Toronto Escorts

Were Harpers attacks over the line

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
Comparing the martin and the liberals to the government of the day that didn't allow the jewish refugees into canada and for the japanese camps in WWII. I really find these kind of attacks to be offensive
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
[font=&quot]They were stupid comments and proof once again how politicians like to blow smoke over an issue rather than discuss or, heaven forbid, actually debate the issue. I so much want to see an alternative to the Federal Liberals in Canada but every time Harper opens his mouth he's embarrassing and extreme.
[/font]
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
I agree that they were a smidgen over the line, but they got the point out IMO.

From http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/02/17/933211-sun.html

But Harper said it was becoming old hat to hear Liberals say only they hold the key to what it means to be Canadian. "The greater message in his speech is that if we do not accept his particular views on this piece of legislation then we are not truly Canadian, and that, Mr. Speaker, is something that this party will never accept."

Harper said the Liberal party drapes itself in the Charter of Rights like it drapes itself in the flag and is in a poor position to boast about its human rights record.

If you hear his comments in context, and not just a line or two pulled out, you'll see where he was going with the comments. That's the big problem with some of the media these days, they take a statement like Harper's and don't give the entire context.


For example, someone could quote me as saying that "the Jewish people control most of the money in Canada", where I really said that "through their business savvy and hard working ethic, the Jewish people control most of the money in Canada". Which isn't racist/anti-semetic, it's my opinion of the truth.


Now before you jump down my throat on this, the above example is just that, an example. I have no idea who controls the money in Canada, but I know for a fact it isn't me.
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
I understood the context Goober and I still think the comments were harsh given that ALL political parties have in their past things they are not entirely proud of. The comparison was extreme and it does nothing to answer the question of equality. Sure the Liberals, made mistakes. But they have learned and are trying to send a message through the current legislation. Harper is playing to "social conservatives" and not to mainstream Canada.

The point is what have the "Conservatives" learned? I use this term loosely because it's my belief that the current Conservative Party is nothing more than a regional Party. The word "Progressive" was lost when the Reform Party was started.

Sorry off topic.

Bring back the Conservatives of the Mulroney era. It may be old hat that the Liberals "say they know what it means to be Canadian" but that's because Harper has painted his party into a corner they can't possibly make it out of. The words of Harper doesn't resonate with mainstream Canada and it shows consistently in every Federal Election.

While this country and most of the world moves "forward" on these types of issues Harper and his like will continue to be stuck in the past.
 

loveasian

New member
Oct 29, 2002
22
0
0
On a chair...
Paul Martin did the same thing

In the PM's speech, before Harper's, he was going on and on about rights, blah blah blah. He then references a time when women could vote and when Sikhs couldn't wear turbans in the RCMP, an obvious shot at Mulroney and thus the current Conservatives. So was he wrong to do that?

I think Harper's point was that Liberals, as he said "drap themselves in the flag". They love saying they enacted the Charter and have this attitude of arrogance and superiority. I think Harper maybe extended himself a little too much but it's hard to make an impact when Toronto (thus most media) is cheering against you.

Ultimately it distracting from his main thesis that marriage isn't a "human right". Interestingly, I've yet to hear from one commentator or Liberal politician stand up and say that it is.

By the way, a little research turned up some interesting info regarding two groups that criticized Harper. This from a Sun article: "Pat Case, chairman of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, blasted the Conservative leader for suggesting the legalization of same-sex marriage is the "latest fad" of the Liberal government. "To brush off this very important issue . . . is the government's fad du jour is disrespectful to the important work we do every day," Case said. A national director of the National Association of Japanese Canadians said it was wrong-headed for Harper to cite the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War as an example of Liberal violations of human rights. "Mr. Harper is resorting to cheap political shots at deceased politicians rather than facing the inconsistency of his position on human rights," Audrey Kobayashi said in a statement released Thursday."

It turns out the Canadian Race Relations Foundation received $12 million grant from both the Federal Government (Liberals) and the National Association of Japanese Canadians. $24,000,000!!! No wonder they support the Liberals on this issue or any other!
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
loveasian said:
Ultimately it distracting from his main thesis that marriage isn't a "human right". Interestingly, I've yet to hear from one commentator or Liberal politician stand up and say that it is.
From the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

What defines a family?

The point still remains that if you don't believe that gay marriage is a right than there is no way anyone can convince you otherwise just as you will never convince me it isn't a right.
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
Cardinal Fang said:
From the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


The point still remains that if you don't believe that gay marriage is a right than there is no way anyone can convince you otherwise just as you will never convince me it isn't a right.
*cough*

Article 16.



  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
Cardinal Fang said:
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Cardinal Fang said:
What defines a family?
Traditionally, a man/woman and optional kids.

Oh wait, are we re-defining that then too? Can we re-define the phrase "No chance in hell", because then I'd get laid a hell of a lot more. With less jail time.
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
Goober Mcfly said:
You're welcome.
Traditionally, a man/woman and optional kids.
Ah yes....traditionally.

So single parents raising children are not a "family?"

Family:


    1. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
    2. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
 
Y

yychobbyist

loveasian said:
Ultimately it distracting from his main thesis that marriage isn't a "human right". Interestingly, I've yet to hear from one commentator or Liberal politician stand up and say that it is.
I think you bring up an important point. Marriage is not a human right. It can't be a human right as I think we'd all agree that there are some marriages that not every human being in the world has the right to enter into - marriage of one's sister or of minors, for example.

The issue here is whether one identifiable and recognizable group in our society should have the legal right to marry. And that is a very different thing than saying it is a human right.
 

loveasian

New member
Oct 29, 2002
22
0
0
On a chair...
yychobbyist said:
The issue here is whether one identifiable and recognizable group in our society should have the legal right to marry. And that is a very different thing than saying it is a human right.

I agree. But the Liberal government props this up as a Charter right, by extension a Human Right. It's a smokescreen. Paul Martin would be much more geniune if he said "I beleive that gays and lesbians should marry because it's the proper thing to do." But he's never said that. Harper also pointed out this distinction, the Liberals cannot (he believes) hang their hat on the "right issue" but refuses to candidly say "We Liberals believe in gay marriage." Rights vs. Policy. Listen to when Martin speaks. He rarely says the words "gays", "lesbians" or "homosexuals". I don't think he's convinced himself yet!
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
loveasian said:
I agree. But the Liberal government props this up as a Charter right, by extension a Human Right. It's a smokescreen.
Paul Martin would be much more geniune if he said "I beleive that gays and lesbians should marry because it's the proper thing to do." But he's never said that. Harper also pointed out this distinction, the Liberals cannot (he believes) hang their hat on the "right issue" but refuses to candidly say "We Liberals believe in gay marriage." Rights vs. Policy. Listen to when Martin speaks. He rarely says the words "gays", "lesbians" or "homosexuals". I don't think he's convinced himself yet!
I doubt that Harper has been sincere in the Conservative Party's position on this issue either. I'm sure you will find more than a few MP's that are pressuring Harper based on the "morality" of homosexuality and nothing more. He too is trying to sell the position that they are not intolerant to the needs of the gay community. In the end politicians do what they do best. Try and sell ideas. You can debate the minutia of how those ideas are delivered but in the end the general public knows exactly what the intent in as it pertains TO THIS ISSUE.

Does a gay couple have the right to get married civilly.
 

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
Were Harper's attacks over the line?

Of course they were. But so what? Politicians of all stripes can get away with stuff you could never say "on the street" because of Parliamentary privilege.

Naturally, Harper's kind of harping (heh heh) shows how far the Conservatives are behind the rest of public opinion.

Steve... buddy... here's an idea: Whether you like it or not, Canadians are middle-of-the-road politically. If you want any chance of making gains in the next election, then slide closer to the middle. You can start by strengthening your stand on fiscal responsibility, but let the writhing nests of social darwinists fight amongst themselves.

That's called "Progressive Conservative." Perhaps you've heard of it; progressive on the social side, conservative on the financial side.

You're welcome. By the way, I work cheap, and you badly need an advisor.
 
Y

yychobbyist

loveasian said:
I agree. But the Liberal government props this up as a Charter right, by extension a Human Right.
Since it's a dreery Friday afternoon and I'm bored, I'll quibble. The Charter is not, in my view, a document outlining Human Rights as such - it details the legal rights of Canadian citizens and the section 15 guarantees provided are spelled out in a section entitled "Equality Rights". And, in my view, there is no issue that it is a Charter right that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
yychobbyist said:
Since it's a dreery Friday afternoon and I'm bored, I'll quibble. The Charter is not, in my view, a document outlining Human Rights as such - it details the legal rights of Canadian citizens and the section 15 guarantees provided are spelled out in a section entitled "Equality Rights". And, in my view, there is no issue that it is a Charter right that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.
I'm not against their being able to get married. However, I don't see where in the charter it includes sexual oreination as a protected group. When they wrote the charter they purposely did not deal that that issue.
 
Y

yychobbyist

someone said:
I'm not against their being able to get married. However, I don't see where in the charter it includes sexual oreination as a protected group. When they wrote the charter they purposely did not deal that that issue.
see my thread in this section entitled 'a question for those opposed to gay marriage". It's in s. 15 of the charter "every individual" is entitled to equal protection against the law. Yeah, sure the section goes on to enumerate the specific areas which are protected but it still starts off "every individual" that's pretty self evident to me and the courts are agreeing with me.
 
Toronto Escorts