Figleaf

Ah, such brilliant insight, M.Dancer! What's next then, monitor their phone calls, screen their personal correspondence, and record their conversation in case they say anything unfavourable about a teacher? Get real. Schools should butt out of students' private lives.

In my opinion, these cases represent an abuse of power by the school authorities. If these kids have committed defamation, let them be pursued in court. If they have commited a crime, bring in the police. But if all they have done is express views that are unpleasant to the school personel, then leave them alone. If they were graduates of the school or other private citizens the school would have no ability to punish them for these writings, and so, the only way the school has to do something is the fact that they have power at present over them. Using the existence of authority to punish someone who would not otherwise be punishable is an abuse. Excerts from the Toronto Star ...

I know it's going to p!ss you off to for me to say this, but I think what is happening is that Israel, through its intransigence and questionable practices, has exhausted the benefit of the doubt it had largely enjoyed in North America for several decades. The requirement that Israel defend itself is seen as at least partly driven by the prolonged and illegal Occupation, some of the methods and tactics they have used to sustain it, and probably most importantly the disingenuous misinformation and propagandistic methods they have used to justify it. (As an example of the latter, consider two insultingly dilatory arguments often tendered: biblical heritage and the supposed non-existence of Palestinians. These arguments are utter non-starters, but are frequently retendered, re-retendered, and re-re-re-ad nauseam by Israel's apologists.)

I read in today's Glob & Maul that there are 33,000 French voters in Montreal.

OK. The law. Legal rulings, legal interpretations are all about the specific and legal defintion of words. As a layman you see what Hart wrote as an admission of guilt. The RCMP investigated and found that it wasn't. Wasn't even close enough to warrant charges. They had access to all of the relevant documents. You had access to an out of context quote in a newspaper article. Which one is more credible? Well, I can't help myself but follow this matter since it is of such importance to the integrity of our political system. (Though I am still ignoring M. Bluth elsewhere.) This need not be a question of which is more 'credible' between the RCMP and us average forum denizens. The point is that the RCMP (or any prosecutors involved) should be able and willing to tender a reasonable explanation for how they have arrived at the (HIGHLY COUNTER-INTUITIVE) conclusion that an admission of the kind Hart made is not within the seemingly plain language of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, if you do choose to characterize it as a question of 'credibility', then the assumption that the RCMP is more credible(troubled as they have been revealed lately to be, and led by a person who is a subject of the very investigation in question), is dubious at best.

Rankles you, does it? I'm just letting those people know not to post at me if they're hoping for a reply.

Now you're talking -- Sample every hue and cry.

Wull Go-o-o-o-olly, Gomer! Them Eye-tallians sure looks wha-a-a-a-te! Ken yu ima-uhgine?

Um. Without trying to put too fine a point on this ... maybe there's a lesson for you.

NO. The data you cited earlier in support of that date was for Muslim population overtaking Christian population around the whole world, not Canada.

I will never buy from, vote for, or assist in any way Wayne Crookes. Not because of anything he alleges defamed him, but because of his overweening self-importance in his campaign against the internet.

I don't hate him. I just don't feel that he should be in our poltical system or in the country. I disgregard him completely as a person. That sure sounds pretty hate-y. But what's important is not that you hate him, but that you have no good reason for it.

He's human trash that shouldn't be in Canada. That''s all he is in my opinion. What the hell he's doing in our policial system at all is beyond me. And the Liberals no less. Man what's wrong here? What's wrong is your bizarre hatred for someone for no good reason. (And your focus on a criminal charge of which he was exonerated.)

I'm skeptical. What sorts of 'scientific' experiments point the a spirit of universe?

While Steyn usually shows a notable lack of insight, perspective, empathy or talent, this is nevertheless and important topic for Canadians. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to want to continue and improve our society along the lines which have served us so comparatively well over the last half century plus. It is questionable whether/how that can be done if our demographics skew markedly toward newcomers with little understanding or connection to how our society has succeeded so far. This is not racism or bigotry. Call it cultural chauvinism if you must, but it is justifiable. The issue of declining birthrates among established Canadians and the concomitant reliance on immigration is a difficult challenge. But I must say we have not gotten serious yet about addressing the birthrate issue. If we want extant Canadians to have more children, wouldn't it make sense to discover and address the real negative incentives and hesitations that prevent it? So far there has been virtually no rational discourse on this subject. Token, haphazard tax credits are not a sensible response to the question. Personally, I think some kind of reliable, accessible day care is going to be an ineluctible requirement. But that's probably only one of the ways we need to think about inspiring more childbearing. We should be able to assure prospective parents that their children will not have their prospects foreclosed by prohibitively priced university education, for example.

The real idiots in this matter are the ones who use heavy-handed police tactics to deal with upset six-year olds.

Define them in your question and I will take them for granted. I don't mean to be facetious, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. Objectives change from time to time, though some are persistent. For example, one primary objective of all states I can think of is the defence and retention of their sovereignty. Other grand-scale objectives are the maintenance of order and increase of wealth. Smaller and more specific objectives are too plentiful to list.

That's very odd. I scarecely ever see anyone berating Israel fo defending itself, which after all would be quite unreasonable. On the other hand, I do see people complain from time to time about Israel grabbing land, killing civilians, and provoking violence with the Palestinians and its other neighbors. (Not that the neighbors or Palestinians are totally blameless themselves, mind you.) Well, I can't speak for the Left, but what I see from the Right these days is either ignorance or wilful disregard of history (particularly the history of Israel being implanted in the region against the expressed interests of the inhabitants), a perspective that Israel can do no wrong, and frequent denials that Palestinians even exist (a sort of an intellectual genocide). WHO?

I know it's off topic, but I'm curious as to which reserves you're talking about. I can't remember their names, but some of the ones you see featured in the those 'Gee isn't this terrible' reports in the media. Was there one called David's Inlet?

The trouble with this query is that it seems to personify the State and presupposes that the State has an objective. Does the State have an objective? Personified? I don't think so. But inasmuch as it has a purpose and is somewhat directed by human choices it does have a sort of 'life'. As for objective, the state almost certainly have several concurrent objectives it is carrying out.

Well, given the fact that we're dealing with kids who are having EXTENDED temper tantrums (in the example that started this thread it was at least 20 minutes, although likely well over half an hour, although I've read about similar cases that went on for over an hour), I suspect that the amount of damage could be rather considerable. Well, just a side point here... the article indicates that they never just left the kid alone to wind down -- instead they kept pestering her, virtually guaranteeing she would continue to be upset. Anyway, I don't think the level of damage you are envisioning bespeaks a need to mount a police takedown. So a few books get torn up ... whoopee. ...School boards in the U.S. have much tighter controls over their funding than they do in Canada. Often, boards can't "just raise taxes" without passing some referendum. If the citizens in the area don't agree to pass the referendum, the school will either have to skip the insurance, or take the funds from somewhere else. The crappy organizational structure of the US school system is no excuse. If employees are exposed to the possibility of lawsuits for carrying out their jobs, they should be indemnified. If that means taxes must be raised or services curtailed, well then, let the citizenry make better choices about where they spend their public money. I was just THINKing the same about you. No, you fabricated a bunch of highly implausible dangers and called them real. I'm assuming there are principals, vice-principals, school nurses and guidance counsellors in the school in addition to the teachers. What seems ridiculous is the notion that six-year-olds pose such terrible hazards to grown people.

No, it wasn't. You can make that claim all you want, but back in the late 70s/early 80s I remember hearing about regular appointments Trudeau made to various crown corporations and/or departments. Leaders of crown corps are not part of the civil service, and indeed have long been politically appointed. I was not refering to them. Senior leaders (DMs) of the civil service are also political appointees. Many of them under Trudeau were merit appointments nonetheless. But it was under Mulroney that we saw politics reaching deeper down the ladder into the civil service. Separatism predated the repatriation of the constitution. Rene Levesque's first referendum was in 1980 and Trudeau's government was quite successful in resisting it. The new constitution was not brought in until 1982 and at first it was driven partly by the hope it too would redress Quebec's resentments. There is no rational basis for assigning any blame to Trudeau for inspiring, rejuvenating, or cossetting separatism.

Excellent points, Shakeyhands. What makes this situation even stinkier is the troublesome recent history of the RCMP itself. Given: -pension fund shenanigans; -political interference in the last election; and -the Maher Arar debacle it becomes very curious that the Minister responsible for the RCMP is able to have such a significant seeming violation of the Criminal Code swept under the rug. Makes me wonder if there's some kind of quid pro quo.

I can think of places a lot worse than Israel in which to live. Certain native reserves in Canada, for example.

Oh, there is definitely a Left, it's just not the same thing as the imaginary construct of your mind that you call 'the left'. As for me, I'm not a leftist, but I can't speak for what imaginary category you pidgeonhole me into in your imaginary world.