Charles Anthony

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?I agree. I do not think it is wrong. My question comes from the double standard. Actually, it should matter because otherwise you are dictating moral behavior and tradition and personal preference. That is none of your business. If I do not hurt you or anybody else, what do you care??? Why do we have a fine for a small amount but a criminal record for a large amount??? Either it is a crime or not. Either it is wrong or it is not. Reasonable people would not think that way for other transgressions. I do not understand how anti-drug people can think it is reasonable to have that double standard. [i understand the assumption of large amounts suggest trafficking, however, that is just a stupid triple standard.]

I'm a little suprised no one picked me up on the fact France doesn't belong to NATO. Just out of curiosity, was that a mistake or are you baiting yourself now?

Recent statements in the press suggest that he is not only concerned about compensation for himself but also preventing this from happening again to anybody else. http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2004...suit040122.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1106404904408_3 I give Arar the benefit of the doubt. More power to him. The paranoid cynic in me fears for Arar's life. Slobodan Milosevic died mysteriously in his sleep after requesting a subpoena for President Clinton to appear as a witness to his trial in The Hague. Before he died, Milosevic wrote letters to his relatives stating that he believed he was being poisoned.

I would say: no. CAVEAT: Truthfully, I would say that your example illustrates why schools should not be publicly funded. Period. I would take that even further and say that it illustrates why publicly funding anything is wrong but enough of that for now.... I am sure many people are tired of hearing it...

Therefore, they discourage it. However, heterosexual courtship does not NECESSARILY lead to sin -- according to the Catholic definition of sin. If the Church teaches sex only after marriage, there is no contradiction with permitting heterosexual courtship. The prom could also lead to drinking and driving which are sins, I think, maybe ( I confess: I do not know but let us just assume it for an analogy). However, drinking and driving is not NECESSARILY a result of going to the prom.

There is a different way to interpret that irony which may not be so contradictory. The prom is a form of courtship and pre-marital sex is not permitted. Since the Catholic church disallows homosexual marriage, it only makes sense to disallow a homosexual courtship.

With all due respects, we have been through this before. I would like to quote Mahmoud Ghalehnoii, international English student, because I think he has an enlightening answer. As you say: deja vu, indeed.

From the rest of the article, it sounds like the Thai military is defending the people from its government. Maybe in the future, government corruption will be curtailed in Thailand.

How do you suspect they are doing that? Are you suggesting that they are using language laws and that union-labor-quality-advocates have nothing to do with protectionism?

I will play the devil's advocate here because I think it is warranted. Challenging a CATHOLIC SCHOOL to let a gay bring his partner to the prom is an imposition! The nerve!I would just like to see him try that to a Muslim School! You may be right: Islamic schools may not accept that imposition. However, if a publicly funded Islamic school taught anti-social behavior, would you not expect a back-lash from the rest of the tax-paying public??? You should. There had been clashes between parents and school boards in Hamilton and BC regarding the curriculum. It's been in some news not too long ago.Too bad. Those parents should send their kids to a private school. If you root through the trash can, you will not likely find gold. If you want publicly-funded daycare -- I mean, school, guess what?? do not be surprised if the tax-paying public sticks its nose in your business.

What makes the difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslims?

I am not in Quebec so all I can do is shoot my mouth off on this one but if Mr. Dancer is correct above and "Consumer protection is far stronger in Quebec" that would give me an opposing view. I would say: Quebeckers have the right to do business with any electrician they want and that includes the right to discriminate. Why should you feel like every employer should treat everybody equally??? I am playing the devil's advocate here because I am willing to bet that the restrictions are likely driven by unions who just selfishly want market control. I doubt the unions care about high quality workmanship. However, what choices does a Quebec employer have to some level of quality control??? Would you get surgery from a surgeon who just arrived from a different country??? Why would you blindly trust some Canadian licensing board (located in Otta-wa-wario) that granted that surgeon approval to do your treatment??? Apply that to the electrical trade. It only makes sense that people stay local. What if YOU the Albertan electrician start working shoddily in Quebec and then move out again as fast as you moved in??? Now, the Quebec employer has to chase you. We apply the same principles of staying local in all aspects of business.

Can I take that to mean we could render illegal all centerfire (large calibre) semi-automatic weapons?It would be wise to consider it the same as if abortion was made illegal: it will go dangerously underground but it will not disappear. If farmers CURRENTLY use anything more powerful than your proposed pellet-guns maybe they have good reason. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. If farmers do NOT use large caliber weapons, a restriction is unnecessary. Maybe we should spend time with farmers and ask them what they think before "shooting off" policy proposals. I'd disagree strongly with that. A gunman might as well kill me and get rid of a witness if the penalty for gun ownership were the same as murder.So.... you DO know better. What gives? Why stop there? You could extend the same logic to any increase in penalty for gun ownership. You keep your horse in a stable because it is more convenient for YOU to do so. That is the driver and you do not need extra-ordinary laws. Regardless of the law, you would still do that anyway. People who broke that law would be chased out of town or an "accidental" car accident would provide sufficient incentive. Why make unnecessary laws? Non-gun-nuts either do not get it too or are in some bizarre denial. Your reference to a rocket-grenade is silly because if somebody was hell-bent on being so ridiculously reckless nothing stops them from going to their hardware store. Then what?? A new law? I will suggest drawing the line either at permitting anything or conversely, attacking the problem differently. We should be looking at fighting, preventing and defending ourselves against crime, instead of chasing after dead people AFTER their crimes are committed. More police on the streets would be a start.

The double and triple Afghanistan posts and threads are just as funny.In fact, the redundant multiple QUOTES are even more hilarious.

Try applying that logic to other "crimes" and punishments. I think we should get tough on robbery. The first robbery gets a fine and the robber is made aware that the fines will be much higher the next time. I think we should get tough on rape. The first rape gets a fine and the rapist is made arware that the fines will be much higher the next time. yadda yadda yadda Why treat illicit drugs differently?

Exactly. That is why my question is stupid. Furthermore, the questions of Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, the Maritimes and the Territories being invaded follow the same logic. Yes. I would say they are more important. If you are wondering if our governments are too big, I would say: "Yes!" What difference does it make? Yes and if either of those provinces separate, do you think the rest-of-Canadians will be ready for it? Why not? That is a good enough reason. There could be other reasons. Maybe they do not want to be governed by a bunch of people outside of their province. They gave the land so now it belongs to Albertans. Albertans can do whatever they want with it. Are Albertans forever to be enslaved to the "government" of Canada? Personally, I think it would only be irresponsible if it moves them away from separation. If it leads them to separation, it is responsible. Funny, a party that focusses on the interests of the people it represents gets votes. I think rest-of-Canadians should muster up the courage and do that right now.

I actually think our patrolling officers look like storm-troopers too, but I actually expect them that to be that way. Billy-clubs just do not cut it anymore. However, the "fat donut eating asses" is a little out of touch with reality. Being a member of the police force is physical fitness at its finest. As much as I do not respect state-monopoly in the security business, I would not use such hyperbole. Nevertheless, I really do not understand why people do not demand more police. We throw money in the garbage (I mean, into the pockets of government cronies) all of the time but we expect our safety to be assured for practically nothing. Personally, if I ruled Canada, I would have a hell of a lot more armed officers patrolling the streets and a hell of a lot less pencil-pushing-silly-servants on the payroll. During the last election, when the Liberals (or Conservatives, I can not remember exactly who is allowed to make things up) made campaign promises of more soldiers with guns in the streets marching to a battle drum beat, I thought: finally, our military will be defending their country!

It is precisely international trade that can solve their problems and makes them even more rich. I think that guy should take a high school economics course for starters. I can look at the same things and say that they are a highly specialized economy luckily because of their oil. If they had to depend exclusively on themselves and their oil, they would have very little except pieces of paper with George Washington on them. That could be the cheapest way for them to do it. They sound like they want to eat their cake and have it too. Imagine every single country in the world saying: "We have no capabilities to produce our own coffee, tea, sugar, bananas and eyePods!" Would we take that argument seriously??? In this day and age, I think his excuse is garbage because they have money and they have lots of money. Most "worldly knowledge" is completely free or affordable. Regardless of what happened in the past, they can afford to pick up their bootstraps and do whatever they want today. I do not buy his arguments at all. Not one bit. He sounds like a civil-public-servant-entitled-to-his-entitlements type who wants more wealth redistribution.

Yes -- provided I could not afford to bribe the "invaders" and pay them to leave me alone. Self defense. Are you looking for a more profound outlook on warfare? Would I defend BC, the Maritimes, the Territories or any other country? No -- not unless I knew I could win or if there was money to be gained as a mercenary. I would like to ask the federalists a stupid question: If you felt your country was about to be invaded and you had little chance of defending it, would you emigrate to a different country? or would you take the chance of dying in combat? Why or why not?

If such an attack is the result of my invasion of his personal space, would I still have a right to follow the "eye for an eye" rule? I do not think I care about what she wears, if you can promise that she says absolutely nothing.

I agree. Come on, now. Who cares what disappears or what stays the same? It is only a "crime" because we label it as a crime. I prefer freedom. By the way, people who wear walkmans blasting in their ears everywhere they go bother me. We should make walkmans illegal. Eventually, those people go deaf and become a burden on society. That sounds enlightening. In the same light, I do not see how legalizing alcohol does any good either. Stop whining. If that really is a concern, write a list of all the ways in which it conceivably hurts the rest of us and the solution is in your hands: cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes.

Bizarre views. They sound like the beginnings of union-worker or crony-"friends"-of-the-government arguments. This attitude sounds worse than backwards. In fact, it is backwards for them to associate this with their backwardness. If every country in the world had a self-sufficiency attitude, every person in the world would have a standard of living slightly above sustenance level at best. From the sounds of it, old-world Muslims were not averse to international trade. What changed???

I do not know if I am tolerant but I am afraid. I am afraid of being attacked by an army of goat herders, barefoot peasants in ragged clothes with ragged beards and unkempt turbans and burkhas jumipng up and down and waving their fists and its onslaught. I might get struck by one of their "waving fists" if I get too close to their personal space. By the way, does anybody have a link for the "unkempt burkhas" part? I have seen some doctored photographs of everything else but none which clearly demonstrates the condition of the burkhas. [i hope I did not misinterpret that quote....]

I have a simple take on this sort of thing. I have no idea about the Pope's obligations with respect to speaking engagements. In general, I believe the Pope (along with all other politicians) should get into the habit of talking less. If he has something to say, say it short and sweet. That way, there is less opportunity to either misunderstand or misrepresent.

The forum demonstrates to me that the divide between "right" and "left" is making less and less sense in the world. I find that most lively debated threads make it very difficult to pigeon-hole members with any consistent label. I think that is a direct result of the old-fashioned stereotypes not providing solutions to today's problems and people are moving past their limitations. Dealing with environmental issues is one of the best illustrations.