Figleaf

Then this discussion [and possibly the HRC case] have been a bit misdirected. What is really at issue is DiCicco's vote to deny freedom of expression, and the apparent basis for his vote being prejudice against those he considers unnatural or diseased. Since when is voting no against a gay pride day a violation of anyone's freedom of expression? Obviously, having a parade is a type of expression. I don't think he had any opportunity to do that. Ummm ... YES. I'm not leftist, I'm a classical liberal. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada. Discriminating to deny someone something based on prejudice is a violation of human rights laws. I'm not sure what point you think you're making.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law. The absence of any statutes is not an absense of all law.

Ugh, here we go again. A woman can do anything because she's a woman. Does that include making consistantly irrational arguments devoid of any explaination of your logic? Does whiskey always bring out the non sequiturs with you, Geofreey? Or is it vodka this time?

Provided it's acheived ethically, how could it not be a good thing?

I think the recreational use of drugs should be regarded as a personal choice, not a crime, not an illness.

Last year PEI had a chance to be a leader in electoral reform. After several years of study,it had all culminated in a recommendation that the province adopt a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) What a dog's breakfast that was! All these PR electoral schemes are profoundly flawed -- unwieldy, and designed to give power to electoral losers. Voters in all provinces are right to say no thanks.

Good luck. If they settle at 1/2Meg the show will be around forever. 350000 keeps a show alive in Canada, probably.

Is this thread really any different in quality than someone launching a discussion titled "A primer on Jewish 'scheming'?

Then this discussion [and possibly the HRC case] have been a bit misdirected. What is really at issue is DiCicco's vote to deny freedom of expression, and the apparent basis for his vote being prejudice against those he considers unnatural or diseased.

Lefties complain too, but their terminology is different. They whine about 'concentration of ownership' and 'corporatization'.

I'm waiting for the model that can also make toast and scrambled eggs. I hear it is due out summer 2007. pfft...you can already get one of those....http://www.singlebrides.com/ The way this discussion is headed, I don't even want to think about the nefarious motivations behind the 'tooth remover kit'.

My point is that you righties can't whine about how expression rights are being trampled because the right never got tested in this case. The topic of the complaint should be about how expensive it is for the non-wealthy to access justice.

Drea you are not even making a point. Why should a guy have to pay a thousand bucks for saying he thinks homosexuality is a disease? Ask DiCicco, he's the one who decided to pay it.

Unfortunate, but then again we have to make the terrorists take some responsibility for the violence at sometime, now don't we? Or is it all the fault of the Americans? The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is clearly the fault of Americans.

What conventions are you attending? That seems doubtful, given Steyn's paucity of talent. Left of Steyn, at least! Hey Mark, maybe rightwing politicians just don't like hanging out with leftwing celebs. Is this true? Don't the skeptics publish?

There is no basis for making polygamy legal. If the state chooses to support pair-bonding for social purposes, there's no inherent reason to extend that concept to multiple-bonding.

I don't think its really an effort to 'escape' anything. Rather, its an opinion that morality is conditioned by culture and circumstances. -If it were really "accepted by society as a whole", we wouldn't be having this discussion. -There is no 'the' Christian moral code. There are several flavors of Christianity with varying morals. -It is not the inconvenience of Christian morals which lead to the views of moral relativists. -Many liberals are not moral relativists. Where is your support for that, please.

We'll never know, since he settled rather than defend himself.

It's not the Liberals that hold the copyright, its the broadcasters. I see no problem with broadcasters not wanting their news footage abused later by political parties. First, it belongs to the broadcasters and they should control it as they like. Meanwhile, the tories stealing footage is outrageous.

The same 'choice' applies throughout our legal system, of course. Most litigants don't have the benefit of a city budget to back their procedings.

Semantics. There are perfectly reasonable definitions of 'normal' that would exclude homosexuality, but likewise others that include it. There is no denying that it appears to be a sexual orientation shared by a minority of the population. But what of it? What does 'normal' matter anyway? As to natural, this seems to be mere denial on the part of anti-homosexuals. Homosexual behaviour is found among animals, and appears to have existed among humans from time immemorial. But again, what of it? What consequence do people expect should flow from labelling it natural or not natural? There is a troubling inconsistency between the words in bold, there. We will never know whether DiCicco violated the human rights code, because he CHOSE to settle.

!!!!!

How perfectly Tory -- let their base instincts lead them to shoot themselves in the foot. It's so deliciously in character. Like the Leafs blowing it. Attack ads against an untainted, low-profile Opposition leader (outside an election yet!), are a sign of two things: desperation, and the poor judgment of partisan extremism. Canadian voters will not be fooled by this sort of sideshow. Doesn't Harper have a government to run?

Perhaps Scotiabank plans to resell the theatre names on a one-off basis. Anyway, these naming rights are getting tedious. They're just tiresome mouthfuls that nobody uses or takes note of. Imagine reciting 'The Cineplex Bank of Nova Scotia Theatre'.

One is the result of an activist intervention by something that 'wipes'. The other has no clear implication of agency or method.