Well, well, well... Harper couldn't hide the true feelings of his minions... They HAD to have their policy convention. As Liberals, we can only say "yay!"
What do Conservatives - as a party NOT like?
1) Women's right to choose - Almost 60% of Conservatives voted to allow laws that would open the door to challenges to a woman's right to choose!
2) Multiculturalism and Minority Rights - Almost 100% of Conservatives supported a resolution requiring immigrants to adopt "Canadian common values" (whatever that means). Almost unanimous support for auditing Aboriginal Programs (that's a racist move if ever there was one). They OVERWHELMINGLY support a resolution to remove the ability of the Canadian Human Rights Comission to investigate hate speech complaints under Section 13. What a sad day for cultural minorities in Canada.
3) Gender Equality - Over 50% of Conservatives supported a resolution by their own caucus (yes, Conservative MPs in Ottawa) to eliminate support for full Gender equality and pay equity.
Wow. We always knew about the "hidden agenda". Well it's not so hidden anymore. The Reformers are back in full force! Harper could hide behind his "pseudo-platforms", but now opposition leaders and Canadians will need to ask the Conservatives, and themselves, IF Mr. Harper was ever gifted a majority, would he act on the resolutions passed by his party? It's highly likely they would adopt all the resolutions (considering many of them were proposed by the Conservative MPs themselves). Political parties have a habit of following the will of their members - or they cease to be viable parties.
Look for Harper to try to sneak in some of his measures, and pray for his majority so he can act on the the rest:
1) Ending women's right to choose
2) Allowing hate speech to run wild and rampant (under the guise of freedom of speech)
3) Destroying the multi-cultural fabric of this land
4) Attacking human rights
Conservative ideals - all of them. Women and minorities, stand up and take notice! The Conservative Party has spoken. Harper the wolf is exposed!
7 comments:
How many Liberal bloggers are going to misrepresent the s. 13 resolution? Even if s. 13 was repealed inciting hate still remains a crime under the criminal code.
I know scoring points against the Conservatives is fun, but repealing s. 13 does not allow "hate speech to run wild and rampant". It merely restores the procedural and evidentiary safeguards that people who are accused of crimes are normally entitled to.
kc.. what you wrote is horse pucks and you know it and if you don't then try moving to a warmer room. Maybe the heat will raise your IQ. It is the hate laws that allow the Human Rights Commission to investigate and lay charges against people like Levant and and others like him who hide under the guise of freedom of speech to debase other people. And your Harper's CONS want free rein to spew their hatred whenever and wherever they about about whom they choose. You Reformers can hide but you forever raise your ugly heads and show your ugly selves.
Do you really think a woman should have the right to choose abortion at 8 or 9 months? Do you not think there should be some abortion law? Do you not think it perverse that a woman can abort at 8 or nine months?
Women have a right to choose - that's the choice to have sex. Pregnancy is a consequence of making the choice to have sex. With modern birth control, there is no reason that MOST women should need to abort.
So many people say that it's a woman's body so it's her right to do what she wants. Why is it then that she cannot sell a kidney?
I don't understand why so many people who favour abortion are against capital punishment.
I understand how some people want to protect a woman's right to choose, but the righ must also extend to those women who want to carry a baby to term. In my mind, protection should be given to all. After all, it's woman's right to choose - choice means there's more than one option.
This post goes to prove how disconnected the current batch of Liberals are from the general population.
Go ahead and fight the next election on the rights of crimminals and the watering down of Canadian culture.
Yeah, to be honest, if given the choice between criminal charges (potentially 5 years and a criminal record) and facing the Human Rights Commission (fine) -- I'd pick the commission.
The commmission is seen as being heavy handed, but the process seems relatively fair. First it weeds out cases that are frivilous, tries mediation/conciliation, then when that fails it investigates, and if there is merit to the case it will recommend a case to the Human Rights Tribunal (which is independent of the Commission).
Looking at the stats on
this page,there were 48 submissions from 2005-2007, nit only 57 cases that the commission actively appeared to investigate, and only 14 that went to the tribunal.(One of the most famous dismissals is the Mark Steyn case.) Going through the judgements, the fines have been rather low (in one $1000).
Yeah... I'd go with the commission.
It merely restores the procedural and evidentiary safeguards that people who are accused of crimes are normally entitled to.
Actually, that's the interesting part... people aren't charged with crimes -- it's about resolving issues of discrimination. No one's sent to prison -- they pay fines.
as fpr there being safeguards, it's interesting to go through the process of how a complaint is processed. There appears to be a bit of confusion between the Commission, which investigates, and the Tribunal, which judges matter. The two are separate and independent bodies.
As for there being safeguards, it's interesting to examine the most recents cases. Of the resolved cases, almost half are thrown out and dismissed before going to tribunal. (One of the most famous dismissal is Mark Steyn -- dismissed by the Ontario and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.)
Even more might be dismissed as frivilous if you consider the fact that were 48 complaints made between 2005-2007 and only about 70 that were ever dealt with by the commission. A few were even resolved in mediation/conciliation. (There are a few cases there if anyone wishes to read them. I believe in free speech, but some of those things are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.)
(Forgive me, I believe I left a comment earlier... this is just another version of what I posted earlier)
Kitt - Do some research. Read s. 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. Those provisions dont rely on s. 13. And I am a Liberal (just like Keith Martin who originally proposed eliminating s. 13) NOT a reformer. Gadd! If I didnt believe in free expression I'd say people who dont actually know the law shouldnt be allowed to opine. Free reign to spew hate? There would be nothing of the sort Do some reading other than Warren Kinsella's blog.
Sharon
- The courts almost NEVER give the maximum sentence. If the CCC sentences are an issue, amend them.
- You ignore the fact that Commissions apply a civil standard to a "likely to expose" test rather than the criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof of intent standard. That is perhaps the most egregious violation of rights in the HRC process. Heck even accused terrorists are entitled to more due process than accused hatemongers.
- The Criminal process has a method for weeding out complaints--its called prosecutorial discretion.
Post a Comment