login

I'd like you to say who Khadr killed or whose face he threw acid into. Unless you have something to support that I suggest you shut your mouth. Its not like police havn't killed people in Canada under circumspect situations, likewise other acts such as abuse of torture by the government, it just doesn't get to court because the courts cover anything up that makes the administration of "justice" look bad. Fact is here that you don't like their acts, this is about Khadr. You don't have to like everything the government does to work for them, much like you don't have to agree with everything a company does to buy their products, and you don't need to agree with everything your organization does to be part of it. Even if he did support those things, there are no laws in Canada that prevent Canadians from engaging in those activities in foreign countries. Could have been anyone the fact is they were firing on him. If you have treason charges press the charges, otherwise shut up. I get it you don't like what you beleive the Khadr's supported. There is something called different views and moderation. Everyone in an organization does not represent the most extreme elements of that organization. Khadr's father was engaged in humanitarian efforts, and was a good man as far as I have seen. It doesn't mean that his activities were about brutalizing people, quite the contrary, none the less much like in Canada where there are different flavours of political beleif and legal beleif, so true as in Afghanistan. He had every right. No where in the constitution does it say Canadians cannot engage in militant activities in foreign states under sanction of the government. I personally have met atleast one person who works for a paramilitary organization in a foreign government, the US actually, I'm sure there are others. A bunch of Canadians join the French Foreign Legion also. You are just out of touch with the fundamentals of what occured. He did nothing wrong. He was engaged in a war, you just don't like who he was fighting for. Say that and save me the time of your nonsense talk. You are so full of sh!t You don't like their values that is all your position is about, not the facts. Your problem is you don't support liberty as a fundamental right, that is why your position is wrong, not because the values of human non violation you support. If you want to say acts they did were wrong fine. But attacking someones liberty without even associating someones support or direct assistance to those acts is just a bad premise. I don't hear you attacking the US for arming syrians who hold women and children under gun point and force their husbands and fathers to act as suicide bombers or watch their family die by US backed terrorists. These are the same people who fought in Iraq against NATO allies... and are commiting attorciites, yet you remain complicit in silence in accepting those acts, does it make you any better than your demon Omar?

He was a guest. Canadians have the right to enter remain or leave Canada, so yes he did have that right. It is a constitutional right. Maybe you should learn a little about what rights Canadians have before you shoot your mouth off. I am not saying it isn't unfortunate that the event occured, I just do not hold Khadr accountable for any wrongdoing, and I feel his actions were good intentioned, not morally corrupt. I think the US went far beyond its jurisdiction in seeking to overthrow the Taliban (as well as police other countries which it is still doing including Canada - the US have been given tacit approval to police Canada as a criminal jurisdiction in which their police and military can make arrests on Canadians in Canada with the same powers of the RCMP, such as the US DEA which is more militarily trained than the CF - the Canadian border has also been handed over to the US), and was not legally justified to attack Khadr nor kill his other family members (other Canadians). The fact it was war, it was an unfortunate event, but it was not one that Khadr initiated and he was the defender not the offender. Association does not equate sanction and Osama was never brought to trial even when the US had that oppourtunity, both before the invasion, when they offered to turn him over to Pakistan, as well as when the US invaded his residence and opted to use lethal force rather than nonlethal force.

In Canada it would in Afghanistan it wouldn't, but in Canadian law it would, if the CF actions were lawful, which they wouldn't be. The Allies attacked a Canadian, get it? If Delta Force shows up at your door and starts shooting attempting to kill you, I will not be upset you killed Americans defending yourself. The Americans have no place there in the first place it is a called attempted murder, people can defend themselves against attempted murder. Nato cannot claim that civillians are unlawful combatants, if they are arming civllians to fight against governments they don't like. It is just rhetorical bs. The bottom line is that people are trying to kill you. As a Canadian you have the right to defend yourself. The context of Afghanistan was problematic it is the same problem Nato faces in arming civillians to rebel against their legitimate governments. Waging war against America is not the same as waging war against Canada. If it was Canada it would be treasonous conduct, if it is America, it is foreign enlistment.

What security though, I havn't seen you say what security Canada offers other than a trip to prison if you fall out and become economically disadvantaged. What Federal programs are offered for the poor?

I'm firmly against legal recognition of unions, and labour law itself. I think rights should be held at the personal level, although likewise I wouldn't bar unions as an assembly of willing individuals or associating from existing. I object to collectivization by force though, that is forcing individuals to unionize even if they don't wish to, I think it violates individuals rights which should be held higher. Government shouldn't legislate on private business matters and private contracts. Contracts are legally binding however. For a labour control to be legal it should be an individual contract between private persons. Organizational contracts only effect those organizations. The govenrment (public sector) should be able to manage its own workforce, and is little different than a private business, except that essential services are a public interest and need to be protected thus they fundamentally trump labour law.

bs, that is a policy choice, and a choice of employers, there is no 'requirement' to depend on the US economy to have jobs in Canada.

Then why is water quality being adversely effected in Northern areas of Ontario, especially in mining areas? Why is this? Why should one person be able to choose the fate of all the people, that is like one Canadian politician being able to sell out all canadians for something they wern't even elected for, can you imagine Stephen Harper ceeding Nova Scotia to the United States? That sort of thing would require a plebescite at the very least, and not just the 3 people who show up for a vote. It is absurd what you are suggesting. I can't beleive you are suggesting that sovreign territorial integrety can be effected without a vote of all the holders of that property.

Well say you are a farmer. If I put toxic waste in your law, can you carry out your traditional farming activities? But no its not just that, like I said the Indian Act was changed to allow partial band representation to give away their entire bands rights. Its like saying your charter rights can be given away by two of your neighbours. Here is the treaty http://iportal.usask...aties/9_eng.pdf The treaty boils down to four dollars to each Indian and mining rights for precious metals extraction to the province of Ontario.

One article says " bill, C-45, which made changes to the Indian Act. It also reduces project approvals required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which affects waterways in aboriginal communities." Treaty is with the crown, which is entrusted in the Canadian government for performance. The native reserve areas are essentially protected land, although there are specific context of resource exploitation, but not despoilation" Here is an article from First Perspective an aboriginal news source: http://www.firstpers...of-our-treaties It would be prudent to make waterways which feed native reserves protected, since there have been many instances of adverse health problems in native communities from despoilation of water resource - often matched with absent infrastrcuture due to no water sanitation facilities / waste sewage treatement in remote areas. A lot of native communities depend on fishing and hunting for livelyhood.

Anyone know how an invasion of Syria will effect the US dollar?

http://www.ctvnews.c...syria-1.1074357 Did this get brought up in Parliament at all? I should say that the potentials for an amphibious assault are quite high, but I'm not sure how this pertains to Russias Naval base in Syria.... NATO forces were training on mountain storming in Albania and there seems to be a taskforce deployed off Syria. Some what of the same as the Libya scenario.. there appears to be what 3000 troops of Anglo French capacities.. http://www.dailymail...o=feeds-newsxml seems rather small considering syria's military size. This while chemical weapons stores are reported by the Western Press as headed to Aleppo.. http://www.debka.com...s-toward-Aleppo It seems 10,000 NATO Troops are already assembled. http://hamsayeh.net/...-in-turkey.html infowars report the invasion is immenent. http://www.infowars....syria-imminent/ NATO Advisors (atleast the French) are already within Syria. The US is due on Wednesday to recognize a "rebel movement" as the official government of Syria. (France has already done so) If Iran's leadership holds to their statements, an attack on Syria would draw Iran to get involved, which would draw Israel into it, because Iran says it will fire its ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv if Nato attacks Syria. It seems highly likely an attack by Iran on Israel would be a red line for the US, which would likely bring the gulf into "open war" Which will probably increase the price of oil (at the very least), and I geuss gold too.. Anyone have thoughts on this? http://www.britishpa...y-your-gas-mask (gb = sarin) (no special protective clothing...)syrias supposed VX..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/attawapiskat-chief-goes-on-hunger-strike-to-press-for-treaty-rights/article6188717/ The 'Cheif' of Attawapiskat has gone on a hunger strike until the Queen or PM enter dialogue in regard to ignoring treaty.

Employment is largely suppose to be a provincial matter. It is unfortunate provinces havn't created effective work programs for the unemployed.

http://www.theglobea...6/?from=6144038 Two more set to retire this year........ that means 7 of the judges on the Supreme Court will be Harper nominations. That is 7 of 9 judges. The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis LeBel Mandatory retirement date: Nov. 30, 2014 The Honourable Mr. Justice Morris J. Fish Mandatory retirement date: Nov. 16, 2013 so other than The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada Mandatory retirement date: Sept. 7, 2018 who was nominated by Brian Mulrooney all justices will be Harper nominees before the next election... http://www.cbc.ca/ne.../supreme-court/ AND ALL OF THEM CONSERVATIVE NOMINEES. 9 of 9 before the next election.

They live in Alberta or rather they are Albertans. Immigrants had a hard time getting past the rockies and its a long way from the Atlantic.

It was a US invasion of another country. The US solidiers fire on him before he defended himself. End of story. If it happened in America people might see it differently. Perhaps as a violation of Posse Comitatus Act. Delta ain't the victims. Any US soldiers held in Afghanistan for murder of Combatants? Being fired on allows you to legally engage. Under threat of lethal force individuals are allowed to defend themselves.

oh and I think MP's have a christmas budget but I could be wrong. expenses are only current as far as I am aware to march so far.. http://www.parl.gc.c...1&Parl=40&Ses=3 but it looks like something like 70-80 million dollars total, and printing costs at only 600,000 so I can't expect the cards to be that big of a chunk. The UK appears to disallow it though http://www.telegraph...s-rejected.html However as of 2010 it appears that indeed it is an allowable expense in Canada http://www.scottandr...- 2010/misc.pdf This Printing Christmas add. cards $796.2 MP Christmas Card (so perhaps under $1000 or somewehre in that ballpark times 360 so about say $300,000 perhaps.??? total for the cards. The liberals meanwhile are asking for a $5 donation per card (but only costing you 1.25 after the taxpayer covers the other 3.75.) I'm not sure if this is some sort of double dipping scheme or "liberal card" as opposed to "mp card" The MP cards are probably reserved for anyone who got into their mailing list. It really is a disgusting incumbent corruption though. They should just send out a "government of canada" generic card" if anything is going out, "here is your rebate check" enjoy those extra 3 cents on your baby bonus etc.. If they want to send out cards they should do it themselves, to people they actually do, or get a geust spot on a radio show or take out a classified add. *OR GASP*** WISH PEOPLE A MERRY CHRISTMAS IN PERSON GO CARROLING AROUND THEIR CONSTIUENTCY ETC.. HOW LONG IS YOUR PAID CHRISTMAS BREAK? taxpayers shouldn't be paying for them.

Saves the wire transfer and conversion fee... on the flipside..

That is laughable. The only people buying the majority of back woods lands will be resource extractors. While I do think that selling lands with protections built in is something that could be done.. people don't move to those places, the effect would be minimal and servicing costs would sky rocket if it was done as a scattering. I'd give em away for development, not sell them, but onyl to individuals with only the right of forfeiture rather than sale. And only to Canadian citizens. Also selling waterways is in no publics interest. The bottom line is that water quality should not be able to be effected by anything human. This means revamping sewage and industrial waste systems. People don't have the appetite for that, but that is my position. Fact is making closed systems will be in the long run beneficial, such as for biowaste recycling, and industrial waste recycling. Its to easy to just pollute and ignore because there is a resource abundance and people don't give a f*. Not what I support as an ideal, .. and it won't be seen anytime this decade because the social movement isn't there. Too many old poeple that don't give a damn about young peoples future or their descendents quality of life. It is all ME ME ME. I've seen property owners on and about and they are still dumping their bodily wastes into their drinking water. (hey there are water filters now right... totally forgetting the fact things exist other than humans including animals and bugs that live in that stuff) Having "buyers" tests and setting up electric shock collars to enforce the will of the mastermind ain't gonna happen. To many intersts in a sh!ty world, it makes bad people lots of money. They like it that way too.

I'm not interested in discussing what ifs, but I feel Korea could have been even more successful if a non military solution was sought The UN isn't a place for warmaking. Korea was just a byproduct of McCarthyism.... if US didn't have strategic interests there they wouldn't give two sh!ts about Koreans to the South of Korea.

Do you have two personalities or something?

I didn't mix anything up. Rafale supercruises at mach 1.6 to 1.7. What is the F35's fuel conservation speed? I'll post it for you mach 1.1 1362 km/h as opposed to the rafale's 1960 KM/H + oh and http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121002/DEFREG01/310020006/Rafale-Delivered-AESA-Radar

If you are in China and they get upset at Germany certainly. Fact is you don't even need to be in China for the potenital of vandalism to occur to a vehicle.

I'm not sure what you are refering to, can you expand on this. As for why Chinese parents send their children, I'm not sure they do. I'm not sure what brings them over here. Those who I have spoken to seem to incline schools good global rankings, also chinese schools are also quite full.

It dates back to convetion from around 1902. The basis of executive power is constitutionally derived http://laws-lois.jus...nst/page-3.html None the less I'll try to find the fine for you but it is in a mound of now over a century old documents. The ministers of the crown act 1937 didn't happen in Canada. In the UK the issue was clarified via the act but it didn't exist in Canada. The standing law in Canada disallows members of the commons to take their seats if they act as ministers of the crown. It has to do with a conflict of interest existing. Here is more info on the ministers of the crown act http://www.jstor.org/stable/1090297 However I'll find the exact point when I do... that states the fine. It is a daily fine. The issue is actually addressed in the conventions of the British house of commons for legal resignation of ones seat in the commons http://en.wikipedia....ouse_of_Commons It is from the Place Act 1707 and earlier dating to the Act of Settlment. (note it is contitutional) Note that the fine comes from this point... but it is a legal complexity, rest assured it has never been resolved in Canada, since the British didn't resolve it until after the Statute of Westminster so it is still on the books. If I recall correctly while in the 1919 changes taking an office of profit did not require resignation there was still a fine for sitting in the house of commons while also being a paid minister of the crown (which cabinet minsiters are...) Canada hasn't addressed the issue, here is how Austrailia has dealt with it http://parlinfo.aph....y/prspub/3Z910" This fine is something like 500 sterling for each day in sitting, but it essentially is due to the conflict of interest between representing a riding and also being sworn to act for the crown, as well as deriving direct pecuniary interest as a member of the crown effecting any voting on government legislation. The senate can't vote on pecuniary bills and definately take no action effecting self financial interest. IT also goes back to the fact members of the upper house arn't suppose to appear in the lower house unless summoned before the bar, and th emonarch is only suppose to appear in the upper house not the lower house. The convetions actually make sense since representing your riding and the crown is a clear conflict of interest. It is real. Note that also In 2002, O'Donohue launched a court action that argued the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the case was dismissed by the court. It found that, as the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as another part of the same constitution, does not have supremacy over it. http://www.tonyodono...settlement.html It comes from this part: " That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons;" source http://www.tonyodonohue.ca/act_of_settlement_document.html ACT OF SETTLMENT PART OF CANADA'S CONSTITUTION!