Michael Hardner

That was discussed elsewhere. It's marginally different than a libel suit, and certainly Mr. Steyn wasn't surprised by the process in question. You should be able to countersue for malicious prosecution though.

Good for you for producing some numbers - but that stat shows the Canadian rate more than double the US rate ? There must be difference in how the crimes are counted.

And my understanding is that journals are under pressure to print papers from skeptics, which results in changed standards, and all the attendant arguing and lobbying that goes with that.

Maybe we can leave the ping-pong on the other thread. This thread represents a separate submission by Bonham. I know that there was some discussion in the past as to whether the US forestry service should put out 'natural' forest fires, e.g. fires caused by lightning. This strikes me as similar. I think there are some good ideas posted in this on both sides, however in order to pursue either option the entire world needs to be on the same page. This doesn't necessarily mean a world government, but at least some kind of body, some kind of forum that works. I think that that would be the most important thing to come out of this - IMO it would be more important than the solution itself. Unfortunately, though, the hog-callers in the US who bleat against climate change will see a loss of sovereignty in either suggestion and will mobilize the bovine mooers in their Cable News herds to rally against it. Unless you can pay them off. Or take them out.

Of course this is true. This is also true of national security, and anything else where there is a general concern that a politician can capitalize on to gain attention. But don't blame the science. The scientists generally resent being pawns of politics, even though they may feel that political action is required. And there are examples of climate scientists rebuking politicians and activists for overstating the case of Global Warming, overstating the implications or the possible future ramifications.

It might not be. If they were able to convince the editors that the paper wasn't even worthy of publication, then it might be within reason for them to discuss and even lobby the editor to not publish the papers.

Thousands of years ago, murder wasn't even illegal. Now, we're worried about pollution. There is progress, just not as fast as you'd like. And I'm still glad we don't let people make decisions that would make them a burden on everyone. Hard drugs is not a 'choice'.

How is "mass destruction of ecosystems" a thought crime ?

You don't have unrestricted liberty. You don't have the right to keep property, you don't have the right to social assistance... the list goes on. If you're not going to regulate dangerous drugs then why regulate anything ? An addict is the person who has the least control over his/her decisions. If you're going to let them choose drugs then you may as well allow predatory financial practices, and allow financial pushers to rob little old ladies. So, you will instead have corporations making billions pushing drugs. Do you like that better ? You haven't addressed the good things that society has done, and especially the good things that are done despite the wishes of the elite.

I don't know who you are, but you need to learn the quote feature before continuing, I think.

It's not on us to delve into the science, is it ?

No, they administer the workings of the nation, and pass laws respecting the constitution. Not all of our liberties. Liberties do come into conflict. When they do, process determines a resolution. There wasn't so much love in the 1970s as the 1960s. I guess you must not have been alive then. The Reagan Era that saw the WOD also saw the rise of new and dangerous street drugs. The War on Drugs wasn't effective at all, was it ? So I don't know what that says about your conspiracy. These are called "laws". Greed and corruption rule the world because people are greedy and corrupt. People are also lazy, hateful, neglectful, and alternately caring, proud, protective of the weak... People are lots of things and these are the things you see in the system. Submit a solution and if it's good then perhaps the marketplace of ideas will make it work. Lyndon Johnson saw that the United States couldn't support segregation, so he pounded through the Civil Rights Act. MADD saw a problem with drunk driving decades ago, and they worked to raise awareness and got laws changed so that the behavior wouldn't be tolerated. Scientists have started noticing that the earth is warming, and we're now debating huge changes to our policies to mitigate these things. Don't be so negative.

Zero greenhouse gas emissions, slightly more expensive, a lot less sexy but the most sensible solution before us.

Maybe. But it sounds like you're responding to fear-mongering with brute resistance to do anything, rather than counter the fear-mongering.

People don't want legalized drugs. It didn't work in Amsterdam either, did it ? There's no magic solution. There are approaches that might work, many involve spending a lot of money which, again, people don't want to do.

To be clear, I also believe that the Western way, i.e. separation of church and state, is superior but there's no point in being smug about that. We certainly had nothing to do with making it happen.

It's not a centralized religion like Catholicism, so reform will spread as a virus, and not handed down from a central authority. That said, even the Catholic church behaves differently in the new world than in Europe and the Third World, i.e. it is more liberal. The advantage of a decentralized church is that reform doesn't need to be approved by the top of the heirarchy. The disadvantage is that it has to happen one person at a time.

Shwa wasn't engaging in that: The quote is one "can" draw a "similar" conclusion - in other words, criticism cuts both ways, i.e. look to your own culture also. He didn't say that the West was worse or as bad as those countries. Muddy, on the other hand, doesn't distinguish between his targets and the language is direct and unqualified.

Not true. Dingbats, as you call them, do have patriarchal cults that are Christian based. There are also elements of our society that permits disrespect to women that strict religious societies do not, at a cost of freedom of course. Now that some Islamic reformers have been identified, you move the bar and say there are no enough. You may have fooled Morris, but not me.

What exactly are you condemning ? The country, the culture of that country or the religion ? Muddy is pretty specific about condemning the religion. I'm fine with someone being critical of barbaric practices in any culture, as long as the critic has a broad knowledge and is not just exercising chauvinism under the guise of cultural criticism. And of course, said person should also be aware of practices done by other religions, otherwise what is driving their criticism ? You'll probably find that the number of posters here who can provide objective criticism on such topics is extremely limited, and overshadowed by the Lictors of the board who claim to wear a mortarboard, but really wear the bedsheet...

Spelling mistake notwithstanding, the meaning is there. This is the standard practice brought to the board by anti-Islam bigots all the time: blame everyone in the religion, or in this case "the religion" for the actions of extremists. It could be a springboard for many interesting and enlightening discussions if brought forward properly, but it's not meant to be anything but a feel-good slam of immigrants. Not sure whether this signals a change by you and a step towards joining the "boys in the bund" but I imagine it's just you striking out against some do-gooder that you don't like today. I will put your reasoning on your shoulders and not blame the Scottish race for your latest misdeeds.

But you are not using the same standard Muddy has used, while you are defending him. He attributes threats made by an adherent to that religion. So all we have to do is come up with a similar threat, and all is square. You can't easily jump in on such threads and try to defend extreme views, when your argument doesn't use the same elephant-gun technique as your team-mates.

Isn't asking about the "rights to insult" aurally equivalent asking about the right to pass gas ? I don't think anyone doubts the rights to free expression, but someone does have to wonder why an individual is planning out their insults in advance in this fashion. I expect insults to happen in an immediate fashion, without thought to the consequences. Asking ahead of time what your rights are with respect to insults indicates, to me, a level of smug rudeness that is as undesirable as some of the traits that the insulter despises.

I stand corrected - she was a host of a CityTV show - QueerTV - and was a frequent guest on MuchMusic as well. She went on to write a book that was critical of her religion. She's evidence against any statement that there are no voices of criticism, or no proponents of reform.

Canadians don't easy get excited over these kinds of things. Chretien's golf course matter didn't awaken those polite zombies that comprise the Canadian electorate. Outrage ? How about the gun registry or eHealth ? Billions lost by mismanagement of programs.