Hugo

So, hate speech laws are completely redundant and unnecessary, then. I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get a conviction under subsection 3 because anyone could argue the clauses listed therein. I can't be convicted for anything I wrote on this board because I can argue clauses a) it's true (I cited medical and scientific facts from acknowledged researchers and publications) and c) I made them in the public interest (I argued that homosexual behaviour posed a health risk, and was a symptom of underlying mental illness or distress that needed alleviation). Any half-decent lawyer could prevent a conviction against me. The only thing that hate speech really addresses is incitement to violence or breach of the peace, and we have had laws on the books against that for centuries. If that's all it does, this law is pointless and redundant, and should be stricken down because it emphasises differences in a manner liable to incite bigotry.

You're making that classic mistake of designing a system where people are required to be virtuous and free of greed, avarice or any other human foibles. No such system can ever work until men sprout wings and haloes. The current system recognises that politicians are chiefly after power but curbs the worst excesses with checks and balances, and tries to assure a compromise for the public good. Try another example: the provincial premier approves of a new power plant. Environmentalists go nuts and the people vote him out of office next month. The power plant doesn't get built, and next summer the province loses $2 billion worth of business because of blackouts and the economy sheds 20,000 jobs. Imagine another example: the Prime Minister approves a tax increase to pay for more border patrols and coastguards. The people don't fancy another tax increase and vote him out of office. A year later, another 9/11 happens and it is proven that the terrorists came in through Canada. The US shuts down the Canadian border and $1 billion worth of trade is lost every day (that's what Canada-US trade is worth right now). That gets kept up for four months, 1.2 million join the unemployed (every $1bn gets 10,000 jobs) and the economy tanks. Once again, I agree with BlackDog (strange trend, but I digress): these are terrible ideas. If you want to solve the issue of low voter turn-outs and voter disenchantment, you could promote politics more, teach politics in schools, or try more realistic electoral reform such as a proportional representation scheme. These ideas will make things far worse.

Firstly, it seems ridiculous that in an ostensibly free society we would make the expression of certain views punishable by imprisonment. Secondly, it also seems ridiculous that in an ostensibly egalitarian society, we have decided that some highly subjective views are "wrong" and that people have no right to express "wrong" views, and that people so doing shall be punished. To my mind, freedom of speech means exactly that, no matter how wrong or offensive that speech will be. Surely ideas should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merit, rather than being held up or struck down by government decree and the rule of law? Read August's signature. For those needing translation, it's a famous quote by Voltaire that reads, "I may disagree with what you say but I shall defend your right to say it to the death." Like political correctness, people will get sick of this in a few years and there will be a backlash. People are already annoyed that they have to walk on eggshells when discussing anything that might be construed as bigoted. Would you feel completely comfortable discussing, in your workplace or school, an issue such as the tendency of blacks to be less educated and earn less money? I wouldn't. I don't think people particularly like being muzzled and I think that Bill C-250 will end up damaging what it seeks to protect. Furthermore, it should be noted that incitement to violence, civil unrest and breach of the peace has always been a crime, even before hate speech was coined. These laws don't change anything there, except to create a more uncomfortable atmosphere, a more limited field of public discourse, and to draw attention to and emphasise the differences they are ultimately seeking to dispel. Can anyone cite an incident or policy to me where an emphasis on racial, gender or sexuality differences rather than an emphasis on egaliatarianism actually did any good, rather than made matters worse?

I think it's a pretty invalid point, myself. The sponsorship scandal was necessary to stay out of Iraq? That's funny, I thought it was all about Quebecois separatism.

Right now, the main complaint against democracy is that elected representatives tend not to think beyond the next term. Very few put plans into action for the next 20 or 50 years. What you propose would change that. Instead of only thinking about the next few years, politicians would mainly think about next month. Unless a policy would give a tangible result in the next two months it wouldn't get done. We would mortgage our future even more than we already have. God forbid that any politician propose anything that would cost us now and give big returns in the future. Investment would be a dead concept.

Are power and potable water not also vital public services? Are they not sold and paid for? The road we are going down is much worse. The Canadian council of radiologists has condemned the Canadian system and urges anyone needing a CAT or MRI scan to scrape up the cash and go south of the border if they value their health. They say that the obsolescence of Canadian equipment leads to many false diagnoses and the poor availability of that equipment and of staff trained in its use lead to long waiting times, in which people can actually die of the disease they were waiting to have diagnosed, let alone treated. This is because, without any competition, the Canadian service has absolutely no incentive to provide better or more timely service. The Canadian council of cardiology has joined them in condemnation, because American heart-attack survivors have, on average, a longer and higher-quality life than Canadians. They cite an example of a finger-sized device that is used to monitor the cardiac state and can advise the patient if they need to take medication before the situation worsens. They cost a few thousand dollars, and virtually every American heart-attack survivor has one. They are invaluable in preventing repeat attacks. The Canadian service does not provide these. Instead, they wait for the patient to keel over at his desk or behind the steering wheel, drag the guy back into the ER for defibrilation and recovery priced per incident at about 20 times the cost of one of the American devices. Ironically, these devices are actually manufactured in Canada. Once again, with no competition, the Canadian system has no incentive to save money by investing in these devices (infinite supply of tax money) and no incentive to provide better service (they are the only providers). Did you ever inquire as to why they are uninsured? A great many fit and healthy 18-30-year-olds don't bother with health insurance, they don't feel it's necessary and they would rather spend the cash on something else and just pay out of pocket should the untoward happen. I wouldn't buy health insurance, I'm in perfect health and I haven't had to see a doctor in 5 years, but thanks to the Canadian system, my choice is removed and I pay anyway.

But who is to decide? Currently we have a set system: all decisions to be made by elected representatives. If you are going to have some made by representatives, some decided by standing policy, and some by referenda, who decides what will be decided by each and when? Furthermore, you don't address the problem that what a man wants is not what a man needs. In economics and politics, correct policy is often counter-intuitive (for example, a trade deficit is an asset) and what people pick in the name of good usually works out for the worst. Unfortunately it's not possible. True democracies were seen in ancient Athens or the townships of 18th-Century America. These were gatherings of a few hundred citizens who met for several hours, spoke and were spoken to, and then voted. In Athens, for instance, the votes tended to be overwhelmingly yay or nay due to the high quality of Greek oratory. How do you propse to replicate this? How will you have 23 million people convene once a month or even more often, debate for several hours, and then vote upon a policy? Non-representative democracy is dead because populations are just too large to support it anymore.

I want to see a source for that information, because I have heard the exact opposite. The Guardian of the UK reports that, only 3 years into a 10-year plan, heart disease deaths were reduced 14%, cancer deaths by a similar amount, waiting lists are down, there are increases in staff, increasing availability of hospital beds and decreasing reliance on expensive hospitals. According to research by Margit Gennser, in Sweden, since the moves towards privatisation beginning in 1975, healthcare professional numbers have increased vastly - 200% more nurses and doctors and 600% more assistant nurses - despite no growth in GDP during the same period. In addition, since doctors began being paid a flat rate rather than a per-patient fee, hospital productivity has dropped sharply. The biggest complaint in Sweden right now is that there are not enough private clinics which denies their superior services to many people and removes consumer choice! The Canadian system is fundamentally broken. Did you know that not a single country in the entire world has replicated Canada's Pearson healthcare scheme? Would this be the case if it was inherently better? Healthcare is a good like any other. As you increase availability and lower prices, demand increases. Look at foodstuffs, cars, televisions, as the prices dropped and availability rose, consumption of all has risen. Now, what happens when you make the availability unlimited and the price, nothing? You have a situation where supply can never meet demand, because demand will be infinite. This is the inherent problem in state-run healthcare. In other fields, such as the aforementioned foodstuffs, cars, and televisions, consumer demand is being met. There is neither a glut of these goods rotting in warehouses nor queues of disgruntled customers trying to buy more than there are available. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out the answer to that one.

It wouldn't be counted and acted on any more than it is now. You are still one voice in 23 million either way you cut it. Who gets to decide when that will be, and what happens when they do? I will also say that simply throwing technology at a problem often fails to solve it. Since we became obsessed with computers in schools and IT in the education system, educational standards have not risen, if anything, they have fallen. If you are going to tackle the problem of low voter-turn out and so forth you would do better to go for the problem at the source and get people more interested in politics. I believe this would be best done by making politics and economics compulsory standards in high school, because it seems to me that most people don't understand these issues and don't care to understand them. Because of that, those who vote are almost as bad as those who don't, because they vote based on ignorance.

Furthermore, this idea contradicts the point of representative democracy. We have to recognise that we are not experts in all or even many of the fields in which we are obliged to do business. We can, however, hire experts like plumbers, car mechanics, doctors etc. This is the same with politics. We are not experts in cogent and sagacious foreign policy, economics, social issues and so forth, so we "hire" (elect and pay) experts to take care of these things for us. Just as with any other hired professional, we do reserve the right to oversee the work that is done and fire-and-rehire if it is not to our liking. A country run along the lines you have suggested would be a total mess. There would be absolutely no coherent foreign policy, for instance, people would vote on the issue of the day without a second thought to the standing of the nation and the world in 10, 20 or 50 years time. How could you decide to go to war? How would you disseminate the intelligence that governments usually gather in secret to assist them in such decisions? How would you decide the budget? Make some budget plans and let people choose them (which means 99% of people still won't find their ideal choice), let them define it more directly (which will result in total chaos and probable economic collapse), or just settle for electing a Minister of Finance - in which case, what is the point of any of this? In making democracy more direct you would be doing the same thing as dismissing all skilled tradesmen, healthcare professionals, executives and so forth and insisting that the common citizen do them: total and utter chaos, because people just don't have the skills to do all those things for themselves. Lastly, you talk of tightened security but you haven't addressed the point of DoS attacks. If banks and corporations such as Microsoft are vulnerable to this kind of attack (and they are), what makes you think this database won't be? What if some hacker or, worse, a foreign intelligence service or a terrorist group decides to crash your whole system on voting day?

Can't wait until someone hits that system with a denial-of-service attack or hacks it and indulges in some good old-fashioned ballot-stuffing. Do you know how many times the federal gun registry has been compromised already?

I don't believe that anybody who wasn't a shoplifter before will become one now because of Svend Robinson.

Take the example of the mountaineer. Just because there are mountain rescue people available does not mean you won't fall and break your neck, lose your digits to frostbite, die of exposure or lose your legs. The fact that the government will try to help does not lead anyone into a false sense of security, at least, it shouldn't if they have half a brain in their heads. What kind of help? Cutting taxes and interest rates to grow the economy is "trying to help people" but I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that, right?

It implies this: Firstly, your life is still in peril if you go. The government is not encouraging recklessness. They can't do anything if militants just shoot you instead of taking you prisoner. Secondly, they are implying that the lives of their citizens are actually worth a damn to them. What's the problem with that?

The point of jail is, as I see it, these: 1) As a punishment, to encourage the criminal to repent and reform. 2) As a vengeance, to gain closure and sense of justice for the victim. 3) As a deterrent to similar would-be criminals. 4) To remove a threat to society from society. Here, as I see it, are the problems: 1) Jail would not make Svend any more sorry or willing to reform than he already is. 2) The victims have waived their rights to vengeance and do not wish the matter pursued. 3) I don't think there are too many more would-be jewellery thieves in Parliament. Other thieves cannot expect to be judged the same way, unless they are suffering from mental issues and are repentant in the way that Svend is, in which case not jailing him might be a better precedent. 4) If Svend is indeed a danger to society it's because he's a kleptomaniac, not a career criminal. Therefore, his 'threat' can better be contained by a suspended sentence (for instance), parole terms, and mental healthcare. I do think that jail time makes less sense for nonviolent crime, personally, and not just for Svend but for all citizens. Jail for Svend, as I see it, is a waste of about $50,000 taxpayer dollars per year. That's the cost to keep a criminal in jail. I don't feel it's a justified cost.

Since 1945 around 75% of all US foreign trade and investment has been with Western Europe and Japan. Today, those countries are amongst the richest, most prosperous and most economically and politically independent in the world. The more trade America has with a country, the better for that country. Those nations that spurn America are those that are poorest. These are the undisputed facts. You can try and twist them somehow, but you cannot ignore them.

August, You are turning this into a series of sweeping generalisations. Stop it. What we are talking about is a Canadian citizen abducted overseas by militants. If he had travel insurance up to the eyeballs it would do him absolutely no good. There was a case in Latin America a few years or so ago where several American businessmen were taken hostage. The US government sent Delta Force in who successfully extracted all the hostages without a single casualty. Where would these businessmen be if they were left up to their insurance company? What about situations where you can't get insured? Do you know if you buy a one-way ticket because you're unsure of a return date, you cannot buy travel insurance? Does not being certain of your date of return mean that your life should be put in jeopardy? Or they'll just get executed before the government has a chance to take action, or like the Canadian security contractor who was killed a short while ago, just shot dead in a firefight. We all know that anyone going to Iraq right now takes their life into their hands. I just think that is not a good excuse for the state to wash their hands of all responsibility to their citizens. I suppose it depends upon whether or not you think government works for the people, or the people for the government. If you believe the latter, you are right, August, we have absolutely no right to expect the state we elected and that we fund to help us, ever.

That's what doesn't make sense. When politicians steal, they set up slush funds, money laundering and kickbacks and rip off the taxpayer for millions. What they don't do is pocket a $50,000 ring in front of security cameras. It makes absolutely no sense for Svend to have done it and that's why I believe he wasn't in full control of himself. Regardless, I think most people here are succumbing to anger and negative emotion over all of this. The predominant attitude seems to be, "Good, I couldn't wait for that b*stard to slip up." That's hardly a very humane attitude. Vengeance is not healthy.

No, I'm suggesting that the State help in dire need. It's really beyond the scope of a travel insurance company to send Delta Force to rescue tourists or aid workers held hostage in some distant land. It's also beyond insurance company reps to scale a mountain and rescue a stranded mountaineer. I see travel insurance as being of use if your flight is cancelled and you are left stranded, you lose your money or credit cards, your hotel is overbooked and you need a place to stay and whatnot. Mundane situations all. Kidnapping, terrorism, acts of war and so forth are not mundane situations and you'll note that most insurance policies don't cover that type of event for that exact reason. This is where the power of the state can usefully be employed to help the individual, in cases where the scale of the problem truly need the resources of the state and not a single insurance company. I reiterate that arriving at school without breakfast is insufficient information to form an opinion with.

I'm thankful that more people don't share your opinion. I find it immoral to decide that you will neither help a person nor advocate another coming to their aid if you feel that their own decisions or ineptitude got them into that situation. Personally, I don't care if a misjudgement or just bone-headed stupidity got somebody into trouble. I'll try to help my fellow man without giving his prior choices and intelligence a second thought. With that in mind, I say that the government should do everything possible to save Persons X and Z. Maybe not Person Y, as I'd have to know a bit more about their circumstances - did they just forget to eat breakfast or what? Tax dollars can't help if you had Cornflakes in the cupboard and just couldn't be bothered to eat them. I can't directly help Person X or Z, but I don't want them to die or come to harm, whether they got into trouble through misjudgement, stupidity or plain bad luck, so I'd like to have somebody else help them. If the government is in the best position to help, then have them do it, and if I can contribute to that help with some tax dollars, I'll do it gladly and feel contented that I was able to help a fellow man in dire need, and I'll hope that if I'm ever in dire need somebody else would do it for me.

They might not be if you had thrown in a 25-year-career that obviously mattered a great deal to you out of guilt and shame. My thought is that Svend is obviously going through a tough time and seems to be a sufferer of kleptomania. It's a genuine and well-documented mental illness and there's no medical rule saying that an MP cannot suffer from it. I think that he is punishing himself more than a court could. Whatever his views over the years, politics has obviously been very important to him and his decision to stand down as an MP is a big act of penance in my book. Now, God loves nothing more than a repentant sinner. Repent and ye shall be forgiven. The victim of his crime has been fully recompensed, has accepted his apology, and demanded no further action. If his victim can forgive him, and God can forgive him, why would anyone else not forgive him? I've also heard speculation that he did it as a result of legal advice he received in secret or that this is part of a calculated plan to lighten his punishment. I believe that kind of thought is very mean-spirited, to rubbish what I think is a very genuine and heartfelt confession and repentance based upon pure speculation without a scrap of evidence. There are far bigger criminals still in Ottawa. Paul Martin only took action about the spending scandal the day before the auditor-general's report was released and, like Nixon, seems determined to let everyone else hang before he, when it was he who was ultimately responsible as finance minister. Martin isn't sorry he stole from the taxpayer, he's just sorry he got caught, and he stole two thousand times as much as Svend did. If Svend gets a year in prison, give Martin two thousand. And as for Chretien, he's not even sorry he got caught. His reasoning seems to be that being Jean Chretien is automatic absolution for any wrongdoing and that he has something approaching Papal infallibility. These are the real criminals in our Parliament, not Svend Robinson. Let's talk about criminal charges for the thieves in the federal Liberals, the Ontario Conservatives and all the others who keep stealing and don't even care.

Svend stole a piece of jewellery. He seems to be genuinely sorry for what he did, he's given it back, and he has already condemned both his actions and himself in word by his admission of irrationality, and deed in his step down from public office. He is also seeking professional help for the issues he feels led him to this. I cannot and I will not condemn Svend here. I admire any man that can admit he is wrong and then apologise and atone, so I give Svend my blessings and I hope he fares better in the future. Perhaps we would all do better to stop kicking the man who can admit wrongdoing and tries to make amends, and divert our attentions to the men who still won't admit wrongdoings, and are still trying to sweep things under the carpet and avoid justice?

They are. In 1900, there were no democracies. In 1950, 31% of the world's population lived in democracies. In 2000, 58%. Democracy and capitalism also go hand-in-hand, because political freedom demands economic freedom, and economic control is impossible without political control. Why, indeed? Any message spread with violence is not worth spreading. I'm a pacifist, and strictly opposed to war and violence, but I look at Gulf II not as the beginning of a war waged by the USA and her allies, but the end of a war waged by Saddam Hussein against his own people - a people almost completely handicapped in their ability to fight back. Is it not good and heroic to use one's superior strength to fight for life on the behalf of those too weak to fight for it themselves? Is that not what firefighters or police officers do - use superior training, skill and dedication to assure life and safety for their fellow men who cannot assure it for themselves in the situations that firefighters and police officers deal with? What - if anything - do you define as being good, irrevocably and forever? The right to life? Liberty and the right to pursue happiness? That is a leading question, because if you do believe that those things are good, it means that America's system is, indeed, better than Saddam's, because America values all of those things and Saddam values none of them (save for himself). And if you believe none of those things are intrinsically good, then you are technically amoral, which means that we are not on the same page and probably never will be. Well, now you are getting confused about the main point of capitalism, and that is freedom. People may be killing themselves - it's their right. They are free. There's junk food around, cigarettes, alcohol, nobody forces you to use any of it. I don't drink, smoke, take any drugs, caffeine, eat processed food, I exercise on a very regular basis and that's my right. I'm exercising my freedom. My neighbour can eat McDonald's all the time, smoke and drink a bottle of wine a day. That's his right too. He's exercising his freedom. Contrast this with socialism, where the rule is coercion. Nobody has freedom, because there is a big state telling you what to do. A person is not in charge of his own life, and a person should be the only ultimate agent of his own destiny, as far as possible. Socialism falls a long way short of that. I believe in freedom, liberty and personal choice, so I have no alternative than to be a capitalist. It's not perfect. The world isn't perfect. I can accept that, as God accepts that, as Christ accepted that. Can you accept that? It's about freedom and choice. That capitalism produces the greatest wealth, is the best solution to poverty, and creates the most freedom. I wish my fellow man the choice between poverty or wealth, so I endorse capitalism. I don't wish to condemn my fellow man to follow a course set by somebody else, or to poverty, or to suffering that I know can be avoided, so I cannot endorse socialism. Quite the opposite. Adam Smith relies upon the sin of greed for his theory to work and has very accurately discerned self-interest and devised a system whereby self-interest can be harnessed for the benefit of the community. Socialism, conversely, relies upon the sin of envy to gain support and then expects men to live without sin for the system to work - that a man will work as hard as he can for no gain to himself. Laudable, but completely unrealistic.

My source is Walid Shoebat. I chose those links because they were the first online materials I found on him. He's also appeared on several TV shows and he is telling his own story quite independent of Mr. Horowitz or anyone else.

I don't need to add anything here. By comparing this practice (again, absolutely no evidence given on your part, so we only have your word for it that it happens at all) to that of slitting throats, raping women and killing children, you've really made my point for me.