Boydfish

You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of how the Westminster System of Government works: The supremacy of Parliament is unquestioned. Before you think that means that the confederal government is in charge, that's not the case(The reason it's expressed that way is because it comes from British tradition: The Parliament in Westminster was the "top dog", so it kind of stuck.). The reference to "Parliament is Supreme" is to all elected bodies of Her Majesty's governments. That means that nobody, not even the Monarch, can overrule the elected Parliament, Legislature or Assembly. The Monarch can dissolve them and call for a new election, they can refuse to give royal assent to a bill passed by them, but they cannot usurp their authority. That means that the Monarch, or their representative, cannot directly order the Parliament or it's members how to vote. Otherwise, the vote of Parliament is not able to be overriden by anybody else. The Canadian Parliament cannot amend provincial legislation, nor can the reverse happen. That's why trying to explain government health care policies in the confederation requires Tylenol to be administered pre-, during and post-explanation: Your constitution places health care specifically in the hands of the provincial government, but the Canadian Parliament passed it's own act of health care and has a minister of health. They also withhold funds that don't belong to them(Long story, but if you want to debate that, start another thread)to force places like BC that want no part of thier scheme to comply with it. Why would the Canadians bother with that if they could simply amend the British Columbian Medical Services Act to conform with their law? The inclusion of the "not withstanding" clause was not done because Trudeau suddenly thought it might be a good idea to decentralize power from Ottawa; it was added because he knew that the provinces would simply disregard his Charter at will. I'll give Trudeau credit for that move(I didn't like him, but I will give him credit for being a brilliant tactician.). By adding that clause, it creates the impression that the Canadians are "permitting" the provinces to disregard the Canadians at will. The simple fact is that the provinces don't need the permission of the Canadian Parliament to ignore the CCRF for two reasons: #1-The Provincial governments are supreme within their borders. #2-The Canadian constitution says that the Provincial, not confederal, governments manage "Property and Civil Rights in the Province.", Section 92(13) of the CCA. No where does it give the Canadian Parliament the authority to make laws and charters. A first year law student could get the CCRF tossed as being ultra viries without the "not withstanding" clause. First, you claim that the composition of the SCC would require an amendment to change. In simple and basic terms: You are wrong We do not live in a confederation of republics. Nor do we live in a republic directly south of the confederation. Just because the USAmerican Supreme Court is an official branch of the government down there, does not automatically mean that the SCC is as well. The SCC is mentioned no where in your fabled constitutional protections. The Canadian government is authorized to create a Court of Appeals and "and for the Establishment of any additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada.", VII(101) of the CCA. It doesn't have to, it just can. The SCC is organized under the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26. This means that the Government of the Day does not even need an act of Parliament or the Senate to disband the SCC; they may do so via a simple Order in Council if they so chose. So, if the Government of the Day doesn't like the SCC's direction...poof! Goes bye-bye. While I might understand the suspicion that all of the members of the SCC are complete morons when it comes to the rule of law and justice, I'm certain that they are at least competent legal technicians: They know whose pleasure they serve at. The Magna Carta isn't dominant. A right is a right. It's there always or it's not a right, it's a privledge. Your idea of "dominance" of one over the other is not possible. Since the CCRF acknowledges that all of my Common Law rights exist, why can't you? Oh. Dear. Child, you really need to do some research on Common Law, the Westminster System of Government, Statute Law and probably a good dose of Civil Codes(Not that anybody with a ounce of sanity supports a civil code legal system, but seeing bad ideas in action helps highlight why they're a bad idea.). You seem to have latched onto this very sad idea that Comrade Trudeau's Charter is the be-all, end-all of rights and freedoms. It's not. My rights under Common Law, as well as statutes other (By the way, can you cite a Common Law statute of Rights for me? I'd be interested in reading it.)than the CCRF, are just as valid as they are when repeated by the CCRF. Hmmmm. Common Law can be changed on a whim? Quick, let's tell the lawyers! They spend all that time citing cases back to ancient English law to pad the old bill, right? It doesn't have anything to do with the judge having to follow that precidence, right? Can it be changed? Sure. But so can your charter, quite easily, as you've now had outlined to you.

Hi Brainiac Excuse me, but you're doing it again: We did have every right in the CCRF prior to 1982. Every last one. The rights were and are just as entrenched. The CCRF does not confer any special status on those rights, the entire notion of a right being "entrenched" or "dominant" is like trying to express degrees of pregnancy: You are or are not. If a right is not entrenched, it is, by definition, not a right. Rights cannot be taken away(That's the whole point). If there is a method to take them away, then they're not rights. This arguement holds zero water. You're claiming that the effectiveness of the Canadian Bill of Rights should be judged on the quality of legislation that was passed in those 20 years? Assuming that your arguement is accurate, then you're claiming that a series of governments restricted by the charter which gets caught repeatedly breaking it's own laws(Which is exactly what happens when a statuate is rendered inoperative)is somehow superior to a series of governments that only breaks it's laws once? What interesting logic. Using that as a logic model, the neighbourhoods with the most arrests are the safest to live in, because the most laws get broken there. OK, assuming your statement is true, what, pray tell, are these new methods of protecting your civil liberties? No new freedoms created, so it can't be increased freedom. No new judicial bodies created, as you'll find the SCC predates your dear leader's tenure. Of course, that doesn't change that the SCC is not actually mentioned in either the original 1867 BNA or in the 1982 amendments, meaning that there is no specific constitutional protections whatsoever around the SCC actually ruling on or enforcing these constitutional protections that you're so enamoured with.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you're a new student to the concept of rights and the law. I suggest that you cover some basic texts and concepts before attempting to form and espouse an opinion on them. To correct some of your more basic errors in your last post, I'll direct you to the Magna Carta as a starting point for written examples in Common Law. You'll also want to review the Judges Rules for an excellent idea of how suspects are to be questioned by law enforcement. The rulings are all written down; that's how they are cited in court. As well, the Charter is just as subject to change and modification as Common Law, unless you're suggesting that the Canadians have abandoned the Westminster system of government. In specific, one the founding principles of the Westminster system being the supremacy of the elected legislatures(This means either the provincial or confederal ones). The amendment formula in the Canadian constitution and the CCRF is a nice touch, but no government is constrained to live with it. You might wish to research a key point on topic, in specific, how laws are created in the Canadian confederation. Heck, there is even a question if the CCRF could be overridden by a simple OiC. Um, not only do you need a good primer on the history of rights, you clearly need one on current events as well: The Canadian Supreme Court recently "read in" sexual orientation into your vaunted charter. Not even the most ardent supporter of the document claims that the charter is "absolute" or "fixed in time"(Mainly, as you've now had pointed out to you repeatedly, because the document itself admits that it does not list all rights, just the few that Trudeau happened to like.). Not only does this blow out any idea that the charter is what you say it is, it also puts paid to your notion that Trudeau's amendment formula is anything other than a suggestion. You seem to have the notion that Common Law means that the government and courts can do whatever they like: Nothing could be further than the truth. The charter ends up like that because it simply lists off a few small lines that the government may not cross, but Common Law requires that the government prove that what it has done is fair. The easiest way to explain it is that the franco-socialist republicans who support the charter and it's ilk believe that the government is always right until proven to have broken the rules, while Common Law puts the onus on the government to prove it's actions just at every step. Why do you think that the vast majority...I mean like 100 to 1...of republics are tyrannical states? Another way to explain it is that charters and civil codes are like telling the government "Don't punch people", so the government is then free to kick, strangle, shoot and pepper spray them, just as long as they don't punch them. Common Law rights are more broad and involved in achieving justice: They do not draw absolute lines, instead draw on the common sense of the courts to abide by the concept of justice.

I understand what you're asking for and that it's a pretty defensible position, but I think that there will always be a desire to have your justice system, civil and criminal, to be operated by those that are literally your peers. I do not feel comfortable being judged by a Canadian; I don't think that a Canadian can understand British Columbia or my national identity as a British Columbian. That's why it's vital that the Canadians keep out of, as much as possible, all affairs that are strictly the concern of British Columbia. They are not enforcing any special laws for the Muslim community, they are providing an alternate dispute resolution method. If nothing else, it should reduce the backlog in the civil and family courts somewhat. Then there are Common Law remedies for that circumstance: Signing an agreement under duress is not a valid agreement. This process is simply binding arbitration that happens to be done by a imam rather than an arbitrator. If the intimidation is done via violence, then we arrest them. Then they stand in front of a judge. Period. This is a problem(Individual fiefdoms), but not in this regard. This process will only apply to mediation and arbitration of civil matters, not criminal. A imam will not be able to sentence people to default time, nor can they order enforcement measures. You'd need to go back to a judge to get the order enforced, which is where Common Law beats the hell out of the franco-socialist republican civil code crap that the Canadians have been trying jam down our throats: A judge can look at it go "Nah, that's stupid, get tossed.". Getting a civil order enforced is no easy feat, even for government programs that do it as part of thier mandate. I've often heard that the immigrants are the breeding ground for new Liberals in Canada(Remember, in BC, a Liberal is hard right wing, so I have to translate terms into ones both can understand.). I'm not so sure on this. This may be the case in Canada, but in BC, with the bulk of our immigration coming from the Pacific Rim, with a strong maritime merchant tradition, you'll find the average Chinese or Indian immigrant is just to the right of GWB in political terms. Big guns, big cars and big dollars defines large pieces of thier culture. Look at the tax structures in Taiwan and the PRC: Despite being literally at opposite sides of a civil war supposedly about communism v. capitalism, both use the same format. They don't use a flat tax, they use almost exactly the same concept of a sliding tax rate with one difference: The higher your gross earnings, the lower your tax percentage. The idea is that it creates encouragement to make more money, not less. Pretty odd that both communists and capitalists from China have the same idea? Actually, what put us at the top was trade and gunboats. The Royal Navy, then the USN, were built not for conquest but for collective maritime security of trade. We didn't get involved in trying to convert the locals, except in converting their currency to pounds. Our legal system is like our language, English: It's the Borg of legal systems. We absorb and adopt and thereby subvert others to our purposes. That's why you'll see a a Highland Regimental Band in Surrey marching wearing turbans, kilts and blowing on bagpipes. We need to allow each culture to manage it's own internal affairs as much as possible.

Hi Morgan: The NDP, which is essentially just the extreme left wing of the Canadian Liberal Party, really doesn't operate in the same reality that most people do. They have good intentions, but for the most part understand little of thier own rhetoric and less of the real world. The reason that the Canadian Liberals and the NDP have such a big problem with understanding common law is because it runs counter to everything that they believe: Big, central controlled governments issuing diktats to the masses. Getting them to admit that rights other than the Trudeau Charter exist and are equal to their Charter of Repeated Rights that We Already Had is pretty much not going to happen. The NDP, like the Canadians themselves, like the Charter in general. If you watch, in the next few years, the Charter will probably be amended to remove the portion that I cited that kept Trudeau's fingers off of the rights that really mattered, your Common Law rights. The logic will be couched in the terms much like the ones that SirRiff has been mouthing: The Charter is good enough. Why do you need anything else? Get rid of the other rights. Trust me, that's what you'll see from the Canadians in short order. In terms of Sharia law being used in the mediation process...shrug...whatever floats the boat. It's not being incorporated in court procedure, nor is any party compelled to accept the process without consent. I won't be hauled into an Islamic Tribunals against my will, nor will anybody else. I'm not a Muslim, but one of the biggest influences in my life came from a very strong Muslim gentleman. As such, I'm not that mistrustful of Muslims in general. I mistrust zealots of any stripe however. The Muslims have been tarred with a pretty broad brush lately thanks to the actions of some of the more extreme actions of Muslim zealots. I doubt that this would be news if it was announced that the massive Chinese or Indian populations in BC are also permitted to do the same: It's only news because Muslim zealots are pretty hot in the news for the last couple of years.

Um, you do understand what a "right" is? Correct? A right is something that cannot be taken away. Claiming that the Charter can take away my Common Law, Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights and Canadian Bill of Rights, but still claim that they are rights is contradictory. By the way, common law rights would protect the person in your example. The idea that the charter is the dominant is laughable on so many levels: It can be repealed and ignored at will by both Parliament and the Crown. It is also not even binding at the provincial level(Quick legal explanation here: Under the Westminster system of government...which all members of the confederation use...the elected legislatures are supreme. The "notwithstanding clause" is not really required, as the Legislature already have this authority, no matter what somebody in Ottawa writes.). This is gonna be painful to watch.... Name one. Please. Name one right that I gained. It should be simple according to your description of how wonderful this document is. At best, you can claim that the CCRF attempts to place restrictions on existing rights, but there is nothing in there that added a single right or even a single privledge. Bzzzzt! I'm sorry contestant, but my rights were already protected constitutionally. Had been for centuries. You see, depending on how you look at it, either the Westminster System of government has no constitution or it has the longest in history. Please see the Magna Carta. By the way, if you want to try and persue the "But the Westminster System has no constitution" arguement, then you also adopt the onus of proving why that having it constitutionally protected is in any way superior to the way that it was before. My God. So this blessed charter of yours has no rights that you can articulate, but you ask that we simply have faith that there is something there? Excuse me, but are you trying to run a government or a religion? No, the CCRF became a section of a semi-amended BNA. The same things that protected people in the confederation continued to protect them. The highest law of the land continued to be the Crown and the will of the elected legislatures. So name one. Give us an example. If it was as a profound of a change as you're claiming, this should be easy. Um, yes, common law is entrenched, but your charter is the one with problems being entrenched. The Magna Carta is entrenched. The English Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights, you can make an arguement, I suppose, that they are not entrenched. Of course, by doing that you prove that your CCRF isn't as entrenched as you'd like: Both were passed via the same houses that passed your CCRF as part of the BNA amendment, meaning that there is no legal reason or prevention from any Parliament from simply repealing the CCRF like it can any other legislation. Ah ha! The first attempt at revealing what this blessed document adds to the mix! Too bad that it's wrong, in that those concepts were already in place, practice and common use for hundreds of years before Trudeau and his cabal came along: Nothing that was legal before became illegal, nothing that was illegal became legal. But, as before, I'll ask again: Name one of these specific concepts that was not in the confederation before the Charter that sprang into existence as a result of the CCRF. Why? The Charter is not new. It added nothing. It is no more entrenched or protected than my Common Law and other associated rights. It's only important to the Canadian Liberals because they wrote it.

OK, let's put it this way: Between 1981 and 1983, my personal rights changed exactly zero. That means that the entire document is useless and did nothing. The Canadian document added nothing, modified nothing and removed nothing. In legal terms, it is a null item of no value. Name one right enumerated in that was not already entrenched in Common Law, the Magna Carta(1215) or either the Canadian or English Bills of Rights(1960 and 1689 respectively.). I'll save you looking, the answer is zero. What you Canadians need to understand is that your "Dear Leader" Trudeau's legacy is at best all smoke and mirrors of no real value and at it's worst, plagarism on a massive scale. His cabal re-invented the legal equal of the wheel several hundred years late. Is the Charter 100% bad? No, probably at least 60% is good law, another 20% good law phrased badly and the last 20% is best forgotten. The problem is that the 60% of good is all plagarized/redundant and the remaining 40% is the parts where it stops saying "shall be free" and starts saying "except...". Dominant? Isn't the phrase quoted pretty damn clear on the point that it does not repeal or remove any of the rights that I had before Trudeau and his cabal came along? Since it adds nothing, nor does it remove anything, exactly how does it become "dominant"? Unless there is a phrase in your precious charter that says "This abolishes right 'X'.", it does not. Sorry to interrupt you, but BS. You seem to imply that prior to Comrade Trudeau that no person in the Canadian confederation had any rights. Not only did we all have the Common Law Rights, the Canadian Bill of Rights(Actually far superior in format and writing to the one imposed by Trudeau)was passed in 1960. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-12.3/27700.html

I seriously doubt that BC will return more than two Liberals to Ottawa. The Canadian Liberals are not that popular in BC(It's important to remember that most Canadian polls are wildly inaccurate in BC, as they use Canadian poltical terminology rather than British Columbian when doing their polling. A Liberal in BC is a strong right winger, while the reverse is true in Canada.). The only advantage that Liberals have in BC is that Canadian politics are at best viewed with a yawn by British Columbians: Our votes don't count in your elections. The biggest question will be if the CPC and in a larger extention, Canadians in general, grasp that the western provinces will give them one shot: If they pander to the Canadian agenda and ignore Alberta and BC, we'll simply withdraw from your confederation. This election will probably be the last election in the confederation, as Martin will simply wave the "My God! A Western PM might be elected! It's better to have the worst Canadian than the best British Columbian!" flag at Ontario and Quebec and he'll win. Doubt it? Worked for Cretin, didn't it?

The bulk of that arguement is because real estate agents don't particularly like the LTO: They want legislative methods added to try and render the LTO impotent. I happen to deal with the LTO on a regular basis, mainly in property registration in enforcement matters. With an absolute right to property, the LTO would have serious problems with the entire concept of land registration. The problem is that the Canadians are trying to pull the legal alternative of a "bait 'n switch" of our rights: They keep referring the the Canadian's Charter as some unique and all-encompassing document(It's not, as noted above)and trying to shift us from our Common Law heritage to the franco-socialist republic concept of a constitution/bill of "rights". The current property rights in British Columbia, like most Common Law rights, are strongly rooted in common sense: Unlike franco-socialist republic concepts like civil codes and charters, Common Law can see shades of grey. The simple fact is that Common Law is over 1000 years of legal evolution covering nearly every imaginable process and concept. A mere document of a few pages, written by a sub-standard thinker drawing from sub-standard sources, has no possible chance of being as practical.

A few thoughts on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Supreme Canadian court is not limited to the Charter, as the Charter is essentially an insignifigant document of no use written by "feel-gooders". It is insignifigant because it freely admits that it omits a large amount of the rights already "owned" by both Canadians and the citizens of their confederation, as noted in Section 26: The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. In other words, even the Charter admits that it's really a secondary and second-rate document that serves no purpose. No matter how much Trudeau and the other franco-socialist republic types from Canada try and exalt their sub-standard charter, the simple fact is that every right, plus far more(Including the right to property), are already enshrined and protected: Going as far back as the Magna Carta and other documents, British Common Law has protected our rights. My point on this is that anybody who tries to argue on the concept of rights using the CCRF as the sole document has no understanding of the Common Law system that we live under, nor do they grasp the Westminster System of government.

But Kosovo isn't in Mexico, it's in Europe, where all but two of the members of NATO are. This was not a "Save the World" mission for NATO, this was a "No more land wars in Europe" mission.

That depends on your definition of attacked and if you actually think that the UN is a problem "fixer". First, were we to play it on strict terms, the Serbs became valid military targets for NATO the first moment they opened fire on Canadian troops, no matter if they were wearing blue beanies or not. An attack on the citizens of a nation(Which, in case you weren't aware, CF troops are.)are an act of war. Next, if you want to move into less technical terms, nations have a right, in fact a duty, to act in the best interests of humanity. Mass murder is mass murder, no matter if committed under the orders of a government. NATO is an organization of nations; "NATO" in and of itself is unable to do anything. It is simply the vehicle from which the will of those collective nations. If the NATO countries feel that taking action under that treaty is appropriate, then it is appropriate under the treaty. The UN proved in Rwanda and Iraq that it does nothing of value anymore. They need to be cut down to a simple talking room and nothing more.

"Should BC seperate from Canada?" I think a more accurate question is "When should BC leave the Canadian confederation?". The entire premise of the Canadian confederation was that local government in Ottawa was superior to a distant government in London. The simple fact is that the Canadian government in Ottawa is just as distant and foreign to British Columbians. This is the arguement that Canadians trip over, fall over, ignore and try to deflect: You cannot make a rational arguement for BC to be in the Canadian confedertion without disproving the premise of Canadian independence from Great Britain. In terms of British Columbia's recent flip-flop into a "have-not" province, that was perhaps the most brilliant move on the part of the British Columbian government in over 100 years: We beat the Canadians with better accountants. The Campbell government did something that the NDP government was too proud to do: They simply did the books in such a manner to make it look like BC was running at a loss rather than a profit. This strategy is used by businesses both big and small, often to avoid taxation. The Campbell government avoids giving money to the Canadians and even sees a tiny return in getting a "transfer payment" of a couple million dollars. In simple terms, BC is doing quite well thank you, we've just figured out a way to keep the Canadians out of our pockets. This is why the Canadians are madly scrambling to try and re-do the way that they calculate transfer payments: They want it done via property value averages. In terms of cultural differences, British Columbia is perhaps the only province in the Canadian confederation that can be truly described as "distinct". We don't even have weather like the other provinces. Another discussion point as to BC in the confederation is to go back to the roots: Why did the British government allow the Canadians to administratively annex British Columbia*? The main and primary reason was to provide common defence against the USA. As the Canadian Army cannot reach BC without the aid of the US, this reason has gone much the way of the dodo bird. As well, the Canadians need to prove to BC that there is a pressing need to share a common political community, rather than simply develop treaties and agreements that neighbouring states can enjoy(Trade, defence, disaster response, cultural). *Look into it, draw your own conclusions.

Refer to point #5; Kosovo was done under a NATO mandate.

I think that there is always a great deal of rhetoric and posturing by both sides in the never ending immigration debate. I don't think that I'd be able to offer very much in useful discussion as to the immigration issue in Canada, but for British Columbia, which has far different immigration issues than Canada, I might offer these points: #1-British Columbia is a far more multicultural and, please forgive the condescending term, mature nation than Canada in the area of multiculturalism. While British Columbia is still clearly a British origin nation, the British elements that are part of our nation's foundation are more diverse than our Canadian cousins. Some of the most vocal pro-monarchy elements of British Columbian society are from the Chinese and Indian communities(The largest wave of immigration from India to British Columbia came when India dropped the monarchy.). Before the Canadians get bent out of shape by having a mere British Columbian calling them less mature as a nation, the reason that we are is because we were forced to. The "English" and "French" parts of Canada are essentialy identical and compatible cultures of no real difference, as well as the other European minority groups. To those outside of Ontario and Quebec, the differences are insignifigant when compared to the profound differences between the British, Indian, Chinese and Japanese cultures that are quite dominant in British Columbia. We grew up faster because we did shitty things to each other and learned from it. We interred Japanese-British Columbians. We turned back boatloads of Indians. We used the Chinese to blast a hole in the Rocky Mountains. We even had a bunch of Indians commit the worst act of aviation terrorism up to that point in history. No major group has been completely guilt free in the process. We didn't get better because we are a "better" nation, we got past it because we had to. There isn't a British Columbian worthy of the name who wouldn't trade their right arm to have prevented any of those tragedies. My point here on immigration is that British Columbia's immigration needs are far different than Canada's. We can absorb far more immigrants than the Canadians due to our vastly different national identity. We can handle another million from the Pacific Rim every year without difficulty(Assuming that we didn't skew it insanely towards one group or another; think roughly 3/8ths Indian, 3/8ths Chinese, 1/8th European and 1/8th other British Commonwealth origin.). Canada cannot, as they can only really absorb signifigant numbers of Western Europeans. #2-Vancouver as a "non-English speaking" city. Yes and no. Is English the dominant language in Vancouver? No. French isn't even a statistical blip, for what it's worth to those that think that writing something in Ottawa makes it happen across the confederation. What English is, like it is around the world, is the language of business. If you wish to live, work and exist in the Lower Mainland in Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, Japanese or even English, you can do so easily. If you wish to conduct cross-cultural or trans-national business, or business in a general market format, it is done in English. It's not just the above areas that are "cultural enclaves"; the Kootenays have a massive Russian community(They're on the Pacific Rim too, remember?). Chilliwack is so German, it's scary. #3-Immigration is a good thing for British Columbia. We have an acceptable climate, lots of room and a tolerant national culture. We need it.

Cretin's legacy as PM, in spin-doctoring at it's best, can be called "balanced". Cretin will never be regarded by historians as much more than a coat-holder who was given a job that nobody else wanted bad enough. In terms of his leadership within the confederation, I'd give him a "D". He was able to keep Quebec in, but only by the skin of his teeth, which is what keeps his mark from reaching "Called to the principal's office for a well deserved thrashing". Cretin has sparked, then gleefully fed, a growing and now potentially unstoppable wave of nationalism in British Columbia and Alberta that calls for them to abandon the Canadian confederation. While Cretin can hardly even take credit for that, as it was somewhat inevitable that BC and Alberta would outgrow Canada in the not too distant future, it's clear that Cretin has accelerated that to incredible speeds. Perhaps the watershed moment for his regime in that regard came when he ordered the RCMP to gas British Columbians, then made public jokes about it. The gassing was valid; the joking showed British Columbians very publically what Canada and your Prime Minister think of British Columbians. In terms of leadership outside of the confederation, Cretin hits his high point, reaching a "C+", becoming a lightning rod and beacon for third world, french speaking socialists to rally around. No matter that such a position offends nearly everybody west of the lakehead, he is the Canadian Prime Minister, not the PM of the Western Provinces. In simple and blunt terms, Ontario and Quebec are a franco-socialist nation, they elected him and he has represented them to the world. In terms of security of the confederation, he should be expelled. He has slashed the budgets of every guardian agency, then forced them to fritter away the few remaining dollars they have on non-mission critical programs such as francophonization and cultural sensitivity. The Canadian Armed Forces, organizationally speaking, should be the big stick of the security apparatus of the Canadian confederation. Due to the capstone actions of the Cretin regime in dismantling the CF, we have been left with a force that cannot even mount an expeditionary land force to British Columbia, let alone anywhere else in the world. The navy is patrolling in brown water roles with billion dollar blue water frigates. The air force is becoming a quandry service, as it can't keep anything in the air and certainly not with any "force" associated with it. The "new" aspect of the CF that the Cretin government brought in, "JTF2", is at best a great example of re-inventing the wheel for the sake of being french-friendly. As a loyal member of the British Commonwealth, a Canadian Special Air Service Regiment, much like the Australian or New Zealand versions, would have allowed them to work with the best of the best right away. Instead, because it would remind the french that the least of the English speaking warriors of the world have been far greater than the greatest french warrior, the Canadians needed to try and re-invent the wheel. The RCMP is literally falling apart. They couldn't catch a cold, let alone a criminal. Of the guardian agencies, the forced francophonization has done the most damage. Despite the protests of Quebec, french is at best a local custom in parts of Central Canada; the vast majority of the confederation has no use for french. This has lead the RCMP to be unable to even speak to most of the citizens of the Canadian confederation. The CSIS and CSE have done yeoman work, for the most part, but like the rest of the major guardian agencies, have begun to show the signs of cracking. Perhaps the most damning fact on security in the Cretin years will be this little gem that a contact at CSIS passed onto me: The largest security and intelligence organization in the Canadian confederation, in terms of both budget and manpower? The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. In terms of economic policy, he gets a "C". By failing to restore rational fiscal policy to the confederation, especially in excessive personal taxation, he has driven incalcuable amounts of businesses into the grey market. The simple fact that the Canadian government has remained somewhat solvent by excessively taxing the economic "sidewash" of the booming grey market in the confederation is more of an indicator of the wealth present than any great skill in running the economic policy. Related to the above point, the inability to find a single Canadian Liberal who understands that frittering away money like a drunken sailor on foolishness is his fault, but again, that's Canadians for you, they like socialism. Overall, he gets a "C-". The Canadian people in Ontario and Quebec elected him; they'll elect another just like him next election and out west, we'll keep getting disgusted by them.

You're right Fast Ned, in that the Canadians clearly and absolutely dropped the ball on the NMD/ABM, mainly because the Canadians weren't threatened, only British Columbians and Albertans. The DPRK won't have a ballistic missile that can hit Ontario or Quebec for the next 10-15 years, but they can already hit Vancouver. That aside, it's impossible for the US to build a system that won't also defend the Canadian confederation. The engagement envelope wouldn't permit the risk, as a transpolar launch down the west coast of North America is almost impossible to determine if it's final destination is Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco or Los Angleles until it's too late.

The problems with the Iltis are just being scratched towards the surface. The Hummers are not only better built than the Mercedes units being built and the Iltis, the amount of weapons and logistics support capabilities that it brings are vastly superior. Can the Iltis carry TOW? Nope. Tow even a small howitzer? Nope. Carry an effective amount of equipment and troops? Nope. The only thing that the Canadians care about when buying kit is that a frog gets to put it together and that the CF resembles anything except a real warfighting force.

You're confusing opinion, in specific, yours, with fact. The simple facts are that a confederation is by definition a collection of nations. The Canadian confederation, which is made up of 10 nations and three territorial possessions. In other words, if British Columbia isn't a nation, then Canada isn't a confederation. You're attempting to create an absolute situation and statement where none exists. Are there British Columbians who define themselves as Canadians first? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that all do. As well, the vast majority of Canadians in both Upper and Lower Canada defined themselves as simply British people living in North America all the way from 1867 to the late 1950's. British Columbia is a nation in it's own right and is also part of the Canadian confederation. If they are not seperate entities, why is there a British Columbian Legislature? Why do we have a Vice-Regal Head of State in British Columbia? Why does that government carry on relations with both the Canadian government and other governments as well? This is one of the pivotal points of difference between what British Columbians and Canadians see as the point of the Canadian confederation: British Columbian perspectives see the confederation as an entity created by the provincial governments, while the Canadians(Read Ontario and Quebec)see the confederation as a management tool for the other provinces. Read a map lately? They do exist. If they didn't exist, why do we have them? Uh-huh. Care to note what happens in those circumstances in history? Here's a hint: Government devolves to the local authority. Who was talking about "injustices"? You're attempting to link British Columbian nationalism with a dislike of Canadians. No such link exists. British Columbians are proud to be British Columbians. The simple fact is that Canada and Canadians don't have enough of a presence in British Columbia to be hated, disliked or even noticed for the most part. You do make an interesting point, however: The Canadians seem to have an incredibly hypocritical world view about self-determination, both in practice and theory. For the Canadians, finding out that British Columbians would kind of like to have the exact same opportunity to self-determination that the British government gave them seems to spell some dire insult to them. Britain and the Canadians parted ways as friends, a relationship that has benefited both greatly. Now that British Columbia would like the same opportunity, the Canadians get bent out of shape. Based on that theory, since the percentage of British Columbia's Cantonese speaking minority is larger than the french speaking minority across the Canadian confederation, can you direct me to the section of your constitution that provides them with official language status? BC has similarities to Canada, for sure, but if you can't see the difference between Ontario/Quebec and British Columbia, or BC and Alberta for that matter, you're blind. So, now your position is that all of Canada is exactly like BC? Your two statements are running exactly counter to each other. I do find it interesting that both of you could only provide questionable rhetoric, but failed to answer the question that I posed in a roundabout way: Name something that British Columbians share with the Canadians that we don't also share with the Australians. While you two dodge that question, I'll also ask another: Assuming that British Columbians and Canadians are considered equal, if it was a good idea to have Canadians obtain self rule from the British in 1867 due to the distance and growing differences between the two, why doesn't that same logic hold true for Victoria to have self-determination from Ottawa?

Gugsy, of course British Columbia is part of the Canadian confederation. The problem is that you're using two terms interchangibly that are not really interchangible. "Canada" is the area roughly clustered around the north shore of the Great Lakes and along the St.Lawrence Seaway. The "Canadian confederation", on the other hand is what people mainly as a convienience refer to as "Canada". The best way to explain it with a parallel, as this is where it's rooted from, is that the British Empire had several sub-nations(Including the Canadian confederation and several of it's member nations), but only Great Britain was actually "British". Are British Columbians "Canadian"? Not even close. The Canadians define themselves by several methods, depending on who you ask, both inside and outside of Canada. I don't tend to buy into the idea that Canadians(Or British Columbians for that matter)are simply "not American" in terms of defining their respective cultures. The one careful point to remember is that British Columbians and Canadians will have some obvious similarities, as both nations sprang from the British Empire. The easiest way that you can eliminate these similarities is by what I call the Australian Method: If the national trait is shared by the Canadians, the British Columbians and the Australians, then it's due to our shared cultural roots, not because British Columbians lack of a national identity. So, can you make one point of common culture that British Columbians share with Canadians that we don't also share with the Australians? First, as was mentioned, it's a lingustic difference. Premier literally translated means Prime Minister. Second, perhaps you're unaware, but the current office of "Premier of British Columbia" was officially called "Prime Minister of British Columbia" until the mid-1950's. Third, you'll note that British Columbia's Legislature has a vastly different design from the other provincial government houses. The reason is that with one or two exceptions, they were designed with the Canadian Parliament as an inspiration; British Columbia's Legislature in Victoria was built while we were an independent Crown colony with our own government and is based on Westminster, not Ottawa. I'm going to shock you with this one, but you're right. Seperatism is non-existant in British Columbia. That's because you're trying to apply an internal Canadian concept about Lower Canada to British Columbia. British Columbians are a maritime trading nation; the idea of walling ourselves off from it to sit and perfect new ways to be "more" British Columbian is laughable. What you're seeing, and the Canadian Prime Minister-elect Paul Martin is calling "western alienation", is in fact simply British Columbian nationalism. Trying to make the internal issues of the Upper v. Lower Canadians interchangible with British Columbian nationalism is foolish. So your arguement is that it's non-existant, but that it does exist? Have you considered talking to your doctor about adjusting your medication? I don't spend an inordinate amount of time in coffee shops. I work in a government consulting role and have my family responsibilities on top of that. In talking to people like that, you know, with mortgages, careers of actual responsibility and actual life experience, you'd be amazed at how much the Canadian government and Canadians in general are viewed with scorn by British Columbians. My views tend to be quite moderate compared to some of the ones out there. I think that British Columbia should refine it's relationship with the Canadians, much like the Canadians and Australians did with Britain, rather than like the USAmericans did.

Consider the western nations as big a part of "Canada" as you wish. We stopped being Canadian a long time ago. British Columbia is a Pacific Rim nation; I have no clue what you Canadians have become. I think it's something that is supposed to be like France, but only more so. I might check into it, but Canada isn't a really important topic to British Columbians, so why bother?

Trust me, given half a chance, British Columbians would gladly ship your Prime Minister back to Canada.

That's the rub, tho', isn't it: It's not enough that people who would typically be on the positive end of AA getting an opportunity, they must also be successful at it. People are not owed success, even those who work hard or try their best. Not every white, Anglo-Saxon male who enters the work force sits in an office tower being treated like a CEO; lots of them fail utterly in both the workplace and life. There is nothing wrong with giving every person the same opportunity, there is something profoundly wrong with demanding that everybody is given the same successful benefits. Using a favorite example, look at the A.V. Roe Arrow as an example. They had the best product, the best R&D(The most amazing feature of the Arrow wasn't it's high speed or fly-by-wire avionics that were decades ahead of their time, it was that the damn thing went from concept to production is two years. It takes the average high tech weapon system that long to choose a colour scheme, let alone build. I'm digressing...)and were skewered by a combination of unrelated bad advice and a snap political whim. Thousands lost their jobs and the Canadian economy lost trillions of dollars in the aerospace industry. Is that "fair"? Nope. Is it reality? 'Fraid so.

The reason that oil rich countries turn to nuclear power is that the less your spend on domestic energy consumption, especially as it pertains to extract that oil, the more you have available to export. In terms of a nuclear power plant in Northern Alberta, that's still kind of silly: British Columbia has enough hydro on hand to keep all of Western North America lit up, plus enough potential sites to power all of the continent. Alberta would be better off just buying from it's neighbour. Hydro electricity is actually better described as "gravity power". As long as there is water and gravity, you've got power. BC will run out of neither any time soon, plus mother nature does all the hard work.

Like most British Columbians, I view the upcoming appointment of Canada's latest Prime Minister with detachment and a small sense of hope: Detachment as it really doesn't affect us nor do we have any input into how you Canadians run your confederation. Our hope comes from maybe the next asshole won't be as bad as the current one, who thinks that gassing British Columbians is a topic for humor. We're not holding our breath per se, except to avoid the latest volley of Canadian tear gas, but we'll see how Martin does before we start hating him as badly as we hate the rest of your Prime Ministers. I think that Martin is about to discover that traditional political strategies are no longer valid in the Canadian confederation. It used to be that if you stumped across the confederation, making locally favorable promises one day and then making the exact opposite promises the next week in another part of the confederation, the media would look the other way, as it was a "local message". The problem is that modern media doesn't work like that. The people in Toronto will hear Martin promising people in Vancouver that the gravy train for Ontario and Quebec is done as he speaks the words. The people in Vancouver will also hear him echo the words of Cretin, promising another round of "fuck the British Columbians and Albertans". Martin also peppers his speeches with so many weasel words, it's impossible to say what he's promising. Last week, he promised the UBCM that he's going to return a "portion" of the billions in gas taxes the Canadians steal from British Columbians at "some time in the future". Do you really think that we're all yokels Paul? You've been listening to Cretin too long, we're not that stupid. At least blatantly lie like the other Canadians do: You're a Canadian Liberal, it'll come real natural to you.