Black Dog

In Canada, free speech is constrained by law only in cases where teh speech constitutes hate propaganda (ie. inciting violence against an identified group) or threats against a specific individual. It appears to me the Khadrs are guilty of no more than having unpleasant opinions. If they're guilty of anything else, that's for the law to decide. And who is to determine what constitutes acceptable speech? I don't care much for hate speech laws, but accept them as an imperfect solution to a serious problem. But if you find someone's personal view points repugnant, the answer isn't suppression, it's countering their views. Not to defend the Khadr's, but their views are no worse than anything you can read on FreeDominion or Adam Yoshida.

Come on. A mature democracy should make the correct decision, the decision that best reflects the will of the people and not sacrifice democratic principles in the interests of haste or political expediency. We're talking about more than a few dodgy ballots. We're talking wholesale fraud. Check out Grag palasts work on the Florida election results. It's eye-opening stuff. Link.

Don't forget that you have to extoll the virtues of personal responsibility while doing it.

No, I'm saying the Bank of Canada and Mulroney government were particularily fervrent in their pursuit of zero inflation. They even overshot their own targets and reached the mark far earlier than expected. new Zealand, another zero-inflation crusader, managed around 1 per cent inflation during the same period. I don't have any figures handy to compare interest rates, though I imagine Canada's was in line with the U.S.'s. Runaway inflation? canada's infalation rate at the end of the Trudeau years was IIIRC) around 7 or 8 per cent, which is managable. We're not talking pre-war Germany with 40 per cent and higher inflation. Inflation can be offset by economic growth, provided th einflation rate remains around 10 per cent. It's a balancing act. However, during the Mulroney years, we saw the balance tip firmly in the direction of anti-inflation measures, which sunk the economy as a whole, but reaped enormous profits for credit holders such as the major banks.

I'll save the right wingers the trouble. It's Trudeau's fault!! It's Rae's fault! It's Glen Clark's fault! See, isn't being a right winger easy? It's always someone elses's fault.

Former White House favorite Ahmed Chalabi had his home and offices raided by US and Iraqi forces today. Link What a spectacular fall from grace for someone who's organization (the INC) helped fuel the neocon push for war and who had visions of leading the new Iraq. The Truth about Ahmed.

All parties should be funded equally. Individuals should be allowed to dionate to their party of choice with set limits on how much they can give. Funny. That's sort of what Stephen Harper wants to do: Link.

No, spending $3000,000 on an ad campaign to express said viewpoints is.

I guess to you "facts" are those things that support your arguments. I've posted a ton of facts,a swell as various expert opinions on the legalities of the war. The international legal community remains divided on the war, so it's no surprise that you haven't convinced me. Israel commits human rights abuses, illegally occupies land and posseses illegal WMD, all in violation of international law and UN resolutions. Based on your strict legal interpretation of world events, this should be enough to elicit some kind of response. My logic is the same as that used by George Wshington and the French partisans: people have the right to resist foreign occupation. Period. You mean the forign oil companies you mention below? Whatever. You stated a figure (80 per cent), I asked for backing, you failed to comply (no where does your link confirm your statement that 80 per cent of Iraqi oil is being sold to non-US firms.) I'm just going to assume you made that number up. Satire is beyond you. Your argument that the U.S. is "empowering" Iraqis (by torturing prisoners and strafing weddings, I assume) and that a permenant US military prescence is necessay to "enable" democracy smacks of the "white man's burden" logic that drove British imperialism in the last two centuries. It's rife with paternalistic and racist assumptions that "these people" cannot manage their own affairs without the firm hand of the west to guide them. We have absolutely no way of knowing how many Iraqis have died as a result of this war. The 10,000+ figure is civilian casulaties only, that does not include the number of Iraqi troops (predominately concripts) killed in combat, as your numbers do. But it's really not a question of "who's worse" but of "are Iraqis better off". Assuming they are dying at a slightly smaller rate now (and again, your numbers lie, as it takes total Iraqi deaths during Saddam's regime and averages them out, which is misleading), the civil and physical infastructure of Iraq, once one of the most advanced in the region, has been decimated. Power, water and food are spotty, security is non-existent in much of Iraq. The future is uncertain, with sectarian violence or outright civil war distinct possibilites. Either that or continued occupation and governance by a foreign army. Bush is using the same rhetoric (having "borrowed" his "new" Iraq poilcy from Kerry). And honestly, after being sidestepped, insulted, coerced and ignored by the Bush admin, it's no wonder the UN is giving the US the cold shoulder when it comes with its hand out. As for the UN running wawy from Iraq: they're still there and are the people formulating the plans for the June transfer.

If you're in a recession, high interest rates will make debt problems worse. The rising cost of interest payments accounted for 70 per cent of Canada's debt growth during the Mulroney years. Raising interest rates during a recession, while pursuing a policy of debt reduction and zero-inflation is the equivilant of amputating one's foot to fix a broken arm. Canada's response to falling interest rates was completely diproportinate, as few other nations pursued the zero-inflation goal with as much zeal as Canada. The final point would be that, for all his program-slashing and defecit reducing zeal, Mulroney's government failed to balance the budget and restore the economy to health.

Link. More. Where are the howls of condemnation? Whenever a Hamas bomber detonates themselves on a Israeli street, we hear outpourings of rage at the "inhumanity" of the Palestinians. Will anyone hold Israel to the same standards? The UN Security Council condemned the killings and Israel's in campaign in Rafah. In a rare move, the U.S. abstained (the closest Israel will get to a rebuke from them). In light of this and the continuing collective punishment meted out against israel, I don't see many options left for the Palestinian people. Likud will not negotiate, peaceful protests will be attacked. It's a fight for survival. I hope they will continue to try and use peaceful protest as a means of keeping Israel's crimes in the spotlight. But I also understand that some may see an all out war as the only chance. After all: they don't have anything to lose.

A democracy where the president is acclaimed by the Supreme Court after he failed to win the popular vote? Funny how right-wing complaints about the "activist judiciary" never extend to the partisan judges who foisted an illegitimate presidency on America in an unprecedented and non-precedent setting (in other words: a one time only deal) decision. Canada has no where near the democracy gap as the U.S.

Fortunately, one cannot outlaw thoughts or viewpoints, no matter how offensive. If the Khadr's have committed any crimes or violated Canadian law in any way, they should be punished accordingly. Otherwise, like it or not, they are entitled to the same rights as all other Canadian citizens.

Federally or provincially?

Er..as nice it would be to see success at the provincial level translate into support for the federal NDP, the fact is, it doesn't happen that way. BC is a Con stronghold and will probably stay that way. Unfortunately.

I apologise for the off-the cuff remark. Understand that there's enough people on this board willing to smear others without backing it up (see pretty much anything Alliance Fanatic writes about the NDs) that I sometimes get carried away. Sorry. Okay then. Thanks for the clarification. I'll concede that, by dictionary definition, the NDP are a left-wing party. However, policy-wise the current NDP has shifted more to the centre, through such moves as a commitment to balanced budgets. Further, I reiterate that the traditionally centerist Liberals have shifted dramatically to the right, which further skews the spectrum. In conclusion: the NDP: democratic socialist? Yes. Radical? Not even close. Have a good day. Wrong. Social programs accounted for about 15 per cent of the debt growth in the early '80s. In fact, spending on social program like UI and the CPP was keeping pace with Canada's economic growth. The jump in interest rates came about as a result of the Bank of Canada's policies (policies which were backed by the Mulroney Tories and the investor community) which saw the bank jack the interest rates in a bid to stamp out inflation. They succeded, and also managed to plunge the country into a recession, slowing economic output and driving up unemployment. (In 1994, the Canadian Economics Association concluded a lengthy technical study that found that the country's deficit problems were almost entirely the result of the recession.)

Tell me, can any of the gibbering dupes here actually back up their claims that the NDP is a "hard" left party? If you want to cite some NDP policies and explain what's wrong, I'd be happy to discuss. Because all the snide (and not particularily clever) one-liners, show is you've add nothing to the discussion, that you're more interested in mud-slinging than in real debate on the direction the country should go. You're all smirk, no substance.

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind. Another successful victim of the system's campaign to lower expectations. "Settle for less" should be the new CPC motto.

I don't think of it as an either/or proposition. To me, there's no reason we can't push for change abroad while simultaneously working to correct the flaws within our own system.

"Election advertising" is defined in section 319 of the Canada Elections Act. "Election advertising" may be interpreted as a message that is: -transmitted by any means during an election -transmitted to any person or persons with whom the originator of the message does not have some common cause or connection, and -is intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated. Funny you'd use Moore's new film as a standard of free speech Canada should aspire to. Are you aware that Disney, parent company of Miramax films, is refusing to distribute the film, for fear that it would endanger the companies standing with the Bush family (especially Florida's Jeb Bush). Corporate censorship at its most egregious, yet you're more concerned with corporate front groups like the NCC not being allowed to deluge the airwaves here.

The NDP is pushing for tax reforms that would ease the burden on lower and middle class tax payers, including increasing corporate income taxes (currently among the lowest in the world), while pursuing an agenda of economic growth by supporting small business and a national investment in infrastructure I'm not surprised that most people recoil with horror at the thought of tax increases. For the past 20 years, we've been deluged with right-wing rhetoric that ahs pushed hundreds of millions of dollars of tax cuts, tax cuts that have largely benefitted the wealthy while shifting the tax burden onto working Canadains. And what do we have to show? An arrogant government that squanders taxpayers money and slashes services while shovelling piles into corporate welfare. An opposition that would pursue an agenda that would starve an already emaciated public service and turn public institutions over to the private sector (who's interests are profit, not service). The tax debate needs to be broadened from beyond the standard knee-jerk "taxes are bad" response. Surveys have shown time and again that Canadians are fine with taxes, provided they see a return. canadians need to take a good look at who's paying the taxes and how we can get more value for our money.

The NCC will not disclose its membership. But it was founded by Ontario insurance millionaire Colin M. Brown and is currently headed by his son. A clue as to who the NCC represents can be found in the list of those who who have been awarded the NCC's Colin M. Brown Freedom Medal, which reads like a who's who of right wing luminaries: Conrad Black, Peter Worthington, Ted Byfield, David Somerville, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, John Crosbie, Thomas Bata, Michael Walker and Diane Francis. As for the CTF: yeah, they'r enon-partisan only in the sense that the only party they support are themselves. No doubt, but back-room bargains still need a modicum of public support before thet become policy. Take a look at the early 80's campaign to cut inflation (which, at the time, was already at a reasonable and managable level). We had corporations, shareholders and Bay Street lobbying the Bank of Canada to jack interest rates. This was followed by a public campaign to convince people that the debt was spiralling out of control and that massive cuts were needed. The public bought it, interest rates jumped, and the country plunged into a recession which took years to recover from. I'm curious: what is the CPC's policy vis a vis corporate donations? I somehow doubt they don't have their collective head in the through right next to the Grits. Indeed, I'm all in favor of campaign finance reform. The Grits and Cons are turning into the Canadian equivilant of the Democrats and Republicans: both represent the same interests and pursue similar policies, but with different rhetorical twists. Yes, as its not advertising.

I'm going to assume you are using hyperbole to make your point, because that statement is categorically false. The SCOC decision applies to election advertising only. Thank god people like you, who can't even be bothered to get their facts straight before running their mouths, are minor voices that have no bearing on the future of humanity.

Not 100 per cent, of course. But polls have consistenetly shown that Canadians want health care to stay public, an adequetely funded education system, better services, balanced budgets, secure, quality jobs, affordable housing, clean air and water, and a transparent and acountable government. These are all NDP priorities. That's not the Liberals, who speak with a forked tounge. That's not the Cons, who take the worst policies of the Mulroney Tories and combine them with the reactionary rhetoric of Reform. The NDP is the closest thing this country has to a centerist party. It's just that the other two major alternatives are so far to the right that the middle looks left.

I wrote: "speaks to", not "speaks for". Wouldn't want to appear presumptuous.