betsy

I've heard no government or police spokesman saying they gave him a break. The whole incident is rather confusing. Police don't arbitrarily make arrests with handcuffs and then release without a reason. I just don't know what the reason is. It could be that no crime was committed. If there was no crime committed, you think this guy, the environmentalists, et al wouldn't seize the moment? This guy will be on every talk show.....starting with Mike Duffy! Lol.

wrong post.

Who had the authority to offer him a break? The cops must follow the law unless they were not able to ascertain that any law was actually broken. The Crown can withdraw charges if they don't have enough evidence but I didn't hear that a Crown even looked at the case. I'm not sure he was actually guilty of a crime. I'm not familiar about arrests and charges. I'm speculating though that the government may have decided not to file any criminal charges after all. Perhaps they think losing his job might be enough punishment.

What they're saying is that this was a dig against Dion. But I think Ignatieff could really be against this panic too. He's hitting two in one.

Shouldn't the person determine if a crime has been committed or whether they've been wronged instead? Stealing is a crime. What that guy did was apparently a crime. That's why he got arrested and handcuffed. The only possible reason I see why no formal charges were laid was simply because....he was given a break. From what I heard from the guests of MDuffy Live yesterday, this man was described as a "young man." Anyway, according to MDuffy, some high-profile environmentalists like Suzuki had gotten the tv crew involved (the young guy looking well-groomed before the cameras - in contrast to how he looked like prior to the incident)...and yet, not one of these celebrities wanted to come forward and be interviewed by Mduffy. MDuffy also raises the question about partisanship involving those non-partisan groups who enjoy a tax-free privilege like the environmental groups ...where to draw the line.

No. Why?

Ignatieff. TimPowers, on MDuffy today quoted what Ignatieff had said in a statement. Mike Duffy as surprised and asked Powers if he can give the source. Powers said, "I'd be glad to." I didn't get the name of the media source. After several minutes, Mike Duffy brought out this subject of Ignatieff's statement to some guest journalists one of whom was Gloria Galloway (it was apparent that Duffy was already given the source). That it shows the sentiment about the May-Dion deal. Galloway agreed that it would be a long time before there will be peace among the Liberals. Anybody knows where that statement was made?

They're both stay-at-home moms? Lol.

In fact , havng two moms might mean the kid is better........could that happen? Sure could. I'm not sure if the professor who wrote the review considered this but here's one possible reason why two moms might sometimes be better. When two women decide to have a child, it's usually a well, thought out decision rather than an accident. When a man and woman have a child, often it's unwanted, i.e., an unplanned pregnancy. It's no surprise to anyone that wanted children would have more supportive parents than unwanted children. There's a higher probability of the offspring of a man and a woman having an unwanted child than two woman having an unwanted child. Having said this, I hope the social conservatives on this board don't interpret this as me saying or advocating that two moms are better than a mom and a father. That's not at all what I'm saying. I was an accident. Definitely not planned....especially at their age! But I was never made to feel unwanted. I bet most of us here are actually results of accidents. But you know what, in Canada today, there's no such thing as an "unwanted" kid. They might say it....but push comes to shove, a lot of unplanned babies become well-loved babies. If they don't seriously want a child, they simply terminate it. After all, mom would say..."it's MY BODY!"

Well, is it really a sell-out? That everybody actually paid for their ticket....nothing was given away for free? But of course, we'll never know, would we? Unless somebody spills the beans. Just so happen this journalist who revealed about the Montreal hardship had gotten the scoop from an inside source.

Wasn't the guy arrested at the Environment office not charged? Apparently, he didn't break the law either. Maybe he was given a break? Just a slap on the wrist? I stole your wallet. You report it to the cops. The cops found out it was me who stole it....came and handcuffed me, and took me to the station. In the meantime, you decided not to file any charges. To just let it drop. What I did was still a crime, wasn't it?

Mentioned by a journalist at MDuffy today, the Liberals are having a dinner fundraising in Montreal. They are having a hard time selling the $100 tickets...and some are being given away for free just to ensure a crowd.

It says, "it concludes that his conduct was inappropritae and unethical, and a breach of Senate rules on access to information and privacy." I can't however, find the part that says he broke the law.

A "whistle-blower" is someone who reveals or draw attention to a criminal or highly suspicious activity. It does not include leaking the policy of the government (just because you don't agree to the said policy)....an act which in itself, I think, is against the law.

Does anybody have the link to this 74-page review?

deleted. Wrong post.

Well, the answer is right in that article. And the government is right! What's especially interesting to me here is the odd use of words by this author that points out that in his own view, nothing was really conclusive. "May even be...." is not good enough! I can SUGGEST...and can consider my "conclusion" to be right so...that same-sex parents MAY even be dis-advantageous to children. That's why this study was supposedly commissioned. To eliminate the "MAYBEs".....and to get an authoritative conclusion. This is not about some trivial matter, for crying out loud. This is about our children....the future generation! The use of the words "suggests" and "maybe"....ESPECIALLY the word "maybe".....connotes the author himself does not fully stand by his own conclusion. That he cannot fully back it up with authority if challenged by others in the research field. He is not sure about this. In other words, this study concluded squat! Just another waste of taxpayers money! Just to let you know, there's another thread existing, similar to this one.

Oh! Well somebody ought to advice Margaret and Sophie Trudeau to quit their circus act in Africa and do something about our children here in Canada! After all, isn't Justin gunning for the lead?

So you know a few. I, on the other hand, know a LOT of gays and lesbians throughout the years! I"ve had good friends who are gays! I've two lesbian couples as friends....they were nice to me. Although I must say, both lesbian couples ended splitting up....one involved "wife-battering" so bad cops were involved! But then, let's stick to the real issue here. The issue here is not whether lesbians and gays are nice people. This is about whether being raised in certain relationships has an impact on our children! Society is treading onto something new....and it is only right for society to know how this will have an effect on our children. What, shouldn't we? As a responsible, nurturing society? Heck, before you know it Clifford Olsen will get the the next or future government to commission a study that would conclude that pedophilia may not exactly be bad for the children...that infact, it shows children who gets "initiated" early on sex become great parents! All you need is a pedophilia-leaning government. Lol. We rely on research studies to improve as a society. We need CREDIBLE research studies. We need UN-BIASED research studies! But what happens when so-called research studies show incompetence, lack of credibility, dubiousness of motives...or if it just does half-bake studies and hack jobs? And if it becomes a regular occurence??? Uh....okay. Then it has nothing to do with YOU. Then it's none of YOUR business. It has zero effect on YOUR life. And since this has no effect whatsoever on YOU....and that therefore you consider this a waste of YOUR time....then I agree that you should skedaddle onto the next topic. If you see there's too much "hate" in here....what can I say. It must be hard to be objective I say when one's mind is closed and sees nothing but one side....therefore seeing only what one wishes to see. Obviously you think this is just another I hate Gays/Lesbians issues. But for me, it's an issue about children. Children of our society who would later on become adoloscents, teeners and adults. This is about the future generation of our society. And it is also about the way research studies are being used......to push for agendas. Taxpayers pay for these. If we're going to fund them, we want thorough research studies that can really help and address the situations....not just a fly-by-night quick-results pseudo-research study!

This is actual slander against a university and the professor and students who did this study. Concordia University has as an excellent reputation, especially for conducting sociological studies. What the study entailed was taking the findings of 240 other studies --no small amount-- and compiling the results for overall picture. You misrepresent the truth and accuracy in your zeal to discredit, because apparently you do not like the results. doesn't quite mesh with the Dominionist view of the world eh?!. So sue me. They did no research of their own, merely looking at other studies, try 100, not 240! And costing $25,000, that would pay 6 people one month's salary to read through some papers and come up with a result the Liberals wanted. Yes, us dominionists will take over the worldhahahahahhahahahaha! Give me a break. What I want to know is why we taxpayers had to pay for this cockamamie bull? How many other dubious so-called research studies commissioned by the Liberal government did we pay for??? Not only are we funding this so-called "research study"....but we are also being duped to accept and believe their so-called "conclusion" (now obviously derived from their half-baked efforts), which could be detrimental to our children (regardless of who raise them). This only illustrates why you don't just automatically believe any so-called "research study" funded by a government that specializes in spins, propagandas and corruptions!

Just as I thought. Here is part of the article given in the link. "Question period notes and media lines recently obtained by CanWest News Services, via an Access to Information request, reveal the department distancing itself from the research paper by stating it simply represents the opinions of the study's author "and not those of the department." As well, in notes prepared for question period, it stresses that there has been "very little research in this area" but that "the Government of Canada has a duty to fully support all children and their families." http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...1a1&k=24128&p=1 Furthermore... "Hastings said it is only speculation but he believes that the study was being held back from being published by the Justice Department once Stephen Harper's Conservative government came into power in 2006. The Conservatives upheld their election promise to review the issue of same-sex marriage when a government motion on the question of revisiting the definition of marriage was defeated in the House of Commons in December." http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...1a1&k=24128&p=1 Who cares about HIS SPECULATIONS? I can give you my speculations too! Lol. Oh the baloneys they feed us! He works for the Liberals. He is a pigeon.

Just as I thought. Here is part of the article given in the link. "Question period notes and media lines recently obtained by CanWest News Services, via an Access to Information request, reveal the department distancing itself from the research paper by stating it simply represents the opinions of the study's author "and not those of the department." As well, in notes prepared for question period, it stresses that there has been "very little research in this area" but that "the Government of Canada has a duty to fully support all children and their families." http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...1a1&k=24128&p=1

Can you really reach a credible and accurate CONCLUSION after only 4 years of research? They're selling this lifestyle. And they're just simply trying to blow away any resistance whatsoever. It's propaganda at its best.

...anymore than he appeased Quebec or the Quebecois. Touche'....in a way. Appeasing your countrymen is different from appeasing your enemy. At least, in the mind of a Conservative. Cheers, Norm! I'm taking a break.

Care to explain and support your statement?