Figleaf

if you don't want me, then you don't want my posts, i assume

And Canada is guilty of some of that too. Live under a rock..?.. , or do you like to espouse your US hatred in print, the whole while thinking that this will get the MLW irritated? THIS forum is the US Politics forum. Why on Earth would you expect me to comment about Canada on the US Politics forum???

Poor America? Thank God for America and God bless America. Have pity on America, led by a cabal of dangerous, destructive, and unethical people.

Why are you barbaric? If I saw you assaulting someone in that manner, I might intervene to stop you from continuing. It is non-sensical to be barbaric. Let's make the situation a little more pointed -- bb doesn't beat the man once he's down, but during the fight he has a choice: punch the assailant in the jaw, or crack his kneecap with a kick. If bb choses the kick, can the now crippled assailant reasonably complain the he should have punched him in the jaw instead?

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence? Of course...depending on what P actually does. While some may not think it, criminal law is largely built on concepts of ethics and morality...that is, we generally criminalize conduct that is morally and ethically wrong. The law of self-defence is actually a good example of this because it accounts for all of the possible scenarios...where the defender is attacked unprovoked, where the defender believes an attack is coming and makes a pre-emptive strike, and yes, where the initial agressor becomes the defender. An assault can be any unwanted touching or even an attempt or threat to do so. If I were to push someone because I think he or she is stupid, and then walk away, I have committed an assault (legally, morally, ethically). If the victim of my assault "defends" himself by bludgeoning me to death with a baseball bat from behind, I think I have a valid complaint (legally, morally, ethically). There are all kinds of nuances about the way the law actually applies (in large part depending on whether the defender reasonably believes they are at risk of death or grievous bodily harm or not), but the general summary is that you are only entitled to defend yourself with force that is reasonably necessary. If you far exceed what is reasonable, then in law (and I dare say morally and ethically) you are no longer defending yourself, but in fact, committing an unlawful assault of your own. For those who will then question how to know where the line is, I can tell you that the common law has routinely confirmed that one acting in self defence need not "measure with nicety" the level of his or her response. That is, if you over-react a little, whether that is considered "reasonable force" or not will be decided by considering what you knew and subjectively thought at the time you were defending yourself, with a full appreciation for the panic and fear that often is in play. Bottom line (which I think is the point of the OP), if you don't want to be overzealously "defended" against, don't attack people in the first place. That being said, just because you may have assaulted someone, it does not mean they have free license to attack you back with whatever method and with whatever force they please (legally, ethically, morally). FTA All interesting commentary, but most of it is outside of my hypothetical. Let's stay within the context of actually defending onself (not assaulting an already subdued attacker). Let's say J starts beating K with a riding crop. There's little chance K will lose his life before J gets too tired to continue, but nevertheless, K pulls a knife and sticks it between J's ribs. Did K do something ethically wrong?

And what, pray tell, is the point that we're missing? The point that it's all good and well to say that the 'beauty' industry is effective at profiteering from people's emphasis on superficial characteristics, but that doesn't make that emphasis less a fact and no amount of tut-tutting will ever succeed in making those interested in the superficial accept 'real' beauty as a substitute. "Real" beauty by whose definition? So DOVE proclaims itself the arbiter of beauty (sorry, "real" beauty) and because they chose to define 'real' (i.e. less attractive) looks as better or just as good as what the mainstream considers attractive we should suddenly amend our attitudes. Bugger that.

Put them at risk of what? Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk. Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions.

Way to miss the point, champ. It seems to me he's suggesting that you politically correct types have been missing the point.

'Renditioning' people for torture, sexually abusing prisoners of war, starting wars on false pretenses, lying on the world stage, and undermining prohibitions against torture are all shameful deeds. And they have all been committed by the Bush regime. Poor America. It's like a decent kid with reprobate parents -- embarrassed when they drunkenly expose themselves to the neighbors or piss on their fences.

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2.

Available where? ?? He used the wrong form?

poipio.

Yes. On what grounds?

The point being, that the notwithstanding clause can only except a narrow range of constititional provisions -- it cannot be used to grant carte blanche powers to the government. I would hardly call it a narrow range...freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, the press and other media, peaceful assembly, association, life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, the right to be informed of reasons for arrest or detention, to retain and instruct counsel, and to have the validity of detention determined by habeas corpus, the right to be informed of charges against you, to a trial in a reasonable time, not to be compelled to testify against yourself, to the presumption of innocence, to a fair trial, to reasonable bail, to trial by jury if maximum of 5 years in jail, not to be convicted of something that is not an offence, not to be subjected to double jeopardy, to the benefit of a lesser punishment if the law is amended after conviction but before sentence, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, the right not to have incriminating evidence in one proceeding used against you in another, the right to an interpreter for proceedings if you do not understand the language of the proceedings, the right to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of law. Technically, any of the above can lawfully be taken away for 5-year intervals by a government (Fed. or Prov.) including the "notwithstanding clause" in legislation. I'll grant you that's important stuff, but constitutionally it is narrow. The Charter is a small element of the constitution and Canada ran as a liberal democracy for many years before it was adopted. The notwithstanding clause can't override the division of powers, for example. And in particular relation to a question raised earlier, it can't overrule the 5 year parliamentary cycle. Another provision can, but that provision is subject to judicial review (no notwithstanding).

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence? An attack on me or my family will be treated as a lethal threat and dealt with accordingly. Hello Dancer. Welcome back.

Ummm ... how has the prohibition led to guerilla warfare? Again, a quizzical formulation. Invariably anti-Western? Are there not some guerilla conflicts that have no particular interest in Western matters? Chechnya, for example? Myanmar? Hell, even Colombia until the US decided it needed to supress cocaine growing. Put them at risk of what? And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. Exodus 7:14

CBCThat's how the CBC would choose to present this decision. I would say rather that my vote for the Conservatives has been vindicated and only a Conservative minister from Quebec could do this. Dion Liberals couldn't. Whatever Harper's government does in its short mandate, this decision implies the greatest long term effects for Canada. Hats off to Bernier. Well, time will bear out whether this benefits the customer or not. But when such policy choices are made, they should also be accompanied by removal of artificial barriers to entry as well. Do you know what the current competitive status is? Can any Canadian company work anywhere? Can US phone companies serve us? If these restraints remain in place, then Bernier's policy will not really be fair to consumers.

Hm?

Look for that HERE Well, presumably the commissioner who heard the evidence can come to conclusions on it. As to a court of law, there is no need for his innocence to be determined in one since he has never been charged with anything. Accordingly, he is innocent. Exactly. The mustn't play games implicating innocent men when they ought to be out catching bad guys. Are you suggesting that Arabs ought to refrain from travelling??? Only westerners own the skys?

The private banks are not forcing you to do business with them. When you make a deposit in a bank, you are consenting to a contract under their terms. Gee, that's not unlike the reciprocal obligations people accept to live in society with one another.

I think most professional polling firms know that.

I think you meant to put that the other way around: $1000 publicly, $500 privately. No, I meant what I said. Collective purchasing of services can provide substantial cost reductions. I am asking him if he'd rather pay more privately if there was an option to pay less publicly.

Well, if you watch one of the clips on youtube, she implies that they love gays a lot more than God does. They say that the Bible says God hates gays, but they follow Jesus love thy neighbor message by trying to warn gays that God is out to get them. According to them, giving this warning, despite being persecuted for it, shows how much they love their neighbors the gays.

Why can't governments in our supposedly 'free' societies just pack away the offensive and expensive idea that drugs should be prohibited. HELLO GOVERNMENT! IT AIN'T ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS IF SOMEONE USES EXTASY!

So far as I can recall, no-one attempted to do that. You originally objected to any raising of one genocide in the context of another. Okaaaaay So, it's okay when you do it, but not when someone else did it.