Black Dog

What's this based on, KK? My understanding was that terrorism levels have been more or less constant. In fact teh numbe rof acts attributed to Al Q'aeda have dramatically increased in the past two years. A little more context would help.

They have a right to disagree with us. They have a right to object to our policy decisions. They do not have a right to bully us into adhering to their own policies. So, while the ramifications of liberalized drug laws should be considered, it should not be the primary consideration. The needs of Canadians should be. Were Canada take the steps to relaxing its drug laws, I would expect that in such a situation our two nations would be able to come together and work out solutions diplomatically and in accordance with existing agreements without resorting to threats and economic bullying. But then, I probably expect too much...

Let me ask you this: do you really think the U.S would close the borders to Canada if we proceed with marijuana reforms? I doubt it, as the economic costs to the States would be great (probably be greater than the costs of continuing to enforce their stupid drug policies). In other words, by punishing us, they would punish themselves. So, once we rule out that possibility as a likliehood, what's holding us back? There's no reason we can't address drug law reform while still addressing other priorities. Plus, the money saved from ceasing the pointless drug war would undoubetdly be welcome in a number of other areas.

But we do judge the criminal. We determine if the crime was intentional and premeditated. We determine the mental state of the alleged perpatrator. These are some of the factors in determining whether to charge someone with murder or manslaughter or if they are even fit to be held responsible. As far as hate crimes go, my interpretation (again, IANAL) is that a hate crime is a crime that would not have occurred had the victim not been a member of an identifiable group. What makes the firebombing of a Jewish school a hate crime is that it would not have occurred had it been a regular public school. It is the hatred of the group that motivated the crime, therefore the motive is integral; to the crime's occurance. And some of the hysterical and factualy incorrect responses to it have been used a s proof of some "politically correct" "gay agenda" war on Christianity and heterosexuals. So both sides are using it for political gain (no surprise there).

Since most of your issues are right out of the drug warriors playbook, most of my responses are coming from the Drug Policy Alliances responses to marijuana myths. We're a soveriegn country with every right to choose our own drug policy. The threat of trade reprisals from the puritans to the south shouldn't deter us from making policy decisions that are good for our citizens. Besides, think of the amount of extra tourism dollars we'd get from Americans visiting Amsterdam north. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs cognitive functions. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are unlikely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first. None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study. Nor sure what you mean by this. Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild. There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior. Sez you. Who made you arbiter of what forms of personal entertainment or enlightenment are acceptable or enjoyable?

What makes you think he cares? What possible interest would the U.S. have in regime change here when they already have a pliant pal in Martin? Why not? Martin has already expressed support for missile defense and for other ways of "strengthening ties" between the U.S. and Canada. Both Bush and Martin are rich, white businessmen. They talk the same language and have the same interests at heart. Hmm. Then the P.C's utter decimation in 1990 must have been a figment of my imagination.

As long as he's not smoking up before he operates, I don't care.

I can't say for sure, but it's quite likely Robinson's motion was reflective of NDP policy, which calls for equal treatment uder the law for everyone (again, the age itself was not the issue, rather the activity itself). (Maybe someone could start a seperate thread on the Age of Consent issue?) back to topic... Can you provide a link or some additional background? It's hard to judge an issue base don one (biased) sentence. McGill undergrad and post grad, PhD from York. What's your degree in?

I've yet to see you incite any hatred against anyone. While I find your views on homosexuality to be repugnant, they do not constitute hate speech in that they don't incite viloence or hatred against a identifiable group. they are just one man's opinion which, along with $1.25, will be lucky to get you a cup of coffee. The fact of a commission of an act is not the only criterea the legal system judges actions. We have different categories of crimes (ie. manslaughter vs. first degree murder, commercial burglery vs.residential burglery) that reflect differences in targets, intent, negligence and so forth. Some crimes are dealt with more harshly once the intent is considered. Thus hate crimes. Don't tell me you can't see the difference between common arson and, say, the firebombing of a Jewish school? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This implies that a limitation on freedom of speech can be justified if it is reasonable limit. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it is shown that it is not a reasonable limit. This has been debated, appealled and upheld. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. I Am Not A Lawyer, so I'm not sure how "hate crimes" such as assault are prosecuted. We're dealing specifically with hate speech here. In other words, I dunno. This is addressed above.

I can't speak for Mr. Robinson, but I expect the age of consent for "straight" sex (not that anal sex is strictly a gay thing) was chosen because of instances where by consenting individuals of or near the same age were being charged for having consesual sexual intercourse. In other words, the low age was designed to ensure 16-year olds wouldn't go to jail for having sex with someone their own age. Oddly enough, the current law allows 45 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds, just so long as they don't go around the back door. I can respect the views of those who want the age of consent raised, but regardless of it's limit, people should be treated equally and not singled out for the type of sex they're having.

What would make your hypothetical mugging a hate crime would be if the gay indivdual was assaulted because they were gay, as oppossed to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Absolutely. Our ociety allows all kinds of vile individuals to voice their views, just a slong as they don't directly call for any actions that would breach the peace. Think of the curbs on hate speech as an extension of the old axiom "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Drugs are a reality in our society, and have been for a long time. The difference is in how we approach it. Prior to the early 20th Century, drug use was widely considered a medical issue. A sign of personal weakness (like alcohol) yes, but addiction was a medical condition. People like Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle enjoyed productive, creative lives despite being hooke don substances that would now land them in the clink for 10 to 12 years (Conan Doyle was a cocaine addict). Somewhere along the line, drugs (in particular, opiates and cananbis derivitives) and their users became a police, criminal and, indeed, a moral matter. We've been locking people up for drugs for many years, but drug use is growing. The current drug strategy fails to distinguish between problematic from non-problematic drug use. As well, many problems associated with drugs (high levels of incarceration; violence generated by the criminal market; the preventable spread of HIV and other infectious disease; the denial of medical marijuana to the sick; etc.) are byproducts of drug policy, not of drugs itself We need a new strategy that recognises the reality that people will make choices that we may not agree with and that may impact them negatively. Society's role is to mitigate the harm those choices may have on the individual and society at large. We already " pay for people who knowingly harm their bodies." By your logic, hospitals shouldn't treat people who incur injuries as reult of being drunk, who get cancer from smoking tobacco, who roll their SUVs (why should my tax dollars pay for those people's choice in vehicles?), eat fast food, or undertake any other risky lifestyle choice. In other words, everybody. People should not be punished for what they choose to put into their bodies, but only for crimes committed against others.

Where is that suggested in the article? Can you point it out, as I can't find what you're talking about. Even in our free society, we have determined there are certain, acceptable limits on free speech. Forbidding people from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is an example where "free speech" is limited based on its negative effect on others (and I'm aware it's a faulty eample). In Canada, the Supreme Court has upheld the hate speech law on two grounds: that it's a reasonable limit on free speech; and the limit is justified in a free and democractic society. Much of the opposition to hate speech legislation in general and C-250 in particular, seems to stem from a profound misunderstanding of the terms and conditions of this law. The Criminal Code makes what constitutes "hate speech" very clear. Hate speech is not simply expressing an opinion, but an incitement to do violence. It's the difference between "I don't like those n***ers." and "Let's kill all the n***ers." The Act in question defines hate speech in three ways: Advocating genocide (genocide being defined 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 (b)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.) Public incitement of hatred (where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace) Wilful promotion of hatred (No one can be convicted under this subsection (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b)if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. As you can see, there's some very specific criterea as to what constitutes hate speech. Religious speech (as guaranteeeed by the Charter of Rights) is covered, so long as it does not promote violence. In other words, you can say that the Bible forbids homosexuality and you're still covered. However, if you use that Biblical reference to incite violence against homosexuals for that reason, you are guilty of hate speech.

Free speech comes with certain responsibilites. Even this forum has set rules and guidelines that must be followed to ensure participation. If posters are unhappy with their treatment or feel other posters have viloated said rules and guidelines, all it takes is a PM to the administrators, and I'm sure they will consider the complaint. HOWEVER... Posters on this forum have a responisbility to back up their words with proof and to provide support their arguments (or at the very least, ensure said arguments are somewhat grounded in reality and based loosely on facts). That means (for example) if you accuse people who disagree with you of being Nazis, pedophile-supporters or Osama bin Laden sympathizers, you had better back your words up. Otherwise, your arguments have no support and you lose any shred of personal credibility you might have. To conclude: blindly hurling accusations of the worst kind without any evidence to back it up makes you a troll.

There's no evidence to back the "gateway drug theory". What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistical association between common an uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. The hardline, zero tolerance approach has been tried for years, yet drugs ar echeaper and more widely available than ever. Why are some people so incapable of recognizing that the drug warriors' policies have failed? How? Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category. Isn't that the point? You don't stregthen families by throwing family members in jail. Fact is, children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse. It creates many more problems than it solves.

Link. Good news!! This is the law that amends The Hate Propaganda section of the C.C, adding sexual orientation to the list of protected grounds. This section has been in place for decades and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable curb on freedom of speech All that's left is for the G.G. to give Royal Assent.

As I already pointed out, the current drug policy of prohibition isn't working. It's bad law, law that needs to be reformed to better serve the people. Under the current laws these "not nice guys" are allowed to flourish simply because they are the one's providing for the market. Legalization or decriminilization would put these guys out of business faster than million cops ever could. No greater good is served by smoking, drinking, watching American Idol, yet these things are okay. Why? Because in a free society we are allowed to make choices, even stupid ones others might not agree with. Whatever. If you've ever come home and cracked a beer, poured yourself a Scotch, lit a smoke, or popped a Xanax, you're guilty of self-medicating. The differing legalities are rather arbitrary. Geez, I thought conservatives were all for the government staying out of people's private lives...

Keep in mind that trade works both ways. Closing the border would hurt the U.S. too, and is highly unlikely (if so, then maybe we'd have to close the border to all the electricity we send down to the eastern seaboard and "let the bastards freeze in the dark". ). Well, consider the simple fact that loosening up pot laws would free up millions of dollars for other uses, put many more cops onto the street, and ease the burden on the justice system. It's not like all of those areas are completely unconnected. The war on drugs is a totally futile expenditure of resources and results in ridiculous punishments. In the States, epicentre of the drug war, there are more people in prison for drug offences (including minor ones such as possession) than are in the jails of the entire European Union for all offences. That's thousands of lives ruined, while drug use continues to climb. That's not sound public policy. That's insanity.

Because, apparently, I'm a sucker for punishment, I'm going back into the breach. Canada's age of consent law in a nutshell: So to clarify, what Svend wanted was for the age of consent for anal intercourse be brought into line with the age of consent for all other sexual activities.In otehr words, a 14 year old girl can legally have sex with a 45 year old man, just so long as it's not anal sex. So is your problem with age or with anal? If you have a problem with the age of consent, fine, but get your facts straight first. For those who don't know the background, Robinson took up the cause of a B.C. woman named Susan Rodriguez, who was afflicted with ALS and petitioned the Supreme Court to allow a doctor to assist her in her suicide. obinson put forward a motion calling for a Commons committee to conduct its own detailed study of the issue, but MPs voted down the request 169-66. Rodriguez killed herself in 1994 with the help of a doctor. robinson was present but no charges were laid, as the Crown concluded there was no substantial likelihood of conviction for any criminal offence. The Crown obviously felt they had no case. So it's cased closed. Please give one example-just one, single, solitary example- of a community that was "forced" to hold a Pride event. I already frequent Rabble, thanks (I'm not too hard to find, I use the same handle there). I've never had a problem with free speech on Rabble, and nor would anyone else who abides by the guidelines and rules of that forum. Also I've never heard of any posts being deleted, except those with highly objectionable content. Seems to me you got a bad case of the sour grapes, pal.

I've been thinking about this some more, and on the surface, it makes sense. However, there is a few issues that will remain outstanding. 1) Any new Iraqi regime will be saddled with the constitution that was written up by the CPA. Indeed, the new constitution specifically states that that all "laws, regulations, orders and directives" issued by the US occupation authorities will remain in force, even after the June 30 handover. So we're not talking about ironing out a few details, we're talking about shackling future Iraqi governments to a series of preconditions set down by an occupying military power. Does that sound like democracy to you? 2) U.S. forces will remain in the country. Construction is underway on 14 permenant military bases in Iraq which will host up to 100,000+ U.S. troops. This will give the U.S. a strategic strangelhold on the oil supply, niot to mention how the oprescence of that many foreign troops would deter a Iraqi government from stepping out of line. I dunno...

True, but how many times can one attempt to counter the same baseless accusations, only to see them continue to crop up? I'm sick of A.F.'s constant repition of the same old lies and misrepresentations, so I won't be bothering with that individual anymore.

Oh please. There was plenty of evidence that Al Q'aeda was planning some kind of attack on U.S. soil. I would expect the most powerful nation on earth would have the intelligence to at least guard against any probability, and not need an engraved invitation from the terrorists to tell them where and when. But the real fact is is that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Unlike FDR , who accepted responisbility for Pearl Harbour, or Kenendy, who apologized on National Television for the Bay of Pigs debacle, Bush has weasled out of accepting any of the responsibility and has obfuscated efforts to get to the truth. I guarantee, if it was a democrat president behaving the same way, the right-wingers would be calling for his resignation or public execution. Bush is a weasal. Truth be told, I don't see much hope for Iraq at all. Eiteh rteh U.S. cuts and runs and the country dissovles into chaos and civil war, or the U.S. stays as overlord, locke din a perpetual struggle against Iraqi opposition. Either way, the people lose.

Methinks it's time to bring "plonking" into this forum. I for one won't be feeding any fanatical trolls anymore.

Not all conservatives (in fact, I believe I expressed the opposite sentiment in another post). Just you. Evil isn't the word (indeed, it's one that gets bandied about all too freely these days). I think the Conservatives have an agenda and it's not one that involves looking out for the best interests of all Canadians. The Conservative agenda puts profit and business ahead of people. I've seen too much of this brand of government in Alberta to trust the motives of a party with the same idealogical underpinings. Agreed!

Thing about policy documents is, you kinda have to read between the lines a little, as they tend to be quite vague. "Unions" are not marriages. False dichotomy. Spending on what areas and for what purpose? Will a bolstered Canadian military follow its own foreign policy, or simply kow-tow to the U.S.'s wishes (remember: Harper wanted us to join the Iraq debacle)? The policy doc says nothing about respecting the provisions of the CHA, nor does it say they want to increase funding to the provinces, only that they will provide "sustainable" federal funding. It does however, give the provinces a lot of wiggle room in terms of "setting priorities for health care services. In other words if, say, Alberta wanted to open the door for private insurance, they'd be okay with that. As well, a Con government "will be open to innovations which would reduce waiting lists, improve the quality of care, and ensure better coordination and information sharing in the delivery of health," which are all buzzwords that get thrown around by Fraser Institute types a lot with regard to private health care. Tax cuts are not the biggest priority for Cnadians. A recent poll by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada indicated the top priorities for Canadians are more spending on health care, improved federal-provincial cooperation and increased funding of education and training. As I said, tax cuts (particularly business and capital gains tax relief, which predominately benefit the wealthy) are a big part of the neoliberal economic agenda espoused by the G.O.P in the States and the Conservatories here. And how will they pull that off? My guess is, and if Harpo's Iraq stance is an indicator, a Conservative government would avoid such damage by not disagreeing with the States. Anyway, it seems all my assessments of Con ploicy vis a vis the Republicans was pretty accurate, n'est pas? I don't like abortion, but I acknowledge and support woman's right to choose. I also support increasing funding for sexual education and improving access to birth control for young people to enable them to make informed sexual choices and decrease risks.