Charles Anthony

Hunh??? If this is how the Chinese government trains its trolls to "educate" the world, I can not imagine what they do inside the wall of China without external scrutiny!!! This clueless logic is starting to remind me of someone who thought that Anglo-Saxons have a slave problem.....

Let me put it in a simpler way: What is the difference between a "factor" and a "direct factor" in legalese? I do not see where the "permanence" comes into play from the article.

Is it just me or does this seem confusing? I have stared at the double negatives for a long time and it seems to say misconduct can be a factor but it can not be a DIRECT factor???????????? Am I missing something???? Unfortunately, I think you may be correct. At the very least, it will give more work for the legal profession!!!!!!!!! Funny how things work that way.

If that can be proven, do you think the tables should be turned? such that the prosecution should be held accountable? I think they should suffer the same penalty they sought for their accused -- again with the caveat that it can be proven.

What do you think was motivating the prosecution?

Guys, things are starting to get silly. You should really continue your feud with the forum's Personal Message feature. That way, you will all be able to kiss and make up while saving face at the same time.

It's called revenge or "somebody's gotta pay.'" I believe that is part of it. I get the sense that when there is a murder, people become blind to reason and sadly, become monstrosly aggressive themselves as a result. That is why we see ridiculous innocent convictions with no evidence such as the West Memphis Three to name one example. I treat justice officials who blatantly convict innocent people as being more guilty of the crime than the true perpetrator. Some people believe in the death penalty out of principle: it would be a dishonor to the victim if the culprit's punishment was not equal to the victim's fate. People believe that the principle should stand despite errors (or wrongful convictions!) and it is our responsibility to ONLY serve the death penalty when there is irrefutable evidence (whatever that is??) and NEVER when a conviction is based on circumstancial evidence. My opinion is that I do not think we should convict ANYBODY of any crime with just circumstantial evidence -- but that is just me. Also, it does not make sense to automatically conclude that death is a more severe punishment than life imprisonment for everybody. That is why I think it was excellent that Moussaoui did not get the death penalty. He seemed to want it. The death penalty would have made him the martyr that he wanted to be (I am presuming) and thus would not have been punishment. I am a firm (and extreme) believer that it is better to let ten guilty men go free instead of one innocent man be convicted. The other thing that I believe very few people consider is that criminals should be studied. We should make an effort to preserve criminals for the sake of learning how to possibly prevent raising criminal minds. I do not believe that people are born evil. I believe there is something that triggers it and we would be wise to study them.

The distressing thing is that Morin and Marshall spent extensive amounts of time incarcerated. Nobody (except their mothers) believed their claims of innocence for a long time. In a practical sense, they were assumed guilty until proven innocent. I throw out the following questions on the topic: If the same justice system that yields convictions of Guité, Thatcher and Hilton as it did for Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard (just to name a few!), how can you and I have any trust or faith in said justice system??? I find it difficult. If we support our falible justice system, what responsibility do we have to the wrongfully accused? I think we have a lot of responsibility. Is it even possible to correct miscarriages of justice such as Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard? I think we can not. I think the only thing that we can do is tighten up our standards of "burden of proof" in their honor. I adamantly believe that convicting (and incarcerating or punishing) an innocent person is a horrifying and disgraceful act of violence.

First, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of the employees of the Chinese government who are paid to troll the internet and spread Chinese government lies. Second, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the victims of China's evil industrial empire: its own people. Unfortunately, this thread seems to have taken a turn beyond its origins. We get our information from Chinese people who have left China. We do NOT get our information from Chinese people who work for the Chinese government. The ironic thing about China's "New Communism" is that it has become the most horrifying realization of what Karl Marx predicted would become of a capitalist society: an elite class controlling, enslaving and abusing a labor class.

Objectively, explain the difference between these two groups: Chuck Guité, Colin Thatcher and Guy-Paul Morin, Donald Marshall to an outsider who has never heard of any of them. The only difference that I see involves hindsight.

That all depends on who wins the war and who writes the history books!

I like this comment: because the astute poster can wisely conceal a mind-game to appear as a clever discussion of ideas. Oh, how much fun we can have with language arts!

With all three responses, he is being consistent with respecting the different federal and provincial juristdictions. He gives the impression that Canadians can count on the federal government to NOT impose its way in provincial jurisdictions. That was rarely the case under Trudeaumania and its successors. Do you mean Quebec separatists or Quebec federalists? I do not think that they deserve to be treated equally.

How much responsibility (or condemnation) do you place on the soldiers (non-deserters) in Iraq relative to the responsibility borne by the American administration?

A military deserter in a VOLUNTEER ARMY poses a difficult dillema where the motives or morality of a war is in question. For people who think that the war is justified, the deserter is in the wrong. For people who think that the war is not justified, the deserter is doing good but he is still violating his contract (a type of fraud). With respect to international affairs (specifically, relations between Canada and the U.S.A.), the deserter poses an unfair problem. Anything that the government does can be misconstrued and interpreted as taking sides. If the deserter is sent back, it looks like the government is siding with the American administration. If the deserter is allowed to stay in Canada, it looks like the government is taking a stand against the American administration. I think that the correct stand for the American deserter is unfortunately to suck it up and be sent back. I.E., he signed a contract to join the army, if he quits he knows the consequences. If he deserts, he knows that he goes to jail. Thus, he should spend time in an American jail and get his dishonorable discharge. By going to Canada (or any other country as a refugee) he is displacing his personal responsibility upon the Canadian government. That is not fair. This is really splitting hairs and taking things to the extreme: I would actually take the personal responsibility of the deserter a step further. By signing up for the volunteer army initially, he actually fueled the war. If NOBODY signed up for the American military. The American administration would not so easily wage war. Even if he deserts, his initial signing up makes him slightly (only slightly, like a drop in the bucket) responsible.

I am curious to know the source, too. What exactly is the law? Provide a citation.

I wonder how her unaborted child will feel as he grows up. Will he feel guilty for being the cause of his mother's blindness and misfortune? Will he feel lucky to be alive? Will he love his mother?

Come on! Making the connection: deserter = criminal is not very wise. It only applies if the deserter leaves OUR side to got to the enemy side. The recent defection of a senior Taliban leader http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...acb6174&k=78118 is a "criminal" to the Taliban. However, we would call him a born-again hero for the freedom of Afghanistan or something hokey like that. He would also be a valuable source of military intelligence for OUR side.

There is a difference between: - crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers and - crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights. Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires.

When you say "move" do you mean: 1) relying more upon the labor market to determine the level of demand for immigrants or 2) Immigration Canada being in the business of physically meeting the demand (instead of leaving that to the market as well) ?

I am genuinely intrigued by the following statements: Compared to my personal thoughts on the role of government, I would not say it is a "wacky" idea at all! Unlike any other directions of this thread, the above statements fit the bill of libertarian and anarchist views of citizenship and migration. I wonder if I am inferring too much or misinterpreting those statements. The anarchist dismisses the entire notion of nationality, citizenship and borders. These are like telling a vegetarian that they can eat kosher meat. The anarchist treats migration with a free market much as you would any other good or service: the less intervention from government, the better the outcome. I.E., the outcome will represent more closely what people actually want and it will be a fair (with respect to universal human rights) outcome. I throw this perspective out there specifically because: I wonder if there are more closet libertarians who are reluctant to come out and oppose the status quo.

So why aren't we debating banning divorce?Good come-back! This "best for the child" reasoning is sooooo laughable. It is only brought up as a priority when it is convenient.

I find this intriguing: The CBC lambastes the Bilderberg group and defends Harper against them?? Not the type of coverage that I would expect from th CBC at all. On second thought, he is now the Prime Minister and maybe they are sucking up to him. Who knows?

That is a convenient argument. Of course not -- because you CAN NOT define reasonable. Thus, nobody can understand your first statement, nor refute it and you will forever be right. Similarly, they could lobby the government to legislate "reasonable" menu prices for non-smokers or "reasonable" red carpet service or "reasonable" anything that the market does not provide for them.

There may not be any definite limits, it may actually be discretionary. We are all guests in the forum. This forum is not a tax-payer funded public service to benefit all members of "society" even if it appears that way. As guests, we are not owed anything and we do not dictate the rules. The owner of the forum can operate this forum any way he sees fit and is not answerable to anybody. I think it has been made clear. To sum things up, it really seems like "common decency" is the main rule. For some people, common decency is a difficult concept to grasp that it may need to be explained. Some people never understand it in their whole entire old lives. Uh.... Do you think you are OWED an explanation? Maybe we should lobby our government to enact a forum-moderation-fairness law. This reminds me of non-smokers telling the restaurant owners how to run their businesses. I have complete confidence that it is fair. Maybe if I ever get my chance at being banned, I will recount my experience when I return. However, I am willing to bet that Greg is fair.