Figleaf

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you.

And I say killing or theft is immoral regardless of society's measure. Re killing: in war?, in self-defence?, in execution of murderers?, in defence of property? Re theft: define 'theft'.

Like 'rights', absent a collective recognition, morality would mean no more than what each person claims about it from moment to moment. Like 'rights', in the absense of the measure of society, 'morality' is just a cacophony of interests. I say eating fish is immoral, you say eating pork is immoral.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0011758

God did straighten us out initially when he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden to face all the miseries earth has to offer. You call that 'straightening out'??

No they didn't just declare it, the ACKNOWLEDGED it. Absent their declarition that the sun and planets exist, do they still exist? Of course they do. That's silly. Absent the declaration, the sun and planets can still be observed and their gravity felt. Where can I observe undeclared rights? Yes, the UN is a product of and part of human society, so are you, so am I, ... No. You and I are products of the fornication of our parents. You and I are not declarations, we are beings. Yes. I don't see the problem.

Because he is purported to want particular outcomes, and because he is purported have immense wisdom and capabilities to obtain those outcomes.

But where was the anti-Harper part?

Yah just can't trust ANYTHING that comes from the Faux News Cabal.

[

Alberta would have to protect French language rights? Nope, this one doesn't work for me. If minority rights cannot be protected at the level Canada feels they ought to be protected, then Canada has no business letting separation be used as a way of carving citizens out of their rights. Alberta is banned from entering NAFTA or even an environmental treaty? Nope. This one doesn't work either. Well, Canada could agree to let a separated province into treaties, but if a separated province is just going to go out and make alliances or treaties against Canada's interests, we'd be unwise to let them go. Would the "First Nations" get to choose to join Alberta or stay in Canada? Or are they stuck with Canada forever? What if the province doesn't recoginize the claims as valid, such as in the West where the Indians had little permenant settlement? First Nations can make their own deals with Canada about how much they are in or out. The separation of a province should have no impact on Canada's responsibilities toward First Nations. Whether a province recognizes First Nations claims is irrelevant -- the existence of the claims in Canada's view before separation would be the test. Alberta would get nothing under A, but could buy its territory under B. The justification is that it brought nothing into the federation so why should it automatically get something to take away? Nope, I disagree. Your private ownership is your deal... sell before the referendum. Too many big quick bucks could be made with this scheme. The government of Canada cannot permit a the interests of its citizens to be compromised on the whims of any provincial separatist movement. Why? Just setup a payment plan as long as the province is credit worthy. Alberta has a higher credit rating then Canada from international lenders, why should we have unfavourable terms? The separating province should not be permitted to put Canada at risk of its default. If a province wants to go, why should Canada trust them in any way at all? That's ridiculous... a big waste of money and time. One vote is enough. Do you really think the second vote would be as fair? That's like electing a government and the next week holding a vote to ensure that people really meant to elect that government? How silly. I strongly disagree with this point. Canada owes a duty to all its citizens, including any who are in a separating province who would have prefered to remain. The very minimum obligation this imposes is to ensure that at the time it happens separation is still the wish of the Canadian citizens living there. With what authority? That would be an act of war if independance was already ok'ed. On the authority of the laws of Canada and of the negotiated agreement itself. Thank you for your comments, Geoffrey. I would point out that the SCC says the government has to negotiate, but it doesn't say anything about having to accept a deal that doesn't serve Canada's interests.

Personally, I feel a well-balanced recall system would solve most of the problems we have with a democratic deficit, without the need for any other substantial changes. Recall would put the elected representatives at the sharp end of a proper incentive system. They'd soon wise up, and those that couldn't get wise would get turfed.

I just wanted to say that this quote is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If your implying that God himself should come down here to fix everything, then it's assumed that you believe he's real. If that's the case, then you're forgetting that God himself did come down to earth to fix our problems, multiple times, but we keep distorting and simply ignoring his teachings and laws. Like in the Old Testament, God himself walked through the garden of Eden to talk to Adam and Eve, and told them the one and only rule, not to eat the fruit. A couple thousand years later, God came down to Moses in spiritual form on the Mountain, and gave him the ten commandments and laws that should be followed. Over time, his laws became distorted. So he came one more time, and this time in physical human form to straighten us out one more time with his new teachings and the creation of the new testament. So...the bible is here...the laws are here...we just keep ignoring them and distorting them. What more can he do? Except come down again...one more time, which he said he would. So I guess you can wait for the next time around, but that just might be too late. We know he came before many times, and we know he straightened it out before...so what are we waiting for the follow him? If 'God' were all he's cracked up to be, you'd think he could: -make rules clear enough that there's no doubt about how to enforce them; -create people smart enough to know what he meant; -create people good enough to follow his commands reliably; -come down often enough to keep us on the right path; and/or -dis-create bad s*it.

For example? Jbg mentioned adherence to the rule of law. Ok, then some examples of breaking some law. What?

l

Does that mean you are perfectly happy with an unreliable voting system because you believe that your party would benefit? That is a strange attitude. Not for a Republican.

Some poor anonymous Breslin Was probably dashing is head in For he was ashamed At having been named As one and the same with that Bredin.

Some believe that the Supreme Court has decided that if a province wants to separate and that a clear majority of it's residents clearly say so in a clearly worded referendum, the federal government has an obligation to come to a negotiated separation with that province. I disagree, in that there is no obligation to acheive an agreement, merely to negotiate one. But in any event, I got thinking about what such a negotiation should contain, and I present here what should be the minimal requirements from the federal side: TERMS: 1. The Government of Canada is obliged to first protect the interests of the Canadian state and the interests of its citizens and residents. 2. A province seeking separation will be represented for all purposes in the negotiations by the elected government of the province under the terms of the constitution of Canada, and any agreement as to separation can be concluded only by and through the said legitimate provincial government. Prior to conclusion of separation the laws and constitution of Canada will continue to fully apply within the province proposing separation. 3. Prior to conclusion of separation, the all residents of the province proposing separation will be required to choose to retain their citizenship (or other civil status) of Canada, OR to choose to become citizens of the new entity. Canada will permit no dual citizenship for citizens of the new entity. 4. The new entity will enshrine rights equivalent to those guaranteed in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court of Canada will act as the court of last resort for the new entity for a period of fifty years from the date that separation is concluded. 5. The new entity will not seek to enter any international treaties without the prior consent of the Government of Canada for a period of fifty years from the date that separation is concluded. 6. The territory of the new entity will consist of: (a ) the territory it held the day prior to its accession into the federation (i.e. for PEI -- all of PEI, for Quebec -- the historic territory of Lower Canada, for Saskatchewan -- nothing); PLUS (b ) such lands within its provincial jurisdiction as it chooses to purchase sovereignty and eminent domain over from the crown of Canada at a price determined according to international norms; MINUS (c ) any and all lands subject to valid First Nations claims. 7. The separating province will purchase the freehold interest in any lands, buildings etc, owned by the Federal government, the Crown in right of Canada, or any federal crown corporation within the territory noted in #7, above (at fair market prices as of the day prior to the referendum). ADDED: 7.5. The separating entity will also pay its portion of the national debt on a pro rata basis for each person choosing citizenship in the new entity. 8. The separating province will tender to purchase the freehold interest in any and all lands, buildings, etc. within the territory noted in #7, above owned by individuals or corporations resident in Canada outside of the separating territory (at fair market prices as of the day prior to the referendum). The said residents may accept the offer or not as it suits them. 9. One year PRIOR to the date of separation, the new entity will place the full amount of payments it is required to make under the negotiations in an escrow account, and these amounts will be released to the government of Canada or the relevant citizens and corporations upon completion of separation. These deposits must be in a combination of gold bullion and/or a blend of U.S. dollars, Euros, and Yen. 10. Prior to completion of separation, the government of Canada will conduct a second referendum within the separating province to confirm the intentions of the province's residents. The threshold for confirmation will be 50%+1. Failing confirmation at this time, separation will not occur. 11. All expenses of negotiations, measurement, oversight, referenda, etc. incured by the Government of Canada in relation to the proposed separation shall be paid by the separating entity. 12. Any default by the separating entity in discharging any of these terms will result in termination of the separation process and the assumption by the crown of Canada of the separating territory as a Territory administered solely by the Government of Canada.

Society can DECLARE certain rights inalienable. But that doesn't mean the rights exist in some abstract Platonic realm of the essence. That means they are DECLARED by that society to be inalienable. Absent that declaration, what are the rights? Absent enforcement of them, where do they exist? The UN is a product of human society. Its declarations are thus within the meaning I have argued ... creations of society. There is no logical reason why there should be beautiful people and ugly people either, or any logic that says that the regime should work to equalize the level of attractiveness among the population either. That's really quite beside the point. A person's appearance is determined by chance. The laws of property and civil rights are constructed by society through government. But indeed, there is no inherent reason that a society might not seek to help persons whose appearance falls outside the usual norms.

[

James BREDIN, I think.

I think for completeness you need to formulate a useful definition of 'choice'. The choice between death and slavery for example, would seem to fall short of precluding 'oppression'. There is no basis for you to confuse the concepts 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' in the first sentence with the concepts 'Muslim' and 'Jew' in the second sentence.

I doubt it.

[quot.