Claudius

Correct. It was never about the "little guys", it was always about the major powers. World War II was the single most destructive war in all of human history, and it came only a few years after the 3rd most destructive war, WWI (and probably the stupidest war in European history). If you consider the West* still has nightmares about the invasions of the Mongols we can see how much this will affect our history from here on in. "When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin." Winston Churchill This turned out to be a very astute prediction. *I use the original definition here; the remnants/children of the Western Roman Empire

Personally I don't care about this issue. 1-If Mulcair becomes PM he won't be finance minister. 2-Life would be easy if we could make decisions about an MP based solely on them but ministers don't make decisions on their own, they consult a bevy of advisers on nebulous topics like the economy (even though they make it look like they made the decision all on their own).

The U.N. is to the modern world what the Papacy was to the old world. It was created in a time of chaos after a long period of destructive war(s) to bring peace or at least a framework of diplomacy between nations. It worked well in the beginning. It has become an odd mix of incredible power and incredible impotence all at once, and has sunk into a breeding ground for corruption like all political structures that hold so much power. It has to power to "sanctify" a war, all the while pretending to never become involved in any nations politics. "Human rights" is its God and under that guise it can ignore or condemn the sins of various nations.

I highlighted possible harassment that doesn't require repeated behaviour: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/pub/har/part3a.html Assault without physical contact (highlighted): http://www.cnpea.ca/abuse_crimes.htm

Not to get picky here but it depends one what it is. If - one time instance - someone comes up to you on the street and starts yelling in your face that can be harassment or even a form of assault. Doesn't have to be done repeatedly.

No that's not what it is called. Conscientious objection is PASSIVE, not AGGRESSIVE. Just like protest is PASSIVE not AGGRESSIVE, AND it would be important to point out here that passive objection/protest is historically the most successful from Gandhi to hunger strikes to the ENTIRE SUFFRAGETTE movement, ALL passive protest and successful ones at that. Jeziz. An entire generation of self-entitled people watch "V for Vendetta" and get into their heads that throwing molitovs and destroying things and disrupting everyones' infrastructure is somehow vindicated because they have a personal problem with the price of something rising. Unbelievable.

Yes, you do have a right to make people uncomfortable and bother them. NO YOU DO NOT. Period. Full stop. You don't have that right legally OR ethically.

An honest person can see that the force and destruction from protesters has come long before the police "threats".

Oh so there's no force. I see. So motorists are free to just plow them down if they're blocking traffic? They didn't force themselves on people who were in the middle of class? Force their calsses to a stop? I don't know why you bother to argue this when the students themselves admit these disruptions (force by any other name) are their intended goal. THis is NOT the same as say showing up to parliament or the government grounds with a bunch of placards. Their intent is to use force, by their own words and even yours, to "wake up" people. This includes smashing windows, throwing rocks, disrupting peoples classes and the infrastructure everyone uses. That is not protest. That is force.

Tuition is projected to more than double over the next few years. We arent talking about just one minor increase here. I've never seen that prediction. I've read amounts that come to $7/day increase per school day.

You have to keep in mind it runs both ways. Proponents will put up Sweden as their model, but up until a couple years ago Sweden also had mandatory military service for example. Are a majority of Canadians willing to do something like that? The two policies obviously have a large disconnect, but my point is comparing single policies between nations is a hornets nest. The causes and effects of all the policies running in concert make a large part of a comparison a complete guessing game because they all affect each other. Consider the debate by more moderate opinions in the US about free health care. Many compellingly argue that comparing the US with Canada on this single policy is made invalid simply because the two systems are incompatible in other connected ways.

(sigh) Because that's what we're talking about. The students in question have been destroying property Michael. They have been smashing windows and calling it "direct democracy" therefore it is perfectly valid for me to point it out.

That's not what I siad. I said protests are fine but disruptions and intimidation and destruction are not,and that there is a difference. You know this which is why you don't quote what I said directly now but instead purposely mischaracterize what I said . I clearly draw a line between protest and intimidation/destruction and demonstrated the difference quite clearly and instead of answering this you ignore it and call it a strawman. Please have fun continuing your dishonest approach with others, or by yourself if you like, I'm certain you'll find that easier.

You said: What else could I do but assume you are speaking of current protests in the world making news these days? You equate the protests then you are automatically equating the causes regardless of whether or not you think you are.

Strawman. LOL! Yeah okay whatever. You argue these disruptions are valid "direct democracy", I make a comparison and show you what it would be like being on the wrong end of those disruptions and since you simply can't accept that comparison or make a decent response to it you decide to clasp your eyes shut and ignore it. It's not a stawman it's a direct comparison and anyone honest can see that. If you can't be honest then don't debate.

Misread a post and made an incorrect reply. Please ignore.

One more thing...I don't think it was ever not relevant. Protest has been a common thing for a long time but to compare these protest methods with something like Greece or Tiamennen or Syria is to compare the relative problems between the Quebec tuition hike of a few $ per day with austerity and/or gross human rights violations and I think that's ridiculous. And for the record I know you weren't making those direct connections but many including these students seem to think it's the same. They are caught up in the romance of it and that's a pretty spoiled and ignorant thing to believe.

A protest yes, but that doesn't include disrupting everyone elses life, or intimidating those who disagree or the destruction of property. She seems to think it is. I realize to some people that is the very definition of protest: annoying everyone and disrupting things. Not so. That is not necessary to "take the message to the people" or to show the government how many people are in disagreement. Stopping traffic and destroying property or intimidating people isn't, "getting the message across", unless that message is, "see things our way or else we'll screw with you or destroy something...", which is just an intimidation, not protest. I mean what would you think if I came along and threw a brick through your window and when you run out to ask me "wtf!?", I say, "Hey hey it's okay, this is just direct democracy: I'm protesting for free day care". I'm pretty sure you'd think that was bull. Remember this is part protest and part "strike", and it's in that "strike" vein that they seem to think they have a right to do whatever they please to "get the message out". I disagree vehemently. Nothing wrong with protest at all, but there is something wrong imo when you figure peaceful protest isn't enough, you must make disruptions/violence/destruction instead. That's just juvenile imo and naturally the state (which is actually you and I) will push back.

That one's not bad.

Fair enough but consider that A) many other Canadians may not subscribe to the same distinctions making them more your distinctions that Canadas and B ) even within British and American societies opinions differ so much that it is hard to distinguish their own distinctions and many of those distinctions they hold in common with each other and us, making our claim to them less solid.

Well obviously I am joking just a little there, yet... You have 14 pages+ now of ambiguous definitions and major disagreements on what is a "Canadian", so as one considers how difficult it is to put your finger on it one might also have to consider we might be trying to define something that is no longer there. I've lost a lot of my patriotism for this country because it's lost a lot of what I used to consider Canadian. I mean consider the Molson beer "I am Canadian" commercials. This are filled with ambiguous nonsense that either has nothing to do with being Canadian or everything to do with being a citizen of many countries one could name, and yet people lap it up and thrust their fist in the air in agreement with them. ....and it's a beer commercial for crissakes. If rallying around a commercial doesn't sound more American than Canadian to you well...

Going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, well maybe not entirely. I can agree insomuch as we may not need 100 million people any more but technology or not we need a lot more than 34 million spread out along the 2nd largest country on earth. Big manufacturing requires big factories and large populations to sustain them. As you point out technology may have reduced this need somewhat but it hasn't eliminated it. I can agree with that, that is if small businesses can commit to decent employment numbers. And I have to disagree with you again,at least a little. The biggest schism in Canada has never been a divide between Left and Right or between rich and poor or even between French and English. It has always been regional and it's one of the things I can't stand about this country. Canadians fall too easily into the trap of letting politicians sway their regional prejudices and use them against each other. Part of this reason is facilitated by the incredible power provincial premiers have in what is supposed to be a federalist nation. Premiers in many ways enjoy more power and fewer checks and balances than a majority-backed PM. But in the interest of finding common ground I would agree that this is stupid and as you say, 'scary'. The debate shouldn't be framed in this way but since provinces hold dominion over their respective natural resources, and since this is one of the major glues that holds this dominion together it is a constant impediment to solving this problem. You can't just nationalize everything but at the same time you can't hold a homogenous federalist country together while allowing each province such incredible autonomy in this area.I have to go now but this was interesting,hope we can pick it up later.

Oh and a side note to the above:

Fair enough and a good answer. I have long been disappointed with the fact that resource extraction is all Canada ever seems to fall back on and as industries go you're right; you can't count on them. I don't think anyone is really proud of the fact that's all we seem to be able to do for quick money. However I would point out two things: 1) It's been that way for a very very long time and it's hardly the fault of the past decade or so's governments, (or put another way it is directly the fault of the passt 50 years worth of governments), it's been like that for a century. Do you know what the Chretien government did 4 weeks after signing Kyoto? They bought $18 billion worth of oil sands land schemes as a federal investment, these were in turn sold to suncor (and Shell I think). 2) The major impediment to a healthy manufacturing sector in this country has always been the low population. It was Laurier who recognized this way way way back when he instituted a wide range of policies designed to woo European settlers from Europe and away from the US. The economic principles here were just a newborn science at the time but it was he who envisioned Canada with a population of 100 million by the 1950's. It was his assertion that this was the magic number that would allow Canada to be a competitive industrial nation with the US and the rest of Europe. Imo and the opinion of many smarter than me he was dead on the money with this, but it just never transpired. To this day the 100 million number is still passed around. So how do we fix that?

From an interview from the link above: "Direct democracy". Hmm. That's an interesting claim considering they are actually pissed off that democracy was used in these decisions and they simply don't like it. Everyone thinks democracy is flawed when they don't win. That kind of thinking is flawed. "Direct democracy" the way this person is defining it means making every ones life miserable because they didn't win. The statement from this person imo is BS because they are in the minority, but it does point out that democracy isn't really about "everyone getting what they want and being happy". Quite the opposite. Even in a pure majority the Greek philosophers were quick to point out that 51% of a group lording their will over the other 49% is as much a tyranny as anything else. Democracy doesn't "work" because everyone gets what they want. It works because it is a medium of mediocrity. I don't mean that as an insult. What I mean is it only works if everyone is willing to abide by the results even if it screws them. The pay off for this is society is spared the incredible lows of leaders like another Hitler or Stalin, but at the same time it inhibits the occasional "highs" a society can produce for a leader like a Charlemagne or the like....Edit: or a Churchill who was considered a great leader but wasn't directly elected.