BHS

You've mischaracterized my statement. What I said was: In other words, it's my opinion that acting on the sentiment that the rich should take care of the poor is a feather in our cap as a society, but I have misgivings about making laws to that effect. If the government wants to set up programs to give basic, temporary assistance to the needy I'm all for it. When people suggest this should become a right (with inherent Constitutional implications) I am definitely against it. This is an area of government activity that calls for flexibility, not Supreme Court challenges.

If you and I aren't allowed to make moral decisions for ourselves, as you've suggested, then what is morality? Is there an absolute standard of morality out there somewhere that I've missed? Animals do not have rights. That's why we eat them with impunity. So what's the difference if you choose to fornicate with a sheep rather than roast it on a spit? This is strictly a moral issue. You're "we deem minors..." sounds an awful lot like a morally based decision as well. When does a minor become an adult? Why that particular age, when some may mature more slowly (or quickly, as the case may be)? It's all a lot more arbitrary than "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". I'm not sure that this makes your point. The activities we're discussing are made illegal because they're immoral, not immoral because they're illegal. If society is ready for a sea change in morality in a particular instance, it follows that the law should change as well. If we all wake up tomorrow and decide that doing your dog on the front lawn is perfectly acceptable behaviour, then I agree the law should change to reflect the new reality. It is precisely the situation that we are discussing, as I elaborated after the simile. Again, back to Broken Windows. Prostitution, a "victimless crime", is directly related to numerous crimes that are committed in conjunction. Pimps regularly kidnap young girls (even underage (14!) girls) and force them to turn tricks, and assualt them for failing to deliver a satisfactory income. Fraud and theft are regular features of the act of prostitution, not to mention the deliberate infection of unwary johns by prostitutes who are aware of their infections but choose to spread them anyway. I'm deliberately ignoring the drug aspect out of respect for your arguments, though it can be added that pimps use drug addiction as another tool for controlling their charges. Prositiution has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and will likely be with us for as long as we have sex. But deciding to take a laissez-faire attitude towards it only enables the criminal element that feeds off of it. The same is true about a host of crimes of a moral nature - condoning them in turn creates a climate in which other crimes become more likely.

err: You're an interesting fellow. You advocate for the government to take a bigger portion of my measly (non-unionized) income to pay for your pet social causes and unionized beer store clerks, and then admit that you intentionally hide large sums of income from the same tax system. You're a lot like John Kerry and Paul Martin that way. Keep in mind, you aren't obliged to take all of those tax breaks, and that you do so while advocating higher taxes for people who don't have the same opportunities makes you a FIRST CLASS HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD. I'll keep in mind to never, ever listen to anything you have to say again, because you're completely full of it.

Er, um, yeah. I came across another post that explained everything.

BHS, Something to think about. I don't agree that criminal law is based upon morality. Each of us by mutual agreement has individual rights (right to security of person, freedom of religion, etc). Criminal law is a result of making sure we don't infringe on each other's rights. There is no moral determination involved. There are a host of behaviours which are currently defined as criminal which do not infringe on anyones rights. (eg prostitution, smoking pot, sucide). The justification that these should be criminal offenses is currently a contested issue. Many of these laws are residual from a more patriarchal society when the government felt its purpose was to decide what was moral right and what was morally wrong. There are many acts which most if not everyone would consider immoral, however are not criminal or even illegal. (For example, cheating on a spouse) When the government has tried to define morality as "right", it has usually landed in trouble. (Witness the SSM muddle the government ended up in, because it coded in law what it thought was the morally correct definition of marriage.) The idea of government dictating to me what is morally right and wrong, is repugnant, and IMO the government should not be the one to make that designation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've chosen to ignore a host of other activities that are also criminal due to moral standards: polygamy, bigamy, beastiality, "statutory" rape and child pornography (with "willing" "underage" participants), assorted forms of public indecency and lewd conduct, etc. (It's interesting how these are almost entirely sexual in nature. Hmmm...) A lot of the actvities that are illegal for moral reasons do not trample on another individuals rights directly, but have negative consequences for those in the vicinity of the act. The negative impact has been deemed to outweigh any benefit that the individual might derive from the activity, and hence the legal prohibition. In a sense, the prohibition of immoral activities deemed criminal is like the "Broken Windows" policy used to cut down on crime in New York and other American cities. Enforcing a minimum standard of conduct by making certain activities off-limits increases civility on one hand, and removes the "casus belli " so to speak for more serious crimes committed as a result of the negative consequences of the immoral activity.

Um, what are you talking about?

Oh, well. If Citizen Spook says it's true, you know it must be true. That was hilarious. The guy writes this absolute screed of a blog entry wherein he quotes people saying that no indictments were handed down, and then goes into this long analysis to prove that that's not what they said at all. I didn't even get to the interview you mentioned, because it the whole thing just looked crazy. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll wait for my own sources to confirm your story.

Nah, I don't think Gerhard Schroder is such a bad guy. What's that? You're not talking about Germany? Well, whoever could you be talking about?

Okay, so if this happened three days ago, why isn't it in the MSM? Every web article I've been able to find all point to tomflocco.com as the source. Incidently, all of the web sites that are referencing this credulously are sites run by people who would love to see Bush/Cheney et al get tossed in the slammer. Chock this one up to wishful thinking.

eureka: Excellent series of posts. Very informative. Regarding your second post, you contend that we cannot achieve independence from the Crown. If Quebec votes to secede from Canada, what process will be used to facilitate the seccession?

Sir Spanky: I don't think there was ever a pressing need to go into space. But pressing need isn't the driving force behind space exploration.

Renegade: I tried formulating a quick response to your last post, but I find I'll have to think about it more than I have. For now, let me note that I agree that a government that concentrates on the moral over the practical isn't doing it's job. A government's first responsibility is to provide services and legal frameworks for the common good, meaning for society as a whole. If the government instead spends it's time and energy (and our collective wealth) tending to the needs of specific demographics it is no longer performing the function for which it was intended. However, trying to eliminate the moral element from government is a fools errand. Criminal law is largely based on morality, and trying to elminate social programs that stem from a sense of "needing to do something" about society's problems (in a wealthy country) is fighting an uphill battle against human nature. If I can get my head better wrapped around the issue I'll post more later.

British Monarchy. Whatever. A popular vernacular formulation in the English speaking world is "Queen of England" and that's why I used it. I think I've come to understand your distaste for an elected head of state, and the above quote was the key to my understanding. It all boils down to the interminable Quebec question. It seems unlikely that, using an American style system of presidential elections, we would very often see Quebec candidates running for and gaining that office. There's just too much weight in the other provinces, and with the country as divided as it is, they would vote down Quebercer candidates every time if only out of spite. Quebecers would never stand for this situation, and the seperatist movement would surely succeed within a short time. So once again, Quebec seccession drives the debate. Quebec alone really is the source of all power in this country. What a pathetic set of circumstances.

g_bambino: The post was long, but well worth it. Well done. If there was some way for the things that you wish to have happen, to happen, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, I think that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Pandora's box has been opened. If, as you suggest, Canadian republicanism finds it's roots in a Liberal power grab, I fail to see how our forseeable future of electing and re-electing successively less trustworthy Liberal grandees and bag-men is going to help the situation, or turn things around. You've pointed out that the Governor General does indeed have Constitutionally mandated power, and this is so. But in my short lifetime, it has never occurred to any of our Governors General to refuse a piece of legislation, or to refuse to disolve Parliament when so requested. Those powers have been usurped by a "tradition" of acquienscence. That the GG has powers means nothing if those powers have so been rendered unusable. The Monarchy has served us well. Indeed, it has served all of the Commonwealth well. We owe a great deal of our success as a nation to the Westminster tradition. But if our current course holds, and a republican state is in the offing, better to demand now that the elements of that state serve a useful purpose. John Manley, in his tenure as Deputy Prime Minister, had the tactlessness to suggest we abolish the Monarchy during a royal visit. At that time, he suggested a "Made in Canada" formulation for how our head of state should be. This boiled down to an unelected position, appointed by Parliament (rather than the PM solely) and having essentially the same powers as the Governor General. If this is what the future government "Republic of Canada" looks like, I want no part of it. Unfortunately, the Liberals are in power, and will be for some time to come. And this blighted and useless head of state, combining the worst aspects of both our Monarchy and republicanism, may be exactly what we have in store for ourselves.

Absolutely.

I didn't say it would be done in the car, and I don't think that my post implied that. Perhaps the laws of thermodynamics have been proven wrong in whichever universe you came from, but they're still intact here. Unless I slept through that news week. A revelation like that wouldn't be relegated to the back pages. In any case, my reference to perpetual motion was meant to be metaphorical. It seems to me that 900 degree temperatures are pretty hard to sustain without a lot of energy input, and I'm guessing it's probably more energy than what you'll get out of the end product.

Sell 'em to Virgin Galactic. The future of space exploration is in the private sector.

If this is real, it's the tree-hugger equivalent of stem cell research. I'm a little leery of a source of energy being proposed to replace oil, that requires it's components be heated to 900 degrees. Sounds like perpetual motion to me. Though I suppose you could use solar radiation to supply some of the heat. But it still sounds wacky.

Argus, not that I'm disagreeing, but why do you think so? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm just going to jump in here briefly to say that I agree with the sentiment expressed as a moral argument in favour of welfare. I think it behoves a just society to see that the down and out are taken care of. I am reticent, however, about codifying unlimited welfare for all who apply for it. There's a line there somewhere, between acting to achieve a moral goal on the one hand and being played for sucker on the other.

eureka, I would ask you to illustrate the "real" checks and balances our system uses with an example, but past experience leads me to believe that all I'll get from you is arrogant condescension, so just forget it.

Indeed, we're pulling away from the purpose of the thread, so this will be my last post on the matter. I'd just like to agree with your sense that the politicians are to blame, but that the system was flawed from the outset in that it relied on politicians to behave with dignity and honour. That is clearly no longer the case, and I don't believe that the situation will improve without an overhaul. The best solution is still, in my mind, becoming a republic. I think you're either underestimating the impact that a president of Canada would have internationally, or overestimating the Queen's ability to represent Canada. I mean really, how many people in the world know that the Queen of England is our head of state too? How many Canadians can answer that question correctly, despite hints all over our money and postage?

Perhaps my knowledge of civics is lacking, though to be honest I've already had this argument in this forum. The practical effect of the status quo is a concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office. How is that beneficial to the Canadian democratic process? The Governor General who serves us so well has no practical function at all. The fact that the GG position is non-partisan is irrelevant. I fail to see how an elected president would have less international status than a Governor General that no one outside of the Commonwealth recognizes as the representative of our head of state (prefering in stead to think of the PM as head of state, which is, let's face it, more realistic). Are we to wait until England abolishes the Monarchy and the Commonwealth for us? Don't be too sure it won't happen - Tony Blair has made efforts to eliminate the House of Lords, and with the royal family being in such a shambles there's always talk of eliminating the Monarchy after the current Queen dies. A seperately elected President, with seperate powers and a seperate agenda acts as a counter-balance to the currently unlimited power of the PMO. (And don't point to the Senate and suggest that they act as the counter-balance. For all of their arms-length unaccountability, when was the last time that the Senate refused to pass a piece of legislation that the PMO was pushing through Parliament?)

And watch Canada's beef industry evaporate. And then watch the price of a good steak shoot up to $20 at the grocery store. No thanks. I'll take the risk.

Argus kind of beat me to the punch. I think it's kind of interesting, that the last two Governors General were female immigrants and former CBC employees. I don't really know what to make of it yet. It does seem like some sort of pattern is emerging. Probably not, though. Who cares. I agree with crazymf. The whole monarchy thing should be scrapped, but especially the GG position. I was reading in the paper this morning that one of the GG's (can't remember his name, don't really care) was ill for a while during his tenure and so his wife took over his duties (though I doubt she signed any laws). I think that says a lot about the importance of the position right there.

I'm sure the Libs are grateful to Belinda for her last minute grab for personal glory, but do you really thing the core party faithful will support her in a leadership bid? She does carry the Tory taint with her. I'd be surprised if she makes it any further than her current cabinet post. But then again, my understanding of the Liberal mind is very limited. And from my perspective, that's a good thing.