Leafless

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 agree. So, can't you see how dangerous and abusive it can be to have a religious ideology be the driving force for laws in a country? Is not a secular state which promotes tolerance the best way to ensure rights are respected? Don't you see how the country is morally falling apart? Tolerance has no limits if one is to dumb to recognize what those limits should be. The emphasis to-day appears to revolve around personal gain at any expense, ignoring the principles of morals. Religions can only be abusive and dangerous if they combine their own political teachings that override the laws of the land and do not adhere to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.

linkI find it humourously ironic that Leafless, who in other threads, advocates an interpretation of law based upon “Christian” principles, simply because of a Christian majority in Canada, condemns Saudia Arabia for doing exactly what he is advocating. Could it be that the only difference is that Saudi Arabia has a Muslim majority and not a Christian one? Saudi Arabia is NOT adhering to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' and therefore is a human rights abuser. Canada claims not to be a human rights abuser and its federal government even goes out of its way, unilaterally, to create laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right, even though they could be potentially or are harmful to Canadian society at large. If anything it is not Christianity that is screwing up Canadian society, but is actually the government itself.

Clearly, there's no such thing as "international standards concerning religious freedom." You're confusing them with "western standards concerning religious freedom." Looks like it back to the 'Declaration of Human Rights', Sec.#2. Article 2. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

I would agree that Quebec could separate from Canada relatively painlessly if:1) An overwhelming majority of the population of Quebec and Canada (65%+) supported the idea 2) No groups inside or outside Quebec had any interest in seeking the partition of Quebec. Both of these conditions were true in Czechoslovakia. These conditions are not true in Canada/Quebec and will likely never be true. This makes violence a very likely outcome. Even if Quebec did separate peacefully (based on a study by the Fraser Institute) their outstanding debt to Canada would be $143.9 Billion and that was back in 1995. http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_rele...atted/PR26.html The other major problem is who on the world stage after separation would lend Quebec $$$$ to fuel their economy? Quebec can't separate unless we continue to support them and that's considering Riverwind's item's 1 & 2. Quebec wouldn't even be able to it violently.

Of course it is! Saudia Arabia is well known for its religious intolerance as are many other countries. Having acknowledged that, what should other countries do? Not fly there? Embargo them? Violate their laws? I await your solution. BTW, what possible difference does it make what SOCIETY I originate from? What other world countries countries outlaw the importation of a bible? Any country that violates international standards pertaining to restrictions to access that country, on the grounds of 'simply carrying a universally recognized Christian bible for personal use' should certainly be banned pertaining to 'commercial air travel'. In regards to asking what society you what society you originate from makes a difference in establishing the fact that if you are indeed a part of a 'free society'. A society by nature consist of a group of individuals characterized by 'COMMON INTEREST' something you apparently are not part of in certain areas, sorry to say.

If you disagree with FREE SPEECH, please feel free to say it.

Leafless, who exactly are you faulting here? 1. Saudia Arabia for having a policy of religious intolerance? 2. The airline for following the law in Saudia Arabia? 3. The stewardess for being unaware of the laws of the country she was flying to? This is a violation of international standards concerning religious freedom. This makes me wonder what SOCIETY you originate from?

Are British Airways actually condoning the fact, that a British company should be instructing its staff to conform to practices which are in violation of international standards on religious freedom. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann122106.htm The best way to describe this article using one word, is 'PATHETIC'.

I agree all Arab Muslims should be banned from immigrating or even visiting, as long as terrorism is a threat, originating from these Islamic countries.

Fair enough. Let's just say that there are a few people who think that will be a simple business decision. Yes, there is nothing in our constitution that will accommodate this and it will never receive the REQUIRED support to do this. Quebec is not a even a economically viable province. Mostly everything in it including its land comes from the federal government and the tax payers of Canada. Where does Quebec get the notion that they have built this province on their own? You would assume under these conditions, Quebec would be flying the maple leaf all over the province and singing 'God Save the Queen'.

Our mutual defense agreement through NATO made it a direct attack. "Mechanisms for Cooperation Canada-US defence cooperation is the foundation of continental defence against 21st century threats. Investing in a durable framework for cooperation with the US is central to advancing the nation’s regional and global interests. Between Canada and the US there are currently over 80 treaty-level defence agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding between the two defence departments, and approximately 145 bilateral forums in which defence matters are discussed." http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=836 It seems we are more committed to the U.S. than Nato, and that is okay, but that's not the point. I simply disagree concerning the manner in which we are involved and not the matter of retribution which like I said, was not direct enough initially. I think the U.S is also wasting time, unless they take a more aggressive approach.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest, and adds he's prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military." http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...9df0622&k=55613 I think Canada is going about this in the wrong way and I really did not ever support intervening the way we did as this is not our type of war and was not a direct attack against Canada. Call it as you will will, but terrorist attacks on global countries including 9/11 was an act of war and should have been initially treated as such, against the countries involved, in a more direct manner, or forget about it. To invade countries with limited response in these backward countries that harbour an endless supply of terrorist does not make sense and is not like fighting a conventional war. No one is going to change the way these countries operate in a short time and IMO is all a waste of time, resources and lives.

Its the same by definition only. Would you apply that definition to a dog and a cat? Correct, and well before SSM was ever on the agenda. The state didn't steal it, they used it correctly. The word still applied to the union of a 'man and a women'. Yup. You read right!

This is true. I recently went over to Gatineau in Quebec to buy some liquor and although I was speaking English the whole time to the clerk at the cash, he was answering in French. Talk about about a lack of respect for the majority language of Canada. I think it is a distinct reservation as some people properly describe the place. If I would have know this prior to buying that liquor, I would have spent that $100.00 in Ontario.

Actually, I was thinking more in the terms of violence of First Nations, attacks on English if they are resistant to Quebec making a break from Canada and assorted, escalating conflicts. You think separation will be a peaceful and uneventful thing? Has it ever been that way anywhere else in the world? There is also the possibility of attacks on francophones living outside of Quebec. Why would Quebec attack initially, a country that has given them rights and resources from ROC that makes them the most POWERFUL province in the country. Even a dog is not stupid enough to bite the hand of their master that feeds it. I am sick and tired of this ungrateful, self righteous, province and don't really know why other provinces in Canada are to timid or just to plain stupid to demand the same rights especially language and immigration rights.

Civil war. Yes, I can see the cruise missiles being deployed against ROC by Quebec, LOL. I doubt very much any kind of civil war could ever develop simply because of U.S. interest in Canada and the security threat to the U.S. that would develop. If this ever did happened and the U.S was excluded from intervening which I doubt anyways, there possibly could be a U.S. takeover of Canada.

You seem to forget the powers Quebec already possesses in relation to being referred to as the 'Quebecois as a nation within Canada' could easily accelerate to demands to be recognized as a country. They have powers other Canadian provinces do not have, courtesy of the federal government. I think its significant and so does Mr. Manning. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...8a8eafd&k=17425

Quebec agreed at confederation to Canada being a single nation. Quebec always had a right to their language, civil law and religion. Maybe you can explain 'what other' constitutional rights Quebec has that has allowed them rights no other province in Canada is allowed to have? I fail to understand what legal ramifications 'founding nations' has pertaining to charter rights concerning Quebec. Is official 'federal bilingualism' a slap in the face to the English concerning an unearned government reward given to Quebec for refusing to assimilate, like everyone else in Canada? If refusing to assimilate is a right, where is that written in the constitution?

Quebec nationalistic identities and values are overwhelming in New Brunswick or the province wouldn't have been initially that DUMB, to declare itself the ONLY 'officially bilingual province' in the country of Canada. New Brunswick is a clear case of Quebec running the show in another province, while Quebec itself, after declaring itself 'officially French, remains unilingual French.

Show me WHERE in Canada's constitution this is factual and official?

The Loyalists? Not much has changed since 1784. Maybe Canadians (loyalist) can view Americans as TRAITORS to Great Britain. Yes? Hate can be viewed both ways, not only viewed through American eyes and perspectives. http://www.multied.com/revolt/causes.html

Some Quebecers have a hard time trying to say what they really mean to say. The coach probably meant he was 'kicked' off the team. But then, who can set standards in Quebec when it is acknowledged Quebec is a 'nation within a united Canada'. Most Quebecois consider Quebec is primary pertaining to Quebec nationalistic values and Canada is secondary. If this is the case Dave Bouchard had every right NOT to sign the Canadian flag. This is what happens when a country such as Canada is VOID of nationalistic values, pertaining to its national identity.

I don't know, but this does not exactly sound right pertaining to Canadian nationalistic and patriotic ideologies, especially when all Canada knows about the existing Quebec conflict with other provinces over powers and linguistics. ''Nationalism does not mean separation,'' Harper said, referring to Quebec nationalism in a region which calls itself the Kingdom of the Saguenay. ''Quebecers were the first to call themselves Canadians.'' Will Harper give the same regional recognition to any OTHER province that considers itself special or does it mean Harper's speech is simply igniting constitutional TROUBLE. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...82ad726&k=20317

Islam is more volatile than Christianity? Did you forget that God is the one who told Bush to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm not going to get into a pissing match about which religion can claim more 'kills', the fact of the matter is that both have been horribly violent and continue to do so. Of course Islam is more harmful and volatile than Christianity. What George W. Bush said about making reference to God was part of an impassioned attack on Islamic militants. What exactly would have you liked to hear Mr. Bush say 'America wants to get those rebel rousing Islamic militants'. No, of course not. President Bush chose God to impress a distinction between 'good and evil'. BTW- If all this boils down to a power struggle concerning 'a clash of civilizations' I'll chose and support the West any day especially being in the position of the world's 'top cop'. It seems you support groups hanging headless bodies out to dry.