Leafless

I have no doubt that many countries in the world are influenced by religion. Those are theocracys. We don't live in one. [/quote Since the charter has never been legally challenged pertaining to its preamble "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the supremecy of God and the rule of law" to refute some or all of the contents within the charter itself, based on the supremecy of God.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Even if there was a national referendum at the time the Charter was adopted, that would not be proof the Canadians today support the charter as a whole generation has come and gone. I suspect the kind of proof you are looking for is not feasable to get. It is not practically possible to survey every single Canadian in the world and determine if they support the charter. My statement is based upon evidence of surveys. Surveys which you choose not to believe. It is true that evidence cannot be considered proof, however I think I made a reasonable statement based upon the evidence. Now, how about you PROOVE that laws should be dictated by religion? If Canadians had approved the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' initially by referendum, they certainly would have a say by way of vote again, pertaining to further referendums any time a major change is implemented. This is the DEMOCRATIC way of doing things. Now, pertaining to me proving that laws should be dictated by religion? This is the difference between a 'dictatorial or a dictatorship type government and freer democratic type government ' with the dictatorial one who outright dictates laws and with the democratic one laws evolve by principles developed by that countries allowable freedoms decided by the population itself through customs, traditions and national self interest. Laws are not dictated by religion, many laws simply evolve and are utilized from a particular country's religious teachings and values.

I am surprised you would call Christianity a cult, when you very well must know it is a bona fide religion, within the framework of an established society. Big business serves the requirements of society and without it we would not have much of a society, that is in a freer democratic society. The cults I am referring to, are cults supported by the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. These cults are self serving and politically aloof in a way that sabotages and holds hostage the rest of society to meet their demands. The weird part is, this recognition is government created and flies in the face concerning the whole purpose of a society and ordered community initially.

In Canada we are all suppose to be equal according to charter rights. Some groups it appears, are granted an extension of legal rights elevating them to a higher level of importance and superiority as compared to all other Canadians supposedly to create a sense of equality. But just who are these extended rights being granted to? They are basically Quebec, Aboriginals and homosexuals. But if you look at these groups, they are or could be, identified as cults, as pertaining to the 'Cult of Quebec', The Cult of Homosexuality, and the Cult of Aboriginals since they are mostly dependent on their own identity and entity. Is this really how you treat the rest of the population of Canada, as second class citizen's and forcing them to support these cults?

Yup, the government could invoke the Nothwithstanding clause, except that the people generally support the Charter and would abhor the use of the clause (even those who may disagree with SSM). The other little problem with the Notwistanding clause, is it is not indefinite. It must be periodically renewed evey couple of years. You have NO PROOF Canadians support the charter as there was never even a national referendum whether Canadians even want it or accept it. And no one wants to hear about telephone polls pertaining to important constitutional matters. Pertaining to the Notwithstanding clause, you are correct in saying it is "not indefinite". But I doubt if that really matters, has Quebec has been renewing the NWC on a regular every five year basis with NO problem.

The only objective way of deciding whether a set of rules is "permissible" or "unpermissable" is based upon transgression of rights. We DO have a commonly agreed set of principles. They are called rights. Rules which trangress rights must be thrown out regardless of what the government feels. The inclusion of SSM into the umbrella of marriage was based upon a determination that the government rules violated rights. Unlike your example above, we do have an agreed set of basic rules. Even if Leafless choose not to validate the Canadian Charter of Rigths, he has already acknowledged the UN Charter of Rights. He just chooses to interpret it in a completely illogical way (such as "the word "everyone" doesn't include homosexuals"). I choose not to validate the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' because I was not initially included to have the opportunity to vote on it, whether to decline or accept it. The U.N. 'Charter of Rights' never did include homosexuals as included in 'everyone' as at that time homosexuality was something no one even talked about. But we all are aware homosexual lobbyist are continually trying to get the wording changed pertaining to the U.N. Charter of Rights to accommodate their perversion, but have FAILED to do so due to lack of international recognition and support.

Let's see now,, you claim something is a fact and to prove it you post a link which has "opinion" in its url. Hmmmm... It makes me think you don't know the difference between a fact and opinion. A fact is backed by evidence. You haven't shown any. I should believe it is a fact because you say so? Why don't you read that link again. Are you in denial that the' Ten Commandments' have a direct influence in laws around the world? The preamble to the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', reads: " Canada is founded upon the PRINCIPLES that recognize the SUPRAMACY of God and the RULE of LAW" and not the rule of HOMOSEXUALS.

Did you make that up? When do we get to pass the law stoning adulterers? I don't have to make it up, it's a fact. Governments have a responsibility to create laws based on morals and do just that. Here is something from Texas. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...rnard_edit.html In Canada SSM is made legal by a dictatorial, government devised, FLAWED, DISCRIMINATORY charter, that overrides and does not represent views of society. In other words the charter gives government ultimate control concerning the workings of society in a supposedly democratic society. In turn this threatens existing civil and religious liberties pertaining to 'governmental constitutional rule', which is totally UNHEARD of in any other modern, freer, democratic country.

I really don't know how any authority can have current accurate information on every suspected terrorist in Canada at any given time on a moments notice. Does anyone really know anything about the information given to the U.S. concerning the secret inquiry and Arar as a suspect terrorist at the time? If not I really don't know how anyone can disprove what the R.C.M.P did was illegal outside of what came out of the secretive inquiry as there are many factors involved and the information supplied to the U.S. was only one of them.

When there is no legal need to distinguish between "dog" and "cat" then the law uses a word which applies to both. For example, if the government passes a law forbidding cruelty to animals, should they distinguish between cruelty to dogs vs cruelty to cats? Obviously not. I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge to you to demonstrate the legal difference between OSM and SSM. I suspect you have no adequate response and so you choose to ignore the challenge. If you are going to let the state define the term for legal purposes, they you are at their whim when they choose to redefine it according to societal norms. Renegade the deeafening silence is typical of anyone who wants to define morality and claims their personal moral beliefs are "legal" when others agree with them. In this case "legal" all along has been a code word for those who have the same moral values as Leafless. Thus the silence. Morals and laws go hand in hand. Public consensus is what develops laws and not like what we have in Canada a flawed 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' with laws decided by courts and politicians bypassing Canadian society. Our Canadian civil and religious liberties are currently at stake and threatened by Bill C250. http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=58 Today, the Canadian Parliament is discussing a bill (C-250) that Canadians claim could be used to outlaw parts of the Bible as hate speech and could criminalize individuals in organizations that teach that same-sex contact is immoral. Same-sex marriage is a serious threat to our civil and religious liberties and could lead to widespread discrimination against people who disagree.

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" are you missing? Why should he have the burden of proof placed on his shoulders for actions of others? The Govt of Canada supplied info that resulted in Arar being placed on a plane and sent to Syria. The court will recognize that the first party started actions against the second party that resulted in harm to the second party. Thus the second party gets the fruits of whatever the court decides. Any like or dislike of this man is immaterial and without merit. He deserves to be treated with respect and subsequently the jury will decide what and if he should receive as compensation. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" am I missing missing? That is an illogical question in the absence of a trial. Mr. Arar was exonerated with the help of a secret inquiry behind closed doors. If you call this an open fair decision based on the contentious point of whether or not information supplied to the U.S. concerning Arar also a Syrian citizen from a terrorist country, who also was found to be associating with an alleged terrorist in Canada, was accurate at the time. Arar was initially sent to Jordan NOT Syria. In a freer, democratic country such as Canada, it is cheap politics to exonerate somebody like Arar without a trial, similar to the Gommery Inquiry that resulted with either Paul Martin or John Chretien being appropriately charged. It was the Liberals who initiated the tax payer paid Arar inquiry. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/arar-f04.shtml Arar was initially coached by C.A.I.R-Canada (Canadian Counsel on American-Islamic Relations) to refuse to help the R.C.M.P. or C.S.I.S. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/arar-f04.shtml

I am 100% Canadian so I will NEVER have to worry about that type of law pertaining to Mr. Arar's allegations. Why don't you inform yourself a little better than what you are and perhaps you would be able to identify in a more positive light and understand those that disagree with Mr. Arar's assault on Canada. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/field100406.htm

Mr. Arar would indeed be stupid to bring this matter to court especially after being CLEARED by a 'secretive inquiry', as he has nothing more to gain in Canada, unless of course Canada refuses to pay or meet his ludicrous demands. But the point is he should be forced to publicly prove his innocence and tales of torture in a court of law something your appropriate authorities should have insisted on. I believe Mr. Arar would have had great difficulty in doing this and would have failed proving Canada at fault for anything.

Your clarity and forceful views constitute, in this case, an unwarranted attack on a fellow poster as you are not discussing any issue nor are you in any position of authority to chastise anyone.

Figleaf enjoys twisting intolerance and free speech to propagate and accommodate his or her intellectual or political views or perspectives, while crucifying and destroying someone else's, who has the SAME identical rights Figleaf has. If figleaf has absolute proof as established by a 'court of law', that Arar is innocent, then I wish it would be posted. But until IF that time ever becomes a reality, citizens of Canada can choose to think the way they want, considering Canadian/Syrian Arar unduly opening a can of worms and prosecuting his country and the federal government of Canada for large sums of money.

That is also proven outside of their religion by their inability to integrate. Generally speaking, Muslims live among their own kind in a general neighbourhood. This is what I have observed in the city I live in.

And how would you know that for a fact when the only proof you have, are the results of a secret inquiry and not that of a court of law. It appears you, as a casual observer were suckered in by (an Arar friendly inquiry) information that could possibly not be LEGALLY anywhere near correct since an inquiry is NOT a court of law. LOL, remember the legal teeth the 'Gommery Inquiry' had.

Higgly, why don't you quote the whole paragraph which is: "However I think you have the right to criticize me as a Jew, or someone else as a Muslim or what-ever, if we allow such values to compromise the general well being, safety and sovereignty of Canada. if I say to you I am a Jewish Canadian but I will side with Israel before Canada, then you in my opinion have the right to criticize that and say -you can't have your cake and eat it to. At least that is what I think and I would go so far as to say I think most Jews and Muslims and new Canadians would agree." Seems to me this is a fatal flaw concerning Canada's 'Official Multicultural Policy' as it gives equality rights to all Canadians despite loyalties and dedication to Canada. Canada should remove 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' from the constitution at the next federal election and have all Canadians (if they wish to receive federal benefits of any kind) swear allegiance to the country of Canada in the form of a signature accompanied by their S.I.N. number. This statement all Canadians agree to, could also include a clause (especially pertaining to new Canadians)indicating that they are willing to assimilate to aspects Canada considers important for the country to function pertaining to all citizen's of Canada.

And what did this information sharing do for Canada. Arar and his legal aid team dismantled the workings of Canada national security system and made a fool out of Canada internationally. The U.S has balls and won't be suckered in by a one man show, seeking riches any way he can.

Pakistan is Canada's third largest immigrant group. Just thought you should know. What about JIHADISTAN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadistan http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/

LOL!! I guess you are SOL then, short of starting a revolution or moving away to your own private island. Good luck with that. LOL !! In the end, its quite possible, you and your twisted buddies will be the one's moving away and perhaps even forced to.

Have you somehow drawn the conclusion that because the majority of Canadians would affiliate themselves to a religion that somehow makes our society non-secular? That is completely false! I have no doubt that Canadians, even religious ones, want a separation of Church and state. We do have separation of church and state albeit not fully, outside of tax exemption for churches and the charter 'recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law' and freedom of religion. But the workings of government is not influenced by religion and Canada does NOT have an established church. Pertaining to followers of religion in Canada, the majority of Canadians are religious and therefore Canada is not a secular state.

I think it is clear that there would be costs to any separation. It is probably why most Quebecers reject it. No kidding!

You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"? Exactly. How can government possibly dictate something that overrides the 'Declaration of Human Rights' in a unilateral way involving only the forces of government and law. This method of government unilaterally dictating human or legal rights (based on the premise of equality) could represent government imposing internal political motivations rather than dictating rights solely for the country of Canada as a WHOLE. This is VERY DANGEROUS. I really don't understand what you are saying. It makes zero sense to me. In a democracy a government doesn't act unilaterally. It is empowered to act by the people through an event called an election. If sufficient people disagree with the actions of a government, the empowerment can be recinded within a set period of time through a second election. If you feel your government has taken actions which overrides the "Declaration of Human Rights", you DO have recourse. Either recind the empowerment you gave them, or file a grievance with an International Human Rights body. Well if I recall I don't think Canadian society has ever demanded that Canada develop a charter of of elevated rights that apply to minorities or demand multicultural society or demand official bilingualism or marriage being applicable to homosexuals or what exactly Aboriginals are entitled to. The only problem is we are not living in a democracy, as are wishes are NOT being politically conveyed by our elected representatives in the manner that defines a country as a democracy. Therefore if all national political parties agree to abide by 'party policy' rather than abide by the wishes of Canadians then we have a DICTATORSHIP which we currently have. Canadians have NO CHOICE outside of a REVOLUTION to have these unwanted policies attended to by existing national parties. We need a party that will STAND UP and deal with the wishes of Canadians rather then cater to unwanted political ideologies of national federal parties of Canada.

I have no idea what your talking about, as Canada is not like Saudi Arabia and no one forces anyone in Canada to become a member of any religion. You say I advocated, " there cannot be a separation of church and state". Please show me where I said that? In reference to what you say regarding that heterogeneous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state is what we already have in Canada. But you are conveiniently omitting the fact that the majority of Canadians voluntarily subscribe to a religion, thereby leaving your wishes of a dictated secular society a fantasy.