Zafir Posted January 26, 2006 OTTAWA — Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper says he won’t take advice from the U.S. ambassador on how to protect Canadian sovereignty in the North. At a wide-ranging press conference this afternoon, during which he said the new Conservative government will be sworn in on Monday, Feb. 6, Harper said he will stick to his campaign promise to station icebreakers and military personnel in Canada’s Arctic. U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins had criticized Harper’s plan, claiming the Arctic passage to be "neutral waters.†But Harper, at his first news conference as the incoming prime minister, said Canadians gave him a mandate to protect Canada’s sovereign interests in the North. And Harper said he’ll listen to Canadians on such issues, not the American ambassador. Harper pledged during the election campaign to build three armed icebreakers to protect against possible American submarine incursions into Arctic waters. At the same news conference, Harper suggested Canada will not recognize the new Palestinian Hamas government. Harper said his Conservative government won’t accept Hamas as long as it continues to support terrorism and calls for the destruction of Israel. Asked about the issue, Harper said he supports Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- President Bush says the U.S. will not deal with the Islamic militant group Hamas as long as it doesn't renounce violence. The president says that while the group won Wednesday's parliamentary elections, the U.S. will not deal with Palestinian leaders who do not recognize Israel's right to exist. He says you can't be a party to a peace process if you call for the destruction of another country and Hamas has advocated the destruction of Israel. Meanwhile, Bush is urging Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to stay in office despite his party's defeat in Palestinian elections. The president says yesterday's elections were positive, in that Palestinians were able to peacefully and fairly cast their votes. But says the results should be a "wake-up call" to old-guard Palestinian leadership. Many of them are holdovers from the days of Yasser Arafat. President Bush also defended anew his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change it. "The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar Posted January 27, 2006 But Harper, at his first news conference as the incoming prime minister, said Canadians gave him a mandate... 124 seats out of 306 and 36% of the vote ain't no mandate. Had there being a proportional representation, his so-called mandate wouldn't have been there to begin with. I hope he won't last through the year, either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SOO MAAL Posted January 27, 2006 Paul martin and stephen harper waa dameer iyo labadiisii dhagood, al least Harper is not advocating for same sex marriage unlike paul martin Therefore, Harper is the lesser of two evils Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SOO MAAL Posted January 27, 2006 Harper to move quickly on same-sex legislation Jan. 26, 2006. 07:15 PM OTTAWA (CP) — Stephen Harper says he wants to move quickly as leader of a fractious new Parliament to reopen the same-sex marriage debate. The makeup of the new House of Commons suggests the prime minister-designate knows there's a good chance such a motion will be rejected. It would not be a total loss, however. In fact, an honourable defeat on equal marriage would satisfy obligations to Harper's most right-wing supporters while defusing a politically explosive issue. Winning a vote to wade back through that political quagmire would lead the Conservatives straight into a legal morass, most experts say. It would also be a costly and perhaps fruitless attempt to redefine marriage as the sole domain of one man, one woman — a fight that would only shine a spotlight on the party's most extreme social conservatives. Still, Harper has promises to keep to the most traditional members of his team. He has said he'll put a free-vote motion before Parliament on whether the heterosexual definition of matrimony should be restored. "I would prefer to do it sooner rather than later — but not immediately," he told a news conference Thursday. The Conservatives would then craft legislation to that effect should the motion pass in a sharply divided House of Commons. There are 124 Tory MPs compared to 103 Liberals, 51 Bloc Quebecois, 29 New Democrats and one Independent. Any vote could be close. But at least one Conservative insider who spoke on condition of anonymity said social moderates in the party would welcome the issue's demise. "There would be a quiet hurrah." Sujit Choudhry, a law professor at University of Toronto, was one of 134 academics who signed an open letter challenging Harper's position that the traditional definition of marriage can be restored. Parliament last summer passed a law allowing gay weddings across Canada after two years of intense debate. More than 3,000 same-sex couples had already wed after courts in eight provinces and the Yukon cleared the way. Moreover, the highest provincial courts in Quebec, B.C. and Ontario ruled that an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage violates equality rights. Harper has stressed that existing gay marriages will be allowed to stand. But Choudhry and a long list of other experts say new legislation would be a recipe for confusion and fresh legal action. "It could be a mess," he said in an interview. "I have to say, I think it's a little bit reckless." What would happen, Choudhry asked, if some provinces recognized a new law reversing same-sex marriage but others decided to await the outcome of inevitable constitutional challenges? He also pointed out that the Department of Justice Act will oblige the new Conservative attorney general to assess all government bills for any clash with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such inconsistencies are to be reported to the House "at the first convenient opportunity," it says. Martha Jackman, a constitutional law professor at University of Ottawa, says the best outcome would be for a majority of MPs to ``resoundingly reject" any bid to reverse gay marriage. "That would reflect an understanding on their parts that they're obliged to comply with the Constitution — and not just because they've gone back and back to the courts" and lost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar Posted January 27, 2006 I am Muslim. I am an immigrant. I am a refugee. I am Soomaali. I am a minority. I am not rich. Following that logic, if you think Harper is a friend of me, so is Bush. We abhor same-sex marriage, but this is dhul gaalo, sooner or later this country would've passed that legislation, as it passed all other abhoring practices under the guises of "equal rights." Whether Harper dislikes same-same marriage or not, he is no friend of my Muslinimo, immigrantinimo, refugeenimo, Soomaalinimo, minoritynimo. He is no friend to universal healthcare, either. His only objective is to cut the taxes--corporate taxes and other subsidies to corporations. No poor man's friend. He is rich, and his base consists a significant fellow wealthy people, thus making them get more richer. Kanada also tries at least to be neutral when it comes to Israeli-Falastiin politics in Qaramada Midoowe, though Martin wanted to change that to Israeli side. However, this guy was always a pro-Israeli, pro-Bush. Anti-Islamic. Already he is calling the shots that he doesn't recognize newly elected majority of Falistiin's parliamentarians, Xamaas. He also supports the invasion of Ciraaq by Bush. Imagine voting a leader who supports the oppression of Muslims. Many members of Conservative party support same-sex marriage, because they aren't socially conservative or are small-c conservative. So don't look at only same-sex marriage issue. Have a look at the broader horizon. This guy is reincarnation of Mike Harris' bull shuud "common sense revolution," which destroyed Ontario's urban cities. He wants to destroy Kanada's fabric social programs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Animal Farm Posted January 27, 2006 Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar You have cleared up the confusion among Somali Conservatives, those that are well off – those that are not on welfare, or don’t have a dependency on social programs. The media altered many people’s votes to go towards Conservatives, this time around Harper was much friendlier, and he actually smiled a lot, and cuddled with reporters. I think many voters (Somalis) voted for the Liberals (strategically), although they are not offering feasible programs for them, when we compare them with the NDP. I don’t think we’ll have American style democracy – there are too many interest groups and minorities in Canada – the only thing that will unite them with the Conservatives is economic prosperity. Many of them don’t give two sh!ts about this country to actually support more spending on military, or participate in decisions that would alter public policy. Show me a Somali that actually cares whether Canada has an adequate military, but they do care about the development of domestic social infrastructures, such as health care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
