Leafless

uOttawaMan You wrote- " There is no possible way to exist in the same system to the appeasement of everyone." I suppose the only way to identify you would be a socialistic cappuccino sucking Liberal tag. Tough laws are needed for tough criminals.

seabee You wrote- " And of course Canada is not a nation, it's people certaintly do not come from a common descent, have different languages, have a conflicting history and is legally multicultural. It barely qualifies as a country. being legally a Dominion, it is essentially an automous British colony." Our government is a Parliamentry Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy and our executive power lies in the hands of the governor general. The governor general represent the soverign of Great Britain and has certain powers but ACTS only on the advice of the Canadian federal prime minister. Canada is not a colony of Britain. In 1949 and the British parliaments passed the BNA Act #2 in which the Canadian parliament was given power to amend the Constitution in matters lying soley within federal jurisdiction. Yes Canada does have an "official multicultural policy" but has nothing to do with the fact of establishing a Canadian culture or identity. Canada is a nation. A "native Canadian" is a person born in a specified place whose parents are domiciled in that place (Canada) at that time of birth. So whether you are born in Quebec or Alberta or any other province with your parents residing there you are a native Canadian contributing to the history and culture of Canada and since Canada became a confederation there have been many generations of the same families giving Canada a true Canadian culture and identity.

Vancouver King You wrote- " Is a country within a country too terrible to accept?" Quebec has described itself as a nation in which it has no legal basis to do so as France gave it all away with the "Treaty of Paris". We should make clear what we are talking about here. A nation denominates a group of human beings, a community of people mainly of common decent, history and language forming a State or inhabiting a territory. A country dominates a territory or the territory of a nation. This land was won by the British the dominate group to establish claim to Canada and provided Canada with the government we have to-day. Based on the premise of "founding nations" and Quebec's logic concerning desire for it's own country then all provinces in Canada have a right to the title of a country. I would never accept Quebec as a country within Canada. The only reason to date Quebec has been able to enjoy the luxury of utilizing their own language in their own province is thanks to the federal government and the tax payers of Canada for providing the financial base in which to do this. Dream on.

uOttawaMan You wrote- " But people don't think how long there going to spend in jail when they kill someone. It's not just a deterrent." Of course jail time or execution (in the U.S.) is a deterrent to many people but maybe not to some who are more prone to aggressive behavior. But regardless people are very well aware that these laws exist prior to committing the actual crime and should be ready to accept the penality. Or is it murderer one moment and coward the next? Regardless you should very much be in favour of automatic jail time for hand gun offences as this will provide a real in jail deterrent to help make certain there is no second time. You also wrote- " Do you want the Criminal Justice system to be fair or equal. You can't have both." The justice system has never been fair and equal and favours the rich. But automatic jail time for hand gun offences must be dealt in a different light than crime that is not out of control. Any areas of crime that are out of control must be dealt with harshly.

uOttawaMan You wrote- " Couldn't disagree more, U.S. has highest incaceration rate and it's doing nothing to curb crime." Maybe the U.S. is so far advanced as a affluent, democratic free society there is no other country to fairly compare crime statistics and it might very well be the most attractive country in the world that provides opportunity for crime in all areas. I am certain if it was not for our cold Canadian winters crime would be more in line with the U.S. in this country as our diversities and lifestyles are similar. But the U.S. has a much higher transient blue collar work force coupled with more vibrant social conditons which could be responsible for more crime in that area alone. There are few stats that take these sort of conditons into account.

I have not seen this widely reported yet but according to an article in local media up to 23 prisons will need to be built because of proposed automatic jail terms and moves towards a U.S style of justice. Criminologist Neil Boyd a professor at simon Fraser University says " There is no evidence it will make us a safer society. The Canadian plan will send Canada down the same road as the U.S. which has the highest incarnation rate in the Western world." Is this guy for real or do you think the justice system and prisons have been ignored by the Liberals along with the associated immigration crime scenerio as seen in cities like Toronto and something must be done?

Vancouver King You wrote- " It remains to be seen if this "lets put Quebec in their place" crowd remains silent and under control. When I hear a comment like this I wonder if Canada is just as far behind as places like Iraq. Is religion just as volatile as language? And to that I would say YES as proven by the political antics of Quebec who really never gave Canada anything but a series of aggressive demands built on a false premise that was developed basically by the Liberal party a party that Quebec was always part of and has manipulated that party with the "voice of Quebec" creating what has resulted in Quebec acquiring significant political power. In fact I woud edit what you said to read -It remains to be seen how long "the Quebec lets take over Canada crowd" remains vocal and in control.

Mikkie You wrote- " I think it looks like totalitarian pattern rather than democracy." It seems you have an unstable government and it might take a while to sort things out. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060217/43606366.html

Vancouver King You wrote-" Quebec the nation is about to become effectively soverign." Firstly Quebec is not a nation but a province like all others. If this ever happens it better not be at the expense of the ROC or it will split the country right down the middle and Mr. Harper will be history along with the rest of the party. Asymetrical federalism will not encourage Quebec to leave and become soverign but could provide the type of support to provide it to do just that at a later date as Quebec lacks investment and is dependent on the federal government to fulfill it's separation fantasies. I believe if even if Mr. Harper attemps to provide more automony to Quebec will only fuel anti-federal Western sentments with many Canadians looking down at such a move. I think Mr. Harper would be wise to back off on providing Quebec any kind of support leading to a soverign Quebec.

Vancouver King You wrote-" In Quebec, the national Liberals have owned federal sentiments for a generation but now have fallen from grace. Harper cannot allow the present opportunity to slip away." And why did the Liberals fall from grace in Quebec? Some might say it was the sponership fiasco or is the real reason the Liberals simply had no more to give without Quebec fully becoming a country of it's own. I find it amazing after Quebec for years being at the receiving end of federal politcal favourism that only a few months ago separation levels were very high around 50% with some reports slightly over 50%. This ironically can be compared to the problems the U.S. and it's allies are having in Iraq trying to implement democracy. But in Canada the Quebec separation thing is perpetual in nature. I think Mr. harper should not sway with his promise as Mr. Mc.Guinty suggested that all provinces be treated equally. Running Canada like the Liberals will only result with putting the political emphasis on regionalism, fracturing Canada even further which could also result returning the Conservatives to oppositon status.

fixer 1 You wrote- " It should not take a lot of thinking to know the type of issues that will be talked about." It's obvious Mr. Charest does not like Mr. Harper's plan concerning a substitute for national care compared to what was offered by the Liberals and to that I say to bad and Quebec gets what the ROC gets. The same goes for goes for Quebec's fiscal imbalance-what fiscal imbalance are we talking about? And then there is the contentious issue of the appointment of Alberta Ted Menzies as English unilingual parliamentry secretary to the cabinet minister in charge of official languages and La Francophonie. I think this was a brilliant move on the part of Mr. Harper to show Quebec that yes the federal government does have a place and say concerning represenatives in our officially bilingual federal government and that Quebec does not run the the federal government. You also wrote- " Also Martin's Liberals all but sold out, in everthing, it's nice to see someone is talking to them with friendly intentions. Harper will not sell out the store." Martin's Liberals were not the only ones to sell out the store to Quebec as the Trudeau and Chretien Liberals did the same thing. I think there is no room for closed door meetings concerning policies and programs and all premiers should be treated the same with no special deals for anyone.

Black Dog You wrote- " Each side needs the other." Great SATIRE BD, great SATIRE!

Jean Charest is in Ottawa this week to discuss a whole "host of issues" including the daycare issue signed with the previous Liberal government. What is going on with these meetings behind closed doors already. In other media reports quoted Charest as saying -no need here to give Quebec families $1,200 a year per child. Give it to my treasury. Meanwhile Ontario's Dalton Mc.Guinty is reported as saying- Mr. Harper has promised all provinces will be treated equally. These men have begun a debate in which Mr.Harper can't afford to be seen as MIA. Do you hear the faint clicking of dice- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02...1440643-cp.html

FTA Lawyer You wrote- " Sensationalism at it's finest." I thought hockey players were what I think Bobby Hull said at one time "entertainers".

Canuck E Stan You wrote- " Simply offensive and in poor taste. Respect your fellow Canadian." Concerning the Calgary editor that finds the cartoons might endanger our troops in Afghanistan. Our troops are already in danger in Afaghanistan and face and have faced Muzlim extremist terrorist attacks. They are there exactly for that reason to help that country towards acheiving a functionable democratic government. I surprised you and you moderate Muzlims who protest in countries like Canada don't understand that Canadians also might have an extreme disgust concering the murderous actions of these nut case extremist Muzlims but you don't see hoards of Canadians protesting that fact, burning down building and demand our government take action one way or the other to stop these insane killings. I wonder what the Muzlim reaction would be in Canada if this sort of counter protest against Muzlim extremists who murder and not draw cartoons would be? Would they scream simply offensive and in poor taste??

Canuck E Stan You wrote- " Why all of a sudden is printing cartoon pictures that cause riots and death around the world a freedom of the speech issue." When someone in the media is told by someone else that you cannot print those cartoons for whatever reason, the reply "sorry-this news item is a free speech issue and I don't think your in the positon in my country to force me to do otherwise" is the most logical response to someone attempting censorship. But to go into further detail and what is not debated freely 'is why were these cartoons published originally." I would ask you what would serve with the least prejudice towards Islam in the form of protest against terrorism? (1) Graphic pictures of a hostage taker slashing the throat of a victim in front of cameras? (2) A suicide bomber that blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman? (3) Cartoons illustrating the senselessness of these acts with direction as to the source concerning these acts and or what type of gratification from human self destruction can possibly be acheived. Or in your opinion are you not allowed or permitted to protest period?

Black dog You wrote- " Really anyone with an imaginary friend in the sky is not playing with a full deck straight away.' Sky??? Whatever gave you the notion the "sky" is the "sky" unless you have been reading fiction again.

Sparhawk You wrote- " One does not deal with a rabid dog by poking it with a stick." You picked a bad comparison. A rabid dog is generally shot dead. Society 'cannot walk on eggshells' forever. These Muslim terrorist organizations have been looking for the slightest provocation all over the world and have struck many times. It seems you are ready or are in favour to allow "rabid dogs" to rule. Are you??

Good for the Western Standard brave enough to keep Canadians politically informed and not politically oppressed. But I really don't understand Mr. Harper's attitude worrying about the Canadian cartoon effect on troops in Afghanistan since Muslim radicals have no common sense anyways. In fact I am begining to think with these ongoing riots what these radical Muslims really like is bombs, fire, guns and continual destruction until there is absolutely nothing left but sand. Keep it up and you'll push yourselves back to the Middle Ages with nothing but sand and caves. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

seabee You wrote- " What about deniers of the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazi's! Though I don't believe they are right, I have been unable to see their case as denial of the Holocaust is seen as a crime." I really don't either and this topic is controversial but nevertheless advocates rules for one group and none for the other groups concerning hate crimes. This is something the federal government should clear up in it's own mind and act accordingly in a fair and just manner.

geoffrey You wrote- " I don't regard anyone as a moderate Muslim who believes people who are not members of their religion must nevertheless abide by it's prohibitons." Totally agreed in what you said. But this is problamatic to the Muslims and this is why Islam should be banned in Canada. Moderate Muslims do not understand that most major religions especially in modern Western democracies do not harbour the type of beliefs that promote violence no matter what the cause or promote religious laws above the laws of the land such as what Muslims and Shariah the Muslim code of religious law. This is because social diversities and education other than religon has removed the emphasis concerning religon as an absolute social guide. In a lot of democratic countries Muslims simply have not become exposed to a view containing a more civilized logic concerning harmful functions of their own religions. But this is not the fault of any host countries that harbour Arab Muslim immigrants including Canada. Muzlims are responsible for their actions but hide behind democratic rights as if this somehow justifies their cause to potentially induce a riot and be the source of harm or even death. If Muzlims cannot shed their strict religious codeprior to immigrating to a free democratic country maybe they should stay home as this type of behavior exceeds any level of expected tolerance by any free democratic country which could induce repercussions against the Muslim community.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " So I guess it worked. Quebec didn't separate." Have you got proof Quebec ever really planned to separate? This of course would require a tremendous amount of pre-planning and none I have ever heard of or seen from any source. You wrote - " What modern democracies ever espoused official multiculturalism and failed." No country to date falls completely into one or another of the following categories (a) Monoculturalism ( Melting Pot © Multiculturalism. It's all relatively new and only introduced in 1970. Canada became multi-cultural in 1971 following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism at that time to accomodate Quebec concerns. The report also advocated the federal government recognize Canada as a bilingual and a bicultural society. This was a LIBERAL appointed commission. Canada became multicultural in 1971. You wrote- " OK- well you've changed it then. Your also including all of Asia as a third world country. where does Australia come in I wonder." Australia is in the Asia region but has always been a separate entity like New Zealand until recently where some in Australia would like it to be part of Asia---this is controversial and not official as far as I know. You wrote- " You didn't say that you said "why so many from Arab countries. Why are you not admitting that you said it based on your own feelings and not based on knowledge. Do so and your off the hook." What I said pertaining to Arab immigration was "from troubled Arab countries". This has got nothing to do with knowledge but rather 'facts' and the facts are Muslim Arabs around the world whether in the terrorist form or the immigrating form are presenting problems all over. I also refferred to that 30.8% White identification concerning immigration numbers only to indicate compatibility with integration compared to the process of attempting to assimilate ethnics which is much more difficult and if left unchecked is the main cause of fractionating Canadian society into cultural groups--like what is happening in certain areas of Canada.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Well I did read your post but I don't see any link between Trudeau's push for offical bilinguilism ( which was ostensibly done to counter against separatism) and unleashing an immigration policy with a secret agenda to distract ROC away from Quebec." What evidence have you to support official bilingualism was created to counter the separation caper that has been replayed and replayed but guess what, Quebec is still part of Canada and yes with more power than ever. Not bad for a province originally with NO LEGAL language RIGHTS outside of Quebec but who insisted on retaining their residential language and refused to be assimmilated linguistically. Iam talking conspiracy's and if you wish to allign your thoughts to re-alligned Liberal history books go ahead and believe also Canada was founded by 'founding nations' and not WON by the British. And I will say it again multiculturalism was implemented to place artificial political emphasis on culture to appease Quebec --to show Quebec was not the odd ball province demanding rights built on culture and to make immigrants think , yes maybe Canada does have a place for cultures. But the strange thing is Quebec is not part of multiculturalism as it's own 'official culture' and the English also have their own 'official culture'. If this alone does not create large holes in Canada's multiculturalism image I don't know what will especially when all other cultures are beneath the 'official cultures.' Just like to point out Michael that there has not been a country in the world EVER that has been successful in building a country built on multiculturalism. Canada is simply a beginner in the world of multiculturalism with many problems already surfacing. We will see how long it will last before the country collapses or is taken over by an aggressive culture. You know as well as I that COMPELLING evidence pertaining to a conspiracy of this nature is impossible to prove just as it is impossiable for you to prove what the Liberal politicians have been telling Canadians for years is true. So go ahead Michael and drown out my theories and I will respond by drowning yours out. Let's be clear on the numbers you posted relating to immigration which were: 18.4% of immigrants come from Europe and the U.K. 47.2% from Asia 12.4% from the Americas 22% from the Middle East My post reflected on immigrants from troubled Arab countries and third world countries and that total to be exact rather than rounded off is 47.2Asia + 22%Middle East =69.2% ethnic immigrants. And from White countries 12.4 from Americas + 18.4 from Europe and the U.K.=30.8%. So like I said ethnic immigration is over representented compared to White immigration in which there is no problem concerning integration.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " You belief that, but upon what is that belief based? Is it mistrust of the Liberals or do you have some other evidence." If your not familiar with Canadian history and it seems your not or did not even read my preceding post which partially outlined the priliminary concept concerning this Liberal-Quebec conspiracy against the ROC. Forty-five years is a long time and gave the Liberals ample time to try to justify and create a linguistic agenda to implement a dead residential language (French) in Canada to somehow be just as powerful as the commercially used English language by the majority of Canadians. It is a well known fact that Quebec ALONE cannot exist in North America utilizing French only and only does so to-day with the assistance of many federal government programs, transfer and equalization payments, funded basically by the tax-payers of Canada but mainly Ontario and Alberta. To debate with you in a meaningful way you must be familiar with the history of Canada from 'The Quiet Revolution' to present. You also wrote-" How many come from troubled Arab countries." " I don't see this as so many" In that post I also included "third world countries" which by your own numbers combined with Africa and the Middle East represents roughly 70% ethnic orgin as compared to 30% White from Europe, U.K. and the U.S. I would say for certain this has created a large Western cultural immigration deficiecy concerning integration factors and should be reason for alarm probably something you would not agree with but many Canadians do and the proof is there.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " I believe it came from 'Nationalist Socialist'. Anybody" And this is also directed to Drea who thinks it is religiously inspired from an ancient Christian sect "Nazzerine". Nazi is an abbreviation for a member of 'Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Workingmen's party'. The nickname 'Nazi' originated from the German pronounciation of the first two syllables of "National".