Harper 2003 comments

[Jersay]

I found this on another forum about comments made by Stephen Harpers comments with regards to what I preceive is the NDP and the Liberals or all left-leaning Canadians? Make your own decision on that

http://nodice.ca/etalk/viewtopic.php?p=6891#6891

"Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism - the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic western civilization" - Stephen Harper, 2003


What Stephen Harper here was referring to the Liberals support of decriminalization of Marijuana, gay marriage, and opposition to the Iraq War. There is nothing of moral nihilism about opposing the Iraq War, in fact I would argue it was immoral to still support it based on the facts present today. decriminalization of marijuana and gay marriage could just as easily be classified as libertarian ideas as left wing ideas. Clearly the speech made by Harper at Civitas shows he is unfit to be prime-minister.

Credit to bold comments goes to mileslunn, not mine.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Harper is morally bereft and mentally deficient. Who the hell is he to talk about moral nihilism? I think the semen has finally backed up behind his eyes and driven him mad.

 

[FiveParadox]

It's those kinds of comments that make me extremely cautious about the Hon. Stephen Harper receiving a mandate, and becoming Prime Minister of this country. His social "morals" seem contrary to most of my own, and to many other mainstream Canadians. It is those kinds of comments that make me willing to vote not for a party, but against a party -- I dare say that Mr. Harper, in much of Canada, is solely responsible for the strategic voting phenomenun that seems to take many votes away from the Conservatives, funneling them into the next likely party; that is, I think that the Liberals shall continue to receive mandates, simply to prevent their being awarded to the Conservative Party.

 

[the caracal kid]

i agree with the rev and fiveparadox.

 

[Jersay]

As do I. I am now glad that I found this quote from Stephen Harper.

 

[Nascar_James]

I found this on another forum about comments made by Stephen Harpers comments with regards to what I preceive is the NDP and the Liberals or all left-leaning Canadians? Make your own decision on that

http://nodice.ca/etalk/viewtopic.php?p=6891#6891

"Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism - the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic western civilization" - Stephen Harper, 2003


What Stephen Harper here was referring to the Liberals support of decriminalization of Marijuana, gay marriage, and opposition to the Iraq War. There is nothing of moral nihilism about opposing the Iraq War, in fact I would argue it was immoral to still support it based on the facts present today. decriminalization of marijuana and gay marriage could just as easily be classified as libertarian ideas as left wing ideas. Clearly the speech made by Harper at Civitas shows he is unfit to be prime-minister.

Credit to bold comments goes to mileslunn, not mine.

What Harper said is nothing more than common sense.

1. In regards to decriminalization of marijuana, do you want a
bunch of addicted druggies running around, and getting behind
the wheel?
2. The Liberal Party of Canada did not consult the Canadian
population before blindly legalizing gay marriage. We had the
same issues here (in the US), but we called referendums in
several states (which all voted no) before going against the will
of the population. Governments are there to represent the will
of the people, not their own private agendas. What happened
to democracy?
3. By opposing the War in Iraq, what would the Liberals say if we
hadn't gone to Iraq and Saddam was still in power. He had used
WMD against his own people in the past, what was to stop him
from do so again? More mass graves. Although most intelligance
agencies around the world (yes, including Frace as well) came up
with the same conclusion, that Saddam had WMD, they
provided us the reason to remove Saddam from power. Not to
mention Saddam's clear support for terrorism. Paying out
$25,000 to familes of Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone
was reason enough to go after him in supporting our ZERO
tolerance policy towards terrorism.

 

[Jersay]

What Harper said is nothing more than common sense.

1. In regards to decriminalization of marijuana, do you want a
bunch of addicted druggies running around, and getting behind
the wheel?
2. The Liberal Party of Canada did not consult the Canadian
population before blindly legalizing gay marriage. We had the
same issues here (in the US), but we called referendums in
several states (which all voted no) before going against the will
of the population. Governments are there to represent the will
of the people, not their own private agendas. What happened
to democracy?
3. By opposing the War in Iraq, what would the Liberals say if we
hadn't gone to Iraq and Saddam was still in power. He had used
WMD against his own people in the past, what was to stop him
from do so again? More mass graves. Although most intelligance
agencies around the world (yes, including Frace as well) came up
with the same conclusion, that Saddam had WMD, they
provided us the reason to remove Saddam from power. Not to
mention Saddam's clear support for terrorism. Paying out
$25,000 to familes of Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone
was reason enough to go after him in supporting our ZERO
tolerance policy towards terrorism.

First off, Canada is not America.

Now, some Marijuna addicts do get behind the wheel and cause crashes. But there is no evidence in Canada that it is as deadly as alcohol. And if they are the same maybe we should have a war on alcohol and drugs. Show me some evidence in Canada that drug-addict marijuna smokers cause as many car crashers as drunken drivers. You can't. What should happen is you should legalize it like cigarettes and tax it. What is it, 7 billion dollar industry, that would reduce the taxes on average Canadians.

Second, in Canada we are more liberal than Americans. As the debates were going on about same-sex marriage, 58% of Canadians supported it and it had already been ratified in 8 provinces. It was a done deal. All it did was cement same-sex rights across this country.

Finally, Americans went into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction. Then when that was found out to be full of hot air, they said Saddam had links to terrorism. He had links to Hamas, and others, which do commit terrorist attacks, but at what cause. They are fighting for 'liberation' don't you forget that, they might declare Israeli destruction, but these groups wouldn't have been started if Israel had accepted the two state solution back in 1948 and started massacring and expelling Palestinians from their homeland. Making one group homeless for another is not right, and that is the groups Suddam supported. There was never any evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaida. Also, it was a vendetta for Bush Jr, to revenge, Bush Sr, and to fix a problem started back when Saddam took power, when he was a favorite of the Americans.

Finally, if you like Harper so much, you take him. I will stick with Jack Layton.

 

[Reverend Blair]

What Harper said is nothing more than common sense.

No, they were the rantings of a puritanical madman.

1. In regards to decriminalization of marijuana, do you want a
bunch of addicted druggies running around, and getting behind
the wheel?

Do you have any proof that this would happen? For that matter, do you have any scientific evidence that marijuana is addictive or leads to the use of harder drugs?

2. The Liberal Party of Canada did not consult the Canadian
population before blindly legalizing gay marriage. We had the
same issues here (in the US), but we called referendums in
several states (which all voted no) before going against the will
of the population. Governments are there to represent the will
of the people, not their own private agendas. What happened
to democracy?

It was an issue in the last election, so they did, in fact, consult Canadians. The existing legislation had also been struck down by several courts because it went against the charter. Elections, the court system, and the Charter of Rights are inherent parts of democracy.

3. By opposing the War in Iraq, what would the Liberals say if we
hadn't gone to Iraq and Saddam was still in power. He had used
WMD against his own people in the past, what was to stop him
from do so again? More mass graves. Although most intelligance
agencies around the world (yes, including Frace as well) came up
with the same conclusion, that Saddam had WMD, they
provided us the reason to remove Saddam from power. Not to
mention Saddam's clear support for terrorism. Paying out
$25,000 to familes of Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone
was reason enough to go after him in supporting our ZERO
tolerance policy towards terrorism.

Over 70% of Canadians were against the illegal invasion of Iraq. It was based on the lies of a crooked and evil man who pretends to be a cowboy. The Liberals mistake has been their tacit aproval of the war in Iraq. Instead they should have informed George Bush and his cronies that they would be arrested should they come to Canada.

 

[Nascar_James]

First off, Canada is not America.

Well, I am an ex-Canadian who's now an American, and my views haven't changed.

Now, some Marijuna addicts do get behind the wheel and cause crashes. But there is no evidence in Canada that it is as deadly as alcohol. And if they are the same maybe we should have a war on alcohol and drugs. Show me some evidence in Canada that drug-addict marijuna smokers cause as many car crashers as drunken drivers. You can't. What should happen is you should legalize it like cigarettes and tax it. What is it, 7 billion dollar industry, that would reduce the taxes on average Canadians.

We don't want to start becoming soft on drugs, no way. Studies have consistently shown marijuana to be an addictive, mind-altering substance. In addition, scientific studies have also shown smoked marijuana to be linked to heart and lung disease, throat cancer, and a decreased memory capacity. Furthermore, a driver under the influence of marijuana is ten times more likely to be involved in an accident than a driver under the influence of a comparable amount of alcohol.

With all these grave issues, why in Sam Hill would anyone contemplate legalizing marijuana? We need legalization of marijuana like we need a hole in the head.

Second, in Canada we are more liberal than Americans. As the debates were going on about same-sex marriage, 58% of Canadians supported it and it had already been ratified in 8 provinces. It was a done deal. All it did was cement same-sex rights across this country.

Again, a government does not override traditional values held by the population without first consulting them in a referendum. If you are correct in that 58% of the Canadian population favor losing their traditional definition of marriage, then what did they have to fear in a referendum? What would happen if the seperatists in Quebec decide to unilaterally declare seperation from Canada without a referendum? We had referendums here in numerous states on legalizing gay marriage. After folks voted no in all states, mnay of those states have since updated their constitution to make gay marriage illegal as is polygamy.

Finally, Americans went into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction. Then when that was found out to be full of hot air, they said Saddam had links to terrorism. He had links to Hamas, and others, which do commit terrorist attacks, but at what cause. They are fighting for 'liberation' don't you forget that, they might declare Israeli destruction, but these groups wouldn't have been started if Israel had accepted the two state solution back in 1948 and started massacring and expelling Palestinians from their homeland. Making one group homeless for another is not right, and that is the groups Suddam supported. There was never any evidence that Saddam supported Al Qaida. Also, it was a vendetta for Bush Jr, to revenge, Bush Sr, and to fix a problem started back when Saddam took power, when he was a favorite of the Americans.

There is no excuse for DELIBERATELY KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN in launching terrorist attacks no matter what the circumstances. Canada, the European Union and the US have declared Hamas a Terrorist organization. Saddam had no business engagaing in terrorism of any kind. In paying out $25,000 to individual families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he was clear target in our war against terror. We will always maintain a zero tolerance policy on terrorism.

Finally, if you like Harper so much, you take him. I will stick with Jack Layton.

Nope. He's to far left. He would fit nicely if running for the Democrats thou. His policies are remarkably similar to Clinton's old policies.

 

[the caracal kid]

nascar,

firstly, there are already many addictive, mind-altering substances legalized in the US. I guess it only matters so long as big business is not profiting from them?

secondly, it is the job of government to uphold the charter of rights and freedoms. as rev mentioned, several provincial courts had already ruled in favor of SSM AND the liberals ran on a platform of legalizing it. So both the people and the courts have spoken on this issue. Equality of all.

thirdly, if you beleive there is no excuse for deliberateley killing innocent women and children you may want to have words with the shrub, and review the history of US foreign policy.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Harper 2003 comments

nascar,

firstly, there are already many addictive, mind-altering substances legalized in the US. I guess it only matters so long as big business is not profiting from them?

secondly, it is the job of government to uphold the charter of rights and freedoms. as rev mentioned, several provincial courts had already ruled in favor of SSM AND the liberals ran on a platform of legalizing it. So both the people and the courts have spoken on this issue. Equality of all.

thirdly, if you beleive there is no excuse for deliberateley killing innocent women and children you may want to have words with the shrub, and review the history of US foreign policy.

Caracal, the seperatists in Quebec (PQ) won numerous mandates on a platform of seperation. It was their main policy. Does this mean they would have been justified in unilaterally declaring seperation from Canada once in office? That is WITHOUT a referendum.

 

[the caracal kid]

the separatists ran on the platform of holding a referendum. that is slightly different.

the courts have already ruled on what is required for separation and on SSM. your position lost. it is not the first time some cried when their cherished position was struck down as unconstitutional/illegal/discriminatory/etc.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have some points to add to the debate.

Decriminalization of Possession of Marijuana

Marijuana, in terms of the proposed legislation, would not be legalized, but rather decriminalized. This means that while possession of marijuana in significant quantities would remain illegal, it would be handled in ways so as to not "tie up" the Judiciary with charges of marijuana possession. The amounts of canabis being talked about are quite small, and would not extend to dealers of the substance or "heavy" users, due to the limitation of quantity covered under the Act.

The Senate of Canada conducted extensive studies on the subject of marijuana decriminalization, and a Special Committee of the Senate recommended legalizing canabis outright. The arguments have been weighed and considered, and the research done, so I suppose the Government feels that the issue is ready to be debated and acted upon in the Commons. I would agree.

Same-sex Marriage

As stated above, this was an election issue, and the electorate knew what the outcome would likely be if the current Government were to be granted another mandate. The Civil Marriage Act, enacted in July by proclaimation of the Governor General, extended access to civil marriage to persons of the same sex across Canada; keep in mind, however, that this enactment only majorly affected two Provinces and two Territories. Even if a future Government were to repeal the Act, and impose a new Act, the rulings in the Provinces would continue to stand, as would likely the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada if such a question were to be put. Same-sex marriage in Canada is not going to go away.

Additionally, one must keep in mind that Canada's system of governance allows for the general rule of the majority, while simultaneously protecting the minority from the former's potential "tyranny." For example, even if a majority of Canadians were to believe that Canada should legalize slavery, that doesn't mean that it should by any means be enacted; in such a case, it would be absolutely warranted for the Supreme Court to tell the populous to "screw off," for lack of a better phrase, and to leave the issue alone.

The War in Iraq

A majority of Canadians were opposed to the war in Iraq, and some of the United States' facts surrounding its reasons for engaging Iraq in that war are questionable at best.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Harper 2003 comments

the separatists ran on the platform of holding a referendum. that is slightly different.

the courts have already ruled on what is required for separation and on SSM. your position lost. it is not the first time some cried when their cherished position was struck down as unconstitutional/illegal/discriminatory/etc.

No so, Caracal. Have you heard about the "Parizeau Factor"? Parizeau's position was to unilateraly declare independance from Canada without a referendum. An election would have replaced a referendum and the Clarity Act.

Here's a CBC link ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20040824.html

The gay marriage issue was one that definitely warranted a referendum considering that the CPC almost unanimously opposed it and many members of the Liberal party were against it as well.

The Liberal party deliberately avoided moving forward with gay marriage legislation prior to the last election. Why's that? Afraid of losing the election?

 

[the caracal kid]

and what happened to Parizeau?

what you are neglecting in every post is that the courts already had ruled in the majority of provinces and the supreme court on the legality of SSM. The libs were merely putting in place something already declared. Banning SSM is discriminatory, and there is nothing (i repeat nothing) the Cons or any party or special interest group can do or say to change that.

 

[Timetrvlr]

I'm with Jersay when he said:

Finally, if you like Harper so much, you take him. I will stick with Jack Layton

.

The problem with Harper as I see it, is that he is cut from the same cloth as Bush. An overwhelming majority of Canadians think Bush is the worst president the US ever elected. Why would you want Canada to have a duplicate of Bush? I think that would be very bad for us as a nation!

What I do worry about is that a lot of mainstream Canadians will stay home on election day because they are afraid of Harper's hidden agenda, disenchanted with the ruling Liberals, and feel they have no good choices. This is an election most Canadians didn't want anyhow.

I'm hoping they will come out and vote NDP because I think that a Liberal minority along with a larger NDP prescence will form a coalition government that is much more in line with the needs of mainstream Canadians. I think Layton has done a pretty good job of holding the Liberals to account and has been successful in pushing a social agenda to the front.

The Conservatives need to face the fact that they need a mainstream leader a little closer to the centre before they can capture the mainstream vote.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Harper 2003 comments

and what happened to Parizeau?

what you are neglecting in every post is that the courts already had ruled in the majority of provinces and the supreme court on the legality of SSM. The libs were merely putting in place something already declared. Banning SSM is discriminatory, and there is nothing (i repeat nothing) the Cons or any party or special interest group can do or say to change that.

Well, if you say that banning SSM is discriminatory, I'll buy your argument, Caracal. However, you need to be consistent. If you use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an argument to protect the gay community and legalize gay marriage, then you must also use the same Charter to support Polygamy. If not, you are clearly setting a double standard, and showing perferential bias. That amounts to hypocracy. Canada must follow the Netherlands approach and legalize Polygamy. The Polygamous community is a strong one in Bountiful, BC. and they deserve as much protection as does the gay community ... in your book.

 

[the caracal kid]

go for it! how would you define legal polygamy? would you also support polyandry?

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Harper 2003 comments

go for it! how would you define legal polygamy? would you also support polyandry?

Well, the charter has been used to redefine marrriage from one man and one woman to one man and one man or one woman and one woman, right? It's a matter of further redefining it to one man and two women, or one man and three women ...etc).

If government officials don't care about the marginalization of marriage inte a cheap second class institution, then so be it.

 

[FiveParadox]

While this may be a discussion for another topic, I have no problem with the legalization of polygamy. Doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean I have to marry more than one guy. It just means that others, whose religious convictions would dictate as such, have the option.

We could amend the Civil Marriage Act to accomodate polygamous persons without too much trouble; it wouldn't require any change to the Constitution, and it wouldn't affect mainstream monogomous couples.

Consider this:

For the purpose of legalizing polygamy, Section 2 of the Act could be amended to read: Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two or more persons to the exclusion of all others.

Sections 3, 3.1, and 4 could remain in tact, and unamended, for the purpose of protecting religious institutions regarding marriage, and for the purpose of ensuring that a marriage is not voidable due to one or more members of that marriage being of the same sex.

It could be required that all members of the current marriage must consent to the addition of a new member, and each member of that marriage could identify one other member as their "primary spouse" for the purpose of taxes, medical decisions, and et cetera. Remember, just because it is legal, does not mean that you are compelled, yourself, to enter into a polygamous marriage. This would not affect a noticeable number of people; society would not change as a result thereof.