Civis Romanus sum

As in Canada makes money and the indigenous nations hold their hands out for welfare?

Are you really taking the unbelievably stupid position that the French are indigenous?

I wonder what the OSCE had to say about member nation Denmark's undemocratic anti-free speech rules where a judge bluntly told an MP that truth was no defense as he convicted him of insulting Muslims. Section 266b of the Danish penal code reads "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years. Imagine that. If you say something which someone feels insulted or denigrated, even if it's true, you can still be punished. I bet the OSCE isn't criticizing Denmark, though. I bet they have no problem with these kinds of laws.

The problem with Mulcair is he's promising everyone everything and has no money to pay for any of it.

Probably filmed before the Liberal's incompetence in Ontario caused the plant to close. It's very difficult for the federal party to improve Canada's economy when you have feeble minded idiots at the provincial level seemingly doing everything then can to destroy their own province's economy. It's particularly hard when it's in the largest province in Canada. The government of Ontario has done everything in its power to make the development of new mines difficult, if not impossible, to make forestry less profitable, and to destroy the provinces manufacturing base. Hard to see how this is Harper's fault. Meanwhile in Quebec, their economy continues to be fouled up and slowed down by french language rules and anti-business regulations. Seen the oil development in Quebec? No? Because they won't allow it.

There are two groups of desperate Muslim boat people at sea right this very moment. The lucky ones are off the coast of Europe, whose European Christian people have made a concerted effort to rescue them, feed, clothe and shelter them. http://www.dw.de/eu-ships-rescue-more-than-3400-migrants-from-mediterranean/a-18425347 The unlucky ones were the ones trying to reach Muslim countries in southeast Asia. Their reception has been quite a bit different. They've been refused permission to land. Military vessels have warned them off, by gunfire when necessary. Indonesian fishermen have been warned not to pick up these refugees even if they're in the water and drowning, on pain of having their ships seized. Malaysia has closed its coat and warned any refugees they will be arrested, imprisoned and sent home to Burma. http://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/un-despair-over-lack-rescues-83977 What happened to that universal brotherhood the Muslim world is so famous for? Muslims in Canada, the US and the West have been willing to murder their fellow citizens out of outrage that our countries are harming Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. Every western embassy in the world, it seems, has to have protection from Muslim car bombs and suicide bombers because Muslims are furious at our mistreatment of them. Do you think Indonesia has to worry about that? Or Malaysia? Or Syria or Sudan? Nobody is hijacking their planes or blowing up their embassies abroad. There are no thundering denunciations from the Muslim world about their abuse of human rights (maybe because there are no Muslim governments which respect human rights). If a Jew accidentally bumps into a Muslim on the street the Muslim world is howling for blood, but if a Muslim cuts off another Muslim's head and dances around with it the Muslim world shrugs without care. Scores of resolutions condemning Israel are pushed through the UN every year by the Islamic block, allegedly because of their abuse of human rights. But every single Muslim nation on Earth abuses human rights. And non-government actors abuse it even more. All Muslim military groups rebelling against a government or fighting with each other are incredibly violent towards civilians and each other. Prisoners are routinely tortured and murdered, and women raped. And it doesn't matter if these rebels are in Africa, Asia, Western Asia or the Middle East. They are defined by their bloodthirsty actions against their fellow Muslims as if they are trying to outdo each other in barbarism. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002547/IS-likely-committing-genocide-against-Yazidi-minority-Iraq-UN.html http://news.nationalpost.com/news/hardline-al-qaeda-faction-committing-appalling-atrocities-in-syria-to-enforce-islamic-law-amnesty-international http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/21/boko-haram-claims-baga-massacre-and-threatens-nigerias-neighbours So it seems to me the Muslim world's outrage is not so much based on any sort of brotherly love or sense of unity, but more a kind of machismo driven arrogance and pride of belonging such as we see in biker gangs and street thugs. Oh, the Hells Angels will kill each other and beat each other but let anyone else dare threaten one and they'll rush to defend that member. The same goes for street gangs. These young Muslim men expressing their outrage at Canada and other western nations out of a sense that they must protect their fellow Muslims never rise to do so against threats from within, only without. So their outrage isn't so much religious but mindless nationalistic bravado.

There are two groups of desperate Muslim boat people at sea right this very moment. The lucky ones are off the coast of Europe, whose European Christian people have made a concerted effort to rescue them, feed, clothe and shelter them. The unlucky ones were the ones trying to reach Muslim countries in southeast Asia. Their reception has been quite a bit different. They've been refused permission to land. Military vessels have warned them off, by gunfire when necessary. Indonesian fishermen have been warned not to pick up these refugees even if they're in the water and drowning, on pain of having their ships seized. Malaysia has closed its coat and warned any refugees they will be arrested, imprisoned and sent home to Burma. What happened to that universal brotherhood the Muslim world is so famous for? Muslims in Canada, the US and the West have been willing to murder their fellow citizens out of outrage that our countries are harming Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. Every western embassy in the world, it seems, has to have protection from Muslim car bombs and suicide bombers because Muslims are furious at our mistreatment of them. Do you think Indonesia has to worry about that? Or Malaysia? Or Syria or Sudan? Nobody is hijacking their planes or blowing up their embassies abroad. There are no thundering denunciations from the Muslim world about their abuse of human rights (maybe because there are no Muslim governments which respect human rights). If a Jew accidentally bumps into a Muslim on the street the Muslim world is howling for blood, but if a Muslim cuts off another Muslim's head and dances around with it the Muslim world shrugs without care. Scores of resolutions condemning Israel are pushed through the UN every year by the Islamic block, allegedly because of their abuse of human rights. But every single Muslim nation on Earth abuses human rights. And non-government actors abuse it even more. All Muslim military groups rebelling against a government or fighting with each other are incredibly violent towards civilians and each other. Prisoners are routinely tortured and murdered, and women raped. And it doesn't matter if these rebels are in Africa, Asia, Western Asia or the Middle East. They are defined by their bloodthirsty actions against their fellow Muslims as if they are trying to outdo each other in barbarism. So it seems to me the Muslim world's outrage is not so much based on any sort of brotherly love or sense of unity, but more a kind of machismo driven arrogance and pride of belonging such as we see in biker gangs and street thugs. Oh, the Hells Angels will kill each other and beat each other but let anyone else dare threaten one and they'll rush to defend that member. The same goes for street gangs. These young Muslim men expressing their outrage at Canada and other western nations out of a sense that they must protect their fellow Muslims never rise to do so against threats from within, only without. So their outrage isn't so much religious but mindless nationalistic bravado.

That is not legal. You cannot keep Canadian citizens from returning to Canada for any reason.

This is a deeply racist response. Do you think citizenship is based on race? Do you believe newcomers to Canada have fewer rights than those whose parents were born here?

Because the ignorant public is filled with wimps, whiners and hand-wringing pacifists who don't really want to know what violence looks like, even if the violence is needed to protect them in their cozy lives. People don't want to see where hamburgers and hot dogs come from. They know its not pretty but they want them anyway.

Members of parliament spend a lot of time on useless nonsense of no value to the taxpayers. You could introduce each of these measures separately and give a few days to debate them. Nothing said after that point is new anyway so I wouldn't care if they used closure. But at least each bill would e separated out and could be properly voted on as is the purpose of a parliament.

You are confused by a simplistic chart. It does not show 'take home pay' but income. You are looking at line for 'the top 20%" and taking a grossly distorted picture from that. The numbers you are looking at, and the improvement in them, are disproportionately influenced by the wealthy, who are a miniscule percentage of the 'top twenty' but make extremely high incomes. Those incomes have been improving better than everyone elses because a large percentage of that income is from investments, which have been doing extremely well do to the way the various federal agencies through the world have been flooding the markets with cheap money and buying bonds.

Premier Wynn referred it to the legal people at the Attorney General's office who told her it was their judgement that it was entirely constitutional and that she had no option but to enforce it.

There are specific legal and acceptable reasons to 'carry guns around' and this legislation is unrelated to them. If, on the other hand, you are saying you like to illegally carry weapons around then I'd suggest you belong in prison.

It has NOT been shown to be ineffective at all. You are taking a general consensus that overly harsh punishments do not significantly decrease crime and applying that to a specific situation where its applicability is questionable.. It has the effect of keeping dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous people in prison and away from me and my family. A number of nations have hard labour laws today, including democratic nations.

LOL. Have you ever read it? Do you think you actually understand it? Never mind. I really don't care. It's never been my thought we ought to be encouraging the lumpen proletariat to participate in decisions of state anyway.

I have patrician values.

I see that this thread has been completely derailed. Perhaps it should be renamed.

I'm guessing you say that sarcastically in terms of being an opponent of plebians. The fact then is that the plebes, then and now, tend towards ignorance. They know no better what is in the interest of the country as a whole than so many cattle.

The policy needed to significantly deter gun crimes would be on of absolute intolerance. No excuses, no hesitation. Punishment must be brutal and immediate for those who buy, sell or smuggle restricted weapons. That would be many, many years in prison at hard labour. One of the failures of the Harper government is that it has not made proper use of prisoners for this purpose. Time in prison should not be spent in relaxation but in brutally hard work which benefits and profits the state.

And when you fail to vote your opinion and value are both null quantities.

There'll be some of that but for the most part, not enough Canadians have sufficient interest-in politics to consider strategic voting. The lasting image I have of Jean Chretien is his snarling face as he tried to strangle a diminutive unemployed protester. He was completely unforgiving of anyone who dared question his rule. People seem to have short memories if they forget that. Chretien was more than willing to use the powers of the Prime Minister in vindictive efforts to punish those who got in his way, and to reward those who were obedient. The real difference between his style of governance and Harper's is that the media largely did not question things done by a Liberal PM simply because he was liberal. The media portrayal of Harper falls into line with their learned narrative of the Left that conservatives are brutish and intolerant, not kindly, gentle and tolerant like liberals. There is very little to support this if you compare Harper's actions with Chretien's.

You believe that 'family has always voted for that party' is a legitimate reason to vote? It is a 'reason' which is exempt of reason! Or thought or judgement. Most of the others are little better. How does one 'like' the leader of a party one has never met? Name recognition? What sort of inane reason is that to vote for someone? Voting to prevent another party you don't like from success? What is that but the bleating of the dull witted and vindictive? Local issues are likewise idiotic reasons to vote in a federal election. For your enlightenment, the primary valid reason for voting for one candidate or the other, for one party or the other, is that the preferred candidate or party will do a better job in guiding the country over the following years than any other candidate or party. The selected party or person is more capable, has more integrity, more honor and honesty, possibly, or is less blinkered by absurd ideological views in its thinking. The only intelligent point of voting is that your selected candidate will, in your view, leave the country in better shape come the following election than the alternatives. Of course, an equally valid if more venal reason would be that one is voting for a person or party which has a particular policy which will benefit the voter personally.