Harper unmoved by polls, remains firm on Mideast crisis, softwood

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

Well we certainly have more empathy for human life in Canada then what Harper portrays. The "accountable government" is what won the conservative minority. Which is just sad that it actually worked. I don't see a difference myself. Pulling out of Kyoto, for what? To save face? Sending troops to afghanistan? This is a little too much like US foreign policy.

The Afghanistan mission was put in place by the LIBERALS. And do you ever actually read anything people post about Kyoto? You guys are a broken record with this Kyoto shit.

not4u

reborncareerist wrote:

The Afghanistan mission was put in place by the LIBERALS.

The Cons pushed us further in and revamped it. Now we have KILL and use of stagnant resources to build more atop of the list.

not4u

beemster wrote:

He has a minority government, only been in office for 5 months and the sun still rises in the morning, you and every left wing socialist fear mongerer in Canuckistan make me sick.

I report fear mongering, it don't create it. Do you really think the neocon leaders of this world want Canada to change right now? even if our citizens Vote to rid this government there is no way THEY will let it happen. Canada is in too much of a good position right now, i can almost feel as if the steps have already have been made farfar behind the scenes and this majority has already been put in place. yikes. but these are just my stupid opinions...

rebornFixer

not4u wrote:

The Cons pushed us further in and revamped it. Now we have KILL and use of stagnant resources to build more atop of the list.

The mission was still intended to be a combat one, under the Libs ... It was Paul Martin's concession to Bush after his predecessor Jean was so pissy for all those years. Harper and Co. agreed with the mission, so it went ahead.

surferdude

thankyougrandma wrote:

BTW Canada have NO obligation to send troops anywhere, we are a sovereign country and deciding where and when we act with our military is legitimate and have nothing to do with our Nato or UN position, or unless we're not that sovereign, mmmmm would be interesting to debate that...

Every country that enters into NATO or the UN gives up a bit of their sovereignty. As Spock would say "the good of the many is outweighed by the good of the few." Just look how people howl when the US acts like a sovereign country and goes into Iraq without a UN mandate. People scream bloody murder, the want the UN to mean something until it's their country that loses a bit of their sovereignty.

Fucking hypocrites. It's beyond pathetic.

RockinInCanada

I am one that does not stand behind my Prime Minster in this matter....anyone who supports a war is against me....

thankyougrandma

surferdude wrote:

Every country that enters into NATO or the UN gives up a bit of their sovereignty. As Spock would say "the good of the many is outweighed by the good of the few." Just look how people howl when the US acts like a sovereign country and goes into Iraq without a UN mandate. People scream bloody murder, the want the UN to mean something until it's their country that loses a bit of their sovereignty.

Fucking hypocrites. It's beyond pathetic.

Keep quoting Spock all you want (wow)... refusing to participate in a UN mission doesn't mean we should step OUT of the UN, you keep bringing that bullshit when it's just a non sense and we've already had this discussion.

USA are sovereign and if they choose to act according to their country's need/will, it doesn't mean CANADIANS have to agree with it, their sovereignty is not an issue at all (what's your point?), canadian sovereignty is, the fact that we're just Americans fucking little dog is an issue of sovereignty, will you try to blame Quebec (note that you always say "Quebec" and not "Quebec govt." which is starting to be fucking annoying, or racist?) for all this shit again? Only Quebec is against Harper's pro-Israel stand? I doubt, you probably live in a Canada i don't know about...

RockinInCanada

thankyougrandma wrote:

Keep quoting Spock all you want (wow)... refusing to participate in a UN mission doesn't mean we should step OUT of the UN, you keep bringing that bullshit when it's just a non sense and we've already had this discussion.

USA are sovereign and if they choose to act according to their country's need/will, it doesn't mean CANADIANS have to agree with it, their sovereignty is not an issue at all (what's your point?), canadian sovereignty is, the fact that we're just Americans fucking little dog is an issue of sovereignty, will you try to blame Quebec (note that you always say "Quebec" and not "Quebec govt." which is starting to be fucking annoying, or racist?) for all this shit again? Only Quebec is against Harper's pro-Israel stand? I doubt, you probably live in a Canada i don't know about...

Ture the US went outside the UN....why could we not? Valid point....

No it is a national voice that is against Harper...the supporters are the minority....

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

No it is a national voice that is against Harper...the supporters are the minority....

Too strong, my friend. Maybe a majority is against Harper's earlier intimation that he is behind Israel 100%, no matter what they do. But its not like everyone is completely on the other extreme, either.

surferdude

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Sure the US went outside the UN....why could we not? Valid point....

Because it make the UN absolutely useless when it becomes a membership of convenience. And if you do agree with belonging to the UN with absolutely no obligation to abide by the UN then I can't see how you could ever protest any country for not abiding by the UN or any other freely entered into agreement, like free trade.

TYG - I apologize for saying Quebec rather than Quebec gov't. I love Quebecors, I hate their politics. But Quebec is out of step with the rest of Canada on many issues, so I can't how they can complain that much when their views aren't represented. The are a minority of the population and as such their views will not always be represented.

thankyougrandma

No problem Surferdude, i'm sorry for making those stupid racist assumptions, i know you're not, it's just a huge feeling incomprehension from my side, it's true i have trouble to respect the support for these attacks and the fact that our country is siding on the war side, i say it is bad for Lebanon AND Israel and for the whole region, but hell i must respect others opinions, my bad.

---

Political fallout in Quebec
Harper's remarks could dash his hopes of making gains in the province, says Pierre Martin

Aug. 7, 2006. 01:00 AM

This summer, in Quebec as everywhere, the news has been dominated by the Middle East crisis. Quebecers are reacting with horror at the scope of the devastation. They see this conflict not in terms of some global strategy in the war on terrorism, but primarily from the perspective of the civilian victims, mostly in Lebanon.

For Quebecers, including many opinion leaders, Israel's response to Hezbollah's provocation may be justified, but there is nothing "measured" about it.

Thus, in larger proportions than other Canadians, they have expressed opposition to the Harper government's unequivocal defence of Israel's position, leading some to predict an abrupt end to the Tories' honeymoon in Quebec.

Why is Harper's position given such a cold reception in Quebec? A recent poll by The Strategic Counsel suggests the initial reaction to the conflict is quite similar on either side of the Ottawa River: 77 per cent of Canadians and 79 per cent of Quebecers say Canada should "remain neutral." This does not mean that respondents perceive Israel and Hezbollah as moral equivalents, just that they don't want to give a blank cheque to Israel.

Further, we find that half of the respondents across the country were not aware of Harper's support of Israel's actions. After being told of that position, 61 per cent of Quebecers disagree with it (17 per cent agree), while other Canadians are evenly split.

Many factors explain this. First, Quebecers, particularly francophones, are biased against the use of military force as a solution to conflict. As a minority people, they also tend to side with the weak in armed confrontation. Add to this that Quebec's Lebanese community is large and well integrated, and it is easy to understand the rejection of Harper's position, which has been called cold and insensitive by some editorialists and commentators. Quebecers also are more prone than others to believe that Harper is taking his cue from the White House on Lebanon, and given George Bush's dismal popularity in Quebec, that can't be good.

Does all of this mean that the Lebanese crisis will stop the Conservatives' momentum in Quebec and dash their hope of making gains in the next federal election?

There are signs that it might. In the weeks and months that followed the Conservatives' surprise victory, Quebecers were willing to give his new government a chance to prove itself. The Bloc Québécois was losing points to the Tories among some of its less solid supporters and Gilles Duceppe was unable to find a hook to criticize the government.

Now, however, with Harper completely out of step with Quebec opinion, his opponents have found the hook. With the Prime Minister on the defensive and his cabinet almost voiceless, other important issues also have evolved in ways that cloud up the horizons for the government.

Two obvious examples are fiscal imbalance and softwood lumber. While Jean Charest has made solution to the former the linchpin of success for both Harper's and his own government, there has been scant progress on the issue and high expectations may soon turn into sour disappointment. In the case of softwood lumber, what initially seemed like a success for Harper's policy of "détente" with the U.S. has turned into a burden.

In sum, the Lebanese crisis may just turn out to be the issue that dashes Stephen Harper's hope of gaining seats in Quebec and getting a shot at a majority government.

But then again, it might not.

First, the political impact of the crisis primarily depends on whether Quebecers, and other Canadians for that matter, are likely to make foreign policy a top priority when the time comes to go to the polls. That is far from certain. In recent memory, foreign policy has been virtually absent from election campaign debates and it would probably take many other mishaps for Harper and his ministers to make it a key election issue.

Also, even if Harper's approach to Middle East politics clearly contrasts with the usual Liberal tiptoeing, it does have the merit of clarity. If one thing has become clear about Harper in Quebec as elsewhere, it is that with him, what you see is what you get.

Quebec voters in general have appreciated this aspect of the Prime Minister's personality. As it becomes increasingly clear that his support of Israel is an act of personal conviction and not a response to U.S. policy, even less a calculated electoral move, the issue could lose its potential to dominate election debates, even in Quebec.

If, however, the Prime Minister does not find a way out of the image of a hard-line hawk, if Quebecers continue to see him as insensitive to the devastating toll that Israel's actions are imposing upon Lebanon, if he continues to uncritically condone and support those actions and, finally, if the goal of eradicating Hezbollah with guns and bombs turns out to be a chimera, Harper's foreign policy might be a heavy burden in Quebec.

---

Pierre Martin is a professor of political science at the Université de Montréal.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154728213554&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

thankyougrandma

Montrealers, politicians march for Mideast peace
Last Updated: Sunday, August 6, 2006 | 10:08 PM ET
CBC News

Jewish and Muslim Canadians along with Quebec politicians marched through the streets of Montreal on Sunday, calling for an end to the war in the Middle East....
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/08/06/montreal-protest.html

thankyougrandma

How about some great National Post fashion article for the mass, look at the question at the end, hilarious, hilarious fuckers:

---

The rise of Quebecistan

Barbara Kay, National Post
Published: Wednesday, August 09, 2006

MONTREAL - In his Montreal Gazette column yesterday, Don MacPherson projected a worrying Quebec trend with startling candour: "It's finally becoming respectable again to express support for terrorists."

So it has. On Sunday, 15,000 Quebecers, mostly Lebanese-Canadians, marched for "justice and peace" in Lebanon. That sounds benign, but in fact the march was a virulently anti-Israel rally, and scattered amongst the crowd were a number of Hezbollah flags and placards. Leading the parade were Bloc Quebecois chief Gilles Duceppe, Liberal MP Denis Coderre, PQ chief Andre Boisclair, and Amir Khadir, spokesman for the new far-left provincial party, Solidarite Quebec.

All four politicians had signed a statement by the organizers the day before the march, in which Israel is lambasted for its depredations in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank -- but the word "terrorism" is never mentioned, nor Hezbollah assigned any blame for the war.

In their speeches at the conclusion of the march, Messrs. Coderre and Duceppe did not condemn terrorism, did not mention Israel's right to defend itself, and spoke only of Lebanese civilian suffering. As a sop to the Quebec-Israel Committee, which had taken out full-page ads calling on the march's leaders to condemn terrorism, however, they called for the disarming of Hezbollah as part of a negotiated ceasefire.

For this, they were roundly booed by the crowd.

These politicians are playing a dangerous game. They have no political support from Jews (who are all federalists), so have nothing to lose in courting anti-Israel Arab groups. There are at least 50,000 Lebanese-Canadians in the Montreal area. We can expect those numbers to swell as Hezbollah-supporting residents of southern Lebanon cash in on their Canadian citizenship and flee to the safety of Quebec. Under the circumstances, it may be politically convenient for some left-wing Quebec politicians to stoke fires of enthusiasm for Hezbollah -- an organization officially classified as a terrorist group by the Canadian government. Yet it would be disastrous for the future of the province.

But after the thumping they took from the Conservatives in the last federal election, Quebec separatists are desperate for votes, and apparently not too morally fussy about how they get them. Their official endorsement of last week's one-sided document and their prominent presence at the march was a calculated appeal to dangerous elements in Quebec society. As MacPherson also pointed out in his column, "if [their support for the statement and the march] did not invite Hezbollah sympathizers to participate, it also contained nothing to discourage them from doing so."

Left-wing Quebec intellectuals and politicians (Pierre Trudeau being an obvious example) have always enjoyed flirtations with causes that wrap themselves in the mantle of "liberation" from colonialist oppressors -- including their very own home-grown Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ), which gave them a frisson of pleasure as it sowed terror throughout Canada in the late '60s with mailbox bombs, kidnappings and a murder. Their cultural and historical sympathy for Arab countries from the francophonie -- Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon -- joined with reflexive anti-Americanism and a fat streak of anti-Semitism that has marbled the intellectual discourse of Quebec throughout its history, has made Quebec the most anti-Israel of the provinces, and therefore the most vulnerable to tolerance for Islamist terrorist sympathizers.

Think about what this would mean if Quebec ever were to become independent, and detached from the leadership of politicians who know the difference between a democracy and a gang of fanatical exterminationists. You can bet that Hezbollah would be off the official terrorism list by Day two of the Republic of Quebec's existence. By Day three, word would go out to the Islamosphere that Quebec was the new "Londonistan," to cite the title of a riveting new book by British journalist Melanie Phillips, chronicling the rise of militant Islam in her country.

Complacent Canadians think it can't happen here. It won't if our political class takes its cue from the principled Stephen Harper rather than the shameless Quebec politicians who led that pro-terrorist rally. Harper needs Quebec votes every bit as much as Messrs. Duceppe and Boisclair if he expects to achieve a majority government in the next federal election, but unlike them, he isn't willing to sell his soul.

The devil is always on the lookout for the moral relativism that signals a latter-day Faust, and it seems he has found some eager recruits amongst Quebec's most prominent spokespeople.

bkay@videotron.ca

- - -

Would an independent Quebec be a friend to terrorists?; nationalpost.com

© National Post 2006

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=10524e16-36f2-4975-910d-9407471f2261&k=91928&p=1

thankyougrandma

Quebec universities open doors to students stranded by Middle East conflict
By DENE MOORE
MONTREAL (CP) - With the largest population of Lebanese-Canadians on their doorstep, Concordia University in Montreal and the University of Montreal have reopened closed application processes to students stranded by the war in the Middle East....
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/08/07/1723450-cp.html

---

English-language al-Jazeera considers Quebec market
By DAVID LAZARUS
Staff Reporter
MONTREAL - Quebec-based Vidéotron Ltée. says its cable company would seriously consider carrying al-Jazeera’s nascent 24-hour English-language international new channel – al-Jazeera International (AJI) – if the channel gets the go-ahead from the CRTC...
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=9845

---

And don't forget about the new terrorist in Quebec, the IRI, which will soon be linked to Quebecers being terrorist and supporting terrorist:

Quebec anti-terror squad probes oil exec's car blast
The anti-terrorism unit of the Quebec provincial police is investigating the apparent firebombing of a car owned by a prominent oil-industry executive after an obscure group claimed responsibility for the attack on Friday....
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/08/08/car-firebombed.html

Byrnzie

surferdude wrote:

He's doing the right thing. The previous government had no principles and ruled by polls.

So you believe in totalitarianism and not 'democracy' then? You don't care for 'government of the people, for the people'? Interesting.

polaris

surferdude wrote:

TYG - I apologize for saying Quebec rather than Quebec gov't. I love Quebecors, I hate their politics. But Quebec is out of step with the rest of Canada on many issues, so I can't how they can complain that much when their views aren't represented. The are a minority of the population and as such their views will not always be represented.

replace quebec with alberta and that's pretty sums it up for me ...

lukin2006

not4u wrote:

The Cons pushed us further in and revamped it. Now we have KILL and use of stagnant resources to build more atop of the list.

It's actually a NATO mission, where part of NATO and that is our obligation unless we pull out of NATO, which on our part would be stupid.

And our military men and woman should defend themselves, unlike a UN mission where you stand around and get shot at.

lukin2006

not4u wrote:

I report fear mongering, it don't create it. Do you really think the neocon leaders of this world want Canada to change right now? even if our citizens Vote to rid this government there is no way THEY will let it happen. Canada is in too much of a good position right now, i can almost feel as if the steps have already have been made farfar behind the scenes and this majority has already been put in place. yikes. but these are just my stupid opinions...

Well you can live your life in fear, and listen to the fear mongers, your choice, I don't fear Harper any more than I feared Martin and Jean, the bottom line is the country is in the same shape it was 5 months ago, the economy is good we still have a surplus, we have no doctors, we wait 6-8 hours at hospitals to see a doctor, we are pathatic on crime and taxes are way too high. Now most of these problems could have been fixed by the lieberals or fiberals over the last ten years or so, they choose not too, therefore they were removed from power. Thats how our system works, now if people are not happy with Harper they can remove him, most likely spring/summer 2007, but it will most likely be another minority, whether its fiberal or PC is not yet known, but it will cost 300 million either way. So as far as I'm concerned all political parties need to work together, and hold off on another election until at least the fall 2008. The millions that is wasted on elections to get the same results could be better used to repair the health care system, the same as the 1+ billion spend on the gun registry that did not reduce gun crime in Toronto.

lukin2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

I am one that does not stand behind my Prime Minster in this matter....anyone who supports a war is against me....

I don't support a war, but as member of NATO we have to participate in NATO mission, that I do understand.

surferdude

Byrnzie wrote:

So you believe in totalitarianism and not 'democracy' then? You don't care for 'government of the people, for the people'? Interesting.

No, I believe in domocracy, not mob rules. Harper was democratically elected to lead the country. I do not expect any politician to vote agianst their own conscience. If Canada had wanted leadership by opinion poll they would have voted for Martin. But Canada wanted leadershio, hence more than 50% of the votes went to parties with leaders who will lead. Canada spoke, they want leadership.