well, I certainly commend your clerical restraint in language, and feel you have stated a reasonable accurage evaluation those bastards.

What Cannon says is largely unintelligible. nor do i recall Canadian making a statement of any sort on foreign policy in that election.

I wouldl guess that the purpose of these changes is to make it easier to kiss up to the US, which is the only Canadian foreign policy I can detect.

Yet another example of the Harper Tories placing ideology above all else, which doesn't surprise me.  What I don't understand is why saying 'child-soldier' is suddenly so controversial.  One would assume that even the Conservatives find the idea of children being asked to fight wars abhorrent.  "Children in war zones" is vague.  It doesn't draw a distinction between children who are caught in the crossfire and those that are forced to go out and do the killing.  Not that one group is that much better off than the other, but making children an instrument of war is a very special kind of evil. 

" "impunity" and "justice" would not be used when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Instead, there would be calls only for efforts to "prevent" sexual violence. "

*CHOKE*

Harper's an ass.  Geez, my forehead is flat from banging it off the desk....

"Human rights groups and members of Canada's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community are worried that controversial changes to Canadian foreign policy language could have dramatic and dangerous effects on gay rights support abroad. Compounding the problem, they say, is those changes have been made not only at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but at the Canadian International Development Agency, too."

This is a sort of continuation of that same story, RevMatt and the rest of the article is here:

http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/gay_rights-8-19-2009

we're going to be changing policies so that they reflect what Canada's values are and what Canadians said when they supported us during the last election.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon

I know this is just semantics but only 37.63% of Canadians might possibly support such values, although I would like to see a poll of those 37.63% to find out just how many were even aware that this country has a Foreign Affairs policy.

Of course I would also like to see a poll of those 37.63% to see if any of them supported linguistic gymnastics as government procedure.

LB - a member of the 60% whose values are irrelevant in a Canadian Con democracy

Creative semantics is the key to contemporary government; it consists of talking in strange tongues lest the public learn the inevitable inconveniently early.     George F. Will

Omar Khadr.  That's why.

 The Harper gov't hasn't done much to reflect Canadian values in the worldwide community. Why do they care now, haha? When the EU banned Canadian seal products, our Minister of Fisheries and Minister of International Trade simply asked the EU to reconsider in one or two statements. Nobody made an attempt to explain that the seal hunt is a vital source of income as well as food supply for many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Northern Quebec and the Territories. The only one bold enough to make a quick jab at the EU was Ms. Michaelle Jean who stirring up some fuss by eating a raw seal heart and saying, "Take from this what you will" mere weeks after the ban was announced. Harper's gov't also did the soft lumber deal with the US which turned out to have given Canada the bad end of the stick. As well as what Timebandit hinted at with Omar Khadr - how the Harper and Bush gov'ts have lied about his involvement and not just didn't demand for his return to Canada but actually appealing a ruling which said it is essential that they demand Omar's return.  Harper's gov't also tried covering their arse in the Abdelrazik in Sudan fiasco by saying the Sudanese gov't never offered to return him to Canada although either way, they hadn't done anything to bring him home themselves.

Surely Harper realizes that the only reason he's in office is because everyone was afraid what Stephan Dion would do? After all, was Dion not one of the few who took a part in forcing Chretien out? Look how well that worked for Canada with Paul Martin. I loved his response to Ignatieff's little speech too.. the smug, "I don't think Canadians want an election right now." Although he's obviously correct, I'm not a fan of him saying he's good to go for a while without having to work for it. 

I want an election.  I want anyone other than that bastard in charge.

Well, Iggy just said, while visiting Sudbury, that the government will not be allowed to stand. So you may have your wish RevMatt. I believe if this were more widely known, perhaps more Canadians would be willing to go to the polls again (though it seems we went only yesterday).

Me too, Matt. 

I don't know about an election right now, for numbers reasons, the last thing we want is another Conservative Minority Govt.  NO - I correct myself- the last thing we want is a Majority Conservative Govt.  But the Minority isn't much better at this point. 

And where the heck has Ignatieff been lately.? He'd better come out with guns a blazing and a full on Rodeo show if he's going to pull the rug out. 

Ignatieff IS a conservative. And he's a Harper conservative.

Hey Graeme - You seem pretty well versed in political history, so I have a question for you.  Isn't this what the Liberals do?  When they aren't in power they put in a leader who some what resembles the leader in the other party (conservative of course, cause that is the back and forth of federal politics), thus they can still appeal to their own party, plus try to win over the "other guys."  I have heard this before on radio, but not being too old, don't recall enough elections to know if there is something to it or not.  I guess if the NDP ever get in, we will have an even more to the left liberal party?

There's certainly some truth in that. There was certainly nothing left about the liberal party of mackenzie king. But when the NDP outscored the liberals in a poll (1943, I think) it scared the wits out of the liberals and they moved a little to the left.

But the NDP threat has subsided. Now it's the conservatives who scare the liberals, so under Ignatieff they are moving into conservative territory.

Twas always thus.

There used to be many and basic differences between Liberals and Conservatives in the nineteenth century. But when Laurier won the election of 1896, he did it by adopting virtually everything the Conservatives had stood for - and so the two parties became virually identical. Before 1896, for example, the Liberals had stood for free trade as a basic principle, and it was the conservatives who opposed it. Then, for decades, both opposed it. And then it was the conservatives who adopted it.

Thanks for the background stuff.  It is one thing to hear a broadcaster, who does not hide his bias, say such a thing, another to see if he is right.

well, then I'll add that the history of the NDP for at least 25 years has been moving to the middle. All parties move in the direction they think the vote is.

I remember listening to something like this (refering to the opening post) on the radio.  After WW2 the Amercan government promised that they would not allow another genocide to occur.  Hence the words "ethnic cleansing" have been applied to all subsequent genocides so the Americans do not feel obligated to intervene.

I think that Iggy is more Conservative than say Bob Rae or Dion, but he is not Harper Social Conservative.

He wasn't my choice, but he would make a much better Prime Minister than the one we currently are burdened with.

In my opinion, there isn't much difference in the years from Mulroney onward.

HC, I seem to recall that you said that you would leave the Liberal party if Mr. Ignatieff became leader...that you felt it would be a return to the business/corporate wing of the party being at the helm...what has changed for you?

holden, I"m not sure Iggy would be better even than Harper. The problem is that he is so utterly inept politically. Some quite terribly things can happen not because he planned them to but because his sense of planning is so weak.

For example, his timing and lack of reason for an election combined with his refusal to cooperate with other parties has reulted in a drop in support for the liberals before the election campaign even starts. That combmined with the other possibility of a low turnout reaction could have the following effects - a catatstrophic drop in support for all federal parties in Quebec leaving the bloc as master of the province at the federal level - and that leading to even more concessions to Quebec which will even further boost the popularity of nationalism; a Harper majority - and wouldn't that be fun; no great change at all which would be even worse than the present situation because of the souring of public opinion that would result, and would almost certainly hurt the liberals more than anyone else.

Hi MO5, I did leave the Liberal Party.

However, I still need to vote for someone. I plan to vote Liberal Federally when the election does come (because our local Liberal as the best chance of unseating the Conservative) and I will vote NDP Provincially, as I vowed never to vote for Dalton McGuinty's Government again, after he stood and supported Harpers Conservatives against his own Federal Liberals who were preparing a Coalition last December.   I was not surprised when the Feds offered up a Harmonized Sales tax for Ontario and buckets of money this year.

If Harper forms a Majority Gov't, learning French and moving to an Independent Quebec Sounds good to me.

The Liberals and Conservatives are much the same on the economy, they both tend to shit on the poor these days and neither is friendly to unions.  However, the Liberals are still Charter Friendly and they respect the role of the Courts.  They do not tend to lean towards Law and Order (although everyone including the NDP plays that dumbed down game these days).

Putting aside Iggy for a moment, the Strength of the Liberal Cabinet is why they would make a better Gov't than the Tories. The Tories are a one man show, with a few bits of reject talent on their front bench, and a whole lot of hillbillies and no-bodies in the other seats.  The Liberals love them or hate them, have bright, talented and experienced people in their caucus.  So does the NDP quite Honestly, which is why it is such damn shame that the December 08 Coaliton couldn't have flown. 

Holden's case for the Liberals is the most convincing I have seen. It pins down the strengths and the weaknesses pretty accurately. ditto for the cons.