jacee

Has anyone heard of any political message being posted that would indicate that "anarchists" were involved? I suspect this is more accurate: :-]

Hmmm . . . That's a fact that I haven't seen mentioned before. With shorter terms there will be more turnover, more senators and more pensions to pay. I'm in favour of some reform, but I agree with ToadBrother that no Senator owes anything to the PM: That's why the system is set up the way it is, as a check on the power of the PM and the ruling party. Their responsibility is only to the best interests of Canadians.

This thread is a great read for anyone like me who knows a little but not enough about these issues. Posts capture a variety of common perceptions of Canadians and some misperceptions, and CR's knowledge and ability to respond informatively are helpful. More Canadians should have access to such discussions to understand what our governments don't tell us. I wonder why the media don't do more to inform us. Thanks for the education.

There's a contradiction in these statements, and who decides who the 'real Christians' are? I don't really care, but your statements betray the sense of 'superiority' that, in my opinion, all religions imbue their members with. In reality, I think religion is a tool created and used by the global corporate oligarchy to divide people and conquer their human spirit, and to subjugate them in service to the greed of the powerful corporate sociopaths. I agree with moonlight graham that removing religion from daycares is not the same as indoctrinating the kids in atheism: It's simply a non-religious approach to child care. Also, I can be vehemently opposed to all organized corporate religions and still believe in god(s) or goddess(es). Let me go even further and say that imo there is no 'superior' religion or belief system, and any such claims are dangerous and intentional subversions of the human spirit to serve inhumane purposes. It's possible that I'm wrong, but consider this: Is our purpose here on earth to conquer the spirits of people not like us and bend them to our will- the 'one true will' - or is it to learn to live together in mutual respect?

Unfortunately they removed their ID and bopped the heads of innocent people.

A "state religion" is what is meant by "a Jewish state"?

Yeah ... And maybe a thousand of them will be arrested and/or beaten up without reason like in Toronto last year. Think maybe Harper had something to do with that?

The majority of "welfare people" are children. I've always felt they have a better chance of respecting themselves and others if they are respected and not stigmatised for poverty. Perhaps you just mean to centre out and stigmatise the 'lazy' men? Are you offering to employ them? Mr Canada, really truly, surely you jest! We waste a lot more taxpayer money on corporate welfare feeding their profits than we do feeding children. Let the CEO's eat raccoon to save a few taxpayer dollars! :-]

@mr canada Once you've eaten it yourself, give us your recipes and let us know whether you think all the children of single moms and many deadbeat dads will enjoy it best warm or cold. Remember the sandwich recipes for their school lunches eh? ;-):-]:-) I propose though, that we should ALL be able to bag a Canada goose once a year or so. :-] seriously.

The story indicates that the Harper government intends to modify/make law to solve this nasty loophole that has taken citizenship away from Canadians, obviously recognizing that it is a problem. On that particular international indicator of 'human rights', Canada is out of whack because of this 'oversight'. Given the government's response, I'm not sure why posters here seem to be defending the status quo. Would we really deny citizenship to the son of a wwll vet, born where his father was stationed and then living with him in Canada as a child? It seems that the problem is simply that he and thousands of others were not told that they had to register before their 24th birthday. I would think there are solutions here and if Canada has to be embarrassed into action, that's better than continuing to violate the rights of several hundred thousand people who are rightfully Canadians. It's not like Canada is always magically 'the nicest place in the world': It takes work and vigilance to make sure peoples' rights are upheld, and on this particular issue, Canada screwed up and it needs to be corrected.

Boy do I ever agree! If we stop and think about it, of course all of our elected politicians want to abolish anything that limits their own power to impose their ideologies on all of us so they can solidify their own voter base. Harper is mouthing the right words about 'efforts to win the confidence of all Canadians' but without the checks and balances built into our system, there are no limits on his power. Some of the Senators appointed by him agree too, saying their view of the importance of the Senate has changed since they now see the importance of their work there. The Senate is a more stable representation of the politics of the people over time, not as heavily influenced by current political swings as the HoC. The Senate is to take a longer term view of the legal landscape of Canadian lawmaking, to ensure that unpopular issues that never appear in elections are still given due consideration (eg Aboriginal and treaty rights). It is to provide a forum for "sober second thought" about how current proposed legislation interacts with law currently on the books, preserves democratic limits on power of elected represtatives, promotes consistency in Canada's international relations and correspondence of our laws with international laws and conventions, and generally takes a longer term view of Canada as a democracy to balance the Executive branch that runs Canada as a corporation (which it also is). I do not support abolition of the Senate, but reform of the body to strengthen its functions to perform civilian oversight of the HoC and to preserve the strength of our Constitution and democratic principles and practices over the long term. The HoC is the people we hire to run the corporation day to day. The Senate is the Board of Directors. Given the chance any CEO would dump the Board of directors, but as the shareholders in Canada, we should not allow that, imo. Edited to add... As for the media, well canadians need to pay more attention to how our democracy is being undermined by people more interested small wads of tissue than the long term health of the power of the people. The media has its own purpose$ that have nothing to do with democracy.

What a lot of good information. Thanks to all responders for addressing the topic question so well. I guess I'm not off base wondering about 'democracy' in a one culture (?) state as clearly that is a longstanding discussion. I've been doing more reading about this week's upcoming 'Naksa' protests. It appears there is concern among some moderate Israelis that unarmed Palestinian men women children and youth (led by youth, and yes there were children) breach the fences and simply walk back to their historic homeland, the IDF will be beaten. Apparently they are considering using only rubber bullets this time and they are worried about the land mines that are near the fences. In my opinion this is already a victory for Palestinians with Israel realizing that they can't just shoot to kill unarmed families. It's possible the face of Israel is about to change drastically, and how will they cope?

The rioting was on Saturday while the police hid behind buildings watching but not arresting. The illegal arrests were on Sunday. We pay the police to protect us, not to arrest us because they're in a pissy mood.

I'm not trolling. The thread topic question reflects my own musings, but I can change it if you wish. If Israel is not a single religion country, then why is such importance attached to it being "a Jewish state"? Is that not the reason Arabs were removed in the first place, and the borders still closed to their return? Unfortunately I can't post links with this device but there are many articles about the Nakba events though it's hard to find the exact death toll. It appears that the next marches on the fences will be later this week. I'm trying to understand what's happening and Canada's position, as it seems to me that the whole struggle is shifting from armies to unarmed protesters, as elsewhere in the Middle East. However the 'official' dialogue sounds like the 'same-old' variety and a bit out of touch. This year's events in the Middle East fascinate me, to see people taking their future into their own hands through protest instead of war (mostly). The situation in Israel is different - a (may I say limited?) democracy being challenged from outside by people who want in - but the power of peaceful protest may still be quite significant.

In May on Nakba, unarmed Arabs began walking back to their homelands in Israel. 24 were killed before the Israeli soldiers stood down. As a youth I celebrated the establishment of a safe home for the Jews so traumatized by the holocaust. As an elder now observing the indefensible attack on Gaza and IDF shooting of unarmed protesters, I wonder whether Canada has encouraged the entrenchodou of a monster state. Can democracy exist where there is official religious discrimination? As a "friend of (the Jewish state of ) Israel", is Canada's government violating the democratic principles of our own constitution? In my opinion, yes. In fact it's surprising that HarperCanada would support religious discrimination against Christians in Israel. How can Canada support a truly democratic Israel with nondiscrimination against (Muslim, Christian, agnostic, etc.) people? The questions become urgent now because I believe that the endless United Nations discussions and negotiations will soon become totally irrelevant. As unarmed Palestinian men and women enmasse simply walk back to their homelands, another violent reaction by the IDF will clearly put Israel in the same category as Ghadafi and other brutal and repressive regimes. So . . . should Canada not be preparing to address the issue of religious freedom in Israel instead of propping up an unsustainable state defined by one religion to the exclusion of all others? These are just my thoughts and questions based on my imperfect knowledge. What are yours?

Aging workforces cost more temporarily, but attrition will follow no doubt.

true. Of more concern here is Corporate subsidies on the workers' backs, and corporate profits posted in the same amount. good grief no! Small-medium local business is the engine of communities and the innovaters too. I'm addressing Only the huge guys at the top 5% with 40% of the wealth and all of the power - just like Harper- and no taxpayer accountability. I think any corporation taking public money should show the public what jobs and training we bought for our tax money, don't you? so a contract isn't a contract? and it's not ok for offshore megacorps to post profits with our tax money. that profiteering from public money has reached a new low, and we now subsidize them. Public sector workers pay into their own salaries and spend on local businesses. I draw the line at paying offshore profits. they count on us fighting each other when we are all community, and they are the predators. Not arguing, just commenting and asking for accountability for my tax money, if Harper's going to bust unions and subsidize profiteering megacorps with our money I want to know someone got a job.

Except the corporate bosses who get their 'poor performance' bonuses paid for by the taxpayer. :-) The public sector is in a high demand phase processing unemployed private sector workers and bailing out the companies. It's just the market forces at work. Our suggestion that the public sector should also take a hit 'in solidarity' with the private sector ignores the market forces at work. Is that what you want? More government, more control? Tit for tat? Is that what works? I don't really think it's proven effective. I have no criticism of small businesses. They are victims of the corporate profiteers too. Gutting public service contracts won't help them though. The demand for constant growth is not sustainable and 'trickle down' doesn't. It's the corporate sector that needs to get it's theories ironed out as their current strategies are unworkable. Except contracts. How's that working out for the private sector? I guess pretty good since the taxes paid by public sector workers are paying performance bonuses to lousy corporate bosses who are laying off workers to protect profits! ;-) But contracts have to be honoured I guess, even if the public ends up in debt or deficit bailing out failed corporate 'leaders'. The public sector owes them nothing, and neither do the taxpayers. Where is the accountability of the corporate sector to the taxpayers? These isn't any.

Double post

Excellent analysis, and when the private sector is depressed, the wheels of public assistance are spinning hard processing people through welfare, EI, education and retraining etc in a time of heavy demand. Of course the private sector bosses who lay you off will blame the government or the teachers or the internet or 'youth today' or anybody but themselves. Don't let them fool you: it isn't the other working stiffs or their unions causing the problems, but the business leaders themselves. They brainwash workers to blame unions to divide and conquer so they can get away with substandard wages and conditions and rear more profits on your back. It's true that without unions both public and private sector wages would be in the toilet. Fighting unions is a waste of everybodids time and money but Harper and other Harris clones have a personal prejudice they like to indulge. How much will his indulgence cost us I wonder. One more point: If programs are to be cut if they are not "considered" to be effective, then the 'crime bill' will have to go as there is absolutely no evidence it will reduce crime, and evidence is accumulating to the contrary. Harper will decide for himself what programs are 'effective' from his ideological perspective. Expect cuts in social safety programs and increases in corporate welfare. And anyone who thinks teaching is easy should definitely try it! Lol!

I believe they might be conservative Albertans, unfortunately. We can only keep repeating over and over that they do not represent the views of all Canadians.

And the constituents have no say? Something wrong there. When Chretien refused to sign Sheila Copps' papers, the constituents elected an NDP member. Leaders need to be somewhat careful about ticking off the voters.

Good grief! You would justify discrimination based on what people wear? Surely we've progressed beyond that! What "rules of society" are you talking about? I must have missed that. And of course your "rules" apply equally to Orthodox Jews, Mennonites, etc.? What about hippies? Punkers? Musicians? What about someone who dresses a little avante garde or retro? A woman who dresses as a man or viceversa? How do we know when we have put ourselves at risk by violating your society's rules? What the hell ARE the rules? I have an aversion to buttoned-down bloodsuckers myself. ;-)

I believe the whipping power of the leader is due to the local candidates needing his signature on their nomination papers. Chretien used it and Layton likely would too. I agree the leaders have too much power and undermine the accountability of local MP's to their constituents. I guess the answer is to change the nomination rules.

;-) So does the Vatican imo. But attacking civilians doesn't help any good cause.