[ridenrain]

$1:

For a party that prides itself on its commitment to tolerance and diversity, the Liberals are often quick to show great intolerance toward evangelical Christians. In the 2000 election, they labelled Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day as "scary" for his conservative Christian beliefs. In the 2004 race, they suggested Ontarians not vote Conservative because the party had been "taken over by evangelical Christians." They criticized a recent appointment to the federal bench because the new judge, while a lawyer in private practice, occasionally represented pro-life and Christian organizations in court. And now they have called it an "affront to our democracy" that Rona Ambrose, the Environment Minister, has appointed a social conservative as her chief of staff.

Darrel Reid, Ms. Ambrose's new senior assistant, has made many controversial remarks in the past as president of Focus on the Family Canada, a social conservative organization that promotes traditional, Biblical values. He has strongly opposed same-sex marriage, abortion and gay rights. Perhaps most outrageously, when the House of Commons passed amendments to the Criminal Code's hate-crimes sections in 2003 -- amendments that many believe restrict the right to speak out against gay rights and marriage from an orthodox Christian perspective -- Mr. Reid claimed the changes weren't "the first time in human history where tyranny has been imposed on people ... Hitler and his bunch" had done the same thing. His implication was clear: Those Liberals who introduced the changes were like Nazis.

Had the Liberals attacked Mr. Reid on the basis that his remarks were ideologically misguided, we might find ourselves now defending their right to expose his views to Canadians so voters could make up their own minds about Mr. Reid and his judgment. But on Tuesday the Liberals went much, much further; they suggested his Christian views -- not just his over-the-top remarks about Hitler -- made him unfit to hold public office in Canada.

Opposition Leader Bill Graham criticized Mr. Reid's views on social issues, as well as his belief that global warming may not be manmade but rather a natural phenomenon. That's fair comment. On both, Mr. Reid likely stands outside the mainstream of Canadian thought. His views are legitimate fodder for Liberal attack.

But then Mr. Graham blustered that Mr. Reid's appointment was "an affront to our democracy," because "the rights of minorities in Canada are fundamental to our common citizenship." His implication was just as clear as Mr. Reid's on Hitler: Anyone not instantly agreeing with Liberal dogma on minority rights is un-Canadian.

Evangelical Christians are a minority, Mr. Graham. What about their right to dissent from your orthodox view of Canadian society?

Frankly, we're tired of the Liberals' belief that they hold a monopoly on Canadian identity, that they alone can divine what is and is not acceptable for Canadians to believe. We have seen it time and again in their recent election campaigns. Every leader or party disagreeing with their positions on health care, the military or foreign affairs is portrayed as simply a toady of Washington. Their underlying message is everyone must believe as they do to be worthy of governing this country. Everyone who does not is guilty of harbouring a "secret agenda" to impose "American-style" health care or establish a theocracy

Enough of this politics of fear and anti-Evangelical bigotry. Canadians are not simple-minded. They can decide for themselves what positions are and are not acceptable. If Mr. Reid's views are too shocking for voters, they will defeat the government that hired him at the next election. That's how democracy works. The affront is in suggesting that there should be an ideological litmus test to determine which Canadians may enter public service based on their moral beliefs..

National Post

[fatbasturd]

ridenrain ridenrain:

$1:

For a party that prides itself on its commitment to tolerance and diversity, the Liberals are often quick to show great intolerance toward evangelical Christians. In the 2000 election, they labelled Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day as "scary" for his conservative Christian beliefs. In the 2004 race, they suggested Ontarians not vote Conservative because the party had been "taken over by evangelical Christians." They criticized a recent appointment to the federal bench because the new judge, while a lawyer in private practice, occasionally represented pro-life and Christian organizations in court. And now they have called it an "affront to our democracy" that Rona Ambrose, the Environment Minister, has appointed a social conservative as her chief of staff.

Darrel Reid, Ms. Ambrose's new senior assistant, has made many controversial remarks in the past as president of Focus on the Family Canada, a social conservative organization that promotes traditional, Biblical values. He has strongly opposed same-sex marriage, abortion and gay rights. Perhaps most outrageously, when the House of Commons passed amendments to the Criminal Code's hate-crimes sections in 2003 -- amendments that many believe restrict the right to speak out against gay rights and marriage from an orthodox Christian perspective -- Mr. Reid claimed the changes weren't "the first time in human history where tyranny has been imposed on people ... Hitler and his bunch" had done the same thing. His implication was clear: Those Liberals who introduced the changes were like Nazis.

Had the Liberals attacked Mr. Reid on the basis that his remarks were ideologically misguided, we might find ourselves now defending their right to expose his views to Canadians so voters could make up their own minds about Mr. Reid and his judgment. But on Tuesday the Liberals went much, much further; they suggested his Christian views -- not just his over-the-top remarks about Hitler -- made him unfit to hold public office in Canada.

Opposition Leader Bill Graham criticized Mr. Reid's views on social issues, as well as his belief that global warming may not be manmade but rather a natural phenomenon. That's fair comment. On both, Mr. Reid likely stands outside the mainstream of Canadian thought. His views are legitimate fodder for Liberal attack.

But then Mr. Graham blustered that Mr. Reid's appointment was "an affront to our democracy," because "the rights of minorities in Canada are fundamental to our common citizenship." His implication was just as clear as Mr. Reid's on Hitler: Anyone not instantly agreeing with Liberal dogma on minority rights is un-Canadian.

Evangelical Christians are a minority, Mr. Graham. What about their right to dissent from your orthodox view of Canadian society?

Frankly, we're tired of the Liberals' belief that they hold a monopoly on Canadian identity, that they alone can divine what is and is not acceptable for Canadians to believe. We have seen it time and again in their recent election campaigns. Every leader or party disagreeing with their positions on health care, the military or foreign affairs is portrayed as simply a toady of Washington. Their underlying message is everyone must believe as they do to be worthy of governing this country. Everyone who does not is guilty of harbouring a "secret agenda" to impose "American-style" health care or establish a theocracy

Enough of this politics of fear and anti-Evangelical bigotry. Canadians are not simple-minded. They can decide for themselves what positions are and are not acceptable. If Mr. Reid's views are too shocking for voters, they will defeat the government that hired him at the next election. That's how democracy works. The affront is in suggesting that there should be an ideological litmus test to determine which Canadians may enter public service based on their moral beliefs..

National Post

$1:

they labelled Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day as "scary

Tell the truth....SD even scares you

[USCAdad]

SD? You mean Dorris?

$1:

For a party that prides itself on its commitment to tolerance and diversity, the Liberals are often quick to show great intolerance toward evangelical Christians.

I generally think of the Libs as people that can feel enough of a middle that they stay in power... sometimes too long and to their own detriment.

$1:

In the 2000 election, they labelled Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day as "scary" for his conservative Christian beliefs. In the 2004 race, they suggested Ontarians not vote Conservative because the party had been "taken over by evangelical Christians."

Seems believable to me, otherwise Stevie wouldn't have to have gag order throughout the government. Having watched some of these earlier elections I understand why. The Conservatives do have freaks on the benches. I'd vote conservative otherwise.

$1:

They criticized a recent appointment to the federal bench because the new judge, while a lawyer in private practice, occasionally represented pro-life and Christian organizations in court. And now they have called it an "affront to our democracy" that Rona Ambrose, the Environment Minister, has appointed a social conservative as her chief of staff.

$1:

Darrel Reid, Ms. Ambrose's new senior assistant, has made many controversial remarks in the past as president of Focus on the Family Canada, a social conservative organization that promotes traditional, Biblical values. He has strongly opposed same-sex marriage, abortion and gay rights.

Depriving some other minority of their rights is anti democratic. Dang, it's like fuckin preschool; if you guys can't play nice, everyone's going to their own corners. And yes, that includes the Gay Activists like the Nights Of Columbus case that are just trying to push buttons. If there was an mp that had an agenda to bring back Sharia the electorate should know about that too.

$1:

Frankly, we're tired of the Liberals' belief that they hold a monopoly on Canadian identity, that they alone can divine what is and is not acceptable for Canadians to believe. We have seen it time and again in their recent election campaigns. Every leader or party disagreeing with their positions on health care, the military or foreign affairs is portrayed as simply a toady of Washington. Their underlying message is everyone must believe as they do to be worthy of governing this country. Everyone who does not is guilty of harbouring a "secret agenda" to impose "American-style" health care or establish a theocracy

Well, to the extent that Libs don't believe in theocracies, yes, everyone must believe as they do. To the extent that they do have a secret agenda (they want to change laws in accordance with the Bible) it should be known. Again, why don't the Cons, believing in open government, let their freaks talk openly?

$1:

Enough of this politics of fear and anti-Evangelical bigotry. Canadians are not simple-minded. They can decide for themselves what positions are and are not acceptable. If Mr. Reid's views are too shocking for voters, they will defeat the government that hired him at the next election. That's how democracy works. The affront is in suggesting that there should be an ideological litmus test to determine which Canadians may enter public service based on their moral beliefs..

To the extent that evangelicals are bigots it's fair play. If you have so much faith in the Canadian electorate then quit whining and let them figure it out. And yes, if the Cons actions are too shocking not only will they not be reelected, there may be changes and limits to freedoms of religions, which, in todays world, only seems like a good idea. That's how democracy works. If the voters have a litmus test, then tough titty.

[ridenrain]

That "gag order" or iron fisted media controll is just the bad terminology for the Liberals party whip. The Reform were pillered because they let their people speak their mind but the media had a field day and made it look like all candiates were wingnuts.
Now, just like the Liberals (only better) they have their debates in private then show, for the most part, a unified front for the public.
I have, must have, the ultimate faith in the CDN voters, but not when the media have already picked their winner.

[USCAdad]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I have, must have, the ultimate faith in the CDN voters, but not when the media have already picked their winner.

Last I checked the Western Standard would qualify as media. Most of the papers are run by conservatives of one ilk or another. What the heck are you talking about? Just because you live in a nation that is populated by mostly sane people is nothing to bitch about.... move to Georgia and send your kids to Jesus Camp.

[canadian1971]

Recomendations for the new Liberal leader
I say "Who cares?" I certainly think they deserve to stay in the penalty box for at least one more election. They earned it.

[USCAdad]

canadian1971 canadian1971:

Recomendations for the new Liberal leader
I say "Who cares?" I certainly think they deserve to stay in the penalty box for at least one more election. They earned it.

I've seen little evidence that they've done the house cleaning that they've needed to do. I'm actually not that dissapointed in Harper. I think Toews should probably find another line of work but what can you do when you've tied your ponies to freaks.

[ridenrain]

Ok. Now you're falling apart.

USCAdad USCAdad:

Last I checked the Western Standard would qualify as media. Most of the papers are run by conservatives of one ilk or another.

So you expect the Western Standard to compare against the Liberal friendly CanWest Media chain?

Papers owned by CanWest Global:
Calgary Herald
Edmonton Journal
National Post
Ottawa Citizen
Regina Leader-Post
Saskatoon StarPhoenix
The Gazette (Montreal)
The Province
The Vancouver Sun
Victoria Times-Colonist
Windsor Star

The Aspers are Liberal red through and through and I don't think I need to defend that comment.

I recently dumped the Vancouver sun because of it's gross bia so since you are so positive that there are some COnservative papers out there, please recomend one.

USCAdad USCAdad:

What the heck are you talking about? Just because you live in a nation that is populated by mostly sane people is nothing to bitch about.... move to Georgia and send your kids to Jesus Camp.

I don't understand that, could you spell it out, and please enclude as many assumptions on my religion, as you see fit.

[canadian1971]

$1:

I'm actually not that dissapointed in Harper.

The Cons on this site have done more to discourage me from voting for him than he has.

[USCAdad]

Are these the same Aspers that endorsed Harper and El Gordo?

I don't need to make assumptions. All I have to do is listen to "real women".

[Mr_Canada old]

canadian1971 canadian1971:

$1:

I'm actually not that dissapointed in Harper.

The Cons on this site have done more to discourage me from voting for him than he has.

Same here.

The Righties here are a little messed up, in my opinion, Every post is a "Fuck the Liberals" thing.

"Harper, Harper, He's our man, If he can't win, no one can!"

[SireJoe]

Ya... its a funny thing. Would we be in a different mind state if harper had the majority? Thats pretty much my biggest concern when it comes to the cons.

[Mr_Canada old]

SireJoe SireJoe:

Ya... its a funny thing. Would we be in a different mind state if harper had the majority? Thats pretty much my biggest concern when it comes to the cons.

I'd be living on one of those little islands in the Canadian Arctic seeing how long before Harper approved of a U.S. nuke being tested in Canada.

[SireJoe]

Or we would all be singing christian songs before we start the work day by law

[hwacker]

Don't like Canada, leave, it would be a much better place without Liberals.