myata

Yes of course security is a legitimate concern and there's no reason it shouldn't (and couldn't) be addressed in an appropriate manner in the Committee that will be reviewing these documents (if they ever make it there - in full and unedited form).

We've been here before. There's no constitutional mechanism for the Parliament to assure its rights in our system. It cannot even control its own schedule.

For the lack of a better idea? Yes we believe, Iggy has it in him (he only has to find it; forgot where he left it last time)

Yes I wonder if (in our endless governing duopoly) they have been in some complicity behind the scenes for awhile now, "while the public version", etc. We children simply cannot be trusted with knowning the truth anymore than could we be allowed to exercise our real political choices.

Yes this is why some two hundreds years back people have thought of a concept known as constitutional separation of powers (and checks and balances associated with it). Now common in democratic societies all around us except maybe a few former British colonies still cherishing their colonial status and reluctant to ascend to full independence (and with it, responsibility for its own political process). Not to worry; in couple of generation (my educated guess) the idea may dawn even upon us. Thanks to our PM for incessantly bringing the issue to our attention no matter how hard we're trying to avoid it pretending that our system is working just fine.

As is applying one society's cultural norms and traditions to a totally different one. Righteous fingerpointing can go on forever, and not necessarily in our Western culture's favour considering all of its manifestations, not just the selected ones that match prejudged pattern. I.e. complete with two hugely violent world wars, multiple episodes of mass murder, persistent pattern of colonisation, interference and plain unprovoked aggression. And right off the news, quasi institutionalized paedofilia, a relatively minor contribution considering the above. Rather than moralising from non existent, in the entirety of the picture superiority platform we could for once turn to ourselves and clean our own act so that in time (of their own choosing) the others could look at our model and maybe try to follow, in their own way and out of their own will. But that would be too hard an undertaking, professing empty words backed by little practical act is a lot more practical (i.e affordable) strategy, ne c'est pas?

Harper is doing great job bringing home the truth that "Parliament supreme" mantra with no real means to assuere its independent work, forget "supremacy" for now, sounds empty like that drum that plays "O Canada" at the start of Parliamentary sessions. We'll find out the real price of that "supremacy" very soon and it'll be educational (in the sense of what our legislative independence; and by extension, the integrity of democratic governance is really worth) one way or the other (my bet is on the other; but I'd love to find myself mistaken, for once).

No physical law disproves the existence of god(s), in general or particular variation thereof. However if we note the nature's law of evolution, it dictates that survivability of any species is related to their diversity and ability to adapt. Insulting somebody who's views are different from mine to force them to be(come) just like me is a sure way to eliminate diversity and the inevitable conclusion from there.

No, I don't agree. One man's "reality" is another's Hell and therefore that excuse is no better than any other.

I'd say that in all probability it's not illegal, but certainly would be ignorant and stupid, just as insulting any person for no other reason than ideological prejudice.

The delegation was on the way to commemorate the massacre of thousands of Polish officers and civilians by Stalin's secret police henchmen early in the WWII. Later on, Poland was "liberated" by USSR with installation of friendly communist regime to follow. And now this terrible tragedy. I'm sure both Poland and Russia are reeling in shock. They'll need much courage to continue on the path of reconciliation.

Regardless of our personal attitudes to these events and that, the question still remains: should it be the call of our legislature (Ontario; Quebec; Canada) to provide moral guidance to the society on all sorts of miscellaneous and oftentimes controvercial happenings and goings? Or should it rather stick to its primary objectives, i.e. create good laws and hold the government accountable? Something that it sometimes really struggles to achieve (especially in the latter part).

Except, our terminology conscious legislators have apparently forgotten to share with us their recommendations with respect to Ms Coultier's opinions. Busy, busy. Quelle dommage, without it we'll simply be lost as proverbial children trying to figure out which "hate speech" is OK froom those particularly malicious forms that necessitate Parliamentary guidance to the society.

Mc Gill Daily: Ontario on Israeli Apartheid Week And so, perhaps feeling anxious to be left behind the latest innovations in practical democracy, like e.g. Russia's moves to regulate history (Wikipedia), our very own Ontario Parliament has decided to weigh in on the appropriate use of the "apartheid" terminology in the province. No, it's not the matters of competence that are of issue here, even given the fact that a prominent survivor of apartheid, South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu has characterised Israeli policies in the occupied territories in very much the same way as what he experienced in South Africa (BBC: Tutu). But granted, our very own experts on "real" apartheid in Queens Park will know better. No, it's the matter of expression. After all, the word is not inappropriate, or violent, it's readily found in your English dictionary, and been used by many spakers on numerous occasions both within and outside the context being discussed. The only difference is that somebody has thought that it's not the right way to characterise certain policies by certain government, and voila - now we have an official legislative statement on the matter. Not unlike Russian government's policy on judging statements about recent history (though they also prosecute the "wrong" ones; we arent' there just yet, but appear to be on the right track). I would just dismiss it as another ridiculous flick by our busy legislators, except that with the recent "burka" law in Quebec; and the fact that our two "natural" government parties can no longer be distinguished under strongest known to the science microscope we maybe vitnessing a worrying pattern. No I've no involvement in the "weeks" nor have ever taken any part or visited one. But the fact that this unanimous act has slipped so easily under the radar screen without public discussion or explanation is strange; and maybe worrysome. Perhaps in our comfortably aging societies we're growing tired (and uneasy?) about all the messiness that comes with real and vibrant freedoms, and starting a (long and gentle) slide toward complacency and conformism?

Yeagh right. Our very own (self proclaimed and self appointed) interpretator of "Canadian values" and protector of all and everything. Hopefully, Charter and Supreme Court will stop these presently. But the cause for concern is still there with majority support firmly behind these pointless distractions as well as two behemoth parties, and not a single politician to take a stand on principle.

Of course they can be oppressed in any number of other ways for which "burka ban" would do precious nothing; and of course there're those who wear it as a conscious choice (one woman has been interviewed on CBC) and wouldn't need any of that unasked for "protection". But of course all this is wide beyond the point, if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that this has nothing to do with "oppression" or "protection" and everything with us being "uncomfortable" with the way the unknown other chose to dress, and being unable to address our subconcious discomfort in a rational manner, we chose instead to trump our own proclaimed principles, perchance adding some easy bandwagon votes for one of our "dums".

Yes we should certainly follow the lead of Turkey, Egypt and Tunisia. And in case you haven't noticed, we already do, in a way, as our political system provides less and less of meaningful choice offering instead worthy causes like defining democratic dress codes.

How do you know though what is dress and what is something else? Do we need you (or the government) to tell us, to know for certain? Yes that is how the march to the single and final truth usually begins. Finally one common view with "Muslim countries". Too bad it isn't about personal freedoms or peaceful coexistence without interference but about dictating personal dress code. Step forward for them, or ten steps back for us? Your call. Yes, you know exactly what they want (and need). Maybe even better than themselves.

And based on that eye opening personal experience you now feel fully empowered to decide (and tell; no, dictate) people how they should dress? The sorry episode only shows one thing really (forget the "oppression", "protection of liberty" or "democratic values"): how very thin, meek and fragile the notions of individual freedom still are even in our self acclaimed as free and democratic societies and how easily can they be corrupted or compromised in case of even minor adverse circumstances. Something to note; and may be become concerned about, especially in the view of a (not so rare, of late) complete and absolute consensus between our two main political behemotic parties, the only ones that are allowed to speak on our behalf and govern us.

Yes, you sure know better what is good for them. It's a well known form of benevolent liberty. But guess what, from here, there's only two logical ways: 1) somebody knows what's good for us all - and they'll make us all dress in whatever they will like; or 2) some of us are different (better?) than the others and would make the rest dress in proper dressing (and by extension, behave; think in the proper way) Wonder why these modern democratic developments look (and smell) like well known (and forgotten) past?

How about giving ourselves an option to follow our own preachings - for others (something about personal liberties; freedom of thought; and as a consequence, to dress - no?) No, no such luck? Our western principles all so often only reach half of way - i.e exactly as far as they serve us. I'm free to dress as I like; you are also free - to do it in a way I like you to.

In the meanwhile, Ignatieff's position coincides with that of CPC and on this issue as well: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100326/ignatieff_veil_100326/20100326?hub=TopStoriesV2 Looks like we're finally zeroing in on the perfect (and final) absolute consensus in the federal politics here.

And that of course, is their problem. Or fault? Let's vote now what kind of clothing we feel most "comfortable" about (and therefore should allow people to dress in). But then, should it really stop at just clothing? Should we make sure that everybody also thinks the "right" way when dealing with the government? Or when in public? Or whenever?

Making this kind of statements maybe just innocently dumb (why wouldn't they do as I think they should). But legislating it is a different story. Another step in democratic regress of our society.

The changes that are necessary to become a responsible, transparent and modern democracy has been stated and no less than a dozen times. "Make sense" is a different matter though, because it's in the eye of the beholder and there's no lack of entirely outrageous things that would make all the sense to somebody in this world. Yes let's see if Holy Speaker would now prevail where (ostensible) Parliamentary Supremacy couldn't do a thing.