Leafless

You ask that I have not shown how homosexuals getting married are destroying the right of heterosexual marriage? The question itself is proof. Homosexuals are infringing on the MORALISTIC trademark known to a multitude of religions around the globe that marriage is 'between a man and a women'. Is this not DESTROYING the ESSENTIAL MORALISTIC VALUE of heterosexual marriage by allowing homosexuals to also use the word, relating to SSM?

I simply do not have time to reply to all posts, but relating to post 281 your reply in question form was: "What if the MAJORITY of society decided that the MORAL thing to do was to kick out of the country anyone who thinks homosexuality is perverted, immoral, or are opposed to SSM? What if society thinks that is "good". How would you feel about that? Would you start packing your bags?" You are being 'extreme' and nonsensical in suggesting such an outcome. No majority can force anyone in a legal sense 'to be kicked out of the country' since no government sponsored referendum would allow or even consider such a question. Relating to post #214 your reply in question form was: "Show me specifically where it says that people who post at mapleleaf web under the nickname "Leafless" are allowed to marry? Show me where is says that people who pick their noses are allowed to marry? Show me where it says that anyone who has ever worn a blue shirt is allowed to marry? etc..... Should we deny rights to these people? Afterall, picking your nose is not specifically mentioned as a human right." You are being funny as we are talking 'rights' specified in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'. Article #30 in the 'Declaration of Human Rights states': "Article 30, Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. This could be implied to homosexuals who in 1948 when this declaration was written up, were not seen in any significant light associated with 'the good of society' and are not included in 'everyone' pertaining to article #2. Therefore it could be said, homosexuals in fact relating to SSM were advocating the destruction of the 'right of heterosexual marriage' pertaining to the RULES of most religions that exclude homosexuals for reasons of morals associated with that religion. So it seems homosexuals do not have a right according to the 'declaration' to engage in 'marriage'. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Poor America? Thank God for America and God bless America.

"He said the government is failing to secure troop commitments from other NATO countries and the current mission risks becoming a results-free sacrifice of human life." “We will not go along with an obtuse government that digs in its heels,” Duceppe told a Quebec City audience.' ------------------------------------------------- What game does Mr. Duceppe wish to play, 'RUN and HIDE.' 'Obtuse' is a condescending word to describe a government that has made a commitment to participate with its allies in the 'War against Terror'. It is not Mr. Harper's fault if some other allies do not wish to participate, in a more meaningful way. I am certain the Harper government is well aware of what is happening and that Mr. Harper continually weighs all options pertaining to Canadian participation in Afghanistan. Mr. Duceppe could be becoming agitated because: "Quebecers have been more skeptical than other Canadians about the mission, surveys say, and opposition in the province may deepen when 2,000 soldiers from Quebec are deployed to Afghanistan next summer." Maybe Mr. Duceppe should realize Canada is at war and although wishful, of of more direct participation concerning other NATO allies, does not up to now affect Canada's commitment which is independent of other allies. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...3e0b428&k=57083

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes? No. Or at least I don't see how. Law is enacted through the formal structures provided by the social contract. In Canada, those structures are Parliament and the Legislatures. It seems you are intolerant of Canadians to continue to pursue the SSM issue. This would make you a bigot, especially when you consider the following: "Laws of Canada The making of federal laws entails many steps: from legal drafting to tabling and discussion in Parliament, to enactment and then to the drafting of regulations which define their application and enforcement." There was inadequate DISCUSSION in parliament concerning SSM. It was previously noted by parliamentarians that to debate this SSM issue would take months or perhaps years and nobody was really interested, so basically the law slipped through with inadequate discussion. If this was the case would it not be in the better interest of Canadian society for government to implement a national referendum to properly decode what Canadians really believe pertaining to SSM and base laws on the result of that national referendum. It is my view, that a lazy, undemocratic, neglectful parliament improperly contributed to a law that had no business being declared a law and contributed improperly against moralistic Canadians and their moral social fabric because of the lack of will of parliamentarians to properly address the issue.

Remiel, your posts concerning your view of what you consider as intelligent debate mostly all have socialistic elements and anti American ramblings that disassociate your line of thought with others who might have a more functional, realistic view pertaining to a variety of issue's. In other words grow up, if you want to participate in a meaningful way on a public board that incorporates 'free speech' and address the issue and not attack the writer. If you don't like what I say, to bad as opinions don't only belong to you.

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes? Point is, if you believe in the separation of church and state, maybe you should ask yourself why government is unilaterally dictating in the way of law, something that is derived from morals that is strongly associated with religions and its traditions throughout the world. Canadian society was taken advantage of and denied their right to decide this question by national referendum. Morals are part of the social fabric of all Canadians, NOT goverrnment.

It means the federal government has the power to DICTATE and control all aspects that it considers important to promote multiculturalism. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Liberals (strong traditional Quebec support) used culture to help obliterate and destroy the majority English factor including its traditions and customs including Christianity for the benefit of Quebec and its culture. Obviously the Liberals always assumed they would remain undefeated and always remain power to manipulate the cultural strings in favour of denoting Quebec and the French culture as the supreme and most important culture in Canada.

Leafless, I can understand you wanting people to speak English...but what do you have against non-whites? I have absolutely nothing against ethnic nationalities. But I simply believe ethnic nationalities were implemented by the Liberals (traditionally strong Quebec support) to desensitize majority White English speaking Canadians to become intertwined and part of an unwanted cultural mosaic, while allowing Quebec to be independent and retain its cultural distinctiveness. Quebec wishes to retain its perceived cultural distinctiveness while throwing the rest of the country into cultural chaos but at the same time having its political ideologies and lifestyle supported by Canadian taxpayers.

I am not mad at anyone in particular but have a tremendous dislike for apparent traitors to Canada, especially those who operate under the guise of a national political party bent on destroying the White, English speaking, Christian factor in favour of cultures hostile to both, the majority English component and the majority Christian component. Any other country in the world with this situation and you would have a revolution or at the least would never have progressed to the point it has in Canada. I think you fail to realize the seriousness of the situation especially if you are of an ethnic nationality. Actually it was John Cabot an Italian navigator commissioned by England's King Henry Vll who discovered Canada. It was shortly after returning to England, France got wind of the news and sent their own explorers to 'copy cat' Cabot's route to the new land being Canada. But as most of us are aware France never was successful inducing French immigration to Canada and as a result were defeated on the 'Plains of Abraham' by the English.

My entire life. I was born in BC. No sense getting all bent out of shape over something that cannot be changed (Quebec). Out here in BC there is little or no direct effect on individuals no matter what Quebec does. However, I would certainly not want to see Quebec separate. I still have a family tree to "dig up" and part of it is there in Quebec. Apparently my great grandmother was Metis -- I'm thinkin' of going to get a status card! I love this country warts and all. From Montreal "queens" to goofy Newfies to redneck Albertans, we are all part of this wonderful country. And how many years is your life in B.C., another Canadian 'have not province' given away to foreigners of another land, appearing to be extremely attractive to Asians. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm...6104ea04&type=2 And who initially allowed massive foreign Asian immigration to virtually destroy the 'British English White image' in B.C. and turn it into a foreign joke? The least they could have done is maintain our traditional heritage and keep it 'English speaking and White'. "No sense getting all bent out of shape over something that cannot be changed (Quebec). " This is a matter of opinion and yours I don't agree with as I don't share Quebec's importance on cultures and feel it is all part of a Liberal plot to bring more foreign cultures into this country, to satisfy Quebec's cultural ego, to equalize and help obliterate Canadian White, English heritage, with then having the French being the superior culture along with its notion of importance attached to it 'as the first founding nation' of Canada.

What exactly was the faulty information Canada gave to the U.S. regarding Maher Arar? How can anyone come to a conclusion regarding his credibility when his testimony is kept secret and his innocence was not determined in a court of law? The whole point of the matter is Mr. Maher was a suspect at a very dangerous time concerning possible terrorist actions against the U.S. or even Canada. CSIS and the RCMP cannot play games when it comes to national security and perhaps in reality RCMP information reasonable at the time. Why was Mr. Arar (an Arab) engaged in international travel at a time of terrorist activity. Did he not have enough COMMON SENSE to stay home in Canada where he is safe. Off topic, but the more Arab Canadians you have engaging in international travel the greater the risk of possible identification as a terrorist and only complicates matters for countries like the U.S. who have to distinguish between legitimate Arab nationalities and terrorist. As long as there is Islamic terrorism going on Arabs from all countries will possibly be treated indifferently. If common sense on the part of Arab nationalities is ignored, pertaining to international travel, more than likely problems will occur for some them.

I really have to question what you really know about this country? How long have you resided in Canada? If it was after 1982, then all you are familiar with for the better part is Liberal rule with prime ministers all from 'la belle province', Quebec. I do like Canada and know other provinces in Canada have NOT displayed the kind of aggressive behavior that comes out of Quebec in the way of dismantling Canadian society and transforming into a Quebecois style socialist country. If you know Canadian history you will know all about the 'Quiet Revolution and the FLQ' and how they achieved through violence what Quebec has to-day along with that twisted piece of legislation 'the charter' with its main purpose appeasing Quebec. No, I am staying in Canada, as it will simply be a matter of time before Quebec digs itself into a hole or separates or is kicked out of confederation or the country splits. Canada cannot afford supporting solitudes perpetually without dire consequences to other parts of the economy, like health care, pensions and infrastructure.

This is an ideal description pertaining to the charter queens, the Liberals. The only thing that is saving Canada of from being labelled as a country with a primitive economy is our pals, the U.S. But of course our political environment is strong and (hack, hack, hack) free and not controlled by a major power.

Blair clearly spells it out relating to immigrants and multiculturalism. When you come to Britain you must intigrate or you are not welcome. Way to go TONY, this as been long overdue! Hope other countries will catch on also. http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/ne...-name_page.html

I'm no lawyer but that warrants a !Yikes! in my book. You may now resume... p.s. pardon the smiley, not intentional Are you just finding out Canada is a BANANA REPUBLIC? It appears charter powers pertaining under its authority supersedes all other laws in Canadian provinces is supreme. http://www.canlii.org/ca/com/chart/s-32-1.html Outside of a revolution I have no idea how you can beat down this discriminatory and oppressive piece of undemocratic, dictatorial, piece of socialist legislation.

You boggle my mind. I've decided you probably are just trying to stir the pot, and can't possibly believe what you are posting. But, just in case, I'd like to hear from you how you can support democracy yet condemn equality for all members of said democracy. Canada is both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. I do support democracy, that is a system of government by the WHOLE population and in Canada's case we are represented by elected representatives. But this system is being abused by politicians taking advantage of a parliamentary democracy. I simply feel there is a serious breakdown between issues concerning Canadians and obtaining PROPER representation to address those issues. The charter is one of those issues I feel Canadians were taken advantage of by politicians, who were addressing there own version concerning charter issues for their own personal benefit as a political party and for the political and financial fortunes and rewards of a specific group. There are many other important issues like the Bloc gaining federal status as an official separatist party. This alone should require the consent of the majority of Canadians but was allowed by the Liberals under Mr. Chretien. Polls are also not a real indicator of anything as they can be manipulated or can be simply fraudulent. Equality is a pipe dream and has NO controls to limit and govern the political power of a 'so called minority'. This bust the equality balloon.

What else could Day have said?Where the police or military are concerned, anything less than complete support just won't work. This is a black and white, pregnant or not issue. A politician can't talk grey. The RCMP are a tough bunch. They'll never admit error and they prefer to solve their problems internally. What makes you think this was an error? Was Mr. Arar not a suspect? Is there law against someone being suspect by the RCMP in a time of terrorism even though solid evidence did not exist? Was Mr. Arar not taking extreme chances travelling at a time of high alert ( also as a citizen of Syria)concerning terrorism? Was Mr. Arar found innocent in a court of LAW? Canada's national security has been jeopardized and weakened and viewed as incompetent, because of Mr. Arar trying to pursue (payback time, at tax payers expense) rather than admit that he was the reason this all happened due to plain stupidity, on his part. Canada should be suing him.

As socialist statement as has ever been seen!!! It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism. I would go so far as to say the Liberals have destroyed this country and transformed democracy into a joke resulting in a CLASSLESS society but still allowing the rich to rule. Its easy to understand the sectarian violence going on in Iraq and how it compares in nature to the perpetual internal battle (state control-transformation of Canada) going on in Canada being 'government vs. the citizen's of Canada' and how this situation could easily erupt into violence similar to Iraq. Are you suggesting we go back to the 'good old days' of the caste and class system??? Wow ... I can't beleive you are actually advocating that removing discrimination based on a persons 'class' is a bad thing. If that was not your point then you clearly failed to articulate what it is you meant. For your sake I hope that is the case. Leafless your post was a truly odd statement... Its not really odd when you think about it. Equalitarism=advancement of the lower class without merit=destruction of the subordinate class. Is this not what the undemocratic discriminatory charter is all about? Who has the RIGHT to destroy the subordinate class without a revolution or civil war or at the very least a national referendum?

As socialist statement as has ever been seen!!! It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism. I would go so far as to say the Liberals have destroyed this country and transformed democracy into a joke resulting in a CLASSLESS society but still allowing the rich to rule. Its easy to understand the sectarian violence going on in Iraq and how it compares in nature to the perpetual internal battle (state control-transformation of Canada) going on in Canada being 'government vs. the citizen's of Canada' and how this situation could easily erupt into violence similar to Iraq.

Goodness, the last thing we want in a FREE country is for people to act the way that they want. Those dumb ideas of freedom of speech and expression are actually the nooses that are STRANGLING us. Everyone should be exactly like mainstream Canadians. No more of these crazy notions of individualism. All sarcasm aside, I believe I've found my doppelganger. No country in the world is FREE. What kind of crap are you smoking to-day?

And I suppose Atheist don't enjoy the multitude of benefits paid by Canadian Christians and Canadians of other faiths in Canada. You are not restricted from subscribing to any religion in Canada. Democratic governments by nature must support certain initiatives to the benefit of it's citizens and buisness.

When is the last time you saw welfare cheques distributed by churches? Yet churches are tax-exempt. They don't even pay property taxes despite using the same municipal services as home owners and businesses. The rest of society, atheists included, subsidize churches through their hard-earned taxes. The churches deserve a break. They are supplying a traditional service that also helps keep many Canadians mentally and perhaps even physically conditioned to persevere the many hardships of life, rather then end up in mental institutions or hospitals with society paying the full cost. The churches also supply moralistic and other beneficial traditional services to those who wish to subscribe to this beneficial organization which is also the religious HOME to the MAJORITY of Canadians.

Harper is FORCED to continue to play Liberal politics stemming from the Liberal initiated 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' an UNQUALIFIED piece of socialist legislation. This charter forces recognition and financial support, concerning the Liberals interpretation of how nonconformist and other groups of Canadians (so called MINORTIES) unwilling to adapt to the ways of mainstream Canadians. Harper as leader of a 'national party' is trapped to participate (or be condemned by other socialist parties) in conventional politics until something is done to ABOLISH this UNDEMOCRATIC discriminating charter.

Christianity will live on beyond this. You'll still have a church to go to. This has not much to do with basic religion, as religion also serves many other purposes to society including charity directed towards the poor, something alien to governments. When is the last time you have seen a federal food bank in any city in Canada? It has to do with laws driven by an undemocratic, unqualified charter, initiated by a federal government ignoring citizens of Canada to participate and ratified by provincial government premiers also ignoring participation of citizens from their respective provinces. The charter could be a huge step in the wrong direction and I believe politicians have crucified democracy in this country and are fully responsible for many of the ongoing problems in this country, concerning major power grabs by groups given the authority to do just that, by our flawed unqualified charter.