Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Liberal Party is out in front on this? They created the problem, after all. Meanwhile the "smaller government-lower taxes" CPC is completely silent. They know about it (if for no other reason than I told 'em personally), but they're saying nothing.

I'm coming to the conclusion that I understand NOTHING about politics, because my instinct is the CPC should be in third reading of the bill to kill the HRC by now, and the gun registry should be a fading memory already. When your opponent is on the floor, that's the best time to put the boots to him.

The Liberal party of Alberta must have looked up the word "liberal" in Wikipedia and found this:

...extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas...

Many liberals seem to have looked up "socialism" on wikipedia by mistake.

There is almost certainly a federal election coming this spring. The House has, because of the partisan actions of the Liberals and NDP, become frozen and unable to work together to as our government.

The Liberals and NDP have moved into a phase where they oppose, not on principle, but because of the Image of Opposing. Then, the Liberal Back Room, made up of the MSM, the Civil Service and the Senate, want an election to prevent further dissipation of their image. The Senate is blocking all govt bills; the MSM is constantly attacking Harper.
The only way out, is an election.

The HRC cannot successfully be debated during an election. The CPC and Harper are on record as being against them, and against Section 13.1 of the Act. But, this is not an election debate.

The reason is, that the Liberals, who set up multiculturalism as an isolating and funding enterprise in Canada, and thus, balkanized the chief immigrant province, Ontario, into separate, heavily funded Voting Blocs, will be after the immigrant vote in Toronto and Ontario.

The population the Liberals are after will be the immigrant communities, gays/lesbians, SSM groups and etc. These are important groups for the Liberals because they'll also be competing with the NDP for the SAME electors.

The Liberals will immediately use any debate about the HRC as a SIGN that the Conservatives are against minorities, are against immigrant groups, are against multiculturalism, want do 'drown and submerge' immigrants..on and on and on.
The Liberals will use the CPC being against the HRC - and also tell voters that the CPC reduced funding for the Status of Women, reduced funding for the Legal Challenges program. These are all pets of the gay/lesbian population, the feminist population.

So, the Liberals can use this to label the CPC as 'hostile to the great multiculturalism and pluralism and ..blah blah'. You know the empty rhetoric. They'll use it.
And, unfortunately, the Liberals set up Toronto and Ontario as balkanized vote-rich groups that were each funded (ie bought) for their special agendas.

The Liberals will present the HRC to this electorate as the ONLY defense of immigrant groups to 'preserve their magnificent heritage'..blah blah. You know the rhetoric.

The issues of free speech, freedom of the individual, will all be swept aside in the emotional Care For The Minorities agenda of the Liberals.

The fact that this Care is hypocritical, is ONLY about separating them into easily manipulated Voting Blocs - won't be discussed.

The HRCs can't be debated during the election because the Liberals will use it to self-define themselves as Saviours Of Immigrants and Minorities.

If your explaination on an issue takes longer than 30 seconds it is not an issue you want to have to answer for in an election. Pretty simple.

We are in the pre election manouvering now. Any issue that you cannot draw a simple line through is not going to come up. The most complicated issue is Afghanistan and it is being boiled down to soundbites, blurring the issue from its more complicated nature.

You supprt canada's place in the world, its allies and the original mission or we have done enough or canadian values dont support what we are doing in Afghanistan.

Those are the thee positions. Free specech and HRC's...man I wouldnt want to take that one on yet. There are only so many fronts you can fight, and only so many things people care about and will vote on. Afghanistan and their pocketbook are about it for the moment

nobody does a drive-by-smear like the Liberals.

Most professional thieves, liars & fear-mongers in the country.

No party has said anything new. They all say they believe in free speech, expression, whatever. Nothing has changed. Yet, the status quo remains does it not. There is no commitment to change anything.

Well the CPC is a victim of that AWFUL biased media, they couldn't POSSIBLY move on a stand of prinicple.

And those rotten Dippers and Libranos are just, so, so partisan, utopia will have to wait.

But soon, very soon, our heroic CPC will save the day with legislation...

(sarc off)

All you poor, poor CPC supporters making excuses for the party sounds really lame.

And you victims forget the multitude of Progressive Conservatives who came into the fold. They have no appetite to remove Sec13.1 from the HRC's.

It's a moot issue for them. It won't happen. Get over it. Politics trumps principle everytime.

Gads, some of you hit your heads pretty hard falling off of that turnip truck.

Once again i must caution you all from getting to worked up about what can be achieved once we get a majority. You don't buy or win votes. You rent them or have them loaned to you and they are always free to leave you. Kate's point:

"job one on the Conservative agenda is achieving a majority in what could be a spring vote.... those hopes rest with a government that isn't legislating with a hand tied behind its back."

needs to be ameliorated with the understanding that one hand will still be tied behind its back as it attempts to its majority. it will have a more stable window of opportunity to push things through, but dont look for meaningful repositioning on this issue or its lunatic pandering to the global warming crowd.

that should be KEEP its majority. my attempt at a bold tag failing

I have resolved that, the instant I hear of gay-rights activist being hauled before an HRC tribunal because their Gay-Pride Parades are offensive to Muslims, I will accept these commissions as being fair and balanced.

This is disgusting pure and simple. Some things are simply NOT negotiable - free speach is one of them in my estimation.

To my mind, if they are going to equivocate on a matter as fundamental to a free society - they don't deserve to govern period. Spare the talk of elections! If they are willing to sell people down the river on this, what hope is there of having any sort of decent government majority or no?

...spot on Jeff...

Divide and conquer. There is no reason for Alberta to have an AHRC. My vote in the upcoming provincial election just might be soley based on this one issue. I have informed the PC's of this. If they have trouble they should use the "notwithstanding" "clause".

I'm giving the federal conservatives some slack due the the obvious fact that they can't do jack without Jack or Stephie and that lot is the enemy.

10 minutes after they get a majority it will be game on. If they don't get with the program then, I'm joining the closest separatist group available (and I don't care what they want to separate from! lol.)

As for the Alberta "Conservatives", I'd say that they're well past their best-before date. They haven't been conservative for a decade.

The PM must choose his battles carefully.
If he can pick the right time and place his government will win this battle.
Too many issues mean too many battle fronts means spreading the troops too thin.
Entering into this too soon may give the left amunition to attack.
Personally I believe he is waiting and preparing for the best time.
Sheesh haven't any of you read The Art of War

Fortunately for the CPC and unfortunately for the Liberals there is only one correct stance on many important issues. Since the Liberals have abandoned the "middle right" of the political spectrum, they are having a very difficult time being on the right side of any issue since the CPC have already taken those positions. If the Liberals are going to take the lead on this issue it is in the best interest of the CPC to lay low. The Manley report has shown that when Liberals are on side with CPC positions, it does major damage to the Liberals when they attempt to oppose the government on those very issues. Dion will have to crack the party whip on this issue, until then I can support any Liberal MP who wants to help dig the hole the Liberals have leaped into.

jeff and hardboiled - could you provide some evidence that the Conservatives are in favour of keeping Section 13.1 of the HRAct?

The issue, I think, is not about keeping it; Harper and others in the CPC are clearly against that clause.
The issue is making it an election issue. You cannot, in Canada, carry on a debate during an election. We don't have the media system or the time frame for debates during an election.

Our media system is heavily slanted towards the Liberals; compare the US which has both sides represented in television and newspapers, and where debates on issues are on prime time, daily and for hours. Compare the fact that their presidential elections involve millions of people, debates and last over a year.

Now, think about the HRA section 13. To understand it, you have to KNOW a lot of facts:

1. The HRAct, its focus on employment and housing discrimination, which are ACTIONS that have occurred in fact.
2. The addition of Section 13.1, which doesn't refer to factual actions but to speculation about what someone MIGHT feel in the future.
3. You need to know the difference between an objective actual FACT and a subjective private emotion.

4. The difference between what has actually happened and speculation about the as yet not happened future. That Section 13.1 refers only to 'likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt'. You need to know that 'likely' is not focused on actual results, but only on pure speculation.
You need to know that NO proof of 'being hated' or 'viewed with contempt' need be shown or even needs to occur. It's all speculated.

5. Then, you need to know WHO is doing the speculation - the HR commissioners.

6.You need to know that in regular court, speculation and subjective musings about the future are not admissable.

7. You need to know the difference between actual defamation of an individual and speech that is 'likely to cause hatred or contempt' within a group.

You need to know that we have Defamation Laws. You need to know that these are applicable only to individuals not groups and that they can only refer to specific, actual results of 'harm'. Not speculated results.

8. You need to know that the HRC funds the complainant but not the defendant. You need to know that this violates the Charter; either fund neither or fund both.
That in the three decades of the HRC, not a single defendant has been acquited.
That there is no process of discovery or disclosure which would show whether there is any proof of discrimination, and where each sees the other's records. The plaintiff need not even face the defendant or be available for cross-examination.

9. You need to know that the HRAct Section 13.1 violates Section 2b of the Charter.

10. Then, you need to know the History of cases and reports by the HR Commission - how they have rejected free speech as being 'American'; how they have said that free speech is trumped by 'feelings of self worth', ie, that criticism can't be allowed.

11. Then, you need to know the nature of a six week election campaign and the role that multiculturalism has played in the devt of isolate voting blocs funded to Vote Liberal. You need to know that the Liberals will NOT know or debate any of the above, but will instead, switch the focus to an irrational, emotive hysteria about THE CPC are Against Minority Groups and Want to Enable Hate Speech Against Minorities!

You KNOW they will do this. Remember the Guns in Our Cities Liberal ads? Were they a debate about the Gun Registry? Were they?

Now, if you think that any of this can be debated in the six weeks of an election campaign, then, I'd be interested in how that could be done.

One other thing the leftards can never get their heads around.... conservatives WILL vote out their party's reps if those reps fail to listen.

Harper etal had better damned well remember that!

ET, you're comments are correct that the Liberals would use the CHRC issue to bash the CPC over the head during a campaign.

But I think the CPC defence is pretty simple:

1) A Liberal MP wants to scrap section 13
2) Numerous editorials opposed to section 13
3) Some lefty blogs opposed to section 13 as well

Furthermore, if the CPC thinks they are going to make gains in the immigrant/gay/feminist constituencies of Montreal/Toronto/Vancouver by peddling "Liberal-lite", they should look at John Tory's accomplishments.

OttRob,

In a perfect world, your points would mean something. In this world, the CPC gets to run against the Liberal's media arm.

These scumbag, propaganda arms have already suggested that anyone who supports the repeal is a Nazi (and I'm not just referring to Kinsella.) Imagine what they're going to suggest during the election?

The media are treasonous whores of the Liberal party.

Really. why should PMSH step into this battle now.
Because we all feel it is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
If he holds his cards until the best time he can let the liberal left demolish itself.

I personally believe that some Conservatives will give Harper the boot and vote for other parties based on principle. I belief he's acting like a Modern Liberal when serious issues arise. That's not acceptable to me as Conservative, a Principled Man would stand behind his supporters and fight for our beliefs. His failure to even address the issue of Section 13 tells me he doesn't care that this issue is IMPORTANT to a majority of Conservative supporters. He either doesn't care that we are angry at his betrayal of Conservative Values, or he's blinded by his Utopian Dream to win a majority by securing three immigrant votes in Torona or Quesybec.

Unlike the Modern Liberals or Slacked Faced NDP supporters I do not blindly support the Conservative Party, when it fails to follow a Principled Path I'll take my vote else where.

I just about fell out of my chair about the building of the Museum of MAN'S RIGHTS in WINNIPEG!

I hope they are building it right across the street from the totalitarian CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD which has run roughshod over the rights of western grain producers since 1943.

What a perfect blast of irony this is!

Can't you just see those CWB employees all going thru the Museum on their lunch hours moaning about all those poor people whose rights were trampled on by dictatorial govts in other countries?

Rose,

That's why we've had Liberal prime ministers for most of my lifetime.

ET,

Valid points all - and on any other issue I would be willing to to along with it, but not this one.

This is something that is far too important and far too dangerous. They may or may not be in favour of section 13 - i really dont know. Moreover, am I to take it on faith then that something will be done about it when the government get's the magic majority. What assurance do I have that the arguement won't then be that there is an election in 4 years and we need to get re-elected.

I cannot, and will not be placated with the old "trust us, well do XXX when we get a majority". The complexity of the debate is moot, at the most basic level the question is free speech or not - due process of law or not.

If this is what must be done to ensure a majority Conservative government then the cure is worse than the disease and I will have no part of it. Staying home for me is not an option but I can, and will vote to keep them out of office.

Jeff, Rose,

First, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Second, Harper is on record as being against HRC in general - not just parts of it, all of it.

Third, it isn't reasonable to expect Harper to fight unwinnable battles (and taking on Liberal sacred cows in a minority situation isn't winnable,) and you should know enough about him to know he plays the long game.

If Harper acted as you suggest we'd be laughing about the second coming of Joe Clarke who couldn't add up his votes.

Ottrob - I'm not sure that your three steps would work.

That's because the Liberals would immediately repudiate Keith Martin as 'rogue'. They've already laid the groundwork for that, by having Dion publicly ask him to withdraw the Motion.

They'd then show him up as 'rogue' and also, as Originally and Still, a Reformist, an ex-Conservative, and still, a Conservative.

And even your steps 2 and 3, though they exist in fact, would be repudiated by Kinsella tactics that would show that White Supremacist blogs also want that Section repealed.

It's not an issue that can be debated in the ridiculous six week hysteria of an election. You have to know facts, know the difference between actual and not-yet-happened events..and so on. Know that we have Laws against hate and discriminative ACTS. Not feelings.

As I said, in the US, the issues are debated. Thoroughly - not by the candidates on two "Leader's Debates: English and French'. But by pundits and people and everyone - for over a year.

Here, there are no debates by and for the people; we have Mike Duffy and Don Newman, both for the Liberals who set up panels of one lone Conservative against three leftists: Liberal, NDP and Bloc. Heh.

In six weeks, that issue would be set up by the Liberals as: Conservatives Against Immigrants. In Our Cities. Promoting Hatred. Here. In Our Cities.

That's the Liberal style.

OMMAG said "One other thing the leftards can never get their heads around.... conservatives WILL vote out their party's reps if those reps fail to listen.

Harper etal had better damned well remember that!"

Well said and I totally agree. I was one of those who walked away from PCP and joined Reform and I'm prepared to also walk away from Harper et al unless they develop some spine and start acting like conservatives. I'll never, ever vote Lib or Dipper but that doesn't mean I wouldn't deny the CPC my vote ...... along with the donations I have made in response to their constant pleading for more money. Damn it! Put the money to good use and push the conservative agenda.

BC'er,

Funny, after everyone bailed on the PC's to join reform (and I was one of them,) I seem to recal 13 years of Liberal government.

How'd that work out for ya? I didn't like it much. You want 13 years of Dion and Rae?

Warwick,

What does it matter what he is on record as having said at any time other than now? Since he is not on record NOW as having supported it what prevents him from developing a more "nuanced" position in the future?

As to your comment about perfection being the enemy of the good: This isn't about perfection - this is about either supporting freedom or not.

In my life, I would rather loose by my principles that win without them - I expect nothing less from the elected officials I vote for.

Well, rose and BCer, I guess you're in for years of disappointment. You expect immediate Conservative changes and totally, completely ignore that our parliamentary system works against such one-party agendas.

Harper is up against a majority Leftist House, made up of the Liberals, NPD and Bloc. They have blocked every one of his agendas, either within the House, or, via the Liberal dominated Senate.

It took over one year for the Senate to pass his Accountability Act and it was so watered down that it's almost functionally irrelevant. The Senate, of course, immediately took out the clauses to make their members accountable.
The Senate has blocked Senate reform. It is blocked Law and Order reform.

So, your threat that 'unless he becomes more Conservative' is misplaced. You should be threatening the Liberals/NDP/Bloc and the Senate. They are the ones voting against the CPC motions. By all means - deny him a majority; Enjoy the Liberal-NDP socialism that will result.

ET/Warwick/orvict:

Fact is, you are either principled, or you're a greasy, self interested politician.

I lived through 13 years of Librano politics - diliking their moral relatvism, the cheap politics, and their hand in the till. I also remember Lyin' Brian - and billion dollar make work prisons built in Quebec - for cheap vote buying, among other scandals.

Mu opinion and outlook has never been represented by my elected official nationally, despite the bull that comes from them during election campaigns.

To the whines and Machiavellian bull that y'all are spouting - I say bullcrap. Politicians should suck it up, live to your principles, and respect and support will follow.

What's news these days? Accountability Act is a job half done, Flaherty pulls an Eggleton in awarding contracts (oops, sorry!), and Prentice is ensuring US business will be able to wrap its lips around your wallet - with Canadian government's full cooperation.

Me? I support people who have principle, and live it. Not the ghouls who buy votes, manufacture opinion, and talk out of two sides of their mouth.

Talk to a Progressive Conservative, you meet a Liberal.

Give the CPC a few years, Reform II is coming. It is an inevitability for people like me - who aspire to live within a great nation - not a banana republic for industry to loot.

Arguing that 'it's not as bad as the Librano's' does not reassure those like myself who believe in liberty, honesty, and freedom to pursue our own happiness and lives.

Sophist politicians and professional apologists are not part of this belief.

hardboiled

And ET - the Accountablility Act could've been relit - and rolled into an omnibus on confidence as well.

The CPC let it get watered down - because of pushback throughout government and the politicos.

C'mon - no one should ever willingly be a useful idiot...

Hardboiled,

Dion and the media rely on your way of thinking. It ensures they have power more often than not.

If you are waiting for perfection, you're no different than utopians. It denies human nature.

If you demand the unattainable, you will go through life unhappy indeed.

A Conservative majority is out of the question. It never has been a realistic goal, and due to "demographic creep" it becomes a less realistic goal by the day. The best Harper can do is two, maybe three minority governments.

Not such a bad thing really; how stable might a prospective CPC majority be, anyway? The second they achieve it the backstabbing and threats of floorcrossing will start.

Is this the Izzy Asper Museum of Holocau,.. er uhm Human Rights?

As of, closing in on five minutes ago, the Aspers shitcanned the most feared Nazi hunter ever to darken little boy's water closets, with a camera.

Why aren't the price tags on these white-elephant-wastes-of-money, as small as what passes for politics in this little country.

"If you are waiting for perfection, you're no different than utopians"

I don't demand perfection.

I ask for adherence to a basic set of belief and philosophy. Whether it's successful is up to the people selling it, and democracy.

Metastacizing federal government spending, cuts to consumption based taxes, and marginal targetted tax reduction, and pissing away $1.5 billion tax dollars on Ontario biofuel refineries is not 'conservative' in philosophy.

To me at least.

Hardboiled, could you provide some evidence that the Accountability Act could have been put through via a confidence vote? It would simply have been defeated; the Senate Liberals and House Liberals and certainly the NDP would have ensured that. Being put to a confidence vote doesn't guarantee its being passed!

Same goes with the HRC as an election issue. How would you deal with that? Remember, you may understand and have examined the issues, but the majority don't, and are amenable to the 'sound bits' provided by the MSM and Liberals.

Principles also include, necessarily, realism and a pragmatic strategy of seeing those principles come into reality. Having principles and ignoring how to make them really operative in the world is pure romanticism.

Let's say that you have a principled ideal of justice, and that justice includes getting rid of the HRC section 13.1 because it is based on pure speculation. Shouting out in the House that you are opposed to Section 13.1 may focus some attention on you, but, it won't achieve your goal. You have to think - how to get it repealed.

That means, moving it out of its current propaganda use as a Means To Get Votes From Minority Groups, and showing that Minority Groups are well protected by current laws, and that hindering Free Speech is a serious violation of fundamental rights.
Not easy to do this, when all three Opposition Parties use this clause To Get Minority Votes.

So, if you are principled, which includes action and not just rhetoric - you have to move to a majority so that you can repeal it. There is No Other Way To Repeal it. The Opposition parties find it too useful for their propaganda strategies.

"You might want to ask why the Harper government is more committed to building a $100 million Museum for Human Rights than to ensuring real, live freedom of speech in the here and now. "

"because it's easier to worship symbols than it is to uphold principles"

Additionally, the whole meaning of human rights has been distorted, so when you talk about them nobody knows what you mean anymore.

Liberals have distorted the meaning of human rights to include peace, affordable housing, free health care and clean drinking water. Soon having a wide-screen TV will be a human right.

If you talk about free speech or freedom of expression (real human rights), those sorts of things won't even make it into the museum.

$100 million?

Oh good. They were able to keep it under $110 million.

Rose, Hardboiled,

Harper knows how to pick his battles and that's what he is doing. If you look at what he has said and done in the past, you would likely come to the conclusion that he would abolish the HRCs given the chance.

However, you can be sure he will not utter a word about it now, because the media would grab it, and the headlines would be "Far-right Harper supports Neo-Nazis". You can't accomplish anything by sitting in opposition. So Harper tries to figure out what he can accomplish today, and does it. Those are the issues he will run an election on. He saves the other battles for another day.

In the last couple of elections, the whole "hidden agenda" is the one thing that kept the conservatives from a majority. Harper does not want a repeat. The cons have been trying to get rid of the CWB and the gun registry and those issues have been a battle from day one.

Kate is right, this battle is more succesfully fought by the people who have nothing to lose, and some of those people are liberals.

But it is the Liberal party that created section 13, and there are many liberals who are proud of it. Remember that. Putting Libs back in power will cause them to strengthen it.

Politics is the art of the possible.

Harper is by no means infallible, but he got to watch the CBC do the Liberal's work for them by destroying Day, Manning, Campbell et al - he will try like hell to avoid the same fate.

I agree with holdfast and sf.

IMHO PMSH is cautioning the CPC on the issues because the MSM is chomping at the bit to spin it, as they dance with the Libs.
Look how they treated Keith Martin's motion...ignored the whole story and focused on the "White supremist" reaction...and he's Liberal!

"Funny, after everyone bailed on the PC's to join reform (and I was one of them,) I seem to recal 13 years of Liberal government.

How'd that work out for ya? I didn't like it much. You want 13 years of Dion and Rae?"

THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION. IT JUST UPSETS ME THAT MOST OF YOU ARE GOING TO NEED ANOTHER 20YRS OF PUNISHMENT TO REALIZE WHAT I REALIZED AS A TEEN. TIME TO DROP THE DEAD WEIGHT!

yep - wait until 'the right time' - while governing as 'small l' liberals - until we spring the trap - aha! Ummm, aside from the hidden agenda allusions, do I want another 13 years of Librano rule?

Of course not. And with the exact same conviction, I don't want a CPC that looks, smells, and behaves the same way. You've either got principle or you don't.

Keep on worshipping symbols. And keep those donations flowing. You'll get thanked, and get a pretty Christmas card too.

And you're right Jon, picking up all of the failed Liberals from the Progressive Conservatives wasn't the best idea that ever came along.

Don't get me wrong. Human rights and the HRC's are important critical issues in a liberal democracy. But now is not the time for PMSH to make a stand. It may seem that he has left Ezra to hang. But Levant and Styne are the scouts, surveying the enemy territory, testing enemy strengths and weakness. Both are doing a good job and can take care of them selves.
Why step in now. Let this play out. With the support of ordinary people Ezra is getting debate and media attention to the issue.
It may seem like a no brainer to jump in and fix it right now, but Harper has a MINORITY government, Where the loony left attack and obstruct most every conservative bill.
I will not pass a judgment now. And I appreciate it is not yet time for the government to take action.
Or show their strategy. You do not give the opposing team your playbook before the game.
Especially when up against team sleaze and their msm cheerleaders.

"And you're right Jon, picking up all of the failed Liberals from the Progressive Conservatives wasn't the best idea that ever came along."

I had to read this twice because I couldn't believe someone was agreeing with me. "When I said drop the dead weight" I meant Ontario and Quebec.

Do you still concur?

And every time someone brings up the "hidden agenda" just think of 13 years of broken liberal promises and sleaze and corruption.
Really. Who has a hidden agenda?

hardboiled, Jon: A couple of queries for you.

In the Canadian federal political system, which party most reflected the right leaning political view? Here's a hint: IT WASN'T THE REFORM PARTY. So don't be yowling too loudly about the PC party. It was the only choice on the right for a lot of years. It may have ended up right in the middle, but it formed governments.

Why is it that the devotees of the right of centre political position, are so insistent on committing
political suicide as soon as they detect the faintest hope of some actual political clout?

My dear hardboiled, jeff, rose, jon; to fight an election on the repeal of Sec 13 would be asinine. The fallout would be at least 20 more years wandering in the political wilderness. I am not saying that Sec. 13 should not be repealed, or that there is any justification for HRCs to exist but. I can assure you that to make the abolition of them a platform plank in the current bogeyman climate of fear as espoused by the left and their media would guarantee the end of conservative rule. How long did it take to kill John Tory in Ontario? On a FAR less contentious issue.

It is well known what the majority of Canadians seem to want in a government. They keep voting for the Liberals. No matter what the Libs do, they always SAY the right things to get the vote and bank on the short memories of the sheeple to vote them back in the next time. It seems to be a rather successful strategy.

So, to beat them at their game requires playing it to a certain extent. Despite all the talk of "Honesty in Government", the majority of peop;e want no such thing. They want a government that will pander most closely to their own ideals. End of story. Principles? HAH. Principles and $1.50 will get you a double-double, but it won't get you elected. Parties who heed this form majority governments.

Fight this election on the HRCs and Sec. 13 and you will see the CPC reduced to EXACTLY what the PCs were reduced to following the Mulroney years.

And one more thing. Jon, I seem to think that you aren't all that far removed from those teenage years when you received your enlightenment. Because, to jettison all the (in YOUR opinion) deadweight would leave nothing but lightweights. And that 20 years might be an optomistic estimate.

A right of centre government is what this country needs to get it back on it's feet, and striving toward it's potential. After all these years of left of centre governance, largesse, and policy it will require careful planning and shorter strides than we might like. But if you won't give yourself a chance to start, how do you plan to finish?

There is one thing all 'a y'all can do to make yourselves feel better. Make an appointment and go see your Conservative Party of Canada MP or candidate. In person.

Tell them about the HRC problem, ask them what they, personally are doing about it. Let them know you're not going to let it lie.

That's what I did with my MP. I know what he's doing. I don't understand why he's doing it so quietly, but he's moving in the direction I'm interested in.

WRT to your comment about the CHRC you have thrown me in with a group I do not agree with. Pasted below is my comment posted earlier today:

"Fortunately for the CPC and unfortunately for the Liberals there is only one correct stance on many important issues. Since the Liberals have abandoned the "middle right" of the political spectrum, they are having a very difficult time being on the right side of any issue since the CPC have already taken those positions. If the Liberals are going to take the lead on this issue it is in the best interest of the CPC to lay low. The Manley report has shown that when Liberals are on side with CPC positions, it does major damage to the Liberals when they attempt to oppose the government on those very issues. Dion will have to crack the party whip on this issue, until then I can support any Liberal MP who wants to help dig the hole the Liberals have leaped into."

Please forgive my age, the music I listen to, and the fact the I think "Aqua Teen" is the funniest S**t going. I'm talking about what I see as inevitability; and I fear that you are probably right, 20yrs may be an optimistic guess (it's 10 and counting 4 me). I do not buy your lightweight heavyweight argument since you have not backed it up with anything but the aforementioned punch line.

Do you still concur? - Posted by: Jon at February 12, 2008 5:04 PM

Of course Jon - I am a separatist. I believe Western Canada should (have) seperated from the Confederation. I have no illusions that this federal system will ever represent the totality of view nor interests of Alberta equitably. The discussion here today on such issues as electoral triangulation reveal just that.

Curiously, what people in here have not stated is that the presence of a further right political party could actually further the agenda. While revealing friction in countries with multiple parties, I know my views (libertarian in general) will never be accepted through the political process we have - as greasy and money infected as it is.

I don't understand why he's doing it so quietly, but he's moving in the direction I'm interested in. Posted by: The Phantom at February 12, 2008 5:51 PM

He's so quiet about it - because he wants your support and donation, and doesn't want to have to actually say it out loud, or do anything. You are being used.

My apologies to commentor siczela. I nuked your post by accident! Feel free to repost.

“There's the media wing of the Liberal Party”
Perhaps that should read:
“There’s the media, a wing of Liberal Party”

Speaking of principles, where are all of yours (hardboiled and a few others excepted)?

Remember when the CPC first got elected? All the smug boasting around here about how nice it was to have a party that "governed according to principles, not polls"? And about how a Conservative government of Western Canadian origins was just what was needed to sweep Ottawa clean? How Harper's leadership would finally usher in an enlightened era of policy-making driven by conservative values rather than the self-serving quest for power (which you all associated with only the Liberals)?

What happened to all that principled talk? Suddenly you're willing to abide a Conservative party that would suspend and compromise its ideological principles solely for the sake of self-preservation? That would pander to the vote-rich middle of the spectrum -- a group whose political values and opinions you don't share -- because it means more governing power?

You would abide this because, what, the status quo and the alternative are worse? Where are your principles, that you would prefer a Liberal-in-Conservative-clothing to nothing at all?

Jeff wrote: In my life, I would rather loose by my principles that win without them - I expect nothing less from the elected officials I vote for.

That's what I was raised to believe a Conservative Politician stood for, sadly I keep hearing blather about wait until he's got a majority. I don't think so, he does not deserve my vote, a brave man stands behind his convictions he doesn't sell them to the highest bidder (Immigrants and Quebec) to get elected. I would never compromise my morals or beliefs to benifit myself personally at the expense of my family. I expect no less from a Conservative PM, he's not conservative he's just Liberal Light with a side order of Socialist Propaganda. Watch the new TV ads for Diversity, no mention of Christians in a Diverse Canada just Muslims, Jews and Gays etc. That ad spoke volumns to me, apparently the foundation which Canada was built has no place in the New World Utopia of Harperism. Christians aren't part of a diverse Canada, but Muslims are. Can he be more sickenly obvious with his State paid for propaganda.

I refuse to become blindly loyal to the Conservative Party, there is only one God in my life his name is Jesus. I consider Harper to be Judas.

Question: If Harper's CPC is so opposed to the CHRC, why are they not only leaving s.13 intact, but also repealing s.67 instead, which would have the effect of expanding the coverage of s.13 legal protections (among others)?

Strategically standing still on s.13 for the sake of the election is one thing, moving in the opposite direction on s.67 is entirely another. ET's right that disengaging from the s.13 debate is necessary if the CPC hopes to win a majority. The question is, how far and for how long a shift to the middle would a true conservative be willing to put up with in order to get that majority. And assuming that the CPC wins it, how confident would one be that they'll be as eager to shift back to the right?

This would almost make me consider voting Liberal next month, but since we already have a liberal Premier in office...

While it is understandable that in minority position you can’t go around beating your chest saying ‘I’m going to change the world”
The election campaign is the place to come up with a program. Some say you can’t do it this time, that time or another time. That somebody will clobber you with that. Seems that there is a lot of fear that if you start talking about it, you lose.
The abstract is, that you have to know, as opposed to believe, that what you are doing is the right thing to do.
If you decided you know, then you keep with the program as they say, hell or high water.
Consider one of the battles of Alexander the Great. The guy set out to do what he wanted to do, to punish Darius, it never occurred to Alexander that he may loose, never. After a particular victorious battle, Alexander and one of his officers called Parmenio stood up on a hill looking at the enemy in a mad retreat. Alexander turned to Parmenio and asked him, ‘Parmenio, should we go after them?’ Parmenio said “I would not if I was Alexander” to which Alexander replied “I would not either if I was Parmenio’ and of he went after the enemy.
You want to win, you go after them, if you are afraid, stay home.

siczela:

"Suddenly you're willing to abide a Conservative party that would suspend and compromise its ideological principles solely for the sake of self-preservation?"

Because the conservative party is pointed in the right direction, and is making progress, little by little.

Taxes are lower. Not a lot lower, but lower. If the Libs were in power, they would be the same or higher.

There is not national daycare program. If the libs were in power, we would have ourselves another national social program soaking up our incomes and telling us how to raise our children. I am pleased with the fact that for the time being, national daycare is dead, I believe that government should not play a role in the raising of children, that is what parents are for.

There is no national drug program. There would be with the libs. The military is slowly being rebuilt - with the libs it would almost non-existent by now. The country now has a sensible foreign policy, not the self-platitudes and suuport for dictators that we had with the libs. The justice system is being revamped with new tough-on-crime bills instead of the liberal revolving prison door policy. There is less corporate welfare, despite the whining by Mcguinty. Harper refuses to hand cheques to business, instead he sends aid to economically depressed towns and regions. With the libs, your tax money would continue to flow to Power Corp and Bombardier.

The conservatives are moving in the right direction. They continue to fight to kill the gun registry and the Canadian Wheat Board. Since they are a minority, they have not been able to get the votes to finish them off, but they are working on it.

Would I like to see more consveratism? No doubt. But for the time being, I am happy just to see less liberalism.

Politics is the art of the possible. If the conservatives were to mention the HRCs they would provide untold ammunition to the lefties in our society. Therefore you don't mention HRCs. You quietly weed out the most egregious actors on the HRCs and once they are no longer have an active voice in the media you cut the funding. Years down the road everyone asks why we have HRCs and you eliminate them.

To use another analogy. A prisoner is not wise to use a jackhammer to escape his prison. The tool is too big and too noisey to hide. He is wise to use a dull knife and silently whittle away at the wall that surrounds him. Carefully and methodically worry the blocks until they weaken and give way.

From the National Post:

Muslim leader drops Ezra Levant cartoon complaint

Western Standard publisher plans to launch a civil lawsuit

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=303895

What happens now?

"You quietly weed out the most egregious actors on the HRCs and once they are no longer have an active voice in the media you cut the funding."

Except that Harper himself appointed Jennifer Lynch, a women's rights pioneer, and David Langtry, a strong multiculturalism supporter, to the Chief Commissioner and Deputy Chief Commissioner positions, respectively. The two most recent appointees, Sandi Bell and Yvonne Boyer, also share activist roots. Hardly the pushover types.

sf...I agree again with one exception:
I want to see MORE liberalism (scrap the long gun boondoggle,scrap the HRC, reduce taxes and , scrap Nanny state programs)
and I want to see less of the Liberal Party.
I believe the CPC are at work as The Phantom has suggested, but they aren't using the media as testing ground.

That did not take long.

Ezra responds:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/syed-soharwardy-wants-a-hudna.html

"You might want to ask why the Harper government is more committed to building a $100 million Museum for Human Rights than to ensuring real, live freedom of speech in the here and now."

Because a museum is where you keep interesting artefacts from dead civilizations.

"There is less corporate welfare, despite the whining by Mcguinty. Harper refuses to hand cheques to business, instead he sends aid to economically depressed towns and regions. With the libs, your tax money would continue to flow to Power Corp and Bombardier.Posted by: sf at February 12, 2008 9:49 PM"

Bull sf - note the Frazer institute report on subsidies, and Prentice's retreat.

$19 billion went out the door in 2004, with departmental spending up 19% since. The CPC is on track for the highest level of corporate teat feeding since...the Libranos.

check facts first sir/madam - nothing has changed.

I have links, and the story, on my blog. Please, inform yourself. Ignorance is not cool.

Rose said "I consider Harper to be Judas."

Really? I shall be blunt. Rose - you are committing idolatry. Political idealism is your god. Have you prayed yet for your legions of angels?

(Forgive me, but sometimes a brick is the only thing that works)

As Christians, we are permitted to consider whether we have the means to accomplish the task (see Luke 14:28-32).

You may indeed freely withhold from Harper your support. To call him Judas is to judge another man's servant and to bind his conscience.

Repent.

Interesting questions here. Siczela asks "Where are your principles, that you would prefer a Liberal-in-Conservative-clothing to nothing at all?"

What kind of principles are we talking about here? The political kind or the -real- kind?

I've been watching BNN tonight, the market strategy guys are coming on saying "Sub-prime is just the tip of the iceberg, behind that there's credit card debt, car loans, standard mortgages, blah blah blah, this could get REALLY ugly so I'm shorting banks."

The sub-prime crisis is the direct, inescapable result of too many people living beyond their means.

All through my adult life I've marveled at the people I've known who always had a new car, had a nice house, nice furniture, etc, working the same job as I did. I'm driving 15 year old junk and renting. How the hell do they do that?

Well, they do it on CREDIT. They don't own the stuff, they just make the minimum payments every month. How long can you do that?

Exactly this long. Now, suddenly, the magic inflating house prices are DE-flating, you can't re-fi the house anymore, and those minimum payments are masking fact that you own $100 credit card kilobucks at 20% interest, baby. PLUS the mortgage.

Why did this happen? Because bankers decided that principles were no longer important. The principl ethat you pay back the money you owe is passe, you just roll it over on the next greater fool you come across and leave them holding the bag. Well, the music just stopped and the banking industry is left holding the potato. And its getting hot. Principles matter.

Here's another principle that Liberals have decided is passe, getting what you pay for and paying for what you get. We have socialized medicine in this country. It doesn't work, because the system is set up to give away services and the customer never pays for them.

People expect the Marcus Welby MD heart transplant for 95 year old alcoholic Uncle Joe, and can't understand why they are getting Nurse Rached with an aspirin and the bed in the hallway instead.

Principles are like gravity. They never go away, they never stop working and they effect everyone.

Those are the kind of principles I'm interested in the CPC following. If they sink the HRCs under cover of darkness, I'm good with it. If they talk like Liberals and cut my taxes on the sly, I'm good with it. If they do like Ed Stelmach in Alberta just did when he reneged on legal contracts with the oil companies, that I'm not good with.

I don't understand why they do things the way they do them. As long as the ship is moving in the right direction, or even is stopped dead, I'm votin' CPC.

Like spoilt children stomping THEIR feet and holding thier breath. I WANT IT NOW.
Come on kiddies, grow up.
Harper is still the best PM I have seen in my lifetime.
Canada is a big ship and it takes a long time to turn a big ship around.

Only an idiot would short Canadian banks. They make money in all environments. I hope he isn't telling clients to do that.

The sub-prime issue is way overblown, which is typical behaviour for speculators who don't understand the value of holding quality investments long term, instead they prefer suffering the day to day stupidity and inefficiencies of stock markets and "analysts."

I'll be glad to lend some bank stocks - just put the difference in trust, so I can get my hands up when speculation blows up in their face, when I want my stocks back.