move to Sweden

Politics is what it has always been, a game of ego and very good performing. What we as Canadians have to start doing, is measure what is important to us, and not conforming to what should be valued. We sit here and banter on forums, but we don't appeal to the system, because it would take actual work! weeks, months, even years of work.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory I am well aware that the liberals have done something awful, but I sincerely believe the same will occur with the conservatives, and that is absolute. I can post many proven conservative failures of years past, provincially and federally. but it will not do anything. Peple will still balk at me and come up with some piece of contradiction. Evey party has its bout of corruption, and the only reason the liberals are in the spotlight is that they got caught. Please, you really think Harper is using this because he cares about the rest of Canada! c'mon.

If you can come up with a list of scandals perpetrated by the Conservatives that comes even close to what we've seen from the Liberals in the last 10 years, I will bow to your position and vote Liberal in the upcoming election. To say that they're only in the spotlight because they got caught... if you are unable or unwilling to infer whether or not someone is trustworthy based on real, tangible evidence, then you really shouldn't vote.

I wouldn't be too worried about our "identity" either. We're already the laughing stock of the rest of the world because we have no military and our "culture" is just a balkanized version of the USA. I'll vote for the candidate who can recognize the difference between equal opportunity and equal results.

And Sweden = utopia? Was that a joke? Do I look like a Socialist to you? Utopia to me is a place with no taxes and no government programs except for the police, the courts, and the military. I may never see that in my lifetime but I can at least vote for the government that will take us one step closer instead of 10 steps further away.

quote:

We sit here and banter on forums, but we don't appeal to the system, because it would take actual work! weeks, months, even years of work.

Speak for yourself.

great posts diginut

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I'm a moron if I vote for Belinda Stronach... plain and simple, no matter what half of my brain im using, there is no better choice in my region. No matter which party she's with, like it or not, Daddy will pay for her campaign.

Interesting reason for chosing to vote for her!

Someone said earlier that LGBTs only make up 1% of the population? More like 10% or more.

A lot of big corporations have picked up on the fact that a lot of people in the gay community have money, power, and sway... that's why Pride has been so heavily corporate sponsored as of late. A lot of those people probably vote, too... maybe even a majority of them, since one of the Conservative election issues deals directly with their rights.

So, 10% of people can have a LOT of sway when we're looking at minority governments. If Harper loses, this might be a big reason why.

I think a lot of people are afraid of having a conservative government led by Harper, whether those fears are valid or not, they'll probably vote for Martin, even though they might think he's a dickwad.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory I guess this is where we differ greatly. I do deam moral issues as being important. It paints the identity of this country, and it is imperative that we maintain a mandate of equality. I am well aware that the liberals have done something awful, but I sincerely believe the same will occur with the conservatives, and that is absolute. I can post many proven conservative failures of years past, provincially and federally. but it will not do anything. Peple will still balk at me and come up with some piece of contradiction. Evey party has its bout of corruption, and the only reason the liberals are in the spotlight is that they got caught. Please, you really think Harper is using this because he cares about the rest of Canada! c'mon. Gilles Duceppe may be the only person who actually cares how this affects people, for he is the only won made a fuss before anyone who listened. I am a leftist with pragmatic views, and so far even the NDP fails to see reality. We will never have exactly what we want, especially in the area of taxes, money, anything financial. If one wants utopia, move to Sweden Politics is what it has always been, a game of ego and very good performing. What we as Canadians have to start doing, is measure what is important to us, and not conforming to what should be valued. We sit here and banter on forums, but we don't appeal to the system, because it would take actual work! weeks, months, even years of work.

Having gay unions named civil union instead of marriage is much much less demoralizing than having a party steal and embezzle hundreds of millions of dollars and then pull slight of hand tricks with the public in order to make them think they are honest again.

Ill take the conservatives over the liberals at this point, any day.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory We will never have exactly what we want, especially in the area of taxes, money, anything financial. If one wants utopia, move to Sweden

Ask our resident swede about this one. Even in the left wing utopia they have gone to a system of mixed private and public health care. Even sweden has realized that 100% public is unsustainable. When will Canada ever figure this out?

Has anyone actually seen Harper talk about gay marriage issue in this campaign?

I haven't...

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Has anyone actually seen Harper talk about gay marriage issue in this campaign? I haven't...

me neither. He mentioned it once when asked by a CBC reporter and said the same thing as he's always said. "He would let the elected parliament decide instead of a court ruling by an unelected judge"

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 me neither. He mentioned it once when asked by a CBC reporter and said the same thing as he's always said. "He would let the elected parliament decide instead of a court ruling by an unelected judge"

That was after he realized how it could affect his votes. It's his a safe, empty answer. Before that, he wouldn't hesitate to state he would push against same-sex marriage... saying it threatens the "sanctity" of marriage and it may lead to moves to legalize polygamy and even worse things.

Whether he claims to leave it to a free vote or not, many gay people aren't likely going to vote for somebody who they know is against gay marriage. It doesn't matter if he said it explicity during this campaign. People know how he feels about the issue and many will vote accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet That was after he realized how it could affect his votes. It's his a safe, empty answer. Before that, he wouldn't hesitate to state he would push against same-sex marriage... saying it threatens the "sanctity" of marriage and it may lead to moves to legalize polygamy and even worse things. Whether he claims to leave it to a free vote or not, many gay people aren't likely going to vote for somebody who they know is against gay marriage. It doesn't matter if he said it explicity during this campaign. People know how he feels about the issue and many will vote accordingly.

I think those are his personal views which is fine. It doesnt mean he will let it affect his policy other than to bring it to a democratic vote in parliament. Chretien was a "devout" catholic which by very definition means he should be against abortion but you never saw any fuss about that.

Why the double standard?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I think those are his personal views which is fine. It doesnt mean he will let it affect his policy other than to bring it to a democratic vote in parliament. Chretien was a "devout" catholic which by very definition means he should be against abortion but you never saw any fuss about that. Why the double standard?

Because Chretien and Martin never hinted at using the notwithstanding clause to remove rights to same-sex marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I think those are his personal views which is fine. It doesnt mean he will let it affect his policy other than to bring it to a democratic vote in parliament. Chretien was a "devout" catholic which by very definition means he should be against abortion but you never saw any fuss about that.

Also, Chretien was adamant about keeping church and state separate.

Getting back to my earlier post regarding the letter that was written and backed by several law faculties in Canada, I think he realises it's it's the law of the land, and therefore, a dead issue.

Harper has more pressing issues to urge, first and foremost the sponsorship scandal to all Canadians and how he will not betray them.

I am not a liberal, I am a Leftist.

By request, speaking of conservative scandals, here is one for you to read:

Critics shocked by hydro deals

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet Because Chretien and Martin never hinted at using the notwithstanding clause to remove rights to same-sex marriage.

i think it was the media that insinuated that more than harper. Remember the left leaning media likes to paint him as a bogeyman. I honestly cant see any changes to the present state of marriage other than that it will have been endorsed by parliament

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory Getting back to my earlier post regarding the letter that was written and backed by several law faculties in Canada, I think he realises it's it's the law of the land, and therefore, a dead issue. Harper has more pressing issues to urge, first and foremost the sponsorship scandal to all Canadians and how he will not betray them. I am not a liberal, I am a Leftist. By request, speaking of conservative scandals, here is one for you to read: Critics shocked by hydro deals

Meanwhile thats a completely different party under a provincial government. Nothing to do with federal conservatives. You wont see me using dalton's lying record to defame the feds although they do seem to have a lot in common.

As for the hydro business. Yes that was a definate black mark on the harris days.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 i think it was the media that insinuated that more than harper. Remember the left leaning media likes to paint him as a bogeyman. I honestly cant see any changes to the present state of marriage other than that it will have been endorsed by parliament

One more thing about putting it to a free vote:

Many gays probably don't want their now established right to marriage to be put on the line. A liberal gov't would probably leave them and let them get married

Chretien said something like human rights of a minority should not be decided in a referendum by the majority.

I do agree however, that the left-wing media can be pretty biased in their representation.

But anyways, as I was saying, if Harper loses, it could well be because he lost most of the gay vote.

On a side note, I was reviewing footage at a Docmunetary company I used to intern at. It was of the filmmaker asking the party leaders if they thought Canada was 'cool'. Harper was the only one who replied about the weather. lol

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet Because Chretien and Martin never hinted at using the notwithstanding clause to remove rights to same-sex marriage.

lol the only reason they have these rights is because martin forced the vote, which was bullshit. If it was done properly by the liberals in the first place, it would never have come to this and would be a non issue for harper. But martin wanted to be known as the PM that legalized it so it was done undemocratically.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.