Renegade

new immigrants are a benefit ONLY if they can pay their way, and will not drain the system but also be a benefit to those present. I agree 100%, and the system should be changed to reflect that goal and be more accountable for measuring the net benefit. BTW, cute cartoon.

It is interesting that what is clear to you is far from clear to Insp. Ron Fox, and he was in the room and you wern't. Why have an inquiry when conclusion is foregone? I see that you keep an open mind about police officers as you do about everyone else. Only someone as biased as yourself can tar all OPP and city police with the same brush. Your theories about why any class votes for government are nonsense and I assign them the same credibility as your theory of how all conservatives are pedophiles. I'm sure you are aware that except for Quebec, the provincial government does not set the criteria for entry into the country and the provincial governmetn does not control where an immigrant settles. Overseas. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent. Good Riddance.

Well, well, well, mockingbird. I see that you have found your way back to the forums. Couldn't stay away could you, even though you were banned?

It is true that stay-at-home parents do not get the childcare deduction. The logic for the deduction is that a parent would not otherwise be able to earn income unless that parent paid someone to look after the child(ren). I can see an argmument can be made to allow the working spouse to pay the stay-at-home spouse an amount for looking after the child(ren) and thus claim the deduction. While the stay-at-home parent cannot claim the childcare deduction, the earning spouse can claim the spousal amount. Something which is not available in general to two income families. The benefit is geared to family income. The benefit is reduced as income increases and at a certain income cutoff no benefit is paid. I have shown that the tax system has some benefits for parents. I would hardly characterize it as one which "penalizes and punishs working parents". In the end it is the choice of the parents to have the children and they, and not society or the tax system, should bear the financial consequences of that choice. A large percentage of divorces are due to financial differences, not necessarily financial difficulties. There are very poor families who have stable relationships, and there are rich families with unstable ones. No doubt finances add to the pressures of life which may take their toll on a relationship. But in the end it is the couple's responsibility to manage. The couple may decide to overextend themselves by buying a house they can't afford, and it may lead to financial difficulties. We don't expect society to bail them out. Why should the choice to have children be different? I'd have to agree with you. Our immigration system is a mess. Fortunately it is fixable by changing some of the immigration policies, however we currently lack political will or guts to make the required changes. I'm so sorry for what you went through. I can see why your experience has made you angry at the immigration system. The delay in reuniting your family is inexcusable. It does sound that this was compounded by your spouse not living up to committments he made and leaving you to shoulder the burden of responsibility. All I can say is that I wish the system was different and I'm sorry.

Apparently, harris saw himself as hitler being put to the test buy the people. It is hard to conclude much from the ambigous quote you have posted. I don't know Mike Harris personally nor do I have first-hand knowledge of his views. He may well be culpable in the Ipperwash affair, but that really won't be determined until the inquiry is completed. What we have discussed thus far is the policies of his government and for the most part I did and still agree with his policies. What exactly does this have to do with Mike Harris? The provincial government doesn't control immigration. I have posted my views on immigration in other threads, and I don't consider "oversurge of "minorities"" to be a problem. Where exaactly to you plan to move to?

Renegade, You are way wrong on this point. Our history is one of being a Christian nation and it is only recently that we have become unwilling to recognize that fact in order to fully appease minority interests. Here is the preamble from the beloved Charter of Rights and Freedoms: SCHEDULE B CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Take my word for it, the Supreme God being referred to here is the Christian one. I'm not saying we should be an intolerant society, guided only by Christian values, but I think the point being made by Betsy is that we ought not completely toss Christian values aside just to please minority groups. FTA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> FTA, I stand corrected. Thank-you for pointing it out. I was not aware that the preamble of the Charter included a reference to God. Personally, I find it unwise that they chose to do so. The preamble is ambiguious and does not define what the "supremacy of God" means. It is also intolerant of other faiths. Thankfully the SC justices have chose to ignore the preamble in their interpretations. Here's an interesting read: Canadian Judges Ignore Charter Preamble on “the supremacy of God”, Says Constitutional Expert

That there will be no more political party-appointed judges. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm fine with a non-partisan process which appoints the judicary. However if you look at the judgements you will see that the appointed judges have not shown any trend to follow party lines.

Homosexuality has existed in virtually all cultures since recorded history. We live in a SECULAR society. No religion can prempt any word in the legal sense. Do we let any religious group define what "GOD" or "priest" is if used in a legal context? Thankfully the government stays away from use of these words in legislation. Unfortunately it didn't have the good sense to do so for "marriage". BTW, you don't seem unduly offended that the word "marriage" was extended to conjugal partners who cohabitate for more than one year, despite the fact that most religions forbid this activity. But in the end, you are simply offended by the use of the word and not the entitlement of the priviledges. The best advice I can give you is that you live in a secular society tolarant of all people, so get over the use of the word for your own sake.

Your sources cite a 1% "overall growth rate" so as such it includes both immigrants and emmigrants. The net of it is, even by your sources Canada's population is growing. So if I understand your argument it is that population growth by native-born Canadians is "good" and population growth by immigration is "bad". I would very much dispute this. I don't think taking a few isolated cases of immigrant violence demonstrates that ALL immigration is bad. You don't account for the billions of dollars of wealth that immigrants have brought and generated in the country or the untold number of jobs they have created. I would agree that Canada can be more selective on the immigrants it allows, and it can overhaul its immigration system, but to denounce immigration on the basis of the actions of a few is short-sighted and paints a false picture. There is already encouragement for parents to have kids via taxs benefits. (ie the Child Tax Benefit and the deduction for childcare). Since you seem so anti-immigrant, maybe you can also see that incentives to have kids will also induce immigrants to have more kids. (In fact my guess is that due to cultural pressures, it will be the immigrants who take most advantage of any inducements). The ideal population is 60 m that Canada and her resources can accommodate, unless you start developing more of the land. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The quote you reference is here: Optimum population It defines optimium population as such: If we define optimium population as such I can see how you come to the 60M number. It would not be my definition of optimium population, afterall aren't we trying to figure out how many people we can cram onto a piece of land before it collapses? Let me give you an example. If we can fit 15 people on to an elevator and still have the elevator operate is 15 the optimal number for the elevator? Sure it is if all we consider is the maximium number of people, but not if we consider the best experience of the individuals on the elevator. This site defines Optimum population differently: An optimum population While their study was primarily focused on the UK, their conclusions were: That right!!! The population needs to be reduced in order to reach an optimium number. I don't know about you but I care very little for reaching a population level where we maximize the number of people Canada can support. I would much rather maxmimze the quality of life each of us can live. I have seen no evidence that increasing the population will increase any of our quality of lives.

Since when did ANY religion have exclusive copywright on the word "marriage". Many religions have defined marriage different ways including Mormans and Muslims in which bigamy was also considered "marriage". Personally I would have preferred that the government stay out of the definition of marriage and it should have been left to individuals or religious groups to define for themselves.

No doubt it is not easy and may be expensive to protect individual rights. But what other system would you suggest? In many other systems there isn't recourse to protect such rights. Just the possibility that a law may be struck down as unconstitutional is sometimes enough to prevent lawmakers from passing that law to begin with.Based upon the judgements from the SCC, I would say the judges are not biased and have shown great propensity to protect individual rights. That's true that we have gone through iterations of regulations regarding smoking. Such is the nature of government. One government may have a policy and a new one may come in with a vastly different policy, or even the same government may change policy. For better or worse such is the price of doing business in our society. The extension of your argument is that the government should mandate NO safety legislation or working conditions in any workplace. The worker if fully informed of the saftey risks would choose if they wanted to accept the job or find another. While I agree with you for the most part that employment conditions shoudl be a private contract between employer and employee, I would say that many would disagree.

RB, both of your sources discredit your position. The first source suggest that given current trends, Canada will reach 60 million by 2070. This is what you suggest is the "optimal" population. If so, and Canada is trending to a population increase anyway without intervention or incentives, why should the government intervene and incent further growth? From your second source: So I don't see from the sources you cite support for your argument, and in fact reinforces my position. RB, thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm a little unclear on your methology. Are you saying you have extrapolated an analysis of the maximium number of squirrels to a human population? If so then I have to ask the question when you state that 60M is an optimal population, it is optimal for what?

Betsy, delete the second "" and it should look right. There should be only one close quote tag ie "" at the end of each quote. Unmatched tags will give you a problem. Also try the "Preview Post" button as it will give you an indication of what your post will look like.

I actually agree with you on this one. However this is an indication of the majority (non-smokers) imposing rules on a minority (smokers) not vica-versa. As far as I know these rules are relatively recent and none have yet made it to the Supreme Court as a challenge. So it may well be struck down if it infringes on an owner's right to choose. BTW, prior to the non-smoking law, every bar had the option to be non-smoking, but very few exercised that option. Why do you think that is? Also what do you propose is done to existing employees who choose not to work in a smoking environment if the owner makes a choice to have a smoking environment. BTW, please learn to use the quote tags properly. It will make it a lot easier to see the demarkation between other's quotes and your response.

I don't see much evidence of the minority imposing it's will on the majority or rights given to one group by taking away rights from another. As IMT has asked, can you be more specific with examples. I never said that rule-by-majority is not acceptable. What I said was that the freedom of the majority to choose must be limited by the respect for rights and freedoms for all. That is what our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does. It guarantees that our individual rights are not overridden by laws passed by the representatives of the majority.

Democracy does not necessarily preserve rights and freedoms. Afterall, in rule-by-majority, the majority is able to impose rules which will deny minority its rights and freedoms. The problem with rule-by-majority is the the minority can get screwed 100% of the time. That is why we have the Charter of Rights. It is entirely appropriate that the courts and not the government interperet the Charter to protect our rights. So far they have done a remarkbly good job in striking down laws which deny our rights. So, I'm somewhat unclear what your complaint is.

Actually I agree with you and the SC. As long no one else is hurt we should permit such behaviour. Acutally it is not a slippery slope argument, its an argument that we should apply the same reasoning for all behaviour society considers "obscene" I'm not convinced that most people end up psychologically harmed as a result of incest. I would need to see some evidence to be convinced. Even if they were, personally I would permit it because it harms no one else. There are lots of behaviours society permits which induce self-inflicted physical or psychologically harm. Actually it is against the law as well. Can he legaly marry more than one individual?

If you are in agreement that one additional wife is permissable, what is your justification at stopping at one? Why aren't two or more additional wives permissable?

So its ok if they use contraception? If your argument is that the harm caused is because of the propensity to cause genetic abnormalities by procreation, then would you also say that people who are carriers for genetic diseases should also be banned from mating?

How exactly does incest harm society? What exactly do you mean by "you've seen Diliverance"? Even assuming incest causes harm to onselves, but not to society, why should it be prohibited between consenting adults? There is no shortage of behaviours which we permit individuals to partake in which may (or may not) cause harm to themselves. Where we (and the court) has drawn the line is where it harms society.

They rewrote the definition of indecency to it doesn't cause society no harm. Gee,what else doesn't cause society no harm that we can legalize? How about walking to work nude? Might be indecent,but causes society no harm. How about sex in public? Indecent again,but doesn't cause society any harm. Did they open up a can of worms? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This decision by the SC is long overdue. Why should morality standards of even the majority impose on the behaviours of individuals if that behaviour causes no harm to anyone else? Why not extend this ruling to other areas where by convention or by "morality" judgements we have imposed laws. How about incest between consenting adults? Should we allow that? How about bigamy between consenting adults? Should we allow that?

I'm stunned by your statement that "The American President is under no obligation to respect their rights or freedoms." If Hezbollah kidnaps an American citizen, can we also say that they are "under no obligation to respect their rights or freedoms."? An American President should have the common sense to respect human rights of both American citizens and foreign nationals to the same extent he expects American citizens to be treated elsewhere. As you say it is not useful to split hairs and determine if it is legal (by American law). Legal or not, it is characteristic of this president's attitude that he allows it to happen. If you don't consider total deprivation of sleep, food and water, exposure to extreme heat and cold, up to 20 minutes in stress positions, up to 2 hours listening to white noise to be torture then your definition of torture is different than mine. It is a telling sign that the McCain amendment was even necessary. It is interesting that it was not necessary before to have to spell out the limits for interrogration techniques till now. Why exactly do you think Guantanamo Bay was picked? It is because U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the claims of detainees held on the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, because the base in on sovereign Cuban soil. So do you think they are protected under Cuban law? I'll agree in the aftermath of 9/11 any administration had to act quickly and detain suspects, both for retribution and to prevent any future attacks. However you should also acknowledge that due process was suspended. People were detained unbelievably long periods of time without charges or access to counsel. The list of abuses goes far beyond what an administration which respected human rights and freedoms would do. Read them for yourself Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees Just because CSE comits some of the same privacy violations as the US doesn't excuse the US. Personally, I'm just as unhappy about the Canadian actions, they just haven't had the same scope and publicity as the US. Personally if I were an American I'd be in a quandry on who to elect. I would characterize myself as a fiscal conservative and so I would lean toward the Republicans (though their excessive spending on the military hardly characterizes them as having fiscal restraint!!!). On the other hand, I am also strongly libertarian, and this administration scares the daylights of me from a human rights perspective. I'm only glad that there is a two-term limit.

I disagree. I believe it is supremely relevant. We are a nation founded on people looking for a better life. If you'll notice, what I specified was "against ANY immigration". As in "any and all". We do, perhaps, need a better screening process, but immigration has been the lifeblood of Canada since its inception. I understand your qualification that you addressed it to those "against ANY immigration". My point is that one's stand on immigration is not relevant to one's origin. So let's turn it around. When our ancestors immigrated, it was because it was to their benefit to do so. But was it to Canada's benefit??? I suppose you'd have to ask the native population, and you just KNOW what their answer would be. Same stands now, But with proper screening, immigration SHOULD be to Canada's benefit. Yes when our ancestors immigrated it was to their benefit to do so and it probably was not to Canada's benefit as any Native Canadian will attest. Unfortunately the Native Canadians at the time lacked ability to enforce their policy. That is not true today. The current residents can to a substantial degree enforce immigration policy. Proper immigration should be mutually beneficial (ie both the immigrant and the recipient country). If there fails to be common ground of mutual benefit, then it is perfectly ok to oppose immigration, regardless of one's background. As you can see by my posts previously, I am very much in favour of selective and screened immigration. My point is simply that ancesteral immigration background is not relevant to that position. Sorry, but now I have to say that this analogy is not relevant for a very simple reason; a person may outgrow his/her bad habits, just as a child outgrows sucking his/her thumb. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, maybe you'll like this analogy better. It is akin to saying that if you are black you should be an advocate for affirmative action.

BHS, I'm not an expert on the American Constitition, but I believe you are correct in saying that the Constitution does not protect the right to privacy directly, however the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to include this right. I'm not enough of a constitutional expert to know if the Bush administration is violatiing the guarantees set up by the Fourth Amendment because the definition of "unreasonable" is open to interpretation. What troubles me most is that this President has repeately demonstrated a lack of respect for individual rights and freedoms. It is clears that prisoners in Guantanamo have been detained without counsel and tortured. This is also true of the many suspected people with terrorist links in the wake of 9/11. I value my rights and most Americans do too. Fear and the shock of 9/11 have convinced them to relax their viligence in protecting their rights. But this is a slippery slope. In time people will overcome their fears and demand a president who will respect their rights and freedoms again.

You are undoubtedly head of the Bush optimist club if your feeling of being in "good shape" is based upon a one month uptick. His approval rating has gone from 88% after 9/11 to 50% in Nov 2004 to 34% in Nov 2005. Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows