Figleaf

malformed legislation? Do provide a Liberal proposal for properly formed legislation on the issue... What?

They were active and passive both! That was their mistake -- inconsistency.

France ceded its territory in Canada to England. England established Canada and set it up to operate as its own thing. Both these were formal processes with 'consent' of the relevant parties. Alberta separation as you envision it would be an attempted unilateral secession of a part of Canada. The moment it were attempted Canada would be entitled to take over. There's no way such a theft could be tolerated. ...or prevented. Oh, that would be simple -- just arrest the provincial government.

I never saw that at the time, but only months later. After I saw it I was amazed that such a trivial thing had sunk his candidacy -- in retrospect it seemed like the media conspired to sabotage him.

How? Attack was imminent. Surrender? Ah, but attack was not at all imminent. Who are you to comment on what is substantially dependent or not? How would you know a countries needs, and thresholds. I can make educated comparisons.

France ceded its territory in Canada to England. England established Canada and set it up to operate as its own thing. Both these were formal processes with 'consent' of the relevant parties. Alberta separation as you envision it would be an attempted unilateral secession of a part of Canada. The moment it were attempted Canada would be entitled to take over. There's no way such a theft could be tolerated.

We've had situations in the past where, for instance, there was the appearance that helping out the Liberal Party of Quebec might be a handy way to boost your chances of becoming a judge. Here's the government website about Judicial Advisory Committees: http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/judAdvComMem_e.html It appears a committee is made up of a representative from the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial law society, two from the province, and 3 chosen by the federal justice minister. -k If that's their concern they've picked a rather strange remedy. Too bad they cancelled the Law Reform Commission -- it could have saved them the embarrassment of rolling out malformed legislation.

I'm trying to make sense of this proposal. And I guess I can think of it being possible if you suppose that the Taliban make their money by buying the poppies from farmers and then selling opium into the international market. A mass purchase from the farmers could, in theory put a total supply crunch onto the Taliban so they'd be force out of the opium trade. Of course there would be repurcussions on the opium market too: a price increase. It would also be expensive, and there would be leakage. But suppose the Taliban don't actually make and deal the drugs. Suppose they are 'silent partners' with the farmers? In that case I think your proposed policy would be counter-productive.

The organization behind this should find another symbol and another time of year. I feel they are intruding on the concept of Remembrance Day. (And they are violating the Legion's trademark.)

Just wondering: Is there supposed to be a difference between 'evangelicals' and 'fundamentalists'?

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room. As well there is room for movement in the pro-choice camp. As militant as one might be about the concept of a women controlling her "own" body (at the expense of the fetus's body), I don't think there is anyone out there who wouldn't want to REDUCE the overall number of abortions. It's not a pleasant "I'm proud to be a woman" experience. If there is policy or guidelines which increase women's accountability or educate women about other options, I can't see how that in any way curtails someone's freedom. But would it be in the interests of society? Personally, I think we should have abortion set as the default option, and women wishing to bring their pregnancies to term should have to commit to healthy lifestyle during the pregnancy and prove that the prospective child will be appropriately cared for during it's minority.

I think a human and an animal are two completely different things. Same with vegetation, its not the same as a fetus. Human life is a completely different issue then a tree getting cut down figleaf. Ohhhh! You mean human life! Okay, now I get ... no, I still don't get it. Why do you place special value on human vs. other types of life then?

What does the legal community think? They don't like it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Bullshit ? the former Taliban regime is not gone, but rather hiding amounst the regular Afgan citizens, or in Pakistan where they can terrorize them at will. ... ....Money talks in this country and so does religion, combine both and they have no problem with recruiting young men to do there bidding...These young men believe in thier cause and have become Taliban and everything they stand for...They want to control the Afgan people, in every aspect of thier lives... If a majority of the Afghan people oppose what the Taliban are today, how are they able to hide among them? Also, your description of Taliban recruiting success makes me think they are widely supported.

I can -- It's existence. "Alberta" only exists as a province of Canada. It can't 'separate' without disestablishing itself. In so doing the territory would revert to the crown of Canada. The very concept of 'separation of Alberta' (or Saskatchewan) is a meaningless nullity.

Guys who want to retake Afganistan and run it in their theocratic way with no public expression of freedom, art, or personal choice while they give aid and support to groups that wish to recreate the Caliphate. They ran it in the nineties until the US and Northern Front usurped them. Hope that helps. Helps? No, facile drivel does not help. The issue is who do we think we're fighting NOW? The former Taliban regime is gone. Today's 'Taliban fighter' a probably pretty much indistinguishable from the broader Afghan demographic, except by who's shooting at him.

Today's news sez Steve's crew wants to have cops appointing judges. Maybe they should have judges wear police uniforms too. And these uniformed judges go out on patrol with them. That way they could give rulings on the spot. And they could be paid from police budgets. And courthouses could be converted to condos. ...

I agree completely. I would go one step further and say we also don't want a system that gives parties more seats than they actually deserve either. I agree completely. Parties who appeal only to scattered minority viewpoints shouldn't be jumped up into legislative significance. No, each seat should be held by a member chosen by the majority of people in each district.

I certainly agree with that! You deliberately removed the middle of a quoted sentence...that is pretty sad. Yes, I deliberately removed it and included an elipse [...] so that people would know it's an incomplete quote. That is the standard editorial method for referencing the relevant part of a quote. Don't be sad. Those examples show that our current system doesn't just screw fringe parties, which was your point. No, that wasn't my point. My point was a don't want a system that caters to fringe parties. That's not a "problem", it's a strength... makes people take their vote seriously. You seriously see forcing Canadians to vote in favour of a party they do not support because their vote would otherwise be wasted as a strength?! Good one. ... Yes, I seriously do. I'm glad you think so too. Using your "logic", maybe.

I've never understood that formulation. Most people eat (formerly) living animals all the time. Even vegans eat vegetable life. If this is about the right to 'life', howcome there's so much animal and plant killing going on?

Why would you say "Final"?

Some say our mission is to defeat the Taliban, or protect Afghanistan from falling "back" into the hands of the Taliban. Okay ... but then who are the Taliban?

We should at the very least try. Why? Why should WE try? Should we try even if it's not likely to succeed? I can't help but notice you're not responding to the likelihood of success question(s).

You're saying they would ignore the questions and supply extraneous information? Remember, the questions I asked were: -Why Afghanistan instead of other places? Darfur could use our help too. So could Myanmar. -Can Afghanistan be helped? Does building schools in a place where they are murdering teachers and kidnapping students and preventing girls from attending make sense? Will any of our aid be lasting?

What if they elect the Taliban in an election? (And before people scoff, consider Palestine and Algeria which both elected Islamist governments that the west didn't like.)