Leafless

I Miss Trudeau "Is the basic premise of the charter a good one? Can I find fault with it." To sum up both questions the answer is 'NO' as it destroys the Right Wing political agenda by establishing a socialistic bible to resort to and can create new socialistic agenda at the whim of the government with little interference. This also effectively destroys Canadian politics by allowing the creation of a single Party regime. Concerning discrimination--It's not okay to subject anyone to any form of discrimination but then again I know of NO race or culture or identifable group that does not discriminate one way or another at some particualr time. Concerning self-detirmination--No it's not a cheap rhetorical tool but simply illustrating the necessity for majority rule.

newbie The Charter was self imposed and created by Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals over the objection of some premiers who insisted provincial laws protected Canadians. How Quebec can implement the NWC in a document like the Charter especially when it was designed to help Quebec from being assimilated is hard to understand. By using this clause only shows the contemp for the ROC. Your agreement with Liberal policy concerning the passage of this Charter is astounding. I don't really know what all of this did for Quebec as I believe the latest numbers indicate 53% of Quebecers want separation and Quebecers up to now reject national Parties unless everthing orginates from inside Quebec.

Black Dog Are you saying the additon of the Rights and Freedoms Charter to our existing BNA Act forming our Constituion can be VIEWED as an ammendment. This Charter is a VERY powerful piece of legislation which could be seen constituting a constitution in itself. Make no mistake---All Canadians should have been involved with the decission whether or not to pass this Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Melanie_ Why do you refer to this as bigotry? It is my Charter Rights to follow the religion of my choice and my religion does not include homosexuals. It is my Right to be reasonably bigoted. It is the homosexual community who disrupted 'the concept of marriage' with unreasonable demands when it was made clear there were other alternatives avilable regarding spousal benefits and other benefits including an alternative to marriage in which gays were never barred initially but simply did not meet the criteria. Now, new questions arise including this topic on homosexual adaption. What will it be next. A restructuring of the entire educational system to include gays and their lifestyle and criteria acceptable to them? I firmly believe two sexual concepts of 'ma and pa' will create many problems as well as create preferences between hetero and same sex parents concerning their children.

newbie "What Right's have been removed." How about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was imposed on Canadians even though this Charter was not ratified by all provinces and even though provincial Rights protected Canadian citizens. This Charter gives the federal governnment the Right to impose Rights at their discretion overiding the Rights of Canadian citizens to participate. You must remember Canada is not a NEW country but yet the Rights that have been decided on unilaterally by the Liberal government especially involving Quebec and SSM is almost the same as rewriting the Constitution and to say Canadians don't deserve to be part of this process is ludicrous , demeaning, insulting and demonstrates an undemocratic government bent on running Canada as a republic. The Right has been humiliated by the Left in the eyes of freedom by a Liberal imposed Charter (Rights and Freedoms) that should be illegal anyways since all provinces did not sign it.

redhead_pt Of course sexuality is an issue. I don't claim it to be an issue concerning a non organized group but when it comes to homosexuality pertaining to an organized group it does become an issue as it pits the 'standard' heterosexuality directtely in conflict with homosexuality and if you fail to see this you will also fail to recognize any problems directly owed to this. The basis of any country falls on the shoulders of heterosexuals except in the case like Canada at the present that has to rely on imported heterosexuals in hopes they will continue the tradition of providing children to provide a stable population growth. Homosexuals always downplay the majority who just happen to be heterosexuals and complain as a disadvantage heterosexuals controlling aspects of society. If you truly want to start your own country consisting of people of your own group go for it as in Canada it is a normal heterosexual community and to deny this would be ludicrous. I consider Mr. Trudeaus's Charter of Rights and Freedoms an attack on democratic advancements in Canada and is nothing more than hyped up legislation to enforce Liberal hippie style ideologies not recognized by the majority of any democratic Canadian. Liberal policies force the poorest of the poor and force Canadians to dig into their savings in order to pay their taxes to support Liberal buisness buddies and their scheming ways to extract money from the public purse.

newbie What do hard times in some other parts of the world have to do with Canada. I think we are all pretty much aware that equality does not rule the planet and all things are not be fair and just in this world. Yes I am complaining and again its called FREE SPEECH and I do think I am 100% justified in saying our freedoms are being removed by a corrupt government bent on installing it's own ideologies without a national referendum other than follow the more democratic pattern installed by the victors of this great land. Until some Canadians wake up and not be duped by the hand of greed will realize that the leadership in this country duplicates a cheap banana republic with the ideolgies of a hippie community with a true rejection of conventional values.

I Miss Trudeau Concerning theocratic rule: Are you suggesting Canada falls under theocratic rule? If you do that's news to me. It seems to me all the Rights pertaining to homosexuality have been created by law rather than evolve from an established society such as the Rights and Freedoms Charter which I personally think destroys established iniatitves created from democratic concerns. I've heard the segregation argument many times and how you can apply this to a sexually diverse group not concerning race beats me. What you do in your private live is your buisness but how can you detirmine if this is detrimental to your neighbour or a group when you consider your actions normal? I to can argue any issue good or bad and may sound credible but the point is do you have a Right to argue your position initially in the face of established society. If this is the case why have laws just legalize everthing -no holds barred since everyone has a Right to self-detirmination. The trouble is a stable society requires standards detirmined by it's population and not by a handful of politicians who try to appease everyone regardless of cost.

I Miss Trudeau My reply was basically concerning the initial question-"Should homosexual couples be allowed to adapt children." To that I suggested no they should not on the grounds their children could or will be subject to any degree of discrimination or harassment along with a host of other problems. The Right to homosexuality covering the legal aspects and later the equality aspect has never been presented to Canadians via a referendum which it should have been since ramafications of homosexual lifestyle could have serious effects or influence normal heterosexual society. Obviously you have a low regard for religion which is your choice just as it is your choice to discard the distinction between right and wrong which of course includes your personal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. This is why this topic cannot be debated and all aspects of homosexuality should be decided by the general population as it directly intrudes on religious believes concerning major religions, tradition, majority morals and the general direction concerning civilized behavior of society which must be controlled to prevent society itself from becoming dysfunctional.

This issue is so off base it's senseless. Homosexuals lay claim to the right of homosexuality but society as a whole does not. It is for this very reason that discrimination will be ineviatable for some or all children of homosexual parents. Homosexuals who shout out bigot at those who reject homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals forget that the key word in bigotry is 'obstinate' which in this case justifies bigotry since the 'adhering to one's chosen course' could be backed up by a major religion, tradition or a combination of both including morals along with good old fashion common sense.

Newbie: I don't have to travel the world to know what other countries are like, I already know. I don't really know what your point is other than try to muzzle FREE SPEECH. The negativity your hearing is all about the government running this country not the country.

Black Dog wrote-" I think the notion of governments defining democracy is decidely,well, undemocratic." Well so do I Black Dog but how do you explain the fact the Liberals have been destroying participation by Canadians to decide for themselves important matters that affect all Canadians and still get voted back into power by the only process left that one can define as democratic relating to federal politics. Our system in Canada by having our interest protected by our elected representatives has been destroyed in favour of Party policy thus overiding Canadian democratic concerns. This IS undemocratic and by what was suggested is democratic reform back to what it should be with more Canadian democratic input by either by way of elected reprsentative or referendums. This would even be made better if the two major countries in North America had the same democratic concerns. Canada is not a new country and Canadians cannot be ignored the way they have been by a totaltarian style Liberal covernment.

China a country noted for human right abuses now is being pursued by equality rights leader Canada as a substitute for U.S. trade. It's obvious Canada still does not know it's place in the world and has obvious disconcern for the fact the U.S. can bring Canada to it's knees any time it chooses employing any one 1001 different methods. Someday Canada will learn (hopefully) the value of a military and the definition of a truly soverign country.

Yaro: The U.S. is applying tariff's whether you like it or not and more to the point 'expert' --what are you going to do about it? For anyone to assert trade is meaningless does not belong on this board. Your not from Quebec --are you? The whole point Yaro is the tariff should be forgotten on Canada's part, NAFTA involves a lot more in trade outside of logs that represent a small percentage of Canada's trade with the U.S.

Hello Kaneda! You appear to place emphasis on 'FREEDOM' yet question the efforts of your own government in Iraq, which I hapeen to agree with and also think Canada should be in there also. There are many concerns involving the Iraq situation and is a complicated one to say the least. Regarding health care I think the main problem in Canada is equipment and procedures are becoming more advanced and in turn place a greater burden on government resources causing problems. The concept is good but I think user fees or a switch over to partial or full privatization is in the future. I think our system could be user abused also. You probably know freedom has a price and how we judge how free we are is in realitive comparison to the freedom that exist in other countries --on that note I think Canada and the U.S. are well ahead in that area. But I agree we have a problem with fascist governments in Canada we are to way far left in my estimation. Maybe our governments should get together and define exactly what democracy is supposed to mean by establishing a common benchmark.

mastercush Who is WE? Freedom comes with a COST and it sure NOT FOUNDED by Quebec. Canada and the U.S. is ONE and don't think for a moment it isn't.

Canada's maple leaf a symbol of Canadian identity-now lost in a mass of individualism and self-righteounsness is the main reason I am LEAFLESS. I agree the political noose has tightened to a degree that will inevetiably leave Canada a broken unregulated, ungovernable little country with no sense of leadership. If our political direction continues in it's given course --collapse will be inevetable.

ceemes: You know as well as I do due to demographics, politics, investor confidence, our high dollar Canadian trade opportunities elsewhere in the world are practically non-existent. Dealing with China could be risky and India only certain unfinished products are appealing. The U.S. has a lot of money invested in Canada and they have created the economy we enjoy to-day. I for one would much rather enjoy present relations with the U.S. than to disturb our traditonal relations with our good friend and neighbour. I hear a lot of anti-U.S. sentiment coming from the media much related to Canadian immigration and Quebec and this line of rational spreads to issue's such as the softwood lumber issue which I think presently is totally out of proportion relating to it's importance. The softwood lumber issue is a minor issue and should be treated as such.

Ceemes: What I do know Ceemes is there is $1.2 Billion dollar per day trade between Canada and the U.S. Canada exports $6-Billion dollars per year worth of lumber to the U.S. OTHER CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS to the U.S. amount to $39.6 Billion per year. I ask you-Have you got the slightest clue what it would cost Canada in an all out trade war and if this Canadian aggression has the potential to cause permanent damage to Canada-U.S. relations?

Canuck E Stan Well, the NAFTA resolution is one thing and the American lumber industry is another thing. The forest land ownership and tenure system is different as private land ownership in Canada is 10% vs. the U.S. at 73% and account for 80-85 % of the U.S. supply of industrial round wood. The lumber industry as far as stumpage could be seen as socialistic since in Canada the stumpage rate is set by government which is to low and does not realisticly reflect a more democratic commercial process as seen in the U.S. All in all I think the federal government should back off on this one but your point is one recognized by some Canadians. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/13/lumber_ruling030813

Prime Minister Paul Martin's stance on softwood lumber in New York scolded U.S. officials over what he called a "breech of faith". I thought this we primarily a Western issue but after a meeting with buisness leaders in Montreal Mr. Martin said " It was saying to the American people this is just not a fight with Canada. What's really happening here is that special interests in in the United States are in conflict with American national interest. I really don't know how right Mr.Martin is all of this this especially when the basic argument revolves around 'stumpage rights on public land'. This means the right to harvest or cut trees on public land as compared to paying for stumpage rights on private land. In Canada 70%-90% of softwood harvest comes from public land.--Nobody ever ask me as a Canadian citizen if it was okay for our federal government to 'GIVE AWAY' stumpage rights to a commercial buisness. I think personally it is foolish to risk American -Canadian relations over such a small amount concerning our total trade with the U.S. I think the U.S. has a legitimate complaint and I think it does amount to subsidizing the Canadian softwood lumber industry. I also think American national interest lie with their own private softwood lumber producers and not Canada's. http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh85.htm Comments.

Communism or collusion-that's all part of Liberalism, is it not? I think the real reason is if Alberta can offer rebates so can the federal government. BTW-There is no shortage of oil just a shortage of REFINERIES and it seems oil companies are in no rush (big profits) to build more. Something for certain appears to be amis though and requires some sort of intervention by government-but don't hold your breath.

Any group of people from the same source attacking countries and killing innocent people can be considered the equivalent of a military and should be dealt with accordingly. Iam certain many German civilians wanted no part of the German killing machine but were implicated regardless. Canada does lack defences and could be in for serious problems but of course always depends on the U.S. for protection which does not say much concerning Canadian integrity.

fellowtraveller, you said "Well no but we are well on the way to making our federation irrevelent." I can agree with that statement but would it not be more accurate to say 'our form of democracy has been made more irrevelent as the freedoms associated with our style of democracy that affect our lifestyles has been modified by government intervention to overide democratic concerns.' This of course destroys democracy as it takes on the characteristics of a republic or a dictatorship.

I read an interesting tidbit by Andrew Cohen praising Mr.Trudeau relating to the controversial Mulroney book by Peter C. Newman. Mr. Cohen praised Mr. Trudeau in the following areas: (1) The 1968 televised debate between Mr. Trudeau and Premier Daniel Johnston concerning special status for Quebec in which Mr. Trudeau argued instead for a broader community, a bigger, bilingual country in which Quebecers would play a leading role. (2) The 1970 October Crisis in which Mr. Trudeau stood up for democracy against the rule of mob and thus killed the FLQ and political terrorism in Canada. (3) How Mr. Trudeau intervened in the Quebec referendum and preserved the country. (4) The 1981 patriation of the BNA Act and the entrenching of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over the oppositon of the premiers. He rejected their community of communities in favour of his political community. (5) In 1987 and 1992 Mr. Trudeau opposed Mr. Mulroney's constitutional reforms and helped defeat it twice and in 1996 unmasked Mr. Bouchard for distorting history and misleading Quebecers. All of this in my opinion DID indeed give Quebec special status over the rest of Canada especially with the implenmentation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In effect what Mr. Trudeau has accomplished is he Trudeaudized Quebec creating a new more powerful Quebec (while ignoring the rest of Canada) which did nothing to curb the separatist movment which still remains a powerful political entity in Quebec. This in turn has produced a negative effect on democracy and is nothing more than a federal transfer of powers that has never been challenged to any form of national referendum. * Excerpts taken from an article in the Ottawa Citizen Thurs. Oct. 4/2005, Pg.A14 entitled Mr. Trudeau's Canada.