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 »
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
post whichever reason tickles your fancy 
how about because this is what he talks about the day Parliament is dissolved...did he learn NOTHING from the last election campaign???
| quote: |
| Harper vows free vote on gay marriage Nov. 29, 2005. 02:13 PM CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA � Conservative Leader Stephen Harper launched his campaign today by steering it straight into the electoral turbulence of gay marriage. A Conservative government would move to restore the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supports the idea, he said. "It will be a genuine free vote when I'm prime minister. I will not whip our cabinet," he said referring to the process by which Paul Martin's ministers were forced last summer to support a bill that legalized gay weddings. Harper would consider the matter closed if MPs don't support introducing new legislation to once again define marriage as the exclusive domain of one man, one woman. Either way, Harper promised to preserve more than 3,000 gay marriages already performed across Canada. "That's the commitment we've made and it hasn't changed," he said in the lobby outside the House of Commons. Harper made a point of raising the thorny issue even after his handlers had cut off questions from reporters. He believes same-sex couples should be recognized through civil unions that set out economic rights but don't infringe on traditional marriage. In the 2004 election, the Tory stance against gay weddings cost the party crucial support in urban Ontario and among younger voters. It also helped the Liberals to portray Harper as a kind of far-right bogey man who would undercut the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They wasted no time today. "Mr. Harper begins his campaign with an unequivocal statement that, if elected prime minister, he would act swiftly to roll back charter rights," Martin spokesman Scott Reid said soon after Harper's comments. Gay activists were dismayed. "It's really disheartening," said Gilles Marchildon, executive director of EGALE Canada. "What does that say about our confidence in the government, that when a law is passed we can rely on it? Instead of creating conditions that bring peace, order and good government, it's chaos, confusion and uncertainty." Marchildon says the issue was decided after a two-year national debate. "A decision was made, and I think a majority of Canadians � whether or not they agree with the outcome � agree that we should move on." Not so, says former Liberal MP Pat O'Brien. He has teamed with ex-Tory Grant Hill to form Defend Marriage Canada. They plan to raise money, publish letters and lobby voters during the campaign to elect candidates who oppose gay marriage. O'Brien quit the Liberals over the issue to sit as an Independent MP and is not running for re-election. He says same-sex weddings are not over in the minds of "millions of Canadians." But most legal experts agree that a raft of court judgments and a reference opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada give the Conservatives little room to move. Heather MacIvor, a political scientist at University of Windsor, recently published the book Canadian Politics and Government in the Charter Era. She leads a seminar class on the Supreme Court opinion and says the high court was clear that marriage, under the Constitution, now includes gay couples. "You can't use the notwithstanding clause to override the division of powers in the 1867 Constitution." The court also stressed "that same-sex marriage is not opposed to the values and principles of the Charter � it flows from them," MacIvor said. "This is the law of the land and we cannot go back on it. I don't know if it's just that (Harper) doesn't have anybody in his entourage . . . who is capable of explaining this to him, or if it's just that he's ignoring all of these facts. He knows that his political base doesn't like same-sex marriage." |
further to that...
so Martin will walk around talking about how 400,000 jobs were created last year, unemployment is at a 30 year low, the dollar is strong, inflation is low, interest rates are low, and more than 80 billion in debt has been paid down during Liberal administrations. Then he'll talk about all of the spending initiatives that the opposition is endangering by forcing the election.
yet Harper is going to make gay marriage a major issue again...good job, Stephen! 
The man is never going to be PM until he amends his gameplan...this didn't work last time, it won't work this time. He is NOT going to increase his voter base by making this an important issue and allowing the Liberals to paint his party as having anti-gay agenda (not saying they do, but it's easy to spin it that way when he includes this in his speech virtually immediately at the beginning of an election campaign).
As I said in the past Harper is an idiot and there is no way he'll win any election in this country.He is wasting his time and everyone elses by bringing issues that are not important.
If you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, you either need a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives.
As for Lieberal economic "success," check these out.
http://www.td.com/economics/topic/bc0105_wellbeing.pdf
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt01b.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertic...lance_in_Canada
Canada has been able to stay afloat due to proximity to the U.S.
Because the man simply cannot eat 3 Double Big Macs in one sitting. What a fucking pussy. I don't want a pussy as a prime minister.
i dont think harper should have brought this up so soon in lol, but whatever, hes not the best when it comes to timing...but, he is right, there should have been a free vote in the first place, martin was more up on making histroy instead. Polls show that majority of canadians didn't agree with the way it was done by martin, harper knows this, everyone should know this if ur up on politics, which is why hes going to have a fair free democratic vote. I agree with what hes doing 100% because we are supposed to have a democracy in the commons, not a forced vote by your pm, i really dont see how someone can disagree with this. He wants a free vote like how it should have been done if the first place, if it passes, then the matter is closed. Harper is not anti gay, hes fixing something that wasn't done properly in the first place. But i dont think Harper should campaign on it, talk about it here or there but it should be a background issue, not something to campaign on
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShadoWolf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertic...lance_in_Canada Canada has been able to stay afloat due to proximity to the U.S. |
How about because Harper (like any Conservative) would destroy
this flourishing economy as they've ALWAYS done....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT so Martin will walk around talking about how 400,000 jobs were created last year, unemployment is at a 30 year low, the dollar is strong, inflation is low, interest rates are low, and more than 80 billion in debt has been paid down during Liberal administrations. Then he'll talk about all of the spending initiatives that the opposition is endangering by forcing the election. |
Why Harper wont be PM?
Answer: Because one in 3 canadians really are that stupid....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jayx1 Why Harper wont be PM? Answer: Because one in 3 canadians really are that stupid.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jayx1 Why Harper wont be PM? Answer: Because one in 3 canadians really are that stupid.... |
MEDIA BIAS ALERT
Watch Harper's speech here (the first 3 minutes suck IMO, but it gets good when he talks about the Lieberal hunger for power):
http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleN...ion2006&no_ads=
Did he mention gay marriage even once? It's not a priority of the party, yet the media want to bring it to the fore.
Harper will not win because Ontario will vote liberal....as long as the conservatives don't have a leader from Ontario or Quebec they don't stand a chance.
The rest of the country is basically meaningless when it comes to elections.
At this point I don't even care who gets elected. There is going to me no dramatic changes in any of our lives if Harper is the leader or if Martin is the leader.
And it is going to be another minority government so in another year we will do this all again.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShadoWolf If you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, you either need a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives. ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut He can talk all he wants but it doesn't make any of those things actually true. Oh, they did create about 350,000 jobs - and destroyed another 450,000. You're right about Harper though, it was an *incredibly* stupid move to kick off his campaign with such a controversial yet trivial issue. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT I think we addressed your *stupid* idea of rights being "taken away" the last time around. again, I fail to see what a hetero married couple has "lost" or had "taken away" from them anyway...not the point...that Harper made this one of his early election issues demonstrates that's he learned nothing from his previous failure to appeal to voters. |
Conservatives, LETS GO.
My student house is very politically divided, I doubt I'll get away with posting a conservative lawn sign, but I've ordered one anyways!
canadians still don't forget the face of Mulroney when "conservatives" is brought to mind - never mind the failure to remove the GST... you think we forget how it got there in the first place? 
you think we forget that today's conservatives are a rebranded alliance which was a rebranded reform party? do they really represent different interests and values? we weren't interested in the extremes that either of their previous brands wanted to bring to the table.
if conservatives want in, they better start talking about what they are going to do that's so much better rather than making people wanna vomit with the endless repetition of AdScam! speak up about your policies or stfu, conservatives... tell us how yer gonna HELP US.
oh yeah, and ditch this wolf in sheep's clothing called Harper. chances of winning the election may go uppppp.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT I think we addressed your *stupid* idea of rights being "taken away" the last time around. again, I fail to see what a hetero married couple has "lost" or had "taken away" from them |
| quote: |
| Adscam no swindle next to C-38 By DOUGLAS FARROW June 16, 2005 Procreation is not among the definitive goods of the institution of marriage, right? It once was, but we�ve abandoned all that. If same-sex marriage is to be an equality right, procreation can�t be one of marriage�s basic, indispensable goods. Marriage isn�t about children anymore. As the Bloc MP, R�al M�nard, put it in the recent parliamentary hearings, it�s �stone-age� thinking to connect marriage to children. Okay, so what�s with the �consequential amendments� in Bill C-38? (These should not be confused with the largely inconsequential amendments to C-38 that are presently before Parliament.) Why are there several sections of the bill inserting into Canadian laws the concept of �legal parent� and �legal parent-child relationship,� where once these laws referred to �natural parent� and �natural parent-child relationship�? The answer is this. In order to make gays equal to straights (so the argument goes) same-sex unions have to be made equal to heterosexual unions. That�s what same-sex marriage is all about. But how can they be equal when heterosexual unions produce children? Easy! For civil purposes, strip heterosexual couples of their natural relationship to their children (even their �blood relationship,� another term C-38 removes) and give them back instead a legal relationship, something assigned not by nature but by the state. A legal relationship can just as easily be given to homosexual couples who happen to want children around, presuming of course that they can procure children by one means or another. There, everybody�s equal now! What�s more, natural parents will not be able to challenge legal parents as to the ownership of a child or demand right of access. Indeed, in some jurisdictions (Quebec, for example) even a child�s birth certificate may be made to show only the legal parents and not the natural parents. Little Pierre has two moms � look, his birth certificate says so. Funny thing, though. It seems that marriage is somehow about children after all. First we say it�s not, because it can�t be if we want homosexual unions to be strictly on a par with heterosexual unions. Then we say that it is, by demanding for same-sex couples the exact same �parental� status and rights as heterosexual couples. I shouldn�t doubt that the next thing that will happen is that some enterprising homosexual couple will insist that Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which links �the right to marry and to found a family,� implies that they are entitled to the state�s help to procure a child by whatever means necessary. And while we�re paying the bills for the new little clone, or whatever the unfortunate child is, no one will even notice that we took procreation out of marriage in order to permit same-sex marriage, only to bring it back in again as soon as we had same-sex marriage. Well, some might notice it. But they would not yet have noticed the really important thing. I mean the real price Canadians are paying for same-sex marriage: the handing over of our natural rights to our own children, and of our children�s natural rights to us. C-38 implies that the state is no longer obligated to recognize these rights. From now on parent-child relationships will be at the state�s discretion. For, in redefining marriage, the state has also found it necessary to redefine �parent� and �family� and �parent-child relationship.� Under C-38, all of these become legal constructs. Marriage and family become creatures of the state. Not something prior to the state that the state is obliged to recognize and respect � the whole purpose and intent of Article 16 � but something at the disposal of the state. Why are Canadians willing to pay this price? Could it be because they don�t know that they are paying it? Because they haven�t bothered to read the fine print? One thing is clear. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister haven�t bothered to point it out to them. Nor have the lawyers at the Justice Department or the judges in our highest courts. Nor yet the �equal marriage� advocates, inside or outside the House of Commons. All have insisted that C-38 has no price attached to it worth speaking of. But C-38 is arguably the greatest swindle in Canadian history. A thousand Adscams could never add up to anything like it. What�s a few millions.against our very birthright? What�s a few billions against the foundations of our freedom? From here on we are our children�s parents, and our parents� children, only at the good pleasure of the state. Think I�m kidding? Just watch what happens to those who insist on teaching their children that the state has no such authority as it pretends to exercise in C-38, and that same sex-marriage is not marriage at all, just a legal fiction. That is what I intend to teach my children, and anyone else who will listen, as I said to the Legislative Committee on C-38 when I addressed it last week. I�ll let you know how it goes. Douglas Farrow is co-editor of Divorcing Marriage and associate professor of Christian Thought at McGill University. |
Let's also not forget that Mulroney was a 2 TERM PM. I believe he was reelected in 87 or 88.
As for notwithstanding clause, doesn't Quebec use that over its language laws?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Moral Hazard agreed. I really fail to see how my marriage is less valid because a gentleman down the hall from my office married a man two weeks before I married my wife. Please someone explain this to me because the position just doesn't wash. |
| quote: |
| What may be the most important thing to recognize here is that the Charter gives the right to marry to all Canadians regardless of whom they choose to marry. |
| quote: |
| In order to deny the right of homosexuals to marry one would have to either a) ammend the constitution, of b) use the notwithstanding clause. |
| quote: |
| As I have mentioned before opening up the constitutional debate, at present, would likely result in the end of this confederation (which may in fact be the goal of some of the more radical grassroots members of the Conservatives, however, I do not believe it is party policy). Using the notwithstanding clause is dangerous. By invoking section 33 the federal government would be saying that they reject our own constitution. Moreover, the invokation of this section challenges the rule of law as it effectively lets the government act in a dictitorial manner. Finally, we must remember that section 33 allows for a charter right to be revoked for a period not more then 5 years ("(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration."). Granted the government would always be able to re-enact the section, however, this would be up to the government of the day. Subsequently, we would likely end up in a position where gay marriages are declared illegal during periods of Conservative rule and legal during periods of rule by any other party. This type of uncertainty is simply not acceptable nor is it acceptable to have a federal government that will disregard it's own constitution.... such things occur in totalitarian regimes, not free and just societies. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShadoWolf Bill C-38: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...4381&List=toc-1 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/...e-sex-marriage/ The new law, Bill C-38, implements that change by redefining parenthood from natural parenthood to legal parenthood � from an institution defined by biology, to one defined solely by law. What the law previously treated as an exception to the norm of biological parents, it now treats as the norm. Biological parents no longer have any status in law. Legal parenthood replaces it. What the state gives (legality), it can take away. The bottom line is: if you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, at least the process should be democratic (a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShadoWolf Your marriage can benefit society through procreation while their union can't. Wrong. The Supreme Court refused to say that a law restricting the term "marriage" to hetero couples was unconstitutional. Further, civil unions would be constitutional if they offer the same rights and privileges as marriages. The notwithstanding clause need not be used as long as civil unions grant the same rights/privileges as marriages. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShadoWolf Bill C-38: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...4381&List=toc-1 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/...e-sex-marriage/ The new law, Bill C-38, implements that change by redefining parenthood from natural parenthood to legal parenthood � from an institution defined by biology, to one defined solely by law. What the law previously treated as an exception to the norm of biological parents, it now treats as the norm. Biological parents no longer have any status in law. Legal parenthood replaces it. What the state gives (legality), it can take away. ... The bottom line is: if you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, at least the process should be democratic (a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives). |
Keep your Chrisitian values to yourself, thanks, and leave them out of a LEGAL debate.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.