Black Dog

First, PR simply ensures that the number of seats a party receives reflects the percentage of the votes it got. No distortions like what we see now where the three "regional" parties all recieved more seats than they should have. As for the permenant minority: why is that a bad thing? Again: compromise, negotiation and cooperation are necessities of coalition governments and are also hallmarks of a healthy democracy in which the views of all constiuents are heard. The current system ensures that the view of the party with the most votes carries the hammer. FPP is why we've been long saddled with falso majority governments that are out of touch and rife with corruption. Referendums are acostly and inefficient way to govern. PR is used 75 democratic nations, including most of Europe and the rest of the Americas. That said: I think any system would be better than the one we have. Power would reflect levels of support. A party that gets 40 per cent of the vote would get 40 per cent of the seats. It's perfectly fair. So, rather than have a system that actual reflects what Canadians want in government, you'd rather maintain one that props up a weak regional party in the interests of political diversity. And I completely fail to see how having a seat count that reflects the support a party has can be construed as "too much power". Again: so? Like Paul Martin? Blech. If the Cons had a Francophone leader, and had dropped the social stuff, they wouldn't be the Cons, but the old PCs. This election was an anomaly in terms of the seats almost reflecting popular suport. But that doesn't tell the whole story as regional voting patterns are grossly exaggerated by FPP (the NDP and Liberals combined for almost 50 per cent of the vote in Alberta, yet recieved just two seats across the province.) Tiny, fringe parties with 1 or 2 per cent of the vote would have 1 or 2 per cent of the representation. Sounds fair and certainly not "extraordinary". As I said, PR is in place in most democracies, including some of the more successful nations of the western world. Countries using PR also match and often exceed the economic and social performance of nations run by single party governments. I find it fascinating that people bitch incessantly about the West not getting a voice, yet would rather live under a de facto dictatorship than risk minority governments. Not true. There's roughly one NDP or Liberal supporter in the West for every CPC supporter. The "cultural differences" have a tendency to be grossly exaggerated. Case in point. Of course, never mind the fact that Albertans, for example, as much as any other are willing to nose up to the public teat when times are tough (see BSE, the drought)... The gay marriage issue has been fueled as much by its opponents as it s supporters. What's so wrong with equality? Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) The Netherlands and Belgium have also opened marriage to same-sex couples. Talk about a culture of victims. Perhaps Albertans and other westerners should ask where this sterotype comes from (hint: Stock Day, Myron Thompson, Larry Spencer, ETC.) That's not to say the East doesn't have its share of kooks and bigots, but in the west, such traits are deemed virtues by many. Well, gee, why woukld people think cutting programs and taxes is part of a conservative ideaology? Could it be because cutting programs, services and taxes has been at the forefront of every conservative government? Ah yes: the nostalgic, sepia-toned look at a Canada that only ever existed in people's minds. Tinged, of course, with a little overgeneralization impunging the patriotism of anyone who doesn't follow the conservative party line. You sure love straw men don't you? I remember the APAC protests a few years ago when thousands came out to protest our governments' cozying up to Indonesia's Suharto's, on eof history's bloodiest dictators. People who make generalizations like the above are deluded by a mass media that doesn't publicize the countless acts of protest and good works that the activist left in Canada does all the time. The only time these works get noticed is when there's the potential for dramatic photos of riot cops facing down college kids. Examples please?

Well, you could start by articulating and supporting the problems with Confederation and how seperation is the only way to solve them. You'd also have to get rid of some of the more extreimist elements in order to create broad appeal. So c'mon: convince me. See, the problem is, seperation doesn't reflect the very Canadian and very democratic notions of compromise, of working to build a system that works for all. it smacks of self-interest and petulance and plays to the basest emotions of westerners and teh worst stereotypes of the rest of Caanda.

A democracy should involve a system of government that represents the beliefs and values of the majority of its citizens. The current system doesn't do that, which is why most democractic nations long ago abandoned or never adopted first past the post systems. First-past-the-post system distorts election results (i.e., a party’s portion of seats may be significantly different from their portion of the popular vote), which usually results in phony majority governments (i.e., one party will have a majority of seats, despite failing to win a majority of the popular vote). If you supported democracy, you'd support a fair system of representation. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why PR would be the death knell for the Cons or other right-wing parties. How is the increased represntation offered by PR "tyrrany"? If anything, the current system is a recipe for tyranny (as an Albertan, I know whereof I speak). We're spoiled because we live in the (accidentally) richest province in the nation, yet whine and complain when we have to share a smidgen of our great fortune with other parts of the country. We're spoiled because we blame other for their misfortunes while refusing to see that our own wealth is largely an accident of birth and geography. And that's just for starters... Mostly, though, you're crybabies becaus eyou don't like teh results and, consequentially, don't want to play anymore. Another problem with the system. the NDP got 15 per cent of the vote, yet only 6 per cent of the seats. Conversely, the Liberals get 36 per cent of the vote and walk away with 45 per cent of the seats.

I've had a sneaking suspicion that The Cons are less interested in democracy than they are in gaining power. Some of the comments on PR prove it. I see, so making the electoral system more reflective of the actual make up of the country, making votes actually count, that's not "making democracy more relevant" because it will make it harder for the Con Jobs to get in? Maybe, y'all should be asking yourselves why the Conservatives' policies don't resonate with Canadians. Seperation will always be the domain of the lunatic fringe, the selfish, spoiled brat crybaby's who can't play well enough with others that they feel compelled to take their ball and go home. Less than that, really, when you factor in the abysmally low voter turnout. I would wait till all other options are exhausted. May I suggest to Harper et al, the time-honored technique of holding one's breath until you get your way? Or perhaps a crying and screaming fit on the floor of the House of Commons would be more befitting the Conservative mindset. How?

The Canadian right is an arrogant bunch. We saw it the Harperites' brash predictions of a Con majority. And we see it now after the election, as the cockiness turns to whining and petulance. "It's the media! It's the Liberal fearmongering!" (Never mind that Harper's own people did as good a job striking fear into the hearts of Canadians with their various bouts of verbal diarreha concerning the Charter, abortion, same sex mariage, etc, than the Liberals ever could have hoped to with their "attack" ads) Of course, never does it occur to them that maybe less than 30 per cent of Canadians vote Tory is because the remaining 70 per cent think the Con vision is a load of codswollop. Ah yes, if you didn't vote Con because you had (valid) concerns with their agenda, you're "gullible and ignorant". Uncle Stephen knows what's best. I would posit that the truly "gullible and ignorant" are the working class Canadians who actualy believe the Con-jobs have anything to offer them, or that a Harper government would be any less corrupt than the Liberals, or the PC's who preceded them. In any case, the problems of the Canadian system cannot be fixed without a rather massive overhaul, such as implementing proportional representation.

I certauinly doubt the U.S. approach would be much fdiffernt if they had a viable missile defense. Anyway, you still haven't given me a good reason to believe that the DPRK would ever deploy a nuke against the U.S. So the missile sheild is a sheild against, at best, negligible threats. Might as well build ananti-UFO defense sheild. After all, we saw what them aliens might do in "Independence Day".

And you know what? A collection of apocryphal stories from a primitive Semetic desert tribe, set down thousands of years after the fact by Greek scholars and translated several times over a couple of thousand years after that isn't going to give us the answers. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Apples and Oranges. As I said, most regimes' main concern is maintaining power, not self-destruction. And look where it's got them: U.S. to Offer North Korea Incentives in Nuclear Talks Sorry, but no. Right-wing think-tanks and idealogically impaired Reagan yes-men don't exactly counte rthe views of the people who actually served in the U.S. and Soviet governments. Fact is, the Soviet-style of government was inherently unsustainable and the Communists regime was tettering economically and socially long before Reagan set foot in the Oval Office. Anyway, neither here nor there...

Indeed: it plays that way all the time, when we hear of "wasteful" spending on social programs, spending that, presumably would be better directed to such con pet projects as the military or tax cuts, etc. It's really a matter of priorities and, IMO, missile defense is pretty low on the list. No. Nor have they had the means to effectively deter a U.S. "preemptive" attack. based on the DPRK's behavior with respect to its nuclear program, it seems more likely that its using them as a bargaining chip for increased aid and a deterrent against U.S aggression. Both Iran and the DPRK learned a lesson from Iraq: if you're on the American hit list, the best thing to do is arm up. That does not necessarily lend itself to offensive posturing, as the fundamental raison d'etre of any regime, no matter how fanatical or irrational it may seem, is its own survival. Interesting link: here's some other selections. And here's where we can take teh lessons of Patriot into ABM defence: Ask a Ouija board. I prefer to deal in realities, like those expressed by former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan: Or former Gorbachev advisor Aleksandr Yakovlev, who, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

Perhaps not directly. But budgets are finite, resources are limited. This assumes, of course, that "terrorists" (whoever they are); let's say "hostiles") are completely irrational and unconcerned with anything but the utter destruction of the U.S., even if that comes at the cost of total annihalation of themselves. Of course, such pronouncements are great for whipping up fear and hysteria, but seldom pan out in the real world. If the North Koreans, for instance, were so unconcerned for their own national survival, they would have levelled Seoul and swarmed over the border any time in the last 50 years. I recall the Pats had a stunning success rate against British fighters and that Iraq (reportedly) lobbed 10 Silkworms into Kuwait, two of which were reportedly intercepted. So let's see some back up. Ronalr Reagan didn't win the Cold War period. He prolonged it by pushing aggressive policies, which delayed reforms within the Soviet Union. See William Blum's book "Killing Hope".

The best arguments against the national missile sheild are its costs and the fact it simply doesn't work. So why would North Korea build ICBMs that can hit North America? Deterrent. two things: "Axis of Evil". The Bush Doctrine. Money being funnelled into this Boeing/Rayethon welfare program could be better spent on improved domestic security and intelligence gathering.

That's funny, coming from someone who, accused me of calling Harper a bigot and a racist, who stated that arguments for gay marriage wer "bullshit" and, when was unable to provide substansial evidence to support his arguments when challenged to do so. Basically, you haven't a leg to stand on and you know it, so you're running away.

Highly overrated. I thought Mark Hammil was awful and the special effects certainly don't stand the test of time.

Actually, genius, you'll recall I was the one who posed the question of "what's wrong with poygamy?" Activities that take place between consenting adults that don't infringe upon the rights of others are none of my damn business. I beg to differ. Human rights issues are social issues. Layton merely indicated that human rights issues should not necessarily be left to the fickle majority. Wrong. Gay marriage does not pass the litmus test of an activity that poses any harm to society as a whole. Polls indicate that the majority of Canadians are in favour of same sex marriage. Environics. Other polls show an even split. The best argument for gay marriage not being left to the mob is in the ruling in the Delwin Vriend case (more on that later): As I said, human rights issues are social issues. You pulled the dichotomy out of your hat. But hey, let's turn this around: how about you try offering some proof that gay marriage will harm society. there are many juridsticions that have officuial same sex partnerships, such as in Scandanavia. Has there been a push for legalized pediophilia, bestiality or polygamy in these places? All this time and I've still yet to see a decent argument against gay marriage. Part of the courts' job is to interpret the laws beyond the strict letter of the law. the Vriend case you mention was one such example. In that the court "read in" rights not explicit in the Charter, deeming that Alberta's refusal to include gay rights in the provincial Individual Rights Protection Act violated the constitution. Read the relevant section of the Charter: So while race, religion etc. are specifically mentioned, the inclusion of sexual oreintation is a reasonable inference to make. And I doubt such a charge would be successful, as freedom of religion is also enshrined in the Charter. Again, such an argument is pure speculation and not sufficient for depriving gays of marriage rights.

Such as whom? Farenheit 9-11 ban?

Polygamy has not been an accepted doctrine of the Mormon/Church of Jesus Christ etc. since 1890. Which is not to say it is not still practiced. The Q'uran gives Muslim men permission to have more than one wife, not to satisfy lust, but for the welfare of the widows and the orphans of the wars. It's not a common practice and is open to interpretation. Incidentally, the Bible also endorses polygamy (Link) What are these "consequenses"? The "slippery slope" argument fails because it does not recognize society's ability to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights. Something that is universally deemed detrimental to the social fabric, such as pedophilia, would simply not pass the litmus test. It's interesting that most of the arguments against gay marriage aren't actually arguments against gay marriage, but against the theoretical "next step", which would indicate there's no concrete reason to not allow gay marriage.

Because they are seperate issues. May I suggest reading the Ontario court decision vis a vis same sex marriage? In it, the court concluded that the prohibition on same sex marriage was "unjustified discrimination". Anyone arguing for polygamy would have to demonstrate why the ban is unjustified. Quibble: neither Islam or Mormonism sanction polygamy.

That's a logical fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate an active correlation between gay marriage and polygamy, there's no reason to believe the former requires the lattter.

Can you cite any examples of people who've been charged with criminal offenses for making such statements? Are you talking abvout civil lawsuits, human rights complaints or criminal charges under section 319 of the Code? The Attorney General's role is limited to matters of criminal prosecution. Some working knowledge of Canada's legal system might be a good thing to have before you start making claims about how C-250 will affect it. Are any of thses groups mentioned in the hate propaganda legislation? No. Such as IANAL, but such a statement would not pass the truth defense, but nor would it fall under the definition of hat epropaganda. It's a ignorant, bigoted statement, for sure, but one that is not prosecuteable. No it's not a problem because there is a legal definition of "breach of peace" that is used to determine such matters. Someone trying to lay criminal charges based on "hurt feelings" would not have a leg to stand on.

Just out of curiosity: what's wrong with polygamy? If we can assume that such arraingements are between conseting and informed adults, what's the big deal? How would it pose a threat to anyone else?

The PLO accepts Israel's right to exist. In fact the 1964 Charter of the PLO calls for the creation of a secular state where all religions are treated equally. The fact of Palestinian ownership of what is now Israel is not "abstract", but entirely relevant, given the existence of the refugees and the sticking point that is the right of return. These are not abstracts but realities.

No, pedophilia is a criminal offense due to it being harmful to children. Link The section in question deals with "hate propaganda" which is clearly defined as statements that advocate or promote genocide, which is, in turn defined under s. 318(2) as: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or ( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction" See above. Again: the code states no person shall be convicted of an offence under this legislation if he establishes that the statements communicated were true. See above. First, charges can only be laid with the consent of the Attorney General, not Crown prosecuters, as the above implies. Second: the defense outlined in section 2 are applicable to section 1. This is laughable. "Breach of peace" is defined as: disorderly conduct or disturbing the public peace. "Hurt feelings" do constitute a legal breach of peace. Utter claptrap, not even worth addressing. As for your "examples": using human rights cases like Owens to discredit a Criminal Code provision betrays a considerable misunderstanding of how our legal system works. Here’s why: First, to violate the Human Rights Act one must merely “expose” an identifiable group to hatred or ridicule. Under the Criminal Code, the accused must promote hatred. According to the Supreme Court in Keegstra, this means direct and active stimulation, not mere encouragement or advancement. Second, a violation of the Human Rights Act does not require any mental element. Instead, the focus is only on the effects of the acts in question. Under the Criminal Code the promotion of hatred must be wilful, which means both intentional and purposeful. This wilfulness, like every other element of the offence, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, under the Human Rights Code “good faith” is irrelevant. The Criminal Code provides a truth defence and 3 distinct “good faith” defences, including a full defence for expressing religious beliefs or beliefs based on a religious text. In summary, s. 319 is designed to make it extraordinarily difficult to obtain a conviction; and let me be clear: this is exactly as it should be. It reserves the power of the criminal law for only the most extreme cases of promoting hatred while explicitly exempting religious expression from its reach.

Your little oversimplification neglects to include the bit where the land that the jews were given in 1947 was already occupied. Those occupants were, in most cases, forcefully removed. As well, the last Arab-Israeli armed conflict was in 1973. Since then, israel has come to agreements with most of its Arab neighbours adn its biggest internal foe, the PLO (now the P.A.) has recognized Israel's right to exists. In other words, Israel's survival is no longer in question.

I'll dispense all together with your ridiculous and self-serving charges of anti-Americanism, given that you've not offered a shred of evidence to support such allegations (unless one were to assume that simple opposition to U.S. policies constitutes hatred, in which case you've got bigger problems than I thought). As well, I won't bother with your bizzare contention that I approved of Saddam's regime or somehow wish he was still in power. Such statements constitute a rank ad hominem attack and are best ignored. What I will do, as a service to you, is point out exactly what I think is wrong with the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq. To begin: in the interests of simplicity, we'll dispense with further discussion of the veracity of the pre-war rationale for military intervention in Iraq and the implications thereof. It's well-travelled ground and I've no interest in re-inventing or re-stating old arguments. Nor will I point out the numerous and glaring erors made during the "rebuilding" process thusfar. First one must also acknowledge certain realities: Saddam is gone and Iraq, by and large, has been freed. Indeed, the insurgency, political turmoil and uncertainty are all indicators of that freedom (in this case, freedom being the upending of the preexisting political and social order; freedom such as this is seldom tidy). If Iraq splinters into sperate states or develops into a theocracy, such would be the consequenses of their newfound freedom. However, freedom was not the motive: a "propserous and democratic Iraq" was. Here is where the U.S. has failed. Quite simply, democracy is a structure of institutions and principles that must be built from within, not imposed from without. In exchanging Saddam's rule for that of the U.S. occupier, Iraq has not been able to develop its own identity. Every society has the right to determine what kind of society it will be. Iraq has been denied that right, the right of self-determination that is the prerequisite of democratization. No matter how much say Iraqis have in the new government (and that is another argument), the structures, principles and institutions of the new Iraq were largely developed by non-Iraqis. This is why I advocate withdrawl: as tragic as the consequenses must be, the (often bloody) struggle for national identity is vital to the ultimate success of democracy. In other words: the fate of Iraq should be placed in the hands of Iraqis. As much as you would like to paint this as support for Saddam, or worse, callous disregard for the well-being of Iraqis, this is a view that ackowledges that building democracy is a struggle. And it is a struggle that must be undertaken by the Iraqi people alone.

The real C-250 This answers most of the claims of the previous poster.