Someone needs to take the microphone away from the Cons

[Edward Campbell]

There is a lesson here for all politicians, would-be politicians and anyone, in fact, who might want to make their opinions mater: think before you speak!

sgf is correct: there are recorded "skeletons" in the Tory closets - every time they appear the media has a small feeding frenzy because, broadly, the media is anti-Conservative. There are also, of course, bigots and fools in the Liberal caucus; consider: Tom Wappel who is a homophobe who told a veteran that he would not help him because he, the vet, had not voted Liberal. he's a disgrace to humanity, not just the Liberals!

But: everyone, including Army.ca members, should remember that noting is every hidden away or forgotten - including whatever one says right here.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Ah the loveable Liberals,

Sports enthusiasts;

Loveable handshakes

And at the end of the day, it is all just fun and games.....

Yep, no scandal here, move along folks.....

dileas

tess

 

[stegner]

There is a lesson here for all politicians, would-be politicians and anyone, in fact, who might want to make their opinions mater: think before you speak!

Quite so!


I think the Shawinigan handshake should be added to the CF unarmed combatives manual.  Critical damage.  Mortal Kombat.  ROAR

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Prediction: no good will come this thread.

Another Prediction:  Since politicians of all parties say stupid things all of the time, when the Liberals are someday back in power, the NDP and Conservatives will trot out 10 year old tapes like clock work, too.

It is the way of the world...

 

[RangerRay]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=423006

Yet no party can claim to be unstained by the same sort of comments coming from their own ranks. The Liberals have Paul Steckle, who in 1995 called homosexuality "unnatural," and the prolific Tom Wappel, who among other things has called it "physically abnormal and morally immoral" (1994), "unnatural" and "unhealthy" (1993), and said "the majority of homosexual liaisons are of a promiscuous nature" (1996), while comparing gays to pedophiles (1996). In addition to Mr. Schreyer, the NDP's sainted Tommy Douglas once called homosexuality "a mental illness," while Gord Mills, an MPP under then-Ontario premier Bob Rae was known to use the term "queer people," and paid no price in Mr. Rae's caucus for it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't remember any media feeding frenzies during these events.  Seems to me these feeding frenzies occur when the person saying such things is of the Tory/Reform persuasion.  Liberals and NDPers seem to get their politically incorrect comments swept under the rug.

 

[-dikweed-]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=423006

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't remember any media feeding frenzies during these events.  Seems to me these feeding frenzies occur when the person saying such things is of the Tory/Reform persuasion.  Liberals and NDPers seem to get their politically incorrect comments swept under the rug.

In university, I did a paper on TD's, ugh, more extreme views.  I was widely ridiculed by my more leftist peers.

Its true, these sorts of things become massive scandals when it involves the Tories.  Like I said before, the public is looking for ant sort of excuse to prove once and for all that the current Tories are more like the Reform Party 2.0.

 

[vonGarvin]

sgf

The conservative members in question did dumb stuff years ago, and apologies were made.  I'm still waiting for the Liberal Party of Canada to apologize for stealing uncounted millions from the people of Canada.  I've stopped holding my breath waiting for the Liberal Party of Canada to apologize for saddling us with "Human Rights" Commissions hell bent on quashing free speech.  I definitely am not waiting for the Liberal Party of Canada to apologize for attempting that old fascist practice of "gleichschaltung".  Compared to the sins of the libs, stupid words uttered by a pair of conservatives years ago (and let the first politician to never say stupid crap cast the first stone - I dare you Headless Fry) are nothing.  Grow up sunshine.

Geez...

Wow...Gleichschaltung used in this thread.  And in proper context! 

I'm going out to buy lottery tickets.

 

[stegner]

Wow...Gleichschaltung used in this thread.  And in proper context!

Not quite sure on that.  The Liberal implemented f Charter or Rights and Freedoms promotes individual and human rights, whereas Gleichschaltung eliminates them.  The Liberal Party also lacked the invasive police forces (i.e Gestapo) to enforce them.  There are indeed problems with Human Rights Commissions in Canada but to compare them to Nazi Germany or to view the Liberal Party as similar to the NSDAP is a little bit over the top.  The suffering invoked by that regime is not in any way shape or form comparable to political correctness in Canada.  By the by, all Harper has to do is change the legislation surrounding Human Rights Commissions to make them more reasonable and the problem is solved.  Whether he has the political courage to do so and risk alienating those that might give him a majority is another story. 

 

[cavalryman]

stegner,

I just need to point out that gleichschaltung is not an invention of the NSDAP, and is indeed the tool of every collectivist movement in history, be it Soviet or Chinese communism (and all of their Asian, African or Latin American offshoots), Italian fascism, FDR's "New Deal", LBJ's "Great Society" or Trudeau's "Just Society".  Aligning a society on common lines to erase individualism and promote a collective outlook, guided by the benevolent hand of the state is a hallmark of modern socialism, of which the Liberal Party of Canada forms a wing.  Classic Liberalism is all about individual rights and responsibilities.... Canadian liberalism (with the small "L") is all about collectivisation, and the HRCs are part of that effort to align thought and action the way the elites want it.  To accuse the Liberals of gleichschaltung is not only accurate, it is well deserved, and a phenomenon that has been commented on in one form or another by many thinkers in the last little while.  Might I suggest Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" as a good starting point to examine how the left has been attempting gleichschaltung in North America for the last century or so.

 

[stegner]

Its one thing to claim that the liberalism/Liberals provide protection for collectivities, which I can fully agree with, but it's another thing to use the loaded German term of gleichschaltung with its Nazi connotations.   
In fact, if you were to read Taylor, Habermas, Kymlicka or Walzer they describe this version of liberalism as liberalism-2 (Sorry I don't read Goldberg ever since he wrote an article in the National Review entitled Bomb Canada a couple years back).    All the provinces have human rights commissions and we can't blame them all on Liberal governments.  The Alberta Human Rights Commission is giving Ezra lots of trouble and Alberta has not had a provincial Liberal government since 1921.  Ed Stelmach even with a very large majority does not have the guts to take it on and Harper does not have the guts to take on the federal equivalent though this can be achieved with an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.  Also, you failed to address the fact that the Charter provides individual rights and protections.  If you think your individual rights are being infringed upon you are welcome to seek damages in a court of law.  By the way Conservatism is all about protecting collectivities.  For instance,  Harper's stance on Quebec is more generous than Chretien's or Trudeau's.  Neither of those recognized Quebec as a nation, but Harper has in Parliament.   

 

[Old Ranger]

when the Liberals are someday back in power,

:tsktsk: I was having such a good day so far...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not quite sure on that.  The Liberal implemented f Charter or Rights and Freedoms promotes individual and human rights, whereas Gleichschaltung eliminates them.  The Liberal Party also lacked the invasive police forces (i.e Gestapo) to enforce them.   There are indeed problems with Human Rights Commissions in Canada but to compare them to Nazi Germany or to view the Liberal Party as similar to the NSDAP is a little bit over the top.   The suffering invoked by that regime is not in any way shape or form comparable to political correctness in Canada.  By the by, all Harper has to do is change the legislation surrounding Human Rights Commissions to make them more reasonable and the problem is solved.  Whether he has the political courage to do so and risk alienating those that might give him a majority is another story. 

So what do you call it when the ERT kick in your door, and confiscate legally held firearms, without warrant or cause. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ Charge the person with a myriad of obscure charges and then seize their home, so they have no collateral to raise funds for their defence? (Bruce Montague). OK, obscure I know, but things like this have happened. We have warrantless searches. There are NO property rights esconded in the constitution. The populace is at the mercy of the system. I don't have the right to self defence, defence of my loved ones, or defence of my property. The liberals would rather a female be raped and killed, rather than they defend themselves with a firearm, for which she would be charged. If a person speaks out about the true cause of gun crime in Toronto, the black Jamaican gang problem, they're labelled by the liberals and, TO mayor Miller, as racist. When the liberals brand 99.9% of legal firearms owners in this country as the problem, and not the 00.001% of the criminals, there is something definitely off kilter. 

Thank you PE Trudeau.

Sounds pretty damn close to fascism for me. Still want to talk about the Germans?

 

[Greymatters]

If anything its an entertaining read!

In the end I agree with Trinity.  Both major parties have skeletons in their closets, both parties have members who have done things that they IMO should been prosecuted for but havent.  Excessively and continually pointing at one party and going 'look!look' as if they are the only ones who have ever done anything wrong is unneccesarily repetitive.... 

 

[garb811]

I don't have the right to self defence, defence of my loved ones, or defence of my property.  The liberals would rather a female be raped and killed, rather than they defend themselves with a firearm, for which she would be charged.

Contrary to the prevailing view of some here, you DO have those rights.  These concepts are reinforced and clarified with legal limitations defined in the Criminal Code:

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Whether or not you need a firearm to accomplish any of these at this point in time in Canada is a moot point when discussing the legal rights to self defence and defence of ones property as you could just as easily insert pepper spray, taser, kitchen knife or any other weapon.

 

[Greymatters]

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

There's the kicker - and why home invaders can successfully sue property owners who are defending themselves. It favors the criminal, not the person acting in self-defence... 

 

[a_majoor]

Wow...Gleichschaltung used in this thread.  And in proper context! 

When we look at how language has been perverted and arguments framed, I am in agreement (although I still can't pronounce Gleichschaltung). Should Steven Harper or any of the Premiers take a stand against the excesses of HRC's, then the Left and MSM would be in full cry against them as being "against human rights" (even though the evidence would seem to be precisely the opposite, see Human Rights Gone Awry). The argument is  falsely framed and can be "sound bited" and otherwise shaped by a hostile MSM and various left wing groups to damage whoever comes out against HRC's. The government strategy would seem to be allow more damning revelations to come out, allow HRC's to become objects of ridicule and disgust, then act forcefully to close them down.

In many instances, you can deconstruct how the political left tries to frame the arguments to hide what is really being suggested while attempting to shut down debate or counter arguments ("universal child care" vs "beer and popcorn" are perhaps the most notorious examples I can think of).

 

[stegner]

Sounds pretty damn close to fascism for me. Still want to talk about the Germans?

The system is not perfect and you may write a nicely worded letters to be asking them to change the law and we are entitled as Canadian citizens to propose changes to laws and we can vote to change governments that would change the laws to suit our views.  Neither of those avenues existed under Nazi Germany.  In Nazi Germany rather than the ERT smashing down a door the SS or Gestapo would smash down doors and have people sent out to be tortured and executed.  The piano wire strangulation was a popular method of execution, for example.  Gleichschaltung involved racial policies that in no way are comparable with Canada's as they constituted the Holocaust. 

Your problem should not be solely with the Liberals who implemented these policies, but with the Conservatives who fall to change these laws after being in power for almost 2.5 years.  Presently, with the practically leaderless Liberal Opposition there is an opportune time to rectify these concerns.  However, Stephen Harper lacks the political courage to do so.  He is so concerned about getting a majority than he forgets the promises he has made over the years first as the leader of the Alliance and then the Conservative Party.  Stephen Harper long ago abandoned his principles and his lack of efforts on a variety of concerns is demonstrative of this.    The common refrain made by Conservatives that "we are waiting to get a Majority to make these changes" should be challenged by Conservative voters.  You should say my vote is not guaranteed and unless I see some action from the government don't assume I will vote for you. While Thucydides has noted that

the Left and MSM would be in full cry against them as being "against human rights"

,  I am sure Harper is quite able to frame this debate to appeal to common sense and to most Canadians.  We are for human rights but we are against abuse of process is but one argument to be made.  If he is unable to do that perhaps he is not the man for the PMship. 

 

[garb811]

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

There's the kicker - and why home invaders can successfully sue property owners who are defending themselves. It favors the criminal, not the person acting in self-defence... 

Not really the thread to debate this point but... 

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary (my bold) for that purpose.

Seems to me that a private citizen has the same right to use force as a peace officer does in relations to protecting themselves, those under their protection and their dwelling house.  By the same token, if a private citizen uses excessive force, they are legally liable for that, just as a peace officer is.  If someone uses reasonable force, all is good, it is only when they go overboard and cannot justify the level of force they used that they find themselves in legal difficulties. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If a private citizen uses a firearm for self defence, even when warranted, we know the result. We may have the same rights as a LEO on paper, but in reality, we all know it's much different.

Your right, it's not the thread to discuss it anyway. I don't have rose coloured glasses, and the sky IS blue. I know where I stand as a private citizen and don't have to discuss it any more. If others wish to, please take it to the firearm thread so this one can stay on track.

 

[Blindspot]

Wow. How some forget the racist and classist remarks by Liberals, while still in office, much less than eight years ago. (Carolyn Parrish, Hedy Fry, Scott Reid). But of course, only conservatives make those kind of remarks.