smilingassassin

Can't say I agree with the slight majority here....

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Top...howbyline=True

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public support for Israel dring the current crisis in Lebanon is making some Canadians uncomfortable. They prefer a more neutral stance, a poll finds.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout the current Mideast crisis. (file)
In the poll conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, 45 per cent said they disagreed with Harper's open support for Israel. Thirty-two per cent agreed with the prime minister, while six per cent didn't know or wouldn't answer the question.

When asked who Canada should support, a majority, 77 per cent, said Canada should be neutral. Only 16 per cent said Canada should support Israel and one per cent said Hezbollah. Six per cent didn't know or declined to answer.

Interestingly, when asked if they thought the government is neutral or supporting one side, the majority of respondents, 49 per cent, said they didn't know or wouldn't answer. Thirty-nine per cent said the government is supporting one side while 12 per cent said the government is neutral.

While Canadians may not have been sure if Ottawa's position on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict was neutral, 51 per cent thought Harper's stance represented a departure from the policies of previous governments, versus 22 per cent who thought it was consistent. Twenty-seven per cent wouldn't say or didn't know.

When asked why they thought Harper had taken this stance, a majority, 51 per cent, said because it is in line with the position of U.S. President George Bush and his administration. Nineteen per cent thought the prime minister did so out of principle and 10 per cent said because of domestic political considerations. Four per cent cited other reasons, while 14 per cent didn't know or wouldn't say.

The Strategic Counsel conducted its poll between Thursday and Sunday. The Israeli attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, which killed at least 56 civilians and drew widespread condemnation, happened Sunday.

Peacekeeping, dual passports

The CTV-Globe and Mail poll also found that 53 per cent of Canadians support the creation of an international peacekeeping force to ensure a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel. Thirty-four per cent are opposed, and 13 per cent don't know or won't say.

On whether Canada should participate in such a force, 57 supported the idea while 39 per cent opposed it. Four per cent didn't know or wouldn't say.

In a poll conducted about two weeks ago, 56 per cent said they opposed the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops have been heavily involved in combat operations.

On the issue of dual passports and what sort of assistance Canada owes to Canadian citizens who are permanent residents of Lebanon Canadians are divided.

Forty per cent support the right of people to hold the passport of another country in addition to Canada and 40 per cent were opposed.

And while 51 per cent of respondents thought that permanent residents of Lebanon who were Canadian citizens should no longer be able to receive protection and assistance from the Canadian government, 40 per cent thought they should, Nine per cent didn't know or wouldn't say.

Party standings

While the Conservatives might be on the wrong side of public opinion on the Middle East issue, it isn't hurting their popularity so far.

When asked which party's local candidate they would support if an election were held tomorrow the Conservatives are still in front of the Liberals (percentage-point change from the July 13-15 poll in brackets):

The Strategic Counsel polled 1,000 people between July 27 and 30. A poll that size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, plus or minus 19 times out of 20.

Alistriwen

I hate it when a poll of 1000 people is supposed to represent the feelings of Canadians or any country for that matter. As a Canadian, I am persoanlly proud that my Prime Minister was not neutral on a situation which does not call for neutrality. One side is wrong, and Harper has said as much. Canada was never neutral before for reference, it was simply slanted towards the Muslims and the huge Muslim population and the whiny liberals all liked that and perceived it somehow as being neutral.

tphuang

having taken stat classes and knowing the kind of experience these pollsters have, I would say their stats are relatively close to truth.

I respect your opinion, but I do need to correct one point. 1.8% of our population are Muslims. Compare this to US, 2.3% of their population are Muslims. Even if we compare to ethnic groups like Chinese or Ukrainian or Italian, it's less than half of that. So, we really do not have that huge of a Islamic community. And honestly, I've rarely seen Islamic Canadians in our parliament or in the media. It's a little puzzling on how we can be slanted toward the Muslims.

smilingassassin

The polls are accurate, when relying on uninformed Canadians. Ask those who opposed Israels responce just who started the current crisis and they are likely to say Israel, which is clearly not the case.

I'm certain their veiws are also scewed, in that they beleave Harper is pro Bush, which seems to be a no no in Canada, so anything even remotely close to the American policy/opinion is seen as wrong.

We are slanted towards the Muslim veiw because it opposes the American veiw which all the complaiciant and morally superior Canadians loath.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Neutrality in the ME is the best policy though for countries like Australia and Canada that don't need those oilfields for their energy security. If you can stay out of that hornet's nest, then you probably should. I do understand that for the USA this really isn't possible due to their dependency on Middle Eastern oil (for the time being anyway).
Besides the Muslim community in this country has the Jewish community outnumbered by about 4 to 1 so its probably best for the cause of political expediency that politicians dont weigh too heavily on the side of Israel if the maths of voting matters to them.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

smilingassassin

Acctually I would think that means country's like Canada and Australia could get tough with ME country's behaving badly because they DON'T have to worry about an oil backlash.

Alistriwen

This is precisely what a good politician should NOT do. That is, to cater to special interest groups for votes. Politicians should be doing what is in the best interests of their country and the world, NOT what will win them the next election. If more politicians behaved this way the world would be a better place.

Have taking sociology and anthropology classes, I know that 1000 people is too small a sample size to determine anything. Pollsters also often have agendas or purposefully mis-word questions to produce the results they want. For a population of 35 million, 1000 is far too small a sample size. In order to encompass the ethnographic make up of Canada, as well as the regional disparities that exist even a sample of 10,000 would be a bit small. A Canadian Muslim living in Toronto will hold a vastly different opinion than a Canadian Catholic living in Regina or a Lutheran in Vancouver. A poll of 1000 can hardly take into account Canada's very different regions, and the very different culutral and religious groups that make up the varying regions.

Today (.2001) there are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Canada. This is from the http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html site. Taking into account immigration and the exponential growth rate of Muslim communities around the world it is safe to assume the current population of Muslim Canadians to be around 700,000 which makes them roughly 2.2% of the Canadian population. Though this isn't a huge percent of the population as you said, it is far larger than the Jewish community which is why historically the Liberal party was very slanted towards the Muslim side of the issue. The Liberal party cared about nothing but maintaining the status-quo (Liberal domination of Canadian politics) and rarely did the right thing in the face of serious problems. Their so-called "neutral" position was rejected by the Israelis and their so-called "neutrality" was considered innefectual in other regions.

Having a degree in political science and having taken courses in Canadian foreign policy, canadian defense policy and an assortment of other parts of the Canadian political process, I can tell you that Canada's role as peacemaker and peacekeeper, and its pereceived neutrality pretty much flew out the window after the balkan crisis and that impression of Canada has been diminishing ever since everywhere in the world except: Canada. Canadians have little else to cling to but this perception though so it is understandable why they cannot come to the truth. Canadian foreign relations needed a re-invigoration in one direction or another and Harper has done just that, but rather than pander to special interests he has decided to take a hard line against a global threat: terrorism.

tphuang

have you ever taken any kind of university statistical course and did well in them?

Now, if we assume that the pollster are neutral and worded the questions in a fair manner and picked a wide spectrum of the population, then 1000 people is definitely enough.

Muslims in Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Canada
588,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ethnicity
Jewish 348,605
Both taken in 2001
It's not even 2:1.

As for Liberal intentionally favouring the Islamic population, you probably want to read this article.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home
According to this article, there really is a lot more reason for the Liberals to support Israel in this conflict.

You seem to be quite passionate about this. Can I ask if you are Jewish or partly Jewish?

I don't want to get in an argument about who is right or wrong in this scenario. But, you are basically saying that most informed Canadians should feel the way you do and most uninformed Canadians will feel the other way, due to the anti-American nature of Canadians. Do you have any proof of this?

Confed999

Yep, but in reality we should all be willing to pay a little more for everything to stop the BS.
Yes, everyone has an agenda. One has to assume they called anyone to begin with, but either way, call a different neighborhood and get different results.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Officer of Engineers

Decreased?

I have absolutely no idea where you get your info but the demand for Canadian troops by the world bodies be it NATO or the UN has never been greater. Canadian supposed non-participation in the Iraq War has been often incited as a reason not to get involved.

The ONLY reason why there are a fewer Canadian troops on UN operations is the decision by Generals Maurice Baril and Rick Hilliar as being deemed worthless, not because of demand.

__________________
Chimo

Alistriwen

Nope, stats wasn't required for either of my degrees nor a pre-requisite to get into law school. I did however take various courses which relied on polling and surveys and the research methods involved as well as courses in formal logic and reasoning.

Have you ever taken any anthropology or sociology courses in university and done well in them? Mathematicians can come up with formulas but unlike mathematics where there is 100% repetition and every permutation always turns up the same, the real world doesn't work that way. Any social scientist would tell you that a sample size of 1000 is far too small to be representative of anything over 1 million. Considering the diversity of Canada they couldn't possibly have hit enough different locations for it to be accurate. The mathematical formula might work when you're dealing with just numbers (have a friend who was an A+ student in stats and I know how it all works from her) but these are real people not numbers and 1000 is far too small.

As far as the number of Muslims, I took the info from a site that is run by Muslims vis-a-vis wikipedia which is a user created resource. I'll go with the numbers provided by statcan though, being that it is the most accurate site for Canadian demography. In 2001 it put muslims at approx 580,000 and Jews at approx 330,000. Again that is an old statistic and assuming an average growth rate of roughly 3% per year the population of Muslims is roughly 700,000 in Canada today. The Jewish populations is roughly the same as 2001. This means that the number is about 2:1.

As for your article, from my reading, it seems to support my point, not yours. It says that yes, now there is some division within the party with regards to Israel but makes note of the fact that the Liberal party has been quick to condemn Israel, which it has done time and time again in U.N. resolutions. I think you need to re-read the article. It states exactly what I said, that the liberals are only concerned with getting votes and not what is right. It also says that Harper has shifted the traditional Canadian position on the Israel-Arab conflict. Im not sure what you aimed to prove with the article, but you missed your target, by a long shot.

You seem quite passionate about statistics... are you Asian? I don't give away much about my personal background for a reason and I will continue to do so. If I said I was Jewish, then my opinions wouldn't count because Im obviously just being too one sided. If I said I was an evangelist, then I only support Israel because I want to see the second coming of Christ. If I said I was a Muslim, then you'd be shocked that I could possibly side with Israel? If I was a Catholic then I would probably be a neo-con who was towing the conservative line. Point is, my religion, or lack thereof has no bearing on my opinions whatsoever. I consider myself an agnostic for the record, I don't go to churches of any sort or celebrate any religious holidays on my own, though I do take part in the celebrations of friends and family on occaision.

I am very passionate about this because I've visited the region on many occaisions, been to several of the countries in the region multiple times, and seen what is truly going on there. I have spoken with people from all sides of the conflict and come to my conclusions that way, not based on any affiliations I have or do not have. What gave me my conviction was the experiences I had there and the studying I did afterwards. Speak to any number of Israelis and ask them their opinion on the situation, then go on the Arab street and try to even make mention of Israel. To quote an Egyptian Christian friend of mine, "they [muslims] hate everybody." I have recognized the threat radical Islam presents to our planet and I have recognized that Israel is the front line in that battle and THAT is why I support them. I support the country because they are a people who yearn for nothing more than peace and stability and because history plainly shows who is right and who is wrong in the situation and it is so glaring that you literally need to ignore history to come to any conclusion (as many many people do).

People call it a "religious war," when in reality the conflict started out as a result of pan-Arabism and not Pan-Islamism. The conflict is defined in dogmatic terms that totally ignore the hard truth of the situation and ignore the causal reality which has led to it. I support Israel because I feel that to be the only way the problem will ever be solved and frankly I found your question to be distasteful and un-academic, especially coming from someone who professes to have a university education.

smilingassassin

I'd have to dig for proof but my opinion comes from personal experience with my fellwow Canadians. My best freind who unfortunately is a huge beleiver in just about every conspiracy theory under the sun thinks Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11. I can't even get into a serious conversation with the guy on the subject without him flying off into another rant about aliens and such.....

Another freind thinks Bush is the next Hitler while completely egnoring the terrorism issue nor does she offer any tangable alternative to hitting them where they live.

My freinds are not stupid, they are merely miss-informed.

Its a matter of complaciency, Canadians have few WW2 era role models left to discuss the finer points of just when we should fight and why. As Alistriwen has stated, Canadians still cling to the Peacekeeping mantra, a mantra which clearly has its shortcomings in a region where both sides are content to beat the holy hell out of each other rather than settle for peace. When embrasing the "peacekeeping" mantra its tough to accept the "peacemaking" doctrine thats needed in situations where combantants simply don't want to give up the fight.

YellowFever

Your friends are not mis-informed.
They are stupid.

If they think that Bush is using the incident of 9-11 as an excuse to "have it his way", or that Bush is extremely overdoing the "war on terrorism", I would say your friends are misinformed.

But to think that Bush was mastermind behind the 9-11 incident or that he's the "next Hitler"-I'm sorry, dude, your friends are just stupid.

smilingassassin

Well beleave me, when I'm in the middle of a debate with them, I'm awefully tempted to say so. Thats the problem with conspiracy theory's, some tend to beleave them because for some reason its easier to accept then "the truth".

I mean why would someone be so crazy as to fly planes into buildings for some Islamonazi idealism? It has to be the government's doing becuase thats soooo much more beleavable......

tphuang

okay, good to know
I haven't got A on them, it that's what you are asking.

Since you are talking about real world. How about the election polls? I find them to be generally reflective of the actual voting. 2004 was an abberation, because majority of the undecided voters decided to vote for Liberals in the last minute. Generally speaking, the party that won had the highest % in the pre-election polls.
one grows and the other doesn't? That sounds awfully racist.
What are you trying to say here?
What I'm saying is that Liberal has nothing to gain by condemning Israel. Jewish community is a big part of its support. So, there is no such thing as Muslims influencing Liberal's policies.

Yes, I'm Chinese as most people here knows. I have nothing to hide.

Also, I haven't even picked a side yet. I'm just saying your argument has flaws. I will tell you that I've had non-religious Lebanese friend, Jewish friends and Islamic friends. All of these parties are the same from my experience with them. In fact, I found that my Islamic friends respect that I have deep faith in Christianity rather than no belief at all.

Well, we know that a large of Canada actually don't care either way. From what I can see amongst people I know. There are pro-Israeli and pro-Lebanese people amongst informed and uninformed group.