CCGirl

You may not like the source, I was using it to show that the Alberta secrecy is a well known phenomenum.

More than a game for me too, Betsy. As a parent I take the issue very seriously, I assure you, and also as someone who has friends and relatives who are gay. You and the bigots you quote to back up your misperceptions would deny equal rights to some of the finest people I know on the basis of lies, distortions and guilt by false associations. This "gay=pedophile" argument is nothing but character assassination, and you're doing it to people you've never even met; people whomI know to be honourable, moral decent people. I take that very seriously. Here-here!

Why do people think marriage = religion? This is about equal rights. That is all. Noone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

Yes it does.

Try telling the Scandanavian countries that Socialism doesn't work! Anyway, Klein is a total idiot dipshit moron. We do not have democracy in Alberta and NO ACCOUNTABILITY. The Liberal ADSCAM was NOTHING compared to what happens in Alberta! Klein balanced the budget on the backs of the poor, disabled and marginalized people of society, which is easy enough to do when those people do not have a voice. The PC's have redrawn the electoral boundries heavily weighted to the rural areas, who tend to vote PC. To link Alberta's success with competence from the govt is a ridiculous and shallow understanding of provincial politics. The largest ex-patriot community from the USA lives in Calgary. Greed is Alberta. Parkland Institute November 7, 2005 by Ricardo Acuña "They seem to get away with this kind of thing in Ontario and to some degree in Quebec." Premier Ralph Klein would like to believe that something like the federal sponsorship scandal could never happen in Alberta. The reality is that corruption of this nature could just as likely be going on in Alberta right now. Albertans, however, would have no way of knowing as the province lacks the necessary mechanisms to guarantee accountability and transparency -- whistleblower protection, access to information, and a lobbyist registry to name just a few. In this context, red flags that call into question the integrity of government decisions can be suppressed. Just last spring, the Canadian Association of Journalists awarded the Klein government their annual "Code of Silence" award, recognizing the most secretive government body in Canada. According to the CAJ's press release, Alberta beat out a number of finalists for the award, including the federal Liberal government. Had the sponsorship scandal occurred in Alberta, it is likely it would never have come to light. Alberta has no legislation in place to protect whistleblowers like Allan Cutler, who was the first to raise a red flag about activities in the sponsorship program. This despite numerous attempts by the opposition, a report by the Parkland Institute outlining the numerous paths Alberta could follow with such legislation, and the government's own admission that whistleblower legislation would be useful in identifying potential corruption. The provincial government has also repeatedly refused to establish a registry for lobbyists in the province.

Again YankAbroad....back up your claim! Remember, personal opinions don't count. So far, I have been backing up all my claims with links and substantiations. Whether where my source came from is not the issue. The fact is that they are there, openly available to the public so anyone can, including ILGA, can freely dispute them. Now, you say they are not true. So prove it. Why should I even consider taking your word for it especially when you've already proved yourself quite wrong when you deny the link between NAMBLA and ILGA. You say: "I think it's safe to say that this "debate" is pretty much over, and it's not betsy and co. who have won! " Funny that I never thought of this in terms of whether "I win or I lose" debate. Although we are debating on this particular thing....I'm sure that you'll agree with me that in the end, this is about the welfare of children and the legitimate concern of some, or if not all parents. Child crimes are the most horrible nightmares any parents can think of. Sorry, but this issue is more than just a silly little game for me. This is beyond outrageous! :angry: Has anyone here gone to university? Learned how to research and what constitutes a reliable source? Same standards here. Provide legitimate sources only please. Otherwise your claims have no merit. CHRISTIAN WEBSITES ARE NOT A SOURCE. TO PROVE A POINT, YOU MUST COME TO THE TABLE WITH FACTS. IT DOESN'T WORK WELL WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOURCES TO BACK UP UNREASONABLE CLAIMS OR MAKE LINKS WHERE THERE ARE NONE. Whew! Paedophilia and homosexuality are 2 SEPARATE things. Paedophilia: Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls or boys. That is it. Gender is not very important, they are attracted to children. Period. Homosexual: Sexual attraction to the same sex. That is it. Has nothing to do with children.

Wrong. Once you get to the point of hopelessness to kill yourself, you are convinced your death will be a relief from all the pain and suffering, whether mental or physical. Suicide is not selfish if you are the one dying. What right do we have to force people to live with pain? :angry: This needs to be debated and we need to enact legislation so there are safeguards in place. I don't think you are a fool. But then, what's my own humble opinion against thousands of others? Unless you have "been there" yourself, you will not understand why these things happen.

This fellow has more than a few screws loose. CBC News U.S. right-wing strategist says Canadians are "so liberal and hedonistic" that Stephen Harper can't hope to change their philosophy of "cultural Marxism" right away. Given time, however, the Conservative prime minister-designate may straighten them out, Paul Weyrich writes. Weyrich, a Washington fixture since the 1970s, runs a conservative think tank called the Free Congress Foundation. His contribution to the Harper election effort was to distribute an e-mail last week urging fellow U.S. right-wingers not to talk to Canadian reporters. "Canadian voters have been led to believe that American conservatives are scary and if the Conservative party can be linked with us, they can perhaps diminish a Conservative victory," he warned. He turns his attention to Canada again this week in an article posted on the foundation's website. He says he talked to two Canadian Conservatives after the election – one optimistic and one pessimistic about Harper's chances of changing Canada. The pessimistic view was that Harper, lacking a parliamentary majority, can do little to make Canadians "adopt a more reasonable view of the United States" and abandon Marxist principles "such as same-sex marriage and abortion on demand," Weyrich says. He does not say how these things are linked in his mind to Marxism, a doctrine better known for concepts of class warfare. But he suggests that Harper has a few cards up his sleeve. "Harper is pleased that the media and many in his own party are nay-saying," he writes. "Harper thinks that such pessimism would lower expectations and give him additional latitude to accomplish his agenda. "Harper's game plan apparently is to pit the federalist Liberals against the Bloc Québécois and the decentralizing Bloc against big-government Liberals. "Canadian media understands that Stephen Harper greatly would expand defence spending. He does not like the Kyoto Treaty. Paul Martin, the incumbent whom Harper ousted, ran an anti-United States campaign. It worked for Martin last year. This year it did not. More importantly, Harper favours participating in the United States missile defence program. Martin opposed such participation. "It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian prime minister has more power than a United States president. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.) The prime minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the courts of appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur. 'The prime minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the courts of appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur' "Harper's partisans believe he could maintain power for four years, during which time Conservatives hopefully would witness many vacancies created by Liberals leaving the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada currently is dominated by Liberals. "As has been the case in the United States, cultural Marxism largely has been foisted upon Canada by the courts. If judges who respect the Constitution were to be appointed they would confirm that such rights are not to be found in that document. Sound familiar?"

I agree 100%. That is why we need a system that ensures that people are not emotionally blackmailed into killing themselves by ungrateful children. This can be done by providing counciling and getting the opinion of a least two doctors and probably by requiring the person involved to make a personal appeal before a judge. What I don't agree with is an outright ban on assisted suicide. I don't know, why can't they do it themself? If someone can't pull their own trigger, I really have a reasonable doubt to believe they don't know what they are doing. We are in agreement over our concerns with exploiting this. This fellow had MS, other people have Lou Gehrig's disease where their mind is fully functioning yet your body has deteriorated to the point here you become incapacitated. If you can't move....well it would be hard to kill yourself. EDIT: Putting this woman in prison is not the answer. The judge did the right thing!

Wrong. Once you get to the point of hopelessness to kill yourself, you are convinced your death will be a relief from all the pain and suffering, whether mental or physical. Suicide is not selfish if you are the one dying. What right do we have to force people to live with pain? :angry: This needs to be debated and we need to enact legislation so there are safeguards in place.

I am not so much posting this to reply as much as to ridicule, I mean only MB could come up with something this asinine and state it with such conviction. MB is pretty much the one guy here that can take an argument that he has absolutely no footing in and just reach around and pull this out of his ass. Oh and just so you know MB, stop scratching yourself because every time you do you destroy the exact same cells that make up a fetus. You also better stop masturbating, or having proactive sex every day at least because if you don't your murdering your valuable swimmers. Amen!

2 I believe...the Liberal leadership campaign was in 1990, Martin got elected in 1988. I was a delegate!!!

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?" Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it. If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive. I understand and agree, however the USA does not have a great record of honouring agreemnts when they don't get their way and that must be kept in mind while at the table. This can not be ignored, and it weakens our position considerably when you live next door to the bully that could roll over and crush us if we assert our sovereignty.

Money keeps flowing to the system. My doctor thinks it's a human resources problem. To be honest with you, I think she's probably right but politicians and bureacrats just don't seem to care. UK-style health care is really something we should look into at this point...health care, like bilingualism, is turning into another myth of Canada. I do not want a few individuals to profit off taxpayer money. It should all go into the collective pot to build a strong sytem where all Canadians can benefit. I agree changes need to be made, but the changes need to be in support of strengthening the system, not dismantling it.

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA. All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

:angry: I detest Klein, talk about coruption and a need for change. If there was a will by politicians, the system could definately be saved and improved. It does not make any sense to pay private clinics with taxpayer money!! Take that same money and invest it in the system. Then we all can benefit!

I'm really tired. And yup....I am happy with minority governments!

Nope. That is not debate. YOU need to provide credible evidence for your claims, which are then refuted by the other "side" by providing supporting evidence for their argument. We are anxiously awaiting for credible resources to be supplied! Opinions do not count

I strongly disagree. Canada, like the USA, is not a true democracy. It is unacceptable to allow the majority a vote when it comes to ANY social issues. As we have seen in previous votes, self interest can win out over what is beneficial for society as a whole. This is way too authoritarian. No way. :angry:

sorry to be pious Wilber, why shouldn't anyone speak against the American foreign policy. It's easy to see that it shows no concern for vast numbers of non-Americans, even as it props up its allies like us. Oh, thank you America! Like a big brother whose in a gang and brings home Adidas and Gameboys for everyone, what a farce!! From an international law perspective they are criminals. There's no benefit, no freedom, that comes from this. People I know who've come back from developing countries, where they've gone to help, they say - these people are happier than us. Look, domestically we've got some great institutions and civil society, but there's a big black hole - why are we discussing it this at all? - what culture has to defend it's evils by chanting its mantra of its own superior freedoms. You think this is pious? I thought one might be able to argue how complicit we are in the negation of rights of others, but you are saying that yes, America is doing this, but we should be grateful because of what we have. You have no faith that if we in the West said no, we are no longer going to find this acceptable, you fear that if we did that, we would lose something, and you have no vision of what we might gain. And then people like Bush like to trumpet their "morals" and "values", and how we have to bring these back to society, what a farce! What values, that gays shouldn't marry, but oh yeah, it's ok for our companies to outsource jobs to kids in some sweatshop in a developing country, it's ok for our soft drink companies to parachute into some village and drain the water table so it can't be used for agriculture, and make some useless product that no one needs, while creating the demand through advertising. Oh thank you America, our great defenders! how pathetic, I'm not grateful for inequality, something in me wants to change it, but now you see I've got to go through all of those motions and struggles of whether what I'm part of will create more dependence (aid), whether what I'm part of is what is wanted, whether it will work, you know all of that empowerment, and capacity-building. Do you know the kinds of barriers that inequality erects? You have these massive powers like the World Bank, like the US, working against justice. Don't you want to live in a world where we don't have to go through this? Don't you want to live in a world where our native community is strong and we don't have to feel estranged from them, we don't have to see these commercials with starving children, where charity is something that happens in response to misfortune, not to institutionalized injustice. You think I could explain to my children that, oh yeah, it was ok for the Belgian soldiers in the Congo to cut people's noses off, because that kept them in line, and that meant we could extract all the wealth from the country, and by the way we wouldn't have our Western superiority, with our western freedoms, hadn't these colonizers built it for us on the backs of the 20 million Congolese killed? Do you think the slave-masters thought they could get on without slavery, they probably made the same arguments, that slavery is needed, and those sitting back in Brittain ought to be grateful for their cotton and tea, and all of those valiant Brittish soldiers that were conquering and civilizing the world. You see these people, after all that's been visited upon their country, and they'll welcome you as a Westerner if you visit there, they'll cook you a meal even though they don't have enough for themselves, you might think I'm being romantic, but these are the true stories of workers in the field. You have linked colonialism with the US foreign policy, and where I thought colonialisim was atrocious, you have defended both because of the supposed prize. Thank you for calling me pious, I was beginning to think that I wasn't pious enough. Would have thought piety would be a quality to be admired for those who say "God Bless the USA". Sorry for my anger, I'm hoping one day people will see that it doesn't have to be this way, only if we believe that will it change. Arif This is one of the most AMAZING and MOVING posts I have ever seen...!!!!! Awesome!

The New York Sun? I would think by now that the USA had learned its lesson regarding exiles and truth. The two are not compatible!

CONCERN #6: UNEQUAL AGES OF CONSENT The law currently discriminates in that there is a separate provision criminalizing anal sex, which sets the age of consent for anal sex higher than that for other forms of sex. This has been recognized as unconstitutional by both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Quebec Court of Appeal. Any change in the Criminal Code must repeal section 159, so that anal sex is treated the same as other forms of sexual activity.

Actually, it has consistently GONE UP

It's not sex. It's not sex. Age of consent for sex is different than anal intercourse. Makes sense to me considering one is way more high risk than the other. Repeating your opinion of it not being sex is irrelevant. Let's stick to facts.

What gates? Hello!!! There should be no difference in the age of consent between hetero and homosexuals. Link CONCERN #6: UNEQUAL AGES OF CONSENT The law currently discriminates in that there is a separate provision criminalizing anal sex, which sets the age of consent for anal sex higher than that for other forms of sex. This has been recognized as unconstitutional by both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Quebec Court of Appeal. Any change in the Criminal Code must repeal section 159, so that anal sex is treated the same as other forms of sexual activity.