myata

Wow, how much more lame could it go? Is there really anything to be explained here? A criminal won't obey the law, by definition, so how is it the reason for everybody else to do the same? What would be the logical connection? And, if so, what would be the point of having the law? A moral standard? Voluntary guideline? Would it apply also to a case of somebody in extreme need (or want) helping themselves to a bit of your excess (in their view) property? Why, if the law only need to be observed to the extent that it doesn't contradict my personal likes and preferences?

How many more times do we need to hear this lame excuse? Criminals won't obey the law, neither should/would I? Do we really need them, laws, folks, let's maybe rethink this whole idea, creatively? PM Harper may even show us the lead.

Then we can all here agree that while it's OK (and moreover, useful and positive) to discuss laws, critisize them and attempt to improve them, the standing law of the land should always be observed. That doesn't seem to have been the view of the conservatives in this government, that likes to play games with the standing laws, ignoring them, weakening them, undemining with inadequate policies, and so on, while no attempts to actually change the law is being made. These strategies of Mr Harper's have been discussed at length. They come dangerously close to contempt of the rule of law - if one law can be undermined by the government in power, then which one could not? It should certainly not escape the attention of the public, as it's now established as a consistent trend in this government, and it certainly should be a major issue if / then they present their next claim to be elected to govern.

Really, we've got to be so harsh and unforgiving to any transgressions of the law, or only selected ones? Isn't it so very funny, how one could advocate strict obeyance (and harsh sanctions) in one sentence, and then call to ignore and deliberately break the law they don't happen to like? That attitude too is btw very characteristic for social conservatives: everybody has to obey their laws, but not necessarily themselves (because they're answering only to call from the above maybe?). Compare Harpers well documented frolicks with laws (Kyoto, gun registry, "fixed" election date).

Well, so many a folk only see what they want to see, one'd be amazed! But of course pres candidate broadcasting of (non-existent) terrorist threat from Canada to its biggest trading partner has nothing to do whatsoever with this country, and shouldn't be mentioned in any news, that should dedicate themselves instead entirely to the essential matters like e.g. Britney Spears (apologies, Celine Dion maybe) latest outfit.

I'm not at all opposed to the notion of a meaningful sanction as a deterrent of crime and have posted to that extent. It's just that it is one of many strategies that should be used together, persistently and in comprehensive manner, starting from addressing the root causes of crime, to comprehensive strategies to deal with young offenders, to competent and efficient policing, etc., and yes, gun control is one very essential piece of the puzzle. And yeah, to be meaningful and efficient, the array of sanctions should include far more options than jail time, which could and should be applied much earlier in the cycle. Social conservative ideas - give everybody as many guns as they can carry, and then throw everybody who'd use them to jail - are just so far away from comprehending that crime is a complex social phenomenon that can't be treated on the spot, and it's no surprise that outside of socially conservative core they don't have popular support, no do they produce any practical results, - other than exorbitant costs of jails, trials, extra policing, etc, that would by far - orders and orders of magnitude - outrun the cost of registry.

It may have, very simply, been a sound business decision by Mr Chaouili (whatever). Cost-benefit analysis. 15 minutes of doctor's time (with overheads) vs unknown possibility of patient being restored to life. Get ready for a fun ride, everybody. Heads or tails. No, I'm not advocating the status quo. But sheer cutthroat profiteering taking care of our health and lives? I'd think twice.

Finally, something intelligible from the Liberal side: "On Wednesday night in Toronto, Ignatieff signalled unequivocally for the first time that his caucus would vote against two Conservative bills to do away with the gun registry." The Star, Apr.3 Though long in coming, I appload the principled position of Mr Ignatieff and Liberal caucus (by whatever means and deliberations he managed to attain it). With NDP and Bloc on board, any real possibility of passing this bill is dead, but of course, Harper is free to perform whatever antics he could surmise, as seems to be his main talent. Once he and his bunch are out, the government actually seriously intersted in addressing crime issues will be able to get on with the job of improving the efficiency, and enforcing compliance.

Once again, registration of firearms is a no brainer. They are dangerous (certainly, more so than pets, cars, or children), they may get into wrong hands (illegally or legally - e.g. by loving owner going crack). Or used in the wrong moment. Or used accidentally. Or... The knowledge of whether somebody has 1 gun or 20, can make a lot of difference. It's hardly any burden on anybody, if that idyllical farmer is short of 20 bucks to pay registration, they can get a special rate of 15, upon presentation of official farmership certificate, or equivalent. The whole loud cry is probably sponsored by gun lobby, worried that registration would cause drop in sales (less guns around, how terrible), and those loudest 20% of ..% of gun owners who consider stockpiling deadly weapons as their sacred right. Now what I'd really like to find out is the position of Mr Ignatieff. This is one a of key issues, and yet he's been somewhat shy, coy, mum and sitting on the both sides of the fence. He just so wants to get there, and wouldn't disappoint anybody, it'd break his heart! BTW just to preempt likely comments, no, gun registry, alone, won't solve all crime problems. It's one of the tools that, given consistent, comprehensive policy to address causes and combat manifestations of crime, could be very useful and even absolutely necessary. That's something about 76.8 lightyears beyond the grasp of an average binary socially conservative mind, that's firmly set on a belief that there's one universal and 100% effective method to deal with crime, and this method is to throw everybody with a touch of potential guilt in jail, forever. Only, for some reason they haven't yet discovered it. Right, not an oxymoron, no: they know that the right, golden solution is to flood the place with legal guns and put everybody in jail. Yet wherever and whenever they try, it always produces opposite result.

Correct, a good topic to explore. How exactly do we know who'd be the good guy here? Strong, impregnable belief in own right? Divine revelation? Certainly nothing to do with the way one acts!

Is there really something to discuss here? We register our homes, cars and pets. It's only a matter of common sense that deadly tools like guns, whose only purpose is to kill, should be registered as well. The registry is implemented now too bad it way way over cost, but it's not the first (and by far not the last) example of government mismanagement. Take that 1 bln dollars Conservatives security failure in the PS IT nobody wants to talk about. Time to move on, enforce the policy, and go after those who deliberately break the law. Not "jail" forget it, but a sizable fine (will help with paying the operating costs, for once. I hope our "flake" new would be PM finally discovers his principled stance on the issue.

Why go to such pains? Just slam a couple of hundred fine, with interest, and court charges, if necessary, for disobeying the law. You register you car and there's no reason whatsoever why it couldn't (and shouldn't) be done with the guns.

With waterboarding in 21 century, Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq? If being an empire necessitates such acts, I'd reserve my opinion. May be better for Sir William, no argument about that.

This is an old world and you'll be amazed to find out how much things change, with time. E.g. there was Rome. A host of empires before it. And after. All had something to boast about / with, all went the same way.

But of course! Why worry dumping our byproducts on others, or being saddened, disappointed, rightfully and justfully angered if / when they happen to do the same? Comes with the package.

Well.. speaking theoretically, in another time and place, possibly far away, there could have existed people, sentient beings, etc who'd have sufficient knowledge, wisdom, will and courage to handle (large part) of their own "products of consumption" rather than dump them on others. Those people could have a claim, no, not to moral superiority over others, but to simple self respect.

No, certainly nothing special about this episode, it only confirms that everybody already knew. Opens another perspective on our infinitely and morally superior way of life. It's not like we have't been involved in killing innocents, helping agressors, starting wars on flimsiest pretexts or even without, and etc and yada. The only difference is that we like to wrap it all into a pretty shiny package, that's supposed to tell something .. to somebody.. serve as proof, explanation and evidence, all in itself.. that somehow, it should look, smell and sound different, when performed by us. Not sure who's actually listening. Looks the same stinky sh.. to me.

Most certainly, if one'd advocate torture as a means of extracting information (of highly questionnable value), somebody else could rationalize killing to defend / protect / whatever. One is not a nanometer better than another; both belong to that savagely lawless dark ages way of life when stronger arm was all the moral, the law and justice unto itself.

Is it important to understand that there are people among us who are capable of executing these medieval interrogation techniques multiple times? As well as those who authorised it, in the high(est?) echelons of power? If torture can be rationalized, what act could not / would not?

Who cares? Would it make any difference? As long as that one, far 'greater' country stands staunchly behind whatever Israel's rulers come up with, one can safely predict decades of turmoil and violence. In that time, many a government will change and buckets of wise, truthful words will be spoken.

I doubt there's much to be said about principles anymore. Anything goes, as long as it's wrapped into nice democratic package. Illegar wars, breaking up and creating countries, sponsoring and punishing agressors, you name it.

The questions only trigger one answer in the minds of those who only understand one true way of life. The same one applied centuries ago, in the medieval ages. Our sophistication has increased dramatically, our methods and approaches to how to deal with those who are different from us, not one bit.

No, but we always know best what's good for them, after all that's our main call to fame in the international affairs. Just wait till we get out, and all those who believed and got carried away by the foreign ideals will be left to face the local music all by themselves. The cost of mindless benevolence (if that's what it is, rather than attempt at a sheer dominance).

Does it mean that you should stick on those unlimited imaginary wings, rather than bothering with bare factual car? Why not?

Only from the recent topics: excommunication for abortion after rape; discouraging birth control; blaming condoms for spread of AIDS; refusing communion to politicians supporting basic human rights (gay marriage); promoting medieval practices to treat mental illness (exoricism). It's really sad that with the level of influence the Church still carries, it spends so much of its effort on outdated, useless beyond any hope practices!