Renegade

Yes, we can and must make the presumption that they make reasonable choices. To do otherwise would lead down the path of the government making judgements about peoples upbringing and based upon their upbringing determine what that adult is capable or incapable of making reasonable decisions. Let's say I was abused as a child, and the government decides based upon my past I can't make reasonable decsions as a parent, so it disallows me from being a parent. Would you say that is a justified course of action? Exactly. By going down the path of probihition the government is infringing on people's freedom to decide for themselves. It harms everyone because it sets a precedent that the government is free to intervene in consentual behaviour.

Sure, a representative. Kind of like we have MPs who are representatives. Kind of like Trudeau was a representative of his riding. So, how does that make it a referendum? Prove it. Quote the statutes or paragraphs in the amendment process which proves it. Otherwise your statement is BS. How do you know with any certaintity what Congress would or would not do? Are you their desgnated spokesman? I'm guessing this is simply your opinion without any evidence. Again, how do you know? Are you a designated spokesman for the individual States. Another statement pulled out of the air without evidence. As you said plenty was spent before the Charter. Do you have some evidence that much more was spent after the Charter and that it was due to the Charter or is this just another guess and rant on your part. What is not possible? I asked a specific question. Do you or do you not agree that some kind of protection of individual rights is necesary? This is a "yes" or "no" question. Probably because the majority of the population is in favour of the Charter. There is a lot I find fault with in the Charter, but at least I acknowledge the reality that the majority of the Canadian population looks at the Charter favourably. Given that it varies, don't you see a need for national set of standards defining uniform rights across the country? Then go complain to your "delegate". Since you so strongly believe that, what does that make you since you are still in Canada. It seems you freely make the choice to live in a country you consider a "banana republic".

Yes you are correct it is coercion, however pragmatically the government best chance of preventing the practice is to prohibit child brides, even with parental approval. Child brides would present the same coercion even if the male married only one.

Yes, one of the few things I agree with you on. I think specifc groups should not have been named in the Charter. Who is to say those groups who are "disadvantaged" today would remain "disadvantaged" 200 years from now. The Charter should have guaranteed no discrimmination based upon various traits, however it should not have singled out specific groups. Well then you are not using the word "supremacy" in the context you used it previously (ie French supremist). I don't have the patience to look up words for you again. I agree that the rights of minorities should not be advanced over the rights of WECCs, just as I believe that the rights of WECCs should not be advanced over the rights of minorities. All rights should be considered on an equal basis regardless of if they are the rights of the minority or those of the majority. You seem to misunderstand or distort what I said. I simply said that bigotry and racism exist in Quebec just as it does in other provinces. It would seem that you are as much in favour of Quebec separating as anyone in Quebec. If you do advocate the separation of Quebec, does that make you part "of the population wants to destroy Canada by separating"?

It is only goodness if it is freely adopted. Once it is imposed it is no longer "goodness". No? Don't you think that if a public school forced recital of the Lord's Prayer in the classroom, the little Hindu boy would not feel like WECC culture was being imposed on him? How would I know what they intend to do? I've told you before I don't speak for ethnic immigrants. This is a free society with individual rights protection. They are free to segrate into enclaves if they want to, just like many WECC segrate into enclaves like Forest Hill. It is unlikely that they could segrate completely even if they wanted to because they would need to work and interact with the community at large. It would help if you made up your mind on what you want to accuse me of. First you accuse me of being a racist (without offering evidence), then you say you need further information "before you can accuse me of being a racist", now you are back at accusing me of having continual racist ideologies. Sure, I'll bite. Prove it. Is my position any less "clean" if I was black? How about if I was white? how about Asian? How about Moslem? What distinguishing factor about my race makes me biased? You have given the example of the ban of religion in public schools as an imposition on you. How is the fact that religion being separated from education result in you being continually taken advantage of? It matters little to me one way or the other.

You tell me. It wasn't by referendum. I'm not an American historian, but as far as I know it was by negotiatian between states. The process doesn't distinguish between which amendments were "minor" or "major", the process is the same regardless and can be done without a referendum as you alleged. You mean the spending on ROC, Quebec, and Aboriginls only started after the Charter? My question was not specific to the Charter. It would seem based upon you answer you agree that we need some kind of statute which protects individual rights. Am I correct?

What you refer to as "it's current state" is only one sect's behaviour. It doesn't preclude that polygamy can be a voluntary arrangement between people. I'm surprised at your inconsistent postion. You usually are on the side of govrnment non-intervention in free associations between consenting adults. Why are you willing to let government stop a type of consentual association rather than advocate that government intervene to stop behavoiur. IOW, the government can ban abuse and coercion in any form, without banning polygamy.

I disagree. While the Charter does mention certain groups considered "disadvantaged" it does not imply "supremacy" of those groups. Yes I agree, it was an over-generalization on my part. Many French-Canadian nationalists did not like Trudeau because while PM, he did not promote Quebec separation and had a strong reaction to the FLQ crisis. I suppose that there were French-Canadian nationalists who didn't hae an issue with Trudeau. There is bigotry and racism in Quebec just as there is in the rest of Canada.

Agreed, there is evidence to show at during at least part of his life he was. But being a "French nationalist" is different than being a "French supremacist". Your previous allegation was that he was a French supremecist. Supremacists will generally consider their race or group superior and thus will not work to integrate it with others not part of that group. Again you seem to use "nationalist" and "supremacist" interchangably. Completely untrue. Here's how the Constitution was ratified: Not unlike Canada, in which after much negotiation, 9 of the 10 provinces signed the Charter. Curiously, the one province which you claim was so favoured, Quebec, refused to sign. Here's how it is amended United States Constitution I'd like to see evidence of what you mean by this. What exactly is the government compelled by the Charter to provide which imposes a "horrendus cost". Sure, having the right to vote doesn't prevent the overriding of rights. You didn't answer this question so I'll put it to you again: So do I, however you also seek to impose racism of a different kind. That which imposes the race and culture of the WECC on the minority. Curious that you say that when you ALREADY have accused me of being a racist: And actually you are wrong. I have said before, that racism knows no racial boundries. Racism and bigotry is present in some form many other races besides "whites". Sorry, buddy. I disclose as little personal informaiton as possible on a public forum. It matters not at all what race I am, it matters whether I have a position which is consistent and is backed by evidence. It is just as racist for a white person to think that "whites" are superior as for a black to think that "whites" are superior. I have also found that disclosing personal informaiton detracts from the argument and becomes the basis for slurs rather than the argument itself. Besides that, your "brown boy" slurs, are so terribly amusing to me, that I have no interest in giving you confirmation one way or another. I don't do it on any "legal basis" because I don't know nor have looked up the legal definition of racist. I do however know the common English usage of the term. Racism. Among those is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". You have already admitted intolerance and have had a multitude of statements indicating that the WECC should be intolerant of other groups.------------------------------ BTW, this discussion has strayed considerably from the original scope of the thread. If you want to discuss a wide ranging set of topics from Trudeau, to the process of amending the charter, to what constitutes a racist, they I suggest that other threads are in order. However, this is your thread, and if you want to continue this mish-mash discussion in this thread, I can't stop you.

I dispute you can interpret a right to life, as a right to free healthcare. It is true that the Consitution grants each American the right to Life, but it does not say that everyone has the rigth to have others fund it for them. You should have no more expectation that the public fund your "pursuit of Happiness" than to fund your right to life.

Well I guess it depends what evidence they require. They do require you to declare gambling revenue at the table games even though the casinos don't have a way to track it. BTW, if you do win significant amount in Vegas in other games such as slots, bingo, etc, tax WILL be witheld. Taxes on gambling winnings

IOW, you have no evidence. Actually if I remember Trudeau was not particualrly liked by French-Canadian nationalists, despite having French-Canadian ancestory. If Trudeau has really been a 'French supremacist' as you claim, I suspect Quebec would long have been a sovereign nation by now. Of course, and that is as it should be. The judicary is a separate branch from the legislature purposefully. It is their job to make such rulings. If you don't like the system, you can blame England, because it is one of those "White English" traditions inherited from them. BTW, the system is very similar in the US where the Supreme Court interprets on a case by case basis which laws conform to their bill of rights. Do you have an example of a civilized country which works differently? A free system must respect the fundamental rights of eveyone. It cannot simply let majority vote override fundamental rights. If you read my tag line and understand its implications, then you will understand what I mean. If your idea of democracy is simple majority rule, what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority? You don't need my allegations. Your own statements and actions positively demonstrate discrimminatory and intolerant attitudes. Really, how is that possible when the allegations havn't chnged since the beginning? And who is that? If you are implying that I'm racist, show some evidence. I have asked you this before and you have failed to respond. Point out quotes which I've made which demonstrate or imply racism.

No I actually don't in most cases. Do you have proof of your allegation? BTW, I assume it is only your opinion that Trudeau is a 'French supremacist'. Do you have any cite that unbiased sources would classsify him as such? There are many places I disagree with Trudeau. I do agree with him though that everyone's rights need to be protected/ BTW, your rebuttals and arguments are becoming more and more desperate.

I think someone should have the fiscal capacity to support a spouse in order to sponsor them as an immigrant into the country and undertake to support that person for life. This should be true for one spouse or for many. Very few will have the fiscal capacity to do so, and will want to do so just to subvert the system. In any case, virtually all people have psychological inhibtions to incest, so they are not likely to undertake incestous marrages except to subvert the system. Even today immigration has as set of processes in place to detect and refuse immigration to what they consider fradulent marriages.

Yes, that is precisely why I ask the question. The fact is there is a built-in personal financial disincentive to adopting children just to allow them to take advantage of your benefits. Because of this disincentive, few if any will do it, that means the benefits provider already has a way to curtail abuse of the system. The same would be true of marriage. If the financial disincentive was not already strong enough to prevent undue claims on benefits, then restrictions would need to be put on payouts. For example for CPP, that the benefit is capped and devided amoung spouses or other such restriction.

I expect just the same way as any other program which has the potential to cause significant unintentded consequences. Additonal restrictions on benefit claims will be put on. An example of such a restriction: Only one named spouse can claim benefits. In the current system you can still have any number of people claiming benefits under your plan. For example you can adopt an unlimited number of disabled children. What stops you from doing so?

guyser, great summary. It confirms to me, what should be obvious to anyone reading the thread. What I've heard from Leafless is a lot of his opinions, which he has been unable to substintiate with any evidence. His cites are primarily others who share his opinion. Not surprisingly, he seems to share the same opinion as white supremacist groups. BTW, he left open the possibility that you too share the title as "most arrogant poster" as he only accorded me the privildge of being "one of the most arrogant". I'm still vieing for sole possetion of the title

Not sure what you mean by putting the "gene pool at risk". Close relations have an increased risk of certain genetic disorders, that is true, but to make that the basis of your restriction, then you also have to restrict the marrying of any two oher individuals who introduce similar genetic risk to their offsping.

Yes, it should not be illegal. Yes, it should not be illegal. True, but no one is forcing you to procreate with your mom, sister, or granma. Thus "your" world is safe. Because a dog doen't have the capacity to give legal consent. Same with a child. It would seem to be a weak argument when the only defense is "We've always done it that way".

Yes agreed, but just because it makes things complicated it doesnt mean we should prohibit it. Let me take a shot at each one of these: He should get the same total spousal benefit regardless if he has one wife or 100. The benefit should be equally shared among all wives pesuming that the have the same communal marriage contract. I'm assuming you mean policies that pay out upon the policy holder's death to the beneficiary. In this case if the benefiicary are a dozen wives they each get 1/12th. If the spouse is going to undertake to support 12 wives, he needs to undertake the life insurance of sufficent payout value to pay each of them on his death. If he can't afford it, then he cannot afford 12 wives. As with social secuity, employers should pay the same spousal benefit regardless of the number of wives. The benefit is shared. Personally I don't think the government should pre-define the split of assets. That should be part of the contract they sign upfront upon marriage, however if what you are asking is how you extend current divorce settlement to multiple wives, I think there is an answer. You simply generalize what you have today. Today generally the spouse walks away with 50% of joint assets unless there is a prenup. If there are 12 wives, she should walk away with 1/13th of joint assets. IMV, the best way is to define upfront what % of the joint assets she has ownership for. Sure they would. In effect a single wife doesn't just divorce the husband, she divorces the entire commune of spouses as she entered a contact with all of them. Absolutely. 1/12 of the total exemption for each, either that or put a limit on the dollar amount of the tax exemption. ---------------------------------------------- All of these are good questions and examples and show that a multi-spouse arrangement can be complicated. But is complication a reason we should preclude people from freely entering these relationships? Divorce itself is complicated even in monogamous couples, should we then ban divorce?

Yes I understand that is the way the law is now, what I was proposing was that the law change to accomodate whatever contractual relationship two or more willing parties want to enter into.

CA, congratulation on the new role. I was particularly amused when I came across this post of yours: Could it be a coincidence that it was written on April's Fools day? In any case you are doing a fine job as moderator, though I do miss your topical posts.

Actually I don't see your case at all. It is precisely because definitions change that society should minimize the number of definitions it has to resort to. I suggest that the minimal definiton a society should resort to is who can give informed consent. Lets say it is determined that any human over 18 can give informed consent. Society doesn't need to define marriage. Any two people who can give informed consent can enter into whatever contract they want to. Sure, the definition of who can give informed consent can change (for example from age 18 to age 21) however it doesnt requre redefinition of marriage or a host of other definitions.

Precisely why I think the law should stay out of such legislation.

No you misunderstand what I am advocating. I'm not suggesting that a law be passed making it legal. I'm avocating that the law stay neutral on the kind of relationship between consenting adults. If marriage is natural, why do you need a law allowing it? If polygamy is unnatural why do you need a law to ban it? Society should simply stay silent and let people decide for themselves.