Signals.Cpl

It seems to me that your objection to this law is not due to fear that it will infringe on people's rights, or that it is a step towards a dystopian Canada. Your opposition to this law seems to stem from the fact that if this law is properly enforced then you would lose your reason to complain. If protestors don't wear disguises then rioters will be easy to spot and thus help police prevent them from carrying out their destructive agenda or prosecute them if they do carry out any violent acts. With a way to control rioters then the likelihood of violent confrontation between police and protestors gets much smaller. No confrontation between police and protestors, means that you have no reason to complain. One law could solve a lot of problems, punish those who go to protests with the intent of causing destruction or even prevent them, giving protestors a clear platform to present their issues without rioters hijacking the protest, and finally giving police a way to enforce the laws that they are duty bound to enforce.

Yeah and how many people can claim that excuse? Yeah and a police officer just happened to lose his badge that day.

And how does he criminalize dissident? By telling rioters to remove show their face? If you are proud of your participation in a protest why hide it? And if you need to hide your face what does that say about the activities you are participating in or planning to participate in?

#1 #2 So you are saying I'm wrong because your one handpicked source does not contain all of the definitions?

Having two opposite or contradictory ideas or natures: the bipolar world of the postwar period. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bipolar

I don't see it as torture, just like you don't see kettling as legal even though international courts have approved it.

bipolar Involving both extremes (poles) at the same time.   Relating to or having bipolar disorder.   Example, in the Protests, police provocateurs, masks, etc Rick here argues that anyone who defends the police is an idiot because the police are abusing people...While in the How fair is the student protest? he argues that what the protestors are doing is perfectly legal and they should continue doing so. Bipolar-I oppose violence by the police in the G20 protests, I support thugs in Quebec throwing molotov cocktails at police.

I don't know, they seem to be doing a great job of dehumanizing themselves without any help.Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone or a group of people who are bent on killing people simply because they don't believe in the same narrow-minded misinterpretation of a religion, and are more then willing to murder women because she was raped or her husband accused her of cheating or my all time favourite, because she did not give birth to a boy. Im sorry if I don't see them as humans, to be fait I don't see white supremacist as humans either nor do I see the Hutu extremists as humans.

idiotic-Your Idea was idiotic or would you prefer insanely irresponsible? close-minded-You refuse to interact with people who might have a different view point or would you prefer the web definition: not ready to receive to new ideas. ignorant-Lacking knowledge or awareness in general, thats because you support the use of deadly force(Molotov cocktails) by the so-called protestors. bipolar-One day you oppose use of force by police yet the next day you support use of deadly force by thugs in the street. Web definition:Having or relating to two poles or extremities. Anything else?

Im sorry where exactly did I insult you?

And how does a non-secret ballot solve: Your idiotic "idea" solves absolutely none of the problems you put forth yet creates a whole host of problems all on its own. Next you will want to set up a website where we can see which party people voted for. And then if there is some employer as close minded as you who checks who the applicants voted for that adds a whole other level of discrimination. When an employer does not hire a perfectly suitable candidate because of their vote in the previous election, what does that solve?

Thank God that there are so few people like you, close-minded, ignorant, and bipolar when it comes to violence.

So am I to assume that the other 23million registered voters have nothing to fear if their vote became public? Funny how you decide to isolate yourself from anyone with opposing viewpoints, your approach does nodders to keep you in the dark.

Listen, I want the guilty party as much as anyone else, find the people who are responsible and then promptly throw them in jail, if evidence is presented that the outcome was dramatically changed then by all means sort the problem then and there. My biggest problem is by removing secret ballots we will invite many more problems and solve none. If I can sit outside and intimidate the voters before they get in to vote, or intimidate enough voters that the rest are either too afraid to vote or vote for the party of my choosing. Would everyone be happy with their employer and coworkers knowing who you voted for? Or have everyone know that you voted for the Communist party, the Marijuana party or the Rhino party or that you didn't vote at all?

1)Then instead of firing, give them a nice big fine and a year in jail. 2)I don't think its going to go Liberal, in my opinion the voters will look at it from the perspective that the Liberals are on their way out and many will switch to the NDP, and some to the Conservatives. But then again maybe the Liberals will run a competent campaign and win.

No the kind where I get 50 of my friends and threaten anyone who votes for a party I don't support. But I see your logic "If you don't agree with my ridiculous idea you must hate democracy". You can make elections without a secret ballot and without fixing the ACTUAL problem the election will be cast in to doubt.

Yeah because bursting in to classrooms when people are trying to learn, and intimidating those same people is sooooooooooooooooo innocent. They are thugs, an now they are throwing molotov cocktails at the police, you know the once who are stuck enforcing the laws of the land, all the laws passed by the democratically elected leader not just the once they choose. Protesting is one thing, intimidating students is another thing, and trying to murder police officers is a whole different thing.

Whats next? Get rid of the elections? You don't go backwards to "fix" a problem. Secret ballots ensure that people cannot be intimidated to vote one way or another. This is a case of "fixing" a problem by creating a whole list of other problems. You want to fix the problem? There are so many other ways to do it then to dismantle democracy as we know it.

You answer is to remove the secret ballots? Genius, and you called me a fascist.

Attack does not necessarily mean Invasion. Bombing all infrastructure necessary for the research could be the answer. Then give some support for people who oppose the government. An invasion and occupation might be too much even for the US considering that Iran has more then 3 times the Iraqi population.

First finish up with sanctions, with the US ready to attack and Israel as well, I would hope Iran gets the picture. Should it become necessary I cannot foresee the US and Israel and the EU for that matter from letting Iran get a hold of Nuclear Weapons. If Israel or the US attack Iran to prevent nukes, I cannot foresee them backing away before all the nukes are gone.

Torture: tor·ture/ˈtôrCHər/ Noun: The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. The threats do not equal torture, they are just threats

The Comparison is on their gamble, in 1936 Hitler staked his leadership on the remilitarization of the Rhineland, if the French had shown even the slightest desire to act the end result would have meant a quick withdrawal from the Rhineland and the end of the Nazi Party, this is according to the Nazi's themselves. Iran is attempting to become a nuclear power, there are many reasons that could be motivating the Iranian Leadership, anything like the desire to destroy Israel, desire to join the big boys club of nuclear powers or just blackmail the world in to preferential treatment economicaly and everything in between. Iran is relatively weak now just like Germany was in 1936, if we the world lets Iran get nuclear capabilities then removing the threat would be much more costly in terms of lives. My personal belief is that sanctions can work if they are applied properly and supported by all UN member states, but sanctions cannot work if China is trading with Iran and is therefore providing a leak through the sanctions. The Sanctions are not putting the desired pressure on Iran because they are still able to import/export a lot of their needs but should that hole be plugged.

incompetence? Or do you want a smaller word?