FTA Lawyer

It doesn't get any more pathetic, really... You come on a political discussion forum and tell people who try to discuss political issues with you to go to hell because you have no interest in anything they have to say. I wasn't offering you my services...just an open mind...but you clearly don't need or want that because you are all-knowing, all-powerful and have skin that is seven spans thick...and alas, I am a mere human being. I'm not angry, just amazed and disheartened by the approach you have taken here. It appears to me that you ought to follow your own peoples' teachings / motto and just leave us (the people wanting to openly discuss issues on this forum) alone. FTA

I find it remarkable how cold the response is to a lawyer from red-neck Alberta writing in a public forum in support of the Six Nations position with respect to its potential land claim. TNE, you immediately dismiss my comments because I am a Canadian...but ask me to accept every bit of virulence you espouse as a Six Nations member. Can you not see why such activity incites angry responses from outsiders looking in? You further assume that all I have read is Canadian legal documents...well, the point of my reading for 3 hours last night was to read many of the actual correspondence back and forth between the various leaders at the relevant times in this historical impasse...and somehow, you miss the fact that I wrote: If you want to bother trying to convince people of your position / rights / justification (which I assume you do, otherwise you would not be writing on this forum) you need to tone down the defiant "kiss my ass and like it" attitude. You may be surprised that people are willing to listent if they are not being insulted. FTA P.S. What does your sign on / off of She:kon! and O:nen mean? Is it just hello / goodbye?

The fact is that with any treaty-type agreement, you can't seek to rely on the terms of the document in the name of equity, justice and what is right while simultaneously demonstrating the greatest level of disrespect to the other party to the treaty (i.e. direct contempt for their court of law). If they keep it up, they are liable to give the present government its best legal "out" in 300 years (where they otherwise may have no leg to stand on). We haven't had any presence on the land for the whole duration that the land matter was under the government's land process. While we were of the understanding that the land was in the process of being dealt with it is sold to a developer. We occupied the land in order to prevent its further development. It is the exact same stunt they pulled in Kahnasatake (Oka) in 1990. You are demanding that we trust the government and their law on that basis. We are not in contempt of their court of law they are and history has proven that repetedly. That is the reason we will remain there until it is resolved. You need to edit your post...you have inadvertantly attributed your statement as my quote and not quoted the latter part of my statement. As to your comments...Nationhood and sovereignty are incidents of non-aboriginal law and are inextricably based in the rule of law. You want to rely on the rights and privileges associated with the concept of sovereignty, and you want to rely on the international law governing relations between nations, but only when and where it works in your favour. Under international law, in order to maintian sovereignty you must exercise a consistent measure of possession and control over the territory over which you claim said sovereignty. By your own statement you put up an argument that the Six Nations have lost the sovereignty over the Haldimand tract due to the failure to maintain it pursuant to international law. This same issue plagues Canada in its holdings in the North because we continue to allow Russian and other nations' encroachment in our waters...we are at real risk of losing our sovereignty to much Northern territory for our failure to exercise it. Again, you attempt to marshall support as the white knights in shining armour defending your lands lawfully and justly from the unjust actions of the Canadian government...you have forcefully and recklessly occupied the land simply "to prevent its further development." Well, guess what...regardless of how hard you argue that Canadian law doesn't apply to the Six Nations...it DOES apply to Canadians and the Canadian government. Foreign nations have full standing to bring an application in a Canadian court and any civilized and respectful nation would follow the proper process and bring an application for an injunction. Give me one good reason why the Six Nations did not apply to a Canadian Superior Court or the Federal Court for an injunction forcing all development to cease unless and until the Six Nations land claim was resolved. Instead, your people chose renegade vigilante tactics which command little respect. And before you give me some rhetoric about your hundreds of years of patience wearing thin and the clear inability to expect a Crown servant judge to stop the government or its subjects from doing anything consider the types of injunctions that courts do give in these kinds of international disputes. The most recent I can think of is a lowly district judge in Montana putting the brakes on the entire multi-billion dollar beef trade between the U.S. and Canada contrary to the wishes and plans of both federal governments of both nations because he felt it was the proper legal action in the circumstances. Remember, I actually am of the view that the Six Nations claim is likely meritorious...but I reiterate...the proper legal process should be followed and the occupation should end. Then the ongoing negotiations can resume and the Six Nations might be able to regain some credibility with Canadians and the international community at large as to the just position they claim to advance. FTA

Aren't those treaties invalid though? That's your whole argument. If they are really invalid, then you don't deserve any of the money. It all needs to be paid back. You see...you really need to educate yourselves on these matters. I mean that sincerely not as a prod. The land issues are extremely complex. They differ from Nation to Nation and Territory to Territory. Treaty no. 6 for example was ceded with the "Medicine Chest" clause. They had medical coverage added into it. Some are valid while many are in valid. That is what is refered to as stolen or unceded/unsurrendered land. That is land that we are seeking restitution for. Everyone seems to think that our land issues, treaties, rights etc. are or can be all lumped together. The fact is that they are as diverse as the Nations involved. Some was legitimately bought and some legitimately leased only. Some has been paid off and some hasn't. That is where any money that our communities recieve comes from. What we're arguing is justice. It may not be fair in your mind but, just. I've seen many posts in which the author refers to morals. I can't see where reneging on an agreement whether it's 3 minutes old or 300 hundred years old contains any moral enlightenment or fairness for that matter. I've also read a post where the author stated; "posession is 9/10ths of the law. Tell that to the local constablitory when you're in posession of stolen property. I've seen posts where the author talks about defending their home if it were to be taken from them. Then in the same breath condemn us for doing the same. If you stopped or couldn't pay your rent or your mortgage on your home what would happen? Yet we are condemned for taking the same actions. However, I'm sure that we could come up with some kind of resolution with home owners just as some cottage owners in Ontario have done in the past. I've just spent the last 3 hours reading up on this issue...admittedly I have completely ignored it until today. The history is fascinating and the legalities are indeed very complex. I very much appreciate Okwaho's above post as it demonstrates that there is at least one pro-Six Nations poster here who wants an intelligent and logical discussion. Sadly, most of the others (whose names I need not state here...you need only read a single post to know them all) are spewing fire and brimstone like complete idiots and accomplishing nothing but reinforcing wrongly held stereotypes and escalating defensive knee-jerk responses from non-natives. I have a limited legal background in Aboriginal law / title / treaties...which is to say I have studied aboriginal title in an introductory property law class and took an upper-year class sub-titled Aboriginal Issues. I've read most of the cases from Calder to Sparrow to Delgamuukw and also have a well developed working knowledge of the Constitution, including the Charter. If I were a Justice Canada lawyer I would be giving my client the opinion that the Six-Nations scenario is NOT a test case the Federal Government wants to battle. Keeping in mind that I have only looked at this centuries-old issue for 3 hours, there appears to be considerable merit to the Six-Nations claim to the land in question, as well as considerable merit to the notion that the Confederacy has never acceded to becoming subjects of the Crown. That being said, there also appears to be a considerable history of the Six-Nations using lawful means to negotiate with the Crown and with individual white settlers in order to advance their interests...and the current lawlessness would likely have been thoroughly renounced by the traditional leaders. I can follow the argument made by some that the tract of disputed land is Six-Nations land and therefore the laws of Canada don't apply, but I cannot accept it. I am fully prepared to put forth reasoned arguments in support of the Six-Nations on this...if they cease their contempt of Court, end the occupation, and return to proper legal channels to resolve their dispute. The fact is that with any treaty-type agreement, you can't seek to rely on the terms of the document in the name of equity, justice and what is right while simultaneously demonstrating the greatest level of disrespect to the other party to the treaty (i.e. direct contempt for their court of law). If they keep it up, they are liable to give the present government its best legal "out" in 300 years (where they otherwise may have no leg to stand on). FTA

The Queen would be obligated by centuries of royal tradition to sign any law that removed her as the head of state. Tradition is equal to the law when it comes to these things. In the unlikely event that she refused then Canada would simply declare a new constitution for itself like the US did in 1776. The Queen has no army she could use to stop Canada from doing that.IOW - all laws and treaties in this country exist only because the Canadian people want them. If Canadians decide that they do not want those laws anymore then they will repeal them or pass new laws. Actually, it's even better than that... While TNE is correct that Canada cannot change its Constitution wihtout a "proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada" (i.e. Queen's assent), the Queen has already legally given up her right to refuse such assent in section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982: That is, once Canadians have followed the amendment procedures set out in our Constitution, the Queen's assent is dictated by law to be mandatory...and since the Queen had to sign off on this provision in the first place, there's no validity to the argument that the Queen is more than a figurehead and that Canadians are not sovereign to amend their Constitution. As to Native sovereignty / treaties / proclamations, Canada specifically has legal authority to amend or otherwise deal with these issues as set out in section 35 and 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982...we need only include such an amendment as an agenda item in a Constitutional Conference and invite aboriginal peoples representatives to participate in the discussion on that item. Again, the Queen has already signed off on this so perhaps TNE you should do even the slightest bit of homework if you hope to be an advocate for Native peoples and their place in relation to the rest of Canada. FTA

The Governor General IS the Queen when the Queen is not here...basic principles of agency. Every stroke of the pen by the GG is ROYAL assent not just Jean's o.k. It's a simple necessity if you want to rule an empire...you need to have representatives act for you because divine ruler or not, you still can't physically be in two places at once. As such, the fact that QEII is actually the head of state means almost nothing in terms of the day to day expense of running our country. FTA

My kids won't be getting a Mercedes at 16 even if I could afford it. Married parents have a right to limit the access their kids have to luxuries - why shouldn't divorced parents? I can't really answer you on that one...other than to say that the Fed. Child Support Guidelines are supposed to have a statistical foundation which loosely represents the average amount of money spent on kids by parents who make the specified income. Some parents making 200K will spend more on their kids, some will spend less, but the guideline amount in theory will make each of the divorced couple responsible for their share of what the average parents making 200K would spend. I guess if I say my kids have to buy their own clothes with money they earn I can't stop my wife from buying them stuff when I'm at work and they go shopping...even though we're married. If we were divorced, it wouldn't change a whole lot...I'd pay the support and I could state my view on what it should be spent on and she could take or ignore my opinion as she saw fit. I recognize this is one of the biggest issues for payors of child support...no control whatsoever over how the money is spent. Unfortunately, we haven't come up with a better system because if strings could be attached, many bitter payors would do so unreasonably in order to punish their ex-spouses...and that would be just as unfair if not worse than forcing people to pay child support and not get to determine where it goes. Anyone with a better idea? FTA

I love picking nits. I didn't see a reply to this post, so I'm posting one now. The $100,000.00 in question was a court-ordered retroactive payment for child support above and beyond that which was already being paid. What wasn't given was the period of time to which this retroactive payment applied. The article only mentions retroactive payments being limited to a three-year period by the Supreme Court's decision. I'm going to guess that the period of retroactivity for this particular case was a similar length of time. $100,000.00 over three years means missed monthly payments of $2777.78 above and beyond established child support payments. That is a sizeable increase in monthly payments, and it leads me to suspect that the father's income (and commensurate montly support payment obligations) were already quite high. In that light, I find it hard to believe that junior was "doing without" in any meaningful sense, and so I have to respectfully disagree with the sentiment expressed in your last sentence. (I know this doesn't apply to you but it reminds me of people who complained about Bush's tax cuts by noting that the wealthiest payers would be receiving credit equivalent to the price of a new Lexus. Completely lacking from these complaints, in a very logically disconnected way, was the acknowledgement that the price of a new Lexus made up only a small fraction of what the wealthiest taxpayers shell out every year in taxes. Everything is relative.) Well, I'm not sure that you are picking nits...your point is well-taken. My sentence did sound like I was painting a picture of a kid picking through the dumpster for food while dad was living large. I appreciate that we are sometimes talking about a kid being more spoiled with increased support as opposed to less impoverished. The point remains the same however. When a family splits, the child should not be punished. If the child would have had the benefit of his mom or dad's high-power income (with periodic raises) and would have been able to go to private school, own a Mercedes at 16, have a personal assistant and go skiing in Aspen every year, then they shouldn't have to do without that standard of living because mom and dad can't get along anymore. The point is, someone in the family is going to benefit from the income and as a society we are saying that the non-custodial parent ought not get that benefit and the children be denied it (even though they don't NEED such a standard of living). Children are a life-long obligation irrespective of your marital status...and you are responsible to allow your children to benefit from your success and position in life...even if they are not living with you. Can the payee parent hoard the money for themselves? Yes. And there really is no way to get around the fact that some will do this. But by and large parents look out for their kids and most will cut back on their personal luxuries (and indeed basic necessitites) to provide the extras for their kids as opposed to the other way around. Its far from a perfect system, but anytime you need a court or government to be a babysitter because you can't be reasonable and respectful adults your situation in your glass house is so far from perfect that you really shouldn't be casting stones. Bottom line...making payor parents increase child support as their disposible income increases seems like perfectly logical reasoning to me. FTA

thelonius...you are wrong... DO and LTO Definitions Note that a "serious personal injury offence" does not include murder and is one that is indictable and punishable by 10 years or more...it is not necessary for the offender to actually get sentenced to 10 years. Further, the definition includes both offences which involve actual or attempted violence, and offences which involve "conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage upon another person". In addition to the above, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or threats and aggravated sexual assault are specifically defined as "serious personal injury offences" even if they are not indictable (and therefore punishable by only 18 months maximum). As an aside...if a Dangerous Offender application cannot be made, the Crown can seek to declare someone a "Long Term Offender" by the same type of process. This allows someone to be supervised closely in the community for up to 10 years after their sentence. For an LTO, any offence can trigger the application, so long as the person gets a sentence of 2 years or more and they are a substantial risk to re-offend and there remains a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community. Now, before everyone goes off about why murder is not a "serious personal injury offence" it is because the term is defined specifically to set up DO proceedings. It would be redundant to seek a DO declaration for a convicted murderer because such a person is already subject to indeterminate imprisonment (i.e. the punishment for murder is an automatic life sentence). jdobbin...you are less wrong than thelonius... It is incorrect to say that a DO leaves "no provisions for release". The DO designation just means that the prisoner has no established entitlement to release...and he could be kept indefinitely. It is possible, however, for release to happen in the right circumstances. FTA

I suspect that most commentators on this judgment will support it. It simply acknowledges that child support is the right of the child, and if your income goes up from where it was when the original support order was imposed, then your support payments should go up accordingly. In the one case, while the father dutifully paid support on the level appropriate for someone with a much lower income, his child was shortchanged the benefit of some $100,000.00. Just think of the things that the kid did without while dad lived with more. On the other hand, the SCC did not make retroactive orders mandatory...which the Alberta Court of Appeal tried to do. They have left the final say on a retroactive order in the hands of the trial judges and have made it clear that the under-paying spouse's intentions, good or bad behaviour, and potential hardships should be considered when deciding whether to make a retroactive order. I can't find any fault with the reasoning myself. FTA

This is pretty bad. Look, the message is fine...and one I tend to agree with...in terms of trying to increase support for a leader by highlighting his decisiveness and contrasting his approach to a much less inspiring approach of a rival. But the timing is terrible. As dead kids are being displayed on our television screens we are being asked to make political funding contributions based on that leader's official position on that very conflict? For God's sake...wait until an actual election campaign (or at least until the conflict is not still unfolding before our eyes) before trying to make hay out of one's record on the subject. As someone who has voted for Harper both internally and in public elections, I am offended. And I dare say that if something like this had been in a Liberal party letter that many in the CPC would be on the "moral outrage" circuit. Stupidity is stupidity no matter what color the letterhead...don't defend it...apologize, move on, and don't do it again. FTA

Thank you, Mr. Wet Blanket. I do believe that you are correct, the 'tens of thousands' represent the mundane, that the rest of the 'masses' often use 'media' to escape from.The few are the sensational and often the sordid, but the few sell. Hey, I'm all for good stories about crazy criminals or wacky judges or strange lawsuits etc. It's not that I can't see the entertainment value. The problem I have is when each of these stories gets portrayed as just the latest in a never-ending list of a pathetic and failing justice system...as though these cases are the rule and not the exception. It does a disservice to the public. FTA

Right now it's faster to just drive out to Black Diamond or High River (both 30 mins from my house) and wait 10-15 minutes in a rural hospital then to go to a hospital in Calgary which can take 5 hours even in urgent emergency situations (I waited 4 hours to see a doc with a flesh eating infection in my leg, for example, should have gone to High River). Triage is a fact of life anytime you don't have a doctor and a nurse for every patient who comes through the door (i.e. always). My last two trips to the ER in Calgary were decidedly different...one was about 6-7 hours waiting to see a doctor to get stitches for a cut on my head...the other was about 2 1/2 minutes to see a doctor when I came in by ambulance following a seizure. The reason why people end up waiting 7 hours at the ER is almost always because their "emergency" is truly not that emergent (at least when compared to the other patients coming in). That may be hard to swallow, but its the way it is. At the time, you are worried about what COULD happen and what MIGHT be the cause of your symptoms, so to you, any waiting is unacceptable. BUT...if I'm bleeding out from an internal injury to a vital organ and your sore leg has to wait...tough sh-t. You say you waited 4 hours with a flesh-eating infection...but I take it you survived and you have not had any amputations? Sounds like an ER success story. Sure, I'm on the bandwagon in support of better services, but I'm not convinced that the sickest patients aren't being seen first and the others left to wait with no ill effects other than enduring some additional pain. Yes, the odd situation happens from time to time which is tragic because someone was not assessed or treated appropriately, but in terms of percentage relative to the number of patients seen and treated as required? As for your advice about going to High River just so you won't be inconvenienced...I wouldn't. Just ask Vince Motta's family what the fatality inquiry into his untimely death from a burst appendix found. He left 2 Calgary ERs becuase he wasn't happy with the wait and then went to High River later that same evening. When his appendix burst in High River, and they were not equipped to handle the emergency surgery (not because of anyone's negligence...you just can't have a state-of the-art trauma facility in every rural hospital) they had to air-lift him back to Calgary...he died before he could get the attention he needed. Had Motta been in a waiting room in one Calgary ER the entire time instead of going to a different ER (losing his continuity in triage) and then to a rural hospital (all with a view to finding a shorter lineup) arguably, he would have been seen when his condition worsened and not when his appendix burst...but even if it did burst, he would then be able to be instantly taken into surgery in one of the finest tertiary care centres in the country rather than wait in High-River for a futile helicopter ride. Would he have lived? No one can say of course. But his chances would have been dramatically improved. FTA

It's funny when you think about it. They're running a crackhouse so of course the judge sentences them to house arrest. As usual, everyone in the media only reports the cases that seem to be outrageous and in support of their agenda (such as to slam the justice system for being lenient or absurd in giving out conditional sentences). Did anyone hear about my case (other than me talking about it on this board) where the first-time marijuana grower was refused a conditional sentence on the basis that she was a home-body that committed her offence in the home, so sentencing her to house arrest would not be appropriate? No house arrest for home-based marijuana grower...Where's the Media? Of course not...because it doesn't incite outrage or give ammo to ridicule our justice system. Here's what the Alberta Court of Appeal had to say: Just remember, for every case that gets air-time there are literally tens of thousands that just grind their way through the system. Can they all be absurd and outrageous? Think about it. FTA

The background to this is that the husband, Russell, ignored numerous and obvious signs of her deteriorating mental health and engaged in behaviour that undoubtebly excrabated her already severe mental problems. So while he may not be criminally esponsible for drowning the kids, he shoudl syill bear a measure of the blame. At the end of the day, the person that actually did the action needs to be punished. It is their ultimate responsibility. It's a dangerous concept to say other people can be responsible for criminal behavoir, are you and I responsible (to the point where we need to take blame) for the burgler breaking into our house because we have stuff to steal? On a quasi-documentary of this case last night on tv (sorry missed the network and name of show...just caught a bit of it while wife was watching) it was reported that her doctor told the husband that she was not safe to be left alone with the children...he figured that an hour or so couldn't hurt. That's getting pretty close to criminal negligence if you ask me. But it's kind of starnge to me...are we only debating the possible culpability of the husband because we are left with a bad taste in our mouth about the fact that she has been found not guilty by reason of insanity (i.e. is our thirst for vengence unquenched by that verdict so we're looking to lay the blame on someone else? FTA

I know a guy who scored probably 50 goals in his hockey career kicking or throwing the puck in the net (and even sometimes just throwing his arms in the air and cheering when there was a scramble on the goal line). Referee was standing right there, goal was clearly illegal (or not even across the line), but somehow in the frenzy it would get counted. There is incredible pressure to perform and incredible incentive to win...there are lots of people who would roll the dice even if there was only a one in a million chance that they would get away with it. FTA

My point proven yet again this weekend. Thankfully, we are only looking at a situation of attempted murder this time around. Youth shoots at Hobbema RCMP FTA

I have a completely different take on the same things and the same changes. They represent the changes that many people want. I do not think that most Canadians identify themselves with an RCMP uniform any more than they do with Inuit soap carvings. Today, I think Canada's culture is more accurately identified as a constant influx and tolerance of foreigners. It is a bit laugable to expect many Canadians to identify with an old uniform. I would rather have an officer who is the best for the job (wearing a turban) than the second best officer. Now, this opens up the possibility that the turban-officer was hired because of ethnicity to fill some racial quotas -- I do not know. If that is the case, the uniform is irrelevant. I want the better officer, even if he has to wear plain-clothes. I realize that my attitude seems culturally poor. However, I do not think there is much practical choice. It is like fighting to subsidize the hoola-hoop industry -- nobody cares anymore. You can not force culture nor traditions. You've drifted off the point...I'm not opening the can of worms about affirmative action...I also want the best officer...regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc...BUT, I want the officers to wear the unifrom that every RCMP officer has previously worn proudly...and if you don't want to wear that unifrom then choose some other profession. When I appear in the Court of Queen's Bench I have to wear my formal barrister's gown...otherwise, the presiding judge can actually refuse me the privilege of addressing the Court. If I have some religious aversion to that tradition, I am free to not appear in the Court of Queen's Bench, rather than force tradtion and custom to be abandoned by all just to make me happy. I appreciate that times change...I think I have been quite clear about that. I accept that the change in the definition of marriage is achange that many want or are at leaset indifferent about. But you cannot dispute that many do not want the change, and I am simply taking a democratic view that when Parliament speaks on an issue as sensitive as this, it should make every effort to effect representative democracy al la the late Chuck Cadman rather than arbitrarily imposed party discipline. FTA

I will rant at my favourite target...the media. They are just looking for an excuse to bash the current government. Given the way they've been treated by Harper, I suppose one can't blame them. The problem is, rather than legitimately expose the government for blunders the media has spewed propaganda on this issue rather than reporting factual news. CTV led its news last night with a 10-minute long diatribe about how pathetic the Canadian government response has been...repeating over and over how Canada only proffered one of the seven ships that it promised to its citizens...and then making a projection that at the rate they were going (260 people per day) it was going to be several weeks before all Canadians would be evacuated. The real story, which was revealed some 10 minutes later in a passing mention in a subsequent story was that Canada had all 7 ships fully lined up...but the owner of 6 of them refused to take Canadian officials' word as proof that Israel was committing to guarantee safe passage...and he waited until he actually got word directly from an Israeli official before allowing his boats to sail into port in Lebanon. So please, all of those who are desparately trying to bash the current government...how is it Harper et. al.'s fault that some ship owner was being over-cautious? FTA

The comment was flippant, maybe, but not pathetic or ridiculous. We obviously don't have the same view of the importance of tradition...which is fine...but a turban instead of a ball cap isn't even remotely the same as changing the world-reknowned and highly regarded uniform of our national police force (whose origins are older than the country itself) to make sure that no one feels slighted if they are asked to follow Canadian tradition / custom. What you call a "simple uniform change" I call a serious derrogation of one of the true bona-fide traditions our relatively young country could actually lay claim to. What you call a "simple definition change" I call a serious shift in the social standards upon which our formal relationships with fellow Canadians are built. I don't profess that either change is wrong simply because it represents a new way of doing things, but I do feel that certain inequities in society can be justified because they are traditional / customary and we ought to not be so quick to change Canadian society in the name of political correctness. FTA

Throughout history the purpose and meaning of marriage has changed and evolved drastically as society has changed and evolved. In my opinion, society defines the meaning marriage, not the other way around. It seems to me that society has changed enough to warrant changing the traditional definition of marriage. I hate to use the word traditional because it implies that the idea that a man married a woman for love existed forever. Our previous definition of marriage is actually a fairly recent idea, historically speaking. Although, not common practice SSM has occurred in throughout history, in fact Nero married men on two separate occasions. Anyway, my point is that meaning of marriage has changed many times as society changed, why freeze the definition now? Your point is understood...in fact, the remainder of my post that you didn't cite shows that I am absolutely open to the definition of marriaged being "thawed"... When I speak though of the previous definition being a tradition of our society, I'm talking about Canadian society...I couldn't care less about whether an ancient Roman Emperor liked to play for both teams. If no one argues for Canadian traditions, and we simply shift our way of doing things to follow what some other country or region is doing because that is what is fashionable at the time, then we allow Canadian society to be incapable of definition (other than to call it indecisive, non-committal, and willing to change for anyone at anytime...wait a minute, maybe I'm on to something...do you think that RCMP officer over there wearing a turban would agree?) FTA

No one is going to tackle this one eh... Well I must be honest, I knew no one would. Once we put all the rhetoric and hatred aside, there really is no answer. Well, I'll bite... I was married to my wife 5 years ago on July 21 (back when the legal definition of marriage did not include same-sex couples). How was any gay or lesbian person affected personally? See, I think your question is unfair. I can pose a number of similar questions which demonstrate the logical disconnect between your question and the point you are trying to make: Last week a 20 year old man who killed a child while driving drunk was given a discharge by the court as he met the diagnosis for FAS...How has this affected you personally? Today a young Brazillian boy was deported from Canada because he didn't meet the criteria for refugee status...How has this affected you personally? A month ago, a shipment of books destined for the Little Sisters book store was released by customs officials as it is no longer deemed to be obscene material...How has this affected you personally? These are just made-up by the way. My point is that whether or not a particular person can say that they have been personally affected by an instance of the application of a legal definition has nothing to do with whether that definition is valid or defensible. I support the previous definition of marriage as it represents a tradition and a defining institution of our society...my view is that all such traditions ought to be valued and protected and not changed unless there is compelling reason to do so. I personally think that the right balance could have been struck by keeping the previous definition but addressing the question of collateral benefits for same-sex couples via the often suggested "legal union". But that's just my personal view. The current definition may indeed be the prevailing opinion of most Canadians, and if so, I accept that as a valid expression of democracy in action. I can just imagine the opposition that existed at the time to the re-defining of "persons" to include women...I'm certainly not upset with that development, but at the same time I would not have summarily dismissed anyone arguing in opposition to the development as being simply rhetorical or hate-filled. Meaningful debate requires input from all sides, and sometimes opposing change for no other reason than it is change (i.e. to protect and support tradition) can be a very valuable and worthy cause. Doesn't mean those opposing change will or should win the day, but they deserve to be heard every bit as much as those who are backing the new way of doing things. Given the importance and apparent divisiveness of the issue of SSM, my view has always been that there ought to have been a vote without party discipline in the House to ensure that the result was more likely an expression of the views of Canadians as a whole and not an expression of party politics with a view to shaping a future election campaign. I guess my question then is, what would be the harm in having such a vote now? FTA

Maybe I am missing something...I took this comment to be suggestive that the 6 dead Mounties are a result of the RCMP's changed approach to policing...a war on crime type of philosophy as opposed to negotiating peace officer philosophy. If this is the message, I call bullshit. If what you are saying is the comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, then I did miss that and then I would change my view on it. As to the notion of giving up in the face of resistance, I couldn't agree with you (and Churchill) more...and I'm quite sure that our countrymen's performances in the two World Wars are strong indicators of our will to persevere in the face of significant obstacles. That being said, I maintain my position that police in Canada generally need to re-assess the manner in which they approach high-risk scenarios...in particular, they need to start appreciating high-risk where it might not have traditionally presented itself in Canada. I hate to say it, because I certainly do not want to see our society deteriorate into one of fear and violence like in many places in the U.S., but I rather suspect that if two LAPD officers had been pursuing the suspect in rural Sask. two weeks ago, those same officers would be here to tell us about it today (becuase they are trained to expect every fleeing suspect to come out of his vehicle shooting at them with a shotgun and they would approach the situation accordingly). FTA

Link I'm sorry but this is opportunistic bullshit...how possibly can one link the deaths of our 6 Mounties to some ambiguous "Bush-pleasing war on crime"?!?!?! The 4 lost in Mayerthorpe were dealing with a career criminal who was becoming increasingly lawless in his community...the two lost in Sask. were dealing with the boiling-over of a 3-year long domestic dispute. Is this "article" (for want of a better term) suggesting that if we didn't have a "Bush-pleasing" government right now that we would not be waging a "war on crime" and therefore our RCMP officers would not have been involved in these incidents? The Mounties were in the normal day to day execution of their duties as peace officers when these incidents occurred...not "soldiers" in some imaginary Canadian "war on crime". How does the author of this crap suggest that the RCMP ought to have negotiated with James Roszko? The comments about our military exploits may have some basis for valid debate, but the comments about the RCMP are simply a way to try and leverage 6 deaths in order to make a political point...shameless. FTA FTA

If you have trouble believing that crashing a 767 into a skyscraper can bring it down without the assistance of strategically placed explosive devices then how can you so easily believe there is a big government conspiracy over 9/11? Seriously, take a look at the specs: Boeing 767 An object of up to 450,000 lbs travelling at up to 530 mph carrying up to 23,980 gallons (U.S.) of highly combustible fuel... I'd like to see some of these "engineering reports" that question whether the plane crashes could have independently brought down the buildings. FTA