Concerned

Just in time for my new baby !! Yee hee !! After tax $66 per month !! Doesn't even pay for my nanny's bus pass !!!

I guess now we know why Emerson voted against that particula motion. This is the exact same scenario as went down with Stronach. The difference is, this guy didn't wait until the ink was dry on the ballots. I wonder: will Emerson's move be met by accusations of political opportunism or worse, "political prostitution" from members of his new caucus? No? Uh...why not? If it was a sleazy move for Belinda to pull, its equally sleazy in this case. Kudos to geoffery for consistency. What was that word they used BD ??? Belinda the ..........Whore ????????

We really gotta bring up that thread on Belinda Stronach.

I've stated that I'm not completely anti-abortion, so don't put words in my mouth (I actually said that in this thread). I'll let people make their own choices about how to morally defile themselves. I'm also not in favour of gratuitious murder of our children. Since when does that woman not have the responsibility to either A) not be having sex or B ) use protection. (I blame the guy equally) Most abortions in Canada are because someone got lazy or changed their mind. If condoms are failing at that rate we really need to look at better manufacturing technologies. I'm also not in favour of a doctor removing a childs brain during labour so its delivered stillborn. Why not just shoot the kid at age 1 once your a little short on cash? I'm disgusted at how you support such irresponsibility. Come on people, if your going to have unprotected sex, or going to have kids with some hooligan guy that you've known for a few weeks, you better be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. Action without responsibility. The leftist way. Sorry Geoffrey, you have missed the point. I don't support irresponsibility. I also don't support a right wing government taking away a women's choice while that same government decreases social spending and the programs that (some) women need to be able to raise a child to be a productive element of society.... And while that same government increases incarceration of a population that needs the support of our society to function. As far as I'm concerned, taking away the right to choose while decreasing social programs are two concepts that oppose each other.

So eugenics are our future Concerned? Any child with defects should be terminated? Why even allow parents that could pass on diseases to have children? Shouldn't we just sterilize people and save us money in the long run? When my mother got the pre-screening test, it came back positive that I would have mental and physical problems. The doctor recommended my mother terminate her pregnancy. My family is very Catholic and anti-abortion so my mother made the responsible choice to have me even knowing the risks. It turned out that I am a completely healthy adult, extremely intelligent (99 percentile on two intelligence tests) and I have no mental or physical disabilities at all. Killing your children based on a test that isn't always accurate is a very very dangerous road to follow. I would be dead if my mother subscribed to that point of view. Justify my death please. Regarding Eugenics...if that is what you want to call the triple screen test...but it is not our future, it has been done for a number of years now and as far as I know most women over 30 and almost all women over 35 get it.

So eugenics are our future Concerned? Any child with defects should be terminated? Why even allow parents that could pass on diseases to have children? Shouldn't we just sterilize people and save us money in the long run? When my mother got the pre-screening test, it came back positive that I would have mental and physical problems. The doctor recommended my mother terminate her pregnancy. My family is very Catholic and anti-abortion so my mother made the responsible choice to have me even knowing the risks. It turned out that I am a completely healthy adult, extremely intelligent (99 percentile on two intelligence tests) and I have no mental or physical disabilities at all. Killing your children based on a test that isn't always accurate is a very very dangerous road to follow. I would be dead if my mother subscribed to that point of view. Justify my death please. I think your mother is commendable. Unfortunately we don't all have the ability to deal with the risks as your mother may have. The point I'm trying to make is that the situation is very personal and each individual will have their own set of circumstances surrounding their decision.

Sorry I forgot we to have the ability to kill our children when we can't afford them... these are the reasons that abortion should be prohibited. Selfish greed is a ridiculous goal. There are some real reasons where I think freedom of choice could be acceptable, I'm not an anti-abortion radical. But when women choose to kill their children because they don't want the financial burden, well, that sickens me. I'd love to see the CPC come out with a policy that requires the father's consent for an abortion to occur, as long as the father has the finacial resources to take responsibility for the child (otherwise the ma would get the choice as too many fathers would agree and then poof, be gone). Won't happen though. Responsibility for ones actions is something thats escaped the feminist movement. All right then all you right wing anti-abortionists. How many of you will stay home to take care of that baby, giving up your salary to do it? (please, answer the question). The average Canadian women's salary in this country is somewhere under 20K per year. And suppose that woman already has two children to support. And suppose that woman is single (in which case her income is somewhere under 14K per year), and has one of those tax evading husbands that show as little as possible on the bottom line so as to avoid child support for the two children that she already has? Now how about the baby being diagnosed mentally handicapped. And the risk of autism which cannot be detected prior to birth, this problem is not even supported by government funding or social programs. You are all ok to have women living in poverty and take care of this child under these circumstances, while you go off to work and criticize. I'm not saying at all that I am pro abortion for birth control. I am saying that woman deserve the right to choose and the circumstances, and her doctors advice, will help her with that choice. There are many women out there that would go through with the pregnancy if she had the support of the father, and she does not. As far as the dithering is concerned have you guys thought about that one? The guy that says ah, lets have it, then offers little or no emotional or financial support? If women are dithering, you are so quick to blame the woman !! How about the abusive husband?? She loves him, she wants to have his baby, and suddenly she finds herself pregnant and vulnerable to his violent rages. Men that are violent are often bullies, and the worst of it comes out when the woman is pregnant. Your attitudes represent precisely why women didn't run for the CPC and why Canadian women now do not have adequate representation in parliament. If the Canadian population wants reformed abortion policy and regulation, let's hear about it now, put it on the table, so that we can all cast our votes without speculation at the next election. For the record, I never stated that I was anti-abortion, etc. Abortion should be legal but not after the first month or so. I worked with a woman who had an affair and wanted to keep it a secret. Soon she found she was pregnant (about two weeks after the sexual encounter). She said she was afraid to have an abortion but I encouraged her to have one because I told her that she did not want to get into trouble with her husband. She had one, came back, and told me the baby was like "a drop of water." So before the first month, OK. After that, sticking needles into a baby deliberately born prematurely is vile and sinful and most certainly is murder, regardless of financial circumstances. If you takes you more than a month to decide, put the baby up for adoption... TML, If a woman is over 35 years of age it is recommended that she get something called a triple screen to see if she is at risk for 3 problems that can severely affect a baby's life: Spinal bifida, Trisomy and Down Syndrome. This screen test is done at about 22 weeks. If the test comes in "high risk" the doctor will often recommend amniocentesis. In order to ensure that a healthy baby is not put a risk by the amnio, it is recommended that the woman wait until at least 15 weeks, however the triple screen doesn't normally get done until 22. So then the woman goes for the amnio and has to wait another 2 weeks for results. Then if severe abnormalities are found, the woman could be faced with an abortion decision and by the time she is booked to have the procedure, she is almost 5 months pregnant. Very scary, but those are the medical facts, and this is procedure for pregnant women over 35, which as we know, is growing to be a very high ratio of women today. Doing things any earlier in the pregnancy causes undue risk to a healthy fetus. I have never had an abortion and would never wish it upon anybody, but having just been through this (healthy baby due in March)...I know the emotional trauma that it can cause a woman. However many of us are not fit to bring up a child who is severely handicapped, I being one of them, would have been forced with a very difficult decision. The example of your friend is only one. There are so many cases of why abortion should or could have to be performed and to me the decision has got to be left to the individuals who are directly responsible for that child's life. Education, information and guidance, as well as community support are all requirements of supporting a women to "choose-life"...and unfortunately with governments downsizing and programs being slashed and underfunded, this is not going to happen in a way that could possibly support all women under every circumstance.....(oh, and did I mention that 100 bucks per month daycare won't help either ?????)

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society. Well by the same token, abortion and euthanasia are institutionalised killing. Then again, you could be against those as well... I'm not completely pro-capital punishment, but what is happening now obviously isn't working and is too lax. Ok, here we go with our anti-abortionist pro-incarcerationist theory. So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ??? Somehow I don't get you guys.

TML12: Concerned, I think you make a lot of good points. Rehabilitation has always been a key to achieving a healthy criminal justice system. Although a conservative, I don't believe in simply executing every criminal or person who is convicted of a crime. Rehabiliating a criminal should always be the first part of every civilized society. Community service should play a part, as should stricter penalties, in dealing with violent criminals. Ha TML, I how is it I almost fall off my chair everytime we agree with something. I do think though that rehabilitation is not going far enough. I think the route of the problem is often at the family level and particularly in families of low incomes, more support and community assistance is needed to keep the kids and youths on track. Education is paramount and we need to make sure these kids are in healthy family environments so they stay on school and become productive members of society. Particularly with new immigrant groups, I think many of them are struggling financially and the kids turn to the gangs for the support they are not getting at home. Two working parents who do not speak english, and makes for a family that can have trouble integrating into Canadian society. These are all problems that we see at the root level of crime and I hope that any stricter enforcement of crime in our country (which I support), is coupled with programs that can help people stay out of jail in the first place.

Sorry I forgot we to have the ability to kill our children when we can't afford them... these are the reasons that abortion should be prohibited. Selfish greed is a ridiculous goal. There are some real reasons where I think freedom of choice could be acceptable, I'm not an anti-abortion radical. But when women choose to kill their children because they don't want the financial burden, well, that sickens me. I'd love to see the CPC come out with a policy that requires the father's consent for an abortion to occur, as long as the father has the finacial resources to take responsibility for the child (otherwise the ma would get the choice as too many fathers would agree and then poof, be gone). Won't happen though. Responsibility for ones actions is something thats escaped the feminist movement. All right then all you right wing anti-abortionists. How many of you will stay home to take care of that baby, giving up your salary to do it? (please, answer the question). The average Canadian women's salary in this country is somewhere under 20K per year. And suppose that woman already has two children to support. And suppose that woman is single (in which case her income is somewhere under 14K per year), and has one of those tax evading husbands that show as little as possible on the bottom line so as to avoid child support for the two children that she already has? Now how about the baby being diagnosed mentally handicapped. And the risk of autism which cannot be detected prior to birth, this problem is not even supported by government funding or social programs. You are all ok to have women living in poverty and take care of this child under these circumstances, while you go off to work and criticize. I'm not saying at all that I am pro abortion for birth control. I am saying that woman deserve the right to choose and the circumstances, and her doctors advice, will help her with that choice. There are many women out there that would go through with the pregnancy if she had the support of the father, and she does not. As far as the dithering is concerned have you guys thought about that one? The guy that says ah, lets have it, then offers little or no emotional or financial support? If women are dithering, you are so quick to blame the woman !! How about the abusive husband?? She loves him, she wants to have his baby, and suddenly she finds herself pregnant and vulnerable to his violent rages. Men that are violent are often bullies, and the worst of it comes out when the woman is pregnant. Your attitudes represent precisely why women didn't run for the CPC and why Canadian women now do not have adequate representation in parliament. If the Canadian population wants reformed abortion policy and regulation, let's hear about it now, put it on the table, so that we can all cast our votes without speculation at the next election.

Ha ha TML - you do crack me up. Honestly you must have perverse group of acquaintences from which you are deriving these so called opinions. It kills me when one Canadian can quote the "average Canadian", "most Canadians" or "too many Canadians". I don't doubt that there are Canadians who say that too many Americans are bible thumping rednecks, however I don't think you can quote the averages until you run a statistically adequate survey. The trouble is there are too many LOUD MOUTHED bible thumping rednecks out there, and they tend to get the attention of the media, and the average Canadian. Disagreeing with opinions of the far right does not make the average Canadian Anti-American.

August, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't the pre-invasion plan include the guarding of Al Qa Qaa, a huge munitions dump. After all, wasn't most of Iraq's oil refineries heavily protected? And why no guarding of the certain borders, say like Syria, just in case those peskly WMD's might wander awry? August, if Saddam was such a threat (as the Bush administration positioned itself politically at home...to gain the support of the American people...I see you got royally sucked in)...then why is it there was so much controversy over the facts surrounding ownership of weapons of mass destruction...this was precisely the theory that Cheny and Bush ran with to arouse support for the so called, one sided war.....and none were ever found ??? The American administration also claimed Saddam had links to Al Quaeda and Bin Laden, wasn't that convenient to raise the fears surrounding 9/11 and support for the war ?? There was never any evidence found of these links either. Precisely why the UN did not support the American Invasion of Iraq....what did the UN know that the American people (and you )...did not ??

The only reason the argument of deterrence doesn't carry weight is because the penalties have become an absolute joke. I repeat, a punishment for a violent crime that is so severe that people would not consider committing the crime would work. Jails should not work on a revolving door. If you commit a violent/sex crime we'll throw you in and lose the key for no less than ten years. If at that point you've been rehabilitated in the opinion of the parole board, then you may leave. If not every two years after, you'll be re-evaluated up until the end of the twenty years. If you kill another prisoner or are involved in a violent crime while in jail you never get parole. If we don't get serious with these people they'll just keep laughing at the criminal justice system. I do believe that deterence in the country is not sufficient, an is no longer carrying weight, however compassion is required for a humane justice system. Not to the point however that the rights of the criminal are often above the rights of the victom and future victoms. To improve our society we must study our criminals and what caused their behaviour, and try to get to the bottom of it through social programs that can keep the crime off the streets in the first place. Many of these types of social programs have been wiped out, including adequate social programs for children living in disturbed home care situations. It all starts with our children, and so many of them live under poverty and abuse (example 5 year old Jeffrey Baldwin died at the hands of a previous child molestor who managed to win custody of 4 children). Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy create kids that cannot function properly in our society. As a mother, I think that is a greater crime than throwing a brick at a bride to be. Rehabilitation for youths of non-violent crime should also be a high priority, to keep them from stepping to that next level of violence. Perhaps stricter penalties towards violent criminals today should be coupled with some kind of community service work: make these criminals work for their food, shelter, instead of being supplied by the public. The money saved from having to jail, house, feed, medicate, police and otherwise take care of criminals in city jails could be put towards better social programs for children, youths, and non-violent criminals, and towards the study of violent crime to help prevent it in the first place.

Privatized networks naturally favour right wing views because they are answerable to their sponsors and are primarily profit based. A publicly funded network balances this bias by allowing for views that are not effected by privatized sponsorship. In Canada we enjoy both and therefore enjoy a rounded set of opinions on any particular issue. To point out the "crap" on public networks without also pointing out the "crap" on private networks is to promote an irrelevant argument. What of the social cost that the public pays always having to be bombarded by advertisements through any form of media? As far as I am concerned private media means that I have to watch and listen to content that I do not want to see or hear, as it is embedded in the programming and cannot easily be switched off.

Harper really needs to be honest about his views on abortion so that Canadians can quit the guess work and speculation. Too many women are turned off by the Conservatives because he refuses to come out and state his opinion on the matter. If the following is true: "A 2004 Environics poll showed that more than two-thirds of the population wants greater restrictions on abortion" ... as the poll suggests.... what are those restrictions and certainly women do not want to have their choices taken away completely? Particularly city dwelling women who have to work to support the high price of real estate and no $100 per month daycare solution is going to help that one. We females need more female representation in government and if the CPC's want to earn more seats in the city come next election, he must confront this issue.

Here are the quotes I extracted from the other string (purposely did not show authors to reduce personal bias') ".....Any regime that takes more in taxes from a family than they pay for food, shelter, clothing and transportation combined is definitely a socialist regime… Considering half our income is paid to taxation every year, we know they take an amount nearly equal to it. Tax Freedom Day in 2005 was June 25th. That means we worked 6 months minus 5 days just to pay our tax bill. That's assuming all our income went to paying taxes. And considering that people buy extras that they don't need and are not on the list provided above I'd say its a pretty safe bet that we are taxed more than we pay on those items…" "…..Truth about "Tax Freedom Day" "...The institute is clearly trying to incite Canadians to anger, to encourage them to join with members of the financial elite in a kind of collective tax rage. With their taxes, Canadian citizens buy their most valued goods and services: high-quality public schools, world-class universities, excellent medical services, public parks and libraries, safe streets, and livable cities,'' concluded Brooks, a taxation specialist at Osgoode. "Even if it were useful to inform Canadians how many days they had to work in order to earn enough to pay their taxes, the information the Fraser Institute presents about the tax system is flawed, misleading, seriously distorts public knowledge, and hinders rational debate about the tax system." "…..I saw a copy of the Citizen today that lamented how Tax Freedom Day is a day later than it was last year. I hate the concept of Tax Freedom Day. It's a great little headline, but it really misconstrues what taxes are about (i.e. paying for stuff we use). The Fraser Institute, which is the group that puts this out every year, says that you shouldn't consider what you get for taxes because that's not what the study is about. But the problem is that if you read the study, it's all about how we pay to much tax and how before June 28, you're "working for the government". Now tell me, what do you think they're trying to say? But let's look at the figure. According to their numbers, the average tax bill per family is $31,652. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a family of four would spend $15,356 worth of services for Health Care. A study by the Government of Alberta pegs the average cost of education for two students at $13,668 per year. If you drive (which most do), you need to pay your share of road maintenance. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities tack on another $800. That leaves $1,828 of taxes, which would mean that Tax Freedom Day would fall on January 10, or just about the time I get over my New Year's hangover. Of course, that's ignoring little things like national defence, policing, garbage collection, and other services we couldn't live without " "……Not only is the whole concept misleading but the Fraser Institute (a biased "think tank" funded by corporate-welfare) fakes the numbers…. Pardon me for not being outraged about "Tax Freedom Day". It's a hoax " "…There is no 'faking' the numbers. $15,000 a year in health care is ridiculous considering I can get private care in the states for about $500 a month ($6000/year) for a family including EVERYTHING, not just what the government decides to cover that month. So lets cut that. Education costing that much is another scary thought. Private schools cost just a little higher than that in my area. Cut that. So we can get higher quality, more efficient services by paying less? Someone want to tell me why this is so hard for Canadians to understand and persue?" " ….I wouldn't be outraged if we got $15,356 worth of health care each year. But watching my mother wait 12 weeks past when her doctor recommended she start chemo for a spot at the cancer clinic to open up, and as a direct result see her cancer spread further requiring further surgery. That's not fifteen thousand dollars of health care. I wouldn't be outraged if every time I took my kids to the hospital for care that I missed a day of work because waiting times are that long. It would be nice to be able to just go to the doctor, but waiting 3-5 weeks to see a doctor in the office just doesn't cut it. And now we're starting to get user fees on top of that fifteen thousand. We're paying to be neglected until our health really gets bad at which time they'll get to us before we die if we're really lucky. My mother was lucky, but not my mother in law. We got to see her neglected and doctors took so long it got to the point where she could no longer be helped and we got to watch her wither away and die before our eyes. We pay for much better health care than that. For fifteen thousand a year I can buy better health insurance is the US than that and go to hospitals that guarantee that I am treated as quickly as my doctor recommends. Not as fast as a finite budget allows" " … I agree. It's not what we spend on health care, it's what we get for our money compared to other countries. We rate as one of the biggest per capita spenders but are well down the list when it comes to delivery. And that is not according to the Fraser Institute "

I have extracted specific arguments regarding taxation from a string of posts on “Canada’s wealthiest province rejects the left”… which has been convoluted by many issues…and pasted them in this new string for ease of reference. I agree with Hicksey, QUOTE: “Hicksey: We need some sort of transparency bill where our government is responsible to report to us how much of the allotted money in their budgets actually made it to the intended purpose, how much was lost to bureaucracy, the resulting efficiency of the funding, how well it stands up against set targets for efficiency, and what their target and plan for hitting their target for the next year is…. The amount of taxation in this country compared to what we get for it is an absolute abomination. We need someone to really stand up for Canada and start standing up for Canadians' interests. This is not a partisan comment because I used the conservative slogan. We all benefit from such accountability. It's really irrelevant who delivers it, but so badly needed….” The problem with arguments presented by left vs. right, is that left rarely uses numbers to express their arguments for funding of various government programs, the right at least attempts to. The left too often relies on rhetoric. “According to the World Health Organization, Canada’s health care ranks 30th in the world, with the US ranking 38th”… yet Canada is number one amongst those industrialized countries that have universal access, publicly-funded health care—in total age-adjusted spending”…(An International Comparison of Health Care Systems, Fraser Institute 2005) At least health care is something that can be compared globally…some of our other social programs also can. Our governments should use global comparisons to create benchmarks for efficiencies. But there are SO MANY programs that cannot be compared globally and are hidden away in taxes in our system, which allows for inefficiency of government, and unfair taxation laws. Here is a simple example happening in BC this year. The government is planning to twin the Port Mann Bridge costing taxpayers millions of dollars, a long overdue investment to try to provide a solution to the problem of commuting from the Fraser Valley to the city, which has existed now for decades. The question of paying for this bridge by using a tolling system or a gas tax is currently at issue. What I like about the tolling system is that it can be accounted for…a gas tax is simply another hidden tax, and unfair to certain groups of taxpayers. Take those who live in the city. My home is a modest one on a small lot in central urban area. In order to live close to work I pay a huge tax, by way of the capital I have to invest in my home…valued now at over $600k. I often imagine moving out to the valley, where I grew up, to live in a large beautiful house on a sizeable lot, for roughly half the price. Instead I choose a huge mortgage and save on the commute. Those who live in the valley already enjoy the lower price of real estate, and a higher standard of household living. Why should I pay to ease their commute through a gas tax? As far as I’m concerned they already have the benefit of the better living, they can pay for the bridge expense through a toll. So many of our taxes are hidden and allow the government room for inefficiency, and unfair taxes to taxpayers who do not derive the benefit. I believe that having a cost accountability system would increase the benefits of social programs, and additionally reduce the inequities between taxpayers.

The RCMP has admitted that they do have jurisdiction in Canada on this case as the conspiracy occurred on Canadian soil. There shouldn’t be any problem getting the government of India to cooperate as Indian authorities have already tried the criminals that were evidently hired by Jassi’s mom and uncle to kill her. They have been tried and sent to jail. In fact evidence pointed out at the trial pointed to the uncle as having hired the criminals, but of course the uncle resides in Canada. There is ample evidence of the links between the uncle, mom and the killers abroad, which the Fifth Estate pointed out: 1. Canadian telephone bills between the conspirators with numerous calls to the killers right up to the day of the murder ...and 2. the family sent no one for Jassi’s body. According to Fifth Estate, strangers buried her in India, without her own family’s representation from Canada and 3. Jassi had numerous discussions with her friends about fears of her uncle. 4. Finally, do you think the fact that Jassi was trying to escape an arranged marriage to this same uncle might have had something to do with it? The parents were trying to arrange a marriage between rich uncle (in his 60’s), and dear daughter (in her 20’s). It’s really too bad there isn’t a law to protect Indian women against that one. I believe Argus is right and that the case has been ignored by the RCMP for political reasons, because the accused uncle is a powerful man in the Sikh community. But isn’t this exactly the type of thing that creates misunderstandings between cultures, and the fear and accusations that are evident on postings by Leafless and others under “minorities and polling stations”. When minorities are not able to follow the laws in Canada and use their “culture” to hide behind, sorry, no excuses. Canadian law is Canadian law. August: “And BTW, the purpose of the Charter of Rights is to protect us against the actions of our own governments”…apologies for my lack of in-depth knowledge of the law, but do we not have the right to be protected by our government under this act? Perhaps you know the appropriate act that would apply to this case? So then all you conservative supporters, what can be done to contact your MP’s to pressure the RCMP to take some action? As Melanie has pointed out there are others like it and there will continue to be until someone is found responsible and until Canadian law is upheld.

Tonight I watched the story on the Fifth Estate about Jassi Sidhu, and remembered the stories of her murder 5 years ago. I was distraught to learn that the RCMP have not aggressively investigated this case and have no answers for the public as to what became of the allegations that her family arranged and paid for her murder in India. Jassi was a Canadian citizen, a woman whose rights should have been protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian women deserve protection of these rights regardless of their heritage. Canadian women deserve justice when these rights are violated. The Fifth Estate pointed out very strong ties between Jassi's murderers and her family here in Maple Ridge and there is ample evidence to have put this investigation on the RCMP Priority list. 5 years have gone by and the RCMP has no answers for the public, even as to the nature of the investigation. As a Canadian woman I find this completely unacceptable. Throughout the world women have precious few rights that we enjoy here in Canada. Canada should be strong advocate of women's rights internationally. Leaving Jassi's death uninvestigated when the accused conspirators are her family right here in British Columbia is not setting any kind of example for women's rights internationally. Are ethnic women here in Canada gaining a sense that they have any protection under Canadian law from threats of violence by their own family or cultural members? How many Indian families can hold their own daughters hostage and under threat of death or violence should they not obey family orders on arranged marriages? Women in Canada have the right to choose their husbands and should not be treated as slaves of their own families. Canadian laws apply to everybody. Not just those who were born here under European heritage. With no justice on this case, how many women can travel freely outside of Canada without the fear of being hunted down and murdered by conspirators here in Canada? This case goes far outside cultural boundaries and has great meaning to every Canadian woman. Suppose husbands start arranging for murders of their wives when their wives travel abroad? 549 women in the US were conveniently murdered at the hands of their husbands in 2004. How many in Canada? This case shows anybody plotting or planning the murder of a women the convenient way to do it, and get away with it. If you care about this case, lobby the government to put pressure on the RCMP to step up an appropriate investigation against Jassi's family, for their involvement of her death. All Canadian women deserve to learn that justice has prevailed on this case.

Leafless, you are imagining all kinds of boogeymen on the streets of Canada, and then generalizing your paranoia to anyone you see who doesn't look like you. Your original post that started this thread was about going to a polling station and seeing people you knew nothing about, noticing that they had a different skin tone than you, and assuming they were in cahoots with every other dark skinned person to take over the country. You can't see that there is inherent racism in that. I'm not denying that there is crime in our streets, and a disproportionate amount of it is committed by minorities. That doesn't make all minorities responsible for the crimes, any more than you are responsible for the crimes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, just because they were white. I agree with Melanie here.....Mel, do you think that part of the problem is with our immigration system? It is unfortunate for all minorities when a few bad apples give people like Leafless amunition for racist comments. But it's unfortunate that criminals be allowed to enter this country at all, and/or that deportation is not abrupt when new immigrants contribute to crime, gangs etc. I think the problem may lie with an immigration/ court system that allows criminals to stay in the country. Criminals support criminals after all and if we weeded them out from the start, I think there would be far fewer of them around. What is sad is that so called "native Canadians" (now there's a good one coming from a caucasion male)...can dwell on the few problems we actually have in this country relating to gangs etc. and who do not embrace cultural diversity and its benefits to Canadian society. Concerned, Well the sky may have fallen, because I actually back you 100% on this one ( ). Phew

Leafless said, "before 1982 the two countries had "wonderful relations." Nixon wasn't president after 1974. Johnson thought Pearson was queer and distrusted him. Exactly, wariness between federal leaders does not imply relations are tense between the people. And disagreements over policy do not imply that there is racist or anti-American sentiment. There are a few nutcases out there on both sides of the border. If you watch FoxNews, they're mostly over there. But just because Fox or Tucker Carlson or Anne Coulter decide to go on anti-Canadian rants doesn't mean they're ideas are popular, just as anti-Americanism is by no means popular here (at least where I come from). The relations between the people of our two countries are as strong as ever, and to imply they aren't for political purposes (basically just to smear the Liberals) does that relationship no good at all. Bubber: You are so right here....to talk critically about American foreign policy has nothing to do with hatred or relations with its people. I do not hate Americans and I do not consider myself anti-American. Do I think very critically about American foreign policy ?? Absolutely. Do I think American's are mislead by their leaders through fear based politicking and a money and power driven media ? Yup. Do I think that both Canadians and Americans should openly discuss and criticise for the sake of democracy...ok, yes. TML12: you would better gain respect for your opinions if you quit shoving them off onto others and bashing others for having a different opinion than your own. Why don't you just state your opinion and we will read it and learn from it. If you are so defensive that you have to launch an offensive than what does that say about your confidence in your own opinion ??

"anti-Americanism" has to be put in context. America's supreme expertise is promotion which includes hype, mis-representation and sheer fantasy. Anyone who tries to inject any reality is immediately labelled as Anti-American when all that they are displaying is healthy scepticism rather than blind Groupthink. You then must put the criticism in context. When I drive down to Plattsburgh and I am in some bar or diner and I criticize Bush policy, the most likely response I'll get from an American liberal is agreement and from an American conservative is a political debate. Not once has anyone in the States ever called me "anti-American" or denied my right or some American liberal's right to criticize Bush policy. I think most Canadians, especially on the left, are reported exaggerated events in the states by a heavily left-leading MSM. I think you should keep your views as your own and I don't think you should be making comments about what "most Canadians" think. It's fine to express your opinions, but don't be so vane as to think that most Canadians share them.

"anti-Americanism" has to be put in context. America's supreme expertise is promotion which includes hype, mis-representation and sheer fantasy. Anyone who tries to inject any reality is immediately labelled as Anti-American when all that they are displaying is healthy scepticism rather than blind Groupthink. Thanks Flashman

Perhaps the following will aid your determination to find out the truth. Two Interesting Pre-911 statements "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nation will accept the New World Order." -- David Rockefeller, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase bank) "The process of transformation.. is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." -- PNAC (Neo-con Project for a New American Century) document sigh...The history channel had a show on specifically 9-11 and how and what caused the buildings to fall, including detail schematics on how they were built to drop down instead of tiping over. Theres no conspiracy as to how the buildings fell. No bombs planted in the building. I saw the footage as it happend, its clear that two planes hit the buildings. Now if the Arabs who were flying the ariplanes were hired by the CIA or NSA to commit suicide then by all means have your conspiracy theory. Even if you do not want to ask it, what if the CIA had knowledge of the event but did nothing about it. If you do not want to at least explore the possibility, we are done here. I am willing to explore other avenues, I know some roads I have taken will lead to dead ends. But this should not stop me from asking more questions. At first I was looking at suspicious things about the towers falling. Then I disregarded it for it does nothing to support the case I want to make. What brought the WTC buildings down is really irelevant at this point. The question you need to as is why they were brought down. They were brought down for meddling in islamic extremist affairs, from Iraq to Libya to Malayasia the US has stuck its nose in the business of Fudemental Islamic terrorist groups, and they struck back. And the catastrophe was convenient, I do believe they (the US Administration) were looking for one. I'm not sure they were calculating that it would happen on their own soil.

Thank you, very well said: "THEY" agree.