Figleaf

Isn't it obvious? They are Islamic terrorists. No pork in a pancake.

That's a oddly reality-denying viewpoint for him to have. Where can I read more about this?

How will they keep them at their oars?

Which is supposed to have no operational meaning..."Supremacy of God" or "Rule of Law"? The whole clause has no operational meaning. In particular, "founded on principles that recognize" has no directiveness to it. So Canada has no operational recognition of the Rule of Law? Not from that clause. No problem. I trust I've made it clearer now?

Don't suppose you have any idea of finding out what the British were doing before the Iranians took them in? I mean why start now to find out what it is you are expressing an opinion on right Figleaf? Could you please explain why you have chosen to use that particular quote to lead into this particular diatribe? What in that comment makes you think I am uninformed about the stated purpose of the British personel? They have said they were inspecting a cargo vessel. Do you know different or something? Careful ... your sputtering, garbled hatred-of-all-things-Figleaf might lead you to violate the forum rules. Gee, thanks. That is, indeed, what the British spokesprocess says. Iran says they were in Iranian waters. In fact it is quite possible that they were in disputed waters, because Saddam repudiated a treaty that had fixed the border. That's an idiotic comment, for three reasons. First, you don't know where they were. Second, you seem to assume I was refering exclusively to the British having a show of force. Third, in fact, what the British were doing was a show of force, but possibly an authorized one depending on where they actually were. Stopping civilian ships usually involves a show of force, y'know. Ironically, this precisely reflects my opinion of your posting efforts. And that's about as much effort as someone of your personality and faculties deserves. Bye.

Slander? That's a little strong. Prosecutors are always getting wrongful convictions, or bankrupting innocent poor to middle-class people into plea bargains -- the history of this in Canada is ample demonstration of it. Why would Mackay be immune? Anyway, slander has to have the effect of damaging someone's reputation and a little thing like a few wrongful convictions isn't going to make much difference to a reputation like Mackay's. Especially when you consider that many people, particularly on the right where his appeal lies is found, actually seem keen on increasing the number of wrongful convictions by making it even easier to jail innocent people.

Which is supposed to have no operational meaning..."Supremacy of God" or "Rule of Law"? The whole clause has no operational meaning. In particular, "founded on principles that recognize" has no directiveness to it. It is theocratic to seek to bring 'God' (whatever that is) into government.

Do you know the actual number of wrongful conviction's in the 90's? How can I number the numberless?

With this post, you have managed to leave me with a negative impression of you personally. Up until this point, I respect reasoned debate. But I loath ridicule. What else would you expect from a leftist who'd force Israel to be swamped with millions of "returning" terrorists (we are on the "Moral and Religious Issues" topic so this is on point). 1. What is the purpose of this drive-by, non sequitur spew? This thread is about Marxist theory and you have plenty of options to discuss middle east issues on other threads. 2. I'm not a leftist. 3. Despite your participation on at least two threads wherein I have stated my actual position on the 'right of return', you've got it abjectly wrong there.

All the theocrats who like to trot this out as demonstrating Canada's non-secular nature have made the unsurprising error of failing to read it. It is constructed (quite deliberately) to have no operational meaning.

It's hard to believe, given today's GPS technology and satelite surveillance that it can't be determined and demonstrated exactly were the sailors were.

The forum has an 'ignore' feature. I believe you can access it thru the member's profile.

Now there is an analysis! Nicely done.

Q.V. my answers to similar questions already, above. In point of fact, Iran's borders are mostly the result of a similar process. Unlike Iraq/Syria/Jordan, for example. Your question invokes a fallacy -- presuming that democratic countries would be created by the policy(s) at issue. Undoubtedly democratic institutions are preferable to arbitrary or autocratic ones anywhere. Can they be created by violating international law? Can the be created by propping up questionable regimes? Can they be 'created' at all?

To the extent we depend on the courts for morality, we are asking the court something we should not. As for justice, I think Larry Niven said it best -- TANJ.

Borg: Glad you got a laugh, man. There are two replies to this, one obvious the other less-so perhaps. First, the obvious -- it is far from settled (except in the minds of ideologues) that minimum wage laws contribute in any substantial way to the unemployment rate. Second, IF it does contribute to the unemployment rate, it would be by reducing the number of underpaid crap-jobs, and it is quite possible that a society is better off without the worst sort of exploitative labor (even if it does boost unemployment a bit).

What on earth is numberless? Wrongful convictions in Canada. Of course they are....in fact innocent people outnumber the guilty in prison by a factor of numberless to one....... These poll are tiresome and trollish Yet your criticism was about my comments, rather than the poll. I say wrongful convictions are numberless in Canada because they keep on coming up. We are not hearing of any end to them and we don't know how many more there are. We do know that since only murder cases have gotten attention so far, it's a virtual certainty that among people convicted for other offences there are innocents as well.

Since it is clear that the RCMP do have a job to do here, it is therefore abundantly clear that Stockwell Day cannot remain as Minister in charge of the RCMP while they are doing it. As I recall Goodale remained as Minister when the RCMP investigated him and his office. See my editted post above. The difference is that Goodale wasn't minister for the RCMP.

Since it is clear that the RCMP do have a job to do here, it is therefore abundantly clear that Stockwell Day cannot remain as Minister in charge of the RCMP while they are doing it. There is a recent example exactly on point -- Ontario minister of finance Sorbara stepping aside as minister responsible for the Ontario Securities Commission while they investigated a company he was involved with. He was ultimately cleared (as Stockwell could be) and returned to the cabinet.

Well, ok then, lets address that head on. It's conventional for apologists of Islam to cite the old testament as evidence that Christians are a bloodthirsty lot, entirely forgetting that according to Christianity, the new testament supercedes it with a 'new way'. Conventional? I didn't realize that "apoligists of Islam" had been busy enough, consistent enough, or long-acting enough to establish any conventions. In any event, you seem to be continuing down the path of your earlier strawman fallacy. Betsy asserted that only Islam advocated killing unbelievers. Facts have now been provided to the contrary. If you wish to argue that there arer MORE Muslims likely to adhere to the worst of the Koran than there are Christians who adhere to the worst of the Bible, such an line might be available depending on factual support, but in regard to Betsy's contention, there's no scope for debate.

I didn't say 'exclusively' U.S. supplied. The poison gas Iraq used on the Iranian boy-army was supplied by the US. I'm not sure what to make of your comment. Surely you are not suggesting that Saddam's whims are a justification for international war, and surely you are not suggesting that the U.S. history of blunders and bullshit in the region (including support of the repressive Pahlavi regime in Iran before the revolution) establish any sensible basis for judging rights and wrongs. Right? You are correct. It would be more precise to state that the most recent intensification of hostilities into open warfare was started by the United States.

You haven't read the bible? "12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God." Deuteronomy 13:12-16 ...and that's just ONE example. Apply Occam's Razor here. Who is killing people in the name of their religion on every continent around the globe every single day in 2007? It doesn't matter what happened in the 11th century or the 17th century; what matters is 2007. Are Christians slaughtering infidels wholesale in huge numbers any day? Are Jews rioting in the streets in the name of Yahweh? Are Hindus beheading infidels Iraq or blowing up trains in India? What about Buddhists? Jains? All the ridiculous attempts to reach some kind of moral equivalence are meaningless really. Islam is not a religion of peace in 2007. There may be peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not peaceful. He wasn't making a moral equivalence, he was responding to the specific notion promulgated by Betsy that Islam is the only religion that advocates slaughter of non-believers. Clearly, Betsy's contention in this regard was mistaken. And equally clearly, your post was a strawman effort to shift the grounds of the discussion.

Whether there have been violations of the Criminal Code is the very question that needs to be re-investigated in light of this new evidence. On it's face, it certainly conforms with the possibility of an offense.

RIGHT! I'd much rather have a family member killed by a Christian bomb than by a Muslim bomb.

If a legislator doesn't like the law, he should change it -- not just violate it. That is the section that applies to the MP who stepped down. There is another matching section that applies to the person doing the bribing. Even if Stockwell is eventually found not to have been involved in the negotiations, it's obvious that he must not stay as the minister of the agency doing the investigation. He may not (yet) need to leave cabinet, but he MUST leave the portfolio.