Leafless

All religions have one thing in common and that is, followers of any religion have the RIGHT to believe in their God, WITHOUT LOGICAL PROOF. Old time religions were OLD TIME POLITICS and just another way to control the masses and Islam for example even though we are in 2006, still remains an ancient, primitive and very convincing religion concerning its followers, especially in Arab countries. You can not confuse modern harmless domesticated Christian religions with Mohammad religions. Islam for example is a volatile, extreme example of an OLD TIME RELIGION followed by the many Muslim extremist out of pure outright ignorance.

Why didn't Bush do it when he controlled the agenda in the U.S.? Or was it just easier to play against the U.N. than actually take a stand? He wasn't playing against the U.N. He was exasperated with China being exempted and the harm Kyoto would do to the American economy. "The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[42]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Real countries lose with Kyoto. Harper's proposed 'Clean Air Act' makes good sense by firstly regulating 'smog' that affects all Canadians especially in major cities and also introducing a number of regulation timetables for industries that emit air pollution and greenhouse gases, including the auto industry and the oil and gas sector. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/19/clean-act.html

" Canada's repudiation of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol could harm its economy in coming years, warns the head of the United Nations Environment Program.' "Achim Steiner says Canadian business could be left out of major profit opportunities created by an international emissions trading system that he predicts will be worth $100 billion in 10 years." You better watch out for the new line of carbon trader fear mongers, there here. The bottom line of what this guy says is : ""Frankly, some people will make money." Sure with government financing the bill with tax payers money for all these fancy little manufacturing companies. These companies hope they will 'hit the jackpot' with some energy saving or pollution device and then turn around and sell their little business for a fortune to some multinationals or large foreign owned company and promptly retire a multimillionaire, resulting in all that Canadian investment going down the tube. This same scenario has been played over an over in the computer field playing with taxpayer money and government contracts. Mr.Steiner also says: "The United States and Australia simply stayed out of Kyoto, but environmentalists say Canada's approach is arguably more damaging because it defies the internal logic of the treaty." Meaning what, that Canada is one of the few countries with $5M dollars to blow with heavy future financial commitments. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fbea28d&k=93764

Why is it you always talk about Alberta like it is not part of Canada or it is the only place to live. In two short one sentence paragraph's you mentioned Alberta twice. Your green projects simply cancel out because of your high level of pollution unless you can prove otherwise. Something about windmills no one has mentioned and that windmills apparently generate a low level frequency. According to one article I read forced this family, who lives near one, to put their house up for sale which no one will buy because of this unbearable low frequency hum.

There is no legal significance to the biological functions of the couples. If you think there is, maybe you can explain what the legal distincition is between one couple who has the capacity to bear children and another which doesn't. And what part is that? Judges and lawyers (ie the legal community) do not write laws. They simply interpret them. While the government who writes laws, is part of the "legal system", they are not who I commonly think of when I refer to the "legal community". The legal difference is relating to the biological difference Without the ability to function biologically, there would be virtually no society, no country and especially no legal system. The legal system has no business initially ruling in this area after this all important biological factor has been established by heterosexuals and government should be very aware of this factor. ----------------------------------------------------------- Relating to governments writing laws: Governments by nature are of prime importance as a legal body and are the larger part of the legal community. It is commonly understood that governments do in fact utilize courts to arrive at a legal conclusion pertaining to certain issue's prior to a government writing this legal conclusion into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

IMO Canada can't be fixed. Proof of this is the total lack of infrastructure to accommodate governments policy pertaining to 'on going mass immigration' and literally dumping all the problems associated with this twisted policy, onto the laps and lifestyles of Canadians. What this mass immigration policy does is deceiving, but in reality and one way or another, simply takes from everyone's pocket to subsidize business and satisfy their companies shareholders and help keep people employed. Even wealthier immigrants do not supply the type of industry that is required to keep the country viable. That industry is MANUFACTURING and not boutiques or businesses related to supplying yet MORE services that only further strain the economy. To be successful we need to eat other countries dollars NOT our own. Supporting solitudes is another area Canada cannot afford along with certain areas of charter rights and is destroying the country. Canada is simply to big and to cold with high labour and housing and shelter cost. Keeping Canada small is the answer thanks to our national resources but probably would not sufficiently satisfy or support big business and would be a matter of time, before the country collapses, even with higher taxes to subsidize social programs.

In Québec, nearly half of its citizens do not want to associate their "Canadian" identity or support to the "Canadians". That's about 10% of the population of Canada. They have over 50 MPs representing them in the Commons. Does that mean that Canada is not a nation? Canada is a country and Quebec is a province. But I would argue with your numbers as a recent poll of QUEBECERS indicates 64% think Quebec is a NATION as compared to all other Canadian provinces, approx. 77%, that Quebec does not form a nation. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13962 But notice that the poll indicates Quebecers and not Quebecois. So the terminology is wrong again as Mr. Harper said: "Harper said Quebec forms a nation within Canada, but does not and should never form an independent society, he said. " This is contrary to the motion Bloc leader Mr. Duceppe introduced: "On Nov. 23, Bloc Québécois leader Giles Duceppe introduced a motion to declare that Quebecers form a nation "that is currently within Canada." "Prime Minister Stephen Harper (centre) receives a standing ovation as he introduces a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within Canada during a speech in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday Nov. 22, 2006." Notice Mr. Harper said "Quebecers" and not 'Quebecois' which is your definition (Quebecois) pertaining to 10% of the population. I think it is clear that Quebec is looking for legal status pertaining to Quebec as a nation. Once that is achieved it is apparent concerning the powers Quebec already possess, could qualify it for the legal status of a country. Mr. Mannings warning is accurate and I agree this 'nation' business does nothing for the unity of Canada and has the potential to destroy Canada and any talk of Quebec as a 'nation' should be discouraged by the Conservatives.

"Recognizing the Quebecois form a nation without defining what it means is a dangerous move that could harm national unity, says former Reform leader Preston Manning." And Mr. manning also said: "But if the phrase really leads directly or indirectly through the courts to conferring powers and benefits on Quebec not conferred on the other provinces then you've got a divisive situation again." http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...8a8eafd&k=17425 Wikipedia also does not clarify the 'Quebecois' definition any better:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois But the real problem is how can Quebec ever be legally declared any kind of a 'nation' since the province also contains a significant number of plain Quebecers who might not want to associate their 'Quebecer' identity or support to the 'Quebecois'.

First, it is not the Canadian legal community who chose the word, it is the government who wrote the word marriage into legislation. Second, yes they could have used a designation, such as "civil union" which applies to any union regardless of the gender of the two parties. From a legal and legslative perspective, there is no reason to distinguish between the gender of the parties so logically it makes no sense to have different words for different permutations of genders. It is unfortunate the word "marriage" was chosen as it seems to raise the hackles of the religiously intolerant minority, but it was a written into legislation at time before its implications were forseen. "From a legal and legislative perspective, there is no reason to distinguish between the gender of the parties so logically it makes no sense to have different words for different permutations of genders." Of course it makes sense to have different words for different permutations of gender, since certain paired genders are incapable of performing certain very important biological functions relating to those genders that 'marriage' is traditionally suited for as pertaining to 'male and female'. "From a legal and legislative perspective" It is gratifying to know that you do recognize that the Canadian legal community did have a significant part in determining that the federal government, legally could write the word 'marriage' into legislation.

Single citizenship is unenforceable and this explains why the US no longer forces people to give up other citizenship.In any case, I don't see how single citizenship would solve this problem. Underneath it all, we have someone who is deemed to be a security threat. Their citizenship is not the issue. When an airline or a club screens passengers or customers, how do they decide whom to admit? Do they mistakes? What are the consequences? The US government acts on behalf of the American people. The US government is not infallible and it has to answer to Americans if it excludes foreigners. I am certain that there will be more cases like Arar in the future and it is likely that innocent Muslims will suffer more often than people of other groups. And MikeDavid, lay off the loud fonts. Ones citizenship is an issue as with a single citizenship legal commits you as being a citizen of Canada and in turn would make it easier to prosecute in cases if terrorism or other issues of importance relating to national security and would relieve Canada of serious financial commitments like the recent 'Lebanese evacuation issue'. I don't know how you think 'dual citizenship' is not enforceable. If one does not declare the fact that he or she possess another citizenship, what difference would it make when the law in Canada does not recognize any other citizenship and is not responsible in any way with that persons ties with another country. Maybe you can clarify this if this is not what your concern is?

No. As I said in one of the other bazillion threads on this subject, the term marriage in the context of this debate is a legal term for state-sanctioned civil unions. Now the terminology may be based on the religious term, but it is not the same thing. Civil marriage has nothing to do with the religious institution that shares its name and thus any change in the legal definition of marriage has no bearing and no effect on the religious version. You know as well as I do the Canadian legal community could have chosen a word that legally describes the union of two people of the same sex, other than marriage. But they did not, simply because homosexuals OBJECTED to be included in a separate class than heterosexuals pertaining to the word 'marriage' It is true no one OWNS the legal definition to the word marriage, but then again this word marriage has been traditionally used by the churches of the world to describe the union of a man and a woman otherwise known as a 'heterosexual couple'. What the law did was not illegal but STOLE the sexual identity of either a man, or a woman to be used in an entirely IMPROPER WAY or INAPPROPIATE WAY to describe the 'union of a man with a man' or a 'woman with a women'. There is no other way to describe this legal manoeuvre relating to the word 'marriage ' applied to SSM other than FRAUDULENT and CHEAP. In Canada this can clearly be seen as part of the culture of ENTITLEMENT, part of a Liberal tradition.

The international community also includes every country in the world. If you discount the 'human race' to QUALIFY STANDARDS pertaining to the 'Declaration of Human Rights' then I would say you are not 'human' and must come from some unknown planet. Who can argue AGAINST a consensus for the 'good of world' being established on this planet by MANKIND?

The RCMP and Zacardelli were caught off guard in a maze of confusion pertaining to rights and Zacardelli was the scapegoat and paid the price. If you think this is a big deal maybe you should think again when national security issue's could become weakened and pose more of a direct threat towards Canadians with further confusion pertaining to information exchanges with the U.S. because of your appropriate safeguards. If Canada had any brains it would learn from these costly mistakes pertaining to dual citizenship and quickly put to an end dual citizenship with only a single identity for Canadian citizens. Simply remember if Arar only had a SINGLE Canadian citizenship, none of this wouldn't have happened and if he would have been sent back to his country, it could be no other country than Canada.

You say 'of course' Jews rallied round the tree, yet the judge in the case seems to be Jewish ? Are you saying that they're rallying around this tree idea out of fear rather than good sense ? I don't see where the 'of course' part is. I did say "...unlike that Toronto judge." I don't think Jews and Muslims are rallying around the trees because of fear but I do think that they're motivated by what's in their best interests. For example, if Christian symbols can be displayed, so can their symbols. And if you want the dominant religious culture to support you in times of need, you'd better support the wishes of the dominant group. If I had religious beliefs of any sort and they weren't Christian, I'd want the Christians to display their trees so that I could display my symbols if I were so motivated. The real reason Muslims did not object to the Christmas tree is because: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home "The Ontario legislature celebrated the Hindu holiday of Diwali a few weeks ago, the Islamic holiday Eid shortly afterward, and will mark Hannukah next week with the lighting of a menorah, Mr. McGuinty noted." Let's check with cities and towns, schools and other institutions throughout Ontario to really see how tolerant Muslims are to Canada's major traditional Christmas celebrations. BTW-I thought with official multiculturalism, political parties are suppose to steer clear of church and state.

There are plenty of human rights that do not have international support - I'm not even going to start. If we make international support the criteria for extending human rights, we may as well let the entire concept of human rights die right now. If you refuse to acknowledge that the international community at large NOT be allowed to set PRINCIPLES or STANDARDS pertaining to 'Declaration of Human Rights', then who exactly would you suggest be qualified to set these standards? The only being left would be classed a 'superhuman, and that would be God or God's teachings relating to morals that would be qualified to establish proper 'principles or standards'.

The only apparent reason Muslims did not object was because: " The Ontario legislature celebrated the Hindu holiday of Diwali a few weeks ago, the Islamic holiday Eid shortly afterward, and will mark Hannukah next week with the lighting of a menorah, Mr. McGuinty noted." This sort of evened the odds pertaining to the 'Ontario Legislature' as far as Muslims THERE were concerned. Let's hear what Ontario cities and towns have to say, about Muslim intolerance and NOT only the the political, religious appeasing 'Ontario Legislature'.

The Canadian political system has been reduced to sheer politicization of individualism regionalism rather than Canada politically run nationally as a country. The current political system is a joke and so badly lacks leadership and makes a mockery out of the definition of a country.

Let me get this straight: when WE ship one of OUR citizens to Syria where, in all likliehood, he gets tortured, and then they ship him back to us, that's NOT "OUR" problem? Why should it be our problem? It was not Canada that shipped him to Syria, his second homeland. The man possess dual citizenship to both Canada and Syria, this in my mind makes him 50% Canadian with questionable loyalties. I don't know why you find it so hard to understand that this man was under RCMP surveillance and the U.S. did not need or require anything from Canada to send him back to Syria. "The State Department, which acknowledges Arar was sent to Syria, has said he was picked up by U.S. officials "based on information received from Canada." However, it has also said that Canada's "approval or consent was not sought" in the decision to ship him to a foreign prison." But it appears to be the troublesome 'charter' that is the CAUSE for great confusion in complicating matters concerning applicable evidence pertaining to the exchange of information between the U.S. and Canada. "He said they were also worried that the inquiry would lead to restrictions on Canada's intelligence operations and that the government might even "try to build some human rights context into intelligence sharing. They can't see any benefit in this inquiry," he said." http://www.news.utoronto.ca/inthenews/arch...2005_06_26.html

Then maybe you can explain why, homosexual lobbyist want certain changes officially made to the 'declaration' to accommodate homosexual lifestyles including SSM, but to date have FAILED, due to lack of international support. So, you are making a statement that 'homosexuals are already included in the declaration' when that does not appear to be the case at all. Please supply some sort of proof, to establish as fact, to verify what you are saying is indeed factual and true? If you cannot support your claim, then there is no sense carrying on this debate any further.

"Quebec - Premier Jean Charest said Thursday Quebec is opposed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's proposl for an elected Senate, calling it a “radical change.” Charest said Quebec agrees with Harper's proposal to limit the terms of senators to eight years, but he noted that Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier told a Senate committee hearing in September “the Quebec nation” could not accept a unilateral change affecting the balance of power within the Canadian federation such a the election of seantors." -------------------------------------------------------- Here is the Quebec nation notion again, when Quebec at confederation agreed Canada was a 'single nation'. I find it strange Quebec and Ontario both have 24 senators each, yet Ontario's population is significantly higher meaning Ontario is under represented. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...ed01acb&k=82452

Reading comprehension 101 sir.....if I have a ticket that says admit one, then why would I bring a boa? That would require an admit 2 ticket..... wow are you serious? Dude...once again, if it is not specifically excluded then it MUST be included. Not for you nor I to decide. You incorrectly read the part : "since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket." The snake also had an 'admit one ticket'. But the issue is one with legal implications with the theater utilizing common logic that the 'admit one ticket' is applicable only to human patrons and NOT snakes since there are a variety of laws governing animals in public places. The same logic is utilized in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' relating to article #16, that to be eligible for marriage, you must be heterosexual. This is verified by the fact that most countries around the world DO NOT universally accept homosexuals as candidates for marriage and have their own LAWS within their countries PREVENTING this from happening. These laws generally reflecting a combination of common sense and morals that form the framework for that law to recognize between what is 'good or bad' for society.

Here is the link to that story: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...4596dd9&k=20042

Who is talking about sexual preferences that could even include animals. We are talking concerning who is legally included and viewed as a general universal consensus concerning the word "everyone" pertaining to the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.

"Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day yesterday announced an inquiry into the cases of three Canadian men who suffered imprisonment in the Middle East after being investigated by Canadian security forces." ----------------------------------------------------------- Is Canada a country of FOOLS being duped, by a bunch of impeccably manicured, intellectual looking, Arabs, all in line, demanding (or looking for) the BIG PAYOFF.

It does not say it specifically. But if you say or think homosexuals are included in the declaration, why then is SSM not internationally recognized and accepted as such by ALL countries of the world? And why not include brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers or anyone of legal age and interested in simply marrying anyone or one another, if there is NO exact definition pertaining to the word 'everyone', in reference to the declaration. A similar analogy to yours is a theater ticket where it says 'admit one'. You could simply argue to theater management (when they stop you at the door) that since the ticket does not define what is exactly meant by 'admit one' that it is perfectly logical that you should be allowed to bring along your pet boa constrictor, since you also bought it an 'admit one' ticket.