Wilber

Culture yes, genetics no. People feel comfortable with those who share their customs and language. Genetics have little to do with it outside of sometimes being used as an excuse to discriminate against someone who looks different.

Absolutely, the advantage is that the new guy (or gal) has no favorites and can look at things in a way that those who have spent their whole careers there are unable to. It's not their fault, it's human nature.

Fair enough but I think it's premature to assume that the best inside candidate would be inferior to someone brought in from the outside. I meant nothing negative about any of the inside candidates. I'm saying that organizations which have spent their whole existence without having to compare themselves to others become inward looking and often resist change for no other reason than "we have always done it that way". Whenever you find that "we have always done it that way" is the only reason you can think of for not changing, it's time to think about changing. An outside influence might be refreshing and a good thing for a department, it's done all the time in police forces outside the RCMP. Bringing in a new chief from the outside is often a good thing for police departments that find them selves floundering somewhat. You have to find the right person so the people doing the hiring better have the best interests of the force at the top of their priority list. My son is a municipal cop in a city that is surrounded by RCMP jurisdictions. He has nothing but good things to say about the RCMP officers he deals with on a daily basis but finds their hierarchy a pain in the ass.

the first thing that comes to mind is "Thank God I am Canadian!" and I want to drink a case of beer. Canadians are at least a full paleontological era ahead of Britain with respect to xenophobia. No doubt, Canadian social engineering and integration and immigration policy may need work but at least Canadians are generally tolerant. I have never been to Britain. However, I wonder if the sentiments that bred Nazism have ever left Europe. Perhaps you should go there and see for yourself before you condem them. Perhaps if 52 people were blown up on the Montreal Metro and you were uncovering other plots to kill innocent people you might think a little differently. Canada is a good place but it is also a work in progress and has a moral superiority complex that may get it into big trouble in the future. I have been to Britain many times and I would not say Canada is ahead of them. We may well be behind them when it comes to the consequences of carrying tolerance too far. London is one of the most cosmopolitan and safest cities in the world. The London Mosque is in Regents Park, an upscale part of town. Paul McCartney has a house nearby as is the US Ambassadors residence. It has large ethnic communities from all over the world and the great majority live together very well. Right now there is only one segment that is a threat to the country's security and the safety of all its citizens, whatever their origin.

I walk my dog on a dike every morning. It is very rare to see a dyke there.

Sometimes outside influence is good. Companies that have always had near complete control over a market segment often come to believe their way of operating is the only way. Crown corporations are a good example. I have been part of a couple of mergers and in both cases the company that made the take over benefited by adopting many of the procedures used by the company they just absorbed. Just because you are the biggest doesn't mean everything you do is superior. There is more than one way to skin a cat and sometimes yours is not the best.

I'm sure if we hear about this after Christmas, we might see him drop the French citizenship. Until then, it is criticism from people who would never vote Liberal anyway. Of course it won't effect the way those who are commited vote. I'm just saying it will stick in some peoples minds an might make them go mini instead of mo when they vote. It's not a plus and if it has an effect, it will be a negative one.

If it does become an issue, I'm sure he would give it up. Who in the Conservative party is going to make it an issue? Or is it going to be a sleazy whisper campaign? If it is an issue with people, it is an issue, if not, it's not. It will be with some but not others. It won't get him any votes but it could and probably will cost him some. How many? Who knows.

Turner was born in England and his parents immigrated, he didn't dabble in separatism in his earlier days or come from a province that is continually holding that axe over the rest of the country. Fair or not it is a political liability for Dion. Who knows if it is a serious one.

How so? One may have a greater loyalty's such as family, friends etc but if one has no loyalty they do not deserve citizenship. How can you in good faith call yourself a citizen of a country if you have no loyalty to that country? One must assume that Dion has some loyalty to France because he keeps his citizenship. Whether that compromises him as head if the Government of Canada is another question. My guess is most would think that is unlikely (me included) but the question will always be there as long as he maintains that citizenship because until it is put to a severe enough test, no one will know for sure.

It's interesting how some countries or regions look for reasons to move closer and others look to move farther apart. The EU being an example of the former and Canada the latter. The EU as a legacy of the two most disastrous wars in history and a desire not to repeat, as well as economics and the Balkans as legacy of centuries of warfare between competing empires and an example of what not to do. California has a population as large as Canada and its economy ranks in the worlds top ten but never a whisper of going on its own. It would seem that some see working together in a common interest is to all their advantage and others have priorities which lie elsewhere.

It's unfortunate that the BQ and the NDP invoked party discipline. If there is anything that tarnishes the result and can be used to make it questionable in any way, this is it.

We'll see in the next set of polls at year's end. We'll see in the next election.

Considering the majority of his party doesn't support the bill, not much. Hard to say but it sure won't hurt his own image and may make him a little more palatable to those who were on the edge. Wishful thinking. Not really, it's an observation. If it does it does , if not, it doesn't.

Considering the majority of his party doesn't support the bill, not much. Hard to say but it sure won't hurt his own image and may make him a little more palatable to those who were on the edge. I don't think this hurt him among those who aren't totaly polarized on this issue.

He finally said he wouldn't re-open it. If this comes up again, I'll remind you of this quote. You won't need to. He'd be a fool to reopen it now that he has got rid of it.

"We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue; we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," Harper said Thursday following the vote. "I don't see reopening this question in the future." Maybe not.

I wonder how much it will expand his base. It's obvious that he is glad to see the last of it which is exactly the way most Canadians feel about it. CBC

Politically it made no sense for Harper to vote against the legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has a history of politically nonsensical behaviour. It makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it for the reason stated in my last post. I believe that persons who commit violence against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I just don't believe they warrant a special law with their name on it and I don't believe it advances their acceptance into mainstream society. What about hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion? Harper favours such legislation. I don't.

I suppose they are but in our system the party leader can boot your ass out of caucus if you don't do as you're told.

No there hasn't. So people who say this case is rested once the vote is done are basically deluded. If the Conservatives get a majority, it will likely be back voted on again. Harper certainly isn't going to say this is the last vote on the subject. Why not?

Politically it made no sense for Harper to vote against the legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has a history of politically nonsensical behaviour. It makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it for the reason stated in my last post. I believe that persons who commit violence against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I just don't believe they warrant a special law with their name on it and I don't believe it advances their acceptance into mainstream society.

It is a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of anyone. Why should homosexuals be singled out? Laws that discriminate according to who they protect from violence are a bad thing.

Deleted

I think hidden agenda means just that. Advocates have been saying that a minority government means they probably won't win this fight but that a Conservative majority means they would. Are they wrong? Has anyone said they're wrong? Does a Conservative majority mean this won't come up again? Advocates can say whatever they want. They aren't the government and don't have to get re-elected. There is nothing hidden about this, it was a campaign promise made in the last election. Why would he be doing this when he has a minority and when it will fail? Why would he just not wait until he had a majority if getting this through was so important to him? Politically it makes no sense. However, lets just say that it does pass, would that guarantee that any future government would not bring it up again? Since when have there ever been any guarantees about what future governments might do?