bk59

Note this part of your quote: This is the same as in Canada. Congress can pass whatever laws it wants so long as it does not violate the US Constitution. Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants so long as it does not violate the Canadian Constitution. You have claimed that the Charter has been used as the basis for laws like those respecting SSM. This is incorrect. The Charter only limits what Parliament can do, it does not enable them to do anything new. Other quotes are obviously applicable to Canada as well: How is that democracy? In a democracy the people should be able to pick who they think is a qualified person for the position of president, not some body that can decide on its own - potentially against the will of the people. In a democracy no one has the right to come in and say, "Sorry, everyone has just been duped. I'll tell you who should really be the President." Why have a general election at all if that is what will happen? You think that it is democratic that the votes of some voters are worth more than others? Democracy requires that every vote be equal. Finally, you acknowledge that one candidate can win the presidency by receiving less votes than the other candidate. How is that even remotely "democracy in action"? If democracy is based on the will of the people, then the person with the support of the most people should win. Neither Canada nor the USA is perfect. But you should probably examine your hatred of Canada and your hero worship of the USA. Canada is not a totalitarian regime by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is the USA perfect.

I guess it is easier to just post rather than actually read what others have posted. See the links / quotes below. Or in my previous post. Saying that pedophiles are generally homosexual is still wrong. First, even using ScottSA's own claims, only 1/3 of male pedophiles pick boys. When 2/3 do not choose children of the same sex you can hardly say that "pedophiles are generally homosexual." In fact, you could say the exact opposite. But again, look at some of the studies that have been done by professionals:

Or maybe it is because they have been on the so-called front lines and seen that the "war on drugs" is not working.

That is wrong. See here.

You say homosexuality is wrong. You cite as proof the fact that homosexuality was once considered a crime. Using that logic, you could argue that allowing women to vote is wrong because it was once not allowed under the law. Do you now see why your argument is flawed? Again, you link homosexuality and pedophilia. With no reason to do so. So no, pedophilia does NOT have a "foot in the door". And the fact that homosexuality used to be a crime continues to be totally irrelevant. As another example, it used to be the law that women were not allowed to own property in a marriage. Does this mean that today when we allow married women to own property we are somehow engaged in immoral activities? Believe it or not, just because something used to be considered against the law does not mean that it was ever wrong.

How does one properly perform sex? You remind me of people who declare that there is only one proper way to have sex - missionary position. Perhaps you would like to criminalize other sex positions? If you look at your list, you will find that homosexuality is the only sexual practice that involves consenting partners where one partner (generally) does not have a power imbalance over the other. Pedophilia and incest are generally non-consensual or exist in a relationship with an unfair power imbalance that is the same as non-consensual. Rape is clearly non-consensual as is bestiality. No one is imposing homosexuality on anyone. In fact, nowhere in the books does it mention homosexuality. No. I did not say pedophilia was normal, nor imply that it should be accepted in society. Pedophilia is something different from homosexuality. Your attempts to link the two show an extreme misunderstanding of both. Tell me, if books are so influential, then why does anyone grow up to be homosexual? By your rationale, reading about heterosexual families in children's books will influence children to grow up heterosexual. First, I think many people would say that part of a children's innocence comes from their lack of exposure to death. Second, no one is forcing children to make decisions about sexuality just because a character in a book happens to be homosexual. Dumbledore does not pop out of the book and say, "Hey, kids! Are you gay?" Third, heaven forbid that our children think! That would be horrible!

How would "the average Canadian" not "be able to compute properly" the answer to the question "Do you want an election right now?" It's a pretty simple yes or no. There are numerous reasons why people may not want an election right now. Maybe they don't want to listen to six weeks of campaigning. Maybe they think it's about time the various political parties started working together rather than constantly taking partisan shots at one another. Maybe their dog is sick and will need constant attention over the next two months. The media is not going to be stalling anything. Each party has its own polls being conducted right now. They will know whether or not the published polls match up with their own internal polls. There is no need for conspiracy theories here. Sort of. 40% and 36% are pretty close and two different polls taken at the same time can give those two results. This does not mean that the polls were manipulated in any way. Perhaps you should say that the manipulation happens when selecting which polls to publish. That is why I put more stock in media reports that cite multiple polls by multiple polling agencies (over the same time period). One could have asked the same question a few years ago about the Reform party. They used to shoot themselves in the foot a lot as well. Things seem to be going much better for that crowd now. Or at least, most of them. Just because a party appears to be shooting themselves in the foot does not mean that they do not have some good policies. I don't think that I have ever found myself 100% agreeing with a party or 100% disagreeing. There are still some good things to support in the Liberal party, as there are still some good things to support in the Conservative party.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. But let's see if we can see the point I was trying to make. Here is what I originally said: Note - does not NEED the Charter. You claimed that they did need the Charter: But take a real look at what your quoted passage is saying: Full stop. You see the Charter as this evil document that allowed SSM. But it didn't. The government could have passed that law with or without the Charter. You can see that yes, they say that this Act will uphold the Charter equality rights. But that is not the same as saying that the Charter was NEEDED to pass the Act. This leads into your next claim about the US vs. Canada. You have described HOW Congress can pass a law. Yes the President can veto it. But Congress can still pass the legislation. And when it comes to determining what legislation to pass, the Congress can decide to pass ANYTHING IT WANTS as long as it abides by the Constitution. This is THE SAME AS in Canada. Parliament can pass anything it wants as long as it abides by the Constitution. You do love the US system though. You keep saying how democratic it is compared to Canada. How do you feel about the electoral college then? Do you think it is democratic that when electing a President, the US system allows electoral college voters to vote any way they want irrespective of the wishes of the people? Do you think it is democratic that it is possible for the candidate with the most votes to lose the presidency?

So homosexuality is wrong because it used to be a crime? Is allowing women to vote wrong because it used to be that only men could vote? Your argument here is flawed. Doubtful. There are more acts of theft in Canada than pedophilia. Does that mean theft is about to become legal?

Many pedophiles are heterosexuals. Does that make heterosexuality deviant sexual behaviour? The flaws in your thinking are gigantic. You think homosexuality is immoral. Fine. That is your opinion and you have the right to it. But let other people live their lives in peace. Some people think drinking alcohol is immoral. Does that mean all references to alcohol should be removed from books, television, etc.? Homosexuality is a fact of life and it has a perfectly acceptable place in literature. Trying to hide from reality is ridiculous. As is thinking that reading that a character is gay will somehow turn children everywhere into homosexuals. As for protecting the innocence of children... the characters faced tough situations, including the deaths of several main characters, throughout the books. "Protecting children's innocence" does not mean that we place our children in a bubble until they are 18.

35 governments you say? So the Queen is telling literally thousands of people what to do. She must have some form of mind control device. I can't think of any other way.

Agreed

Hilarious. If you can show me how your insult (as sad as it was) was reasoned debate, then I will gladly take back that comment. Your own arrogance is astounding. You refuse to believe that Canadians do not think the way you do about their government, the Charter, etc. Again, if people were so opposed to these things, they would be doing something about them. Governments use polls all the time. I guess there is your answer. OK, but you still have not shown where the government cited the Charter to back the Act. The only place you could cite (so far) is where the Charter was used to support people who opposed the Act. Do you consider the USA to be a "Banana Republic"? Because here's an interesting bit of info for you - the US Congress can also pass whatever laws it wants without citing the US Constitution. As long as the laws abide by the Constitution. This is exactly the same in Canada. Canadian governments do not need to cite our Constitution and the laws must abide by the Constitution. I guess you'll have to retract all of those statements about how great the US is. Either that, or retract the statement regarding Canada's "Banana Republic" status. First, I hope you didn't think that was current press release. It's from 2004. So maybe you want to say McGuinty "took steps", instead of "is taking steps". Out of curiosity, is there any profession you won't needlessly insult? Let's see... you refuse to believe that Canadians have different opinions than you on many issues. You insult people and resort to name calling. You want to deport everyone you consider to be a troublemaker. Someone here has the qualities of a dictator. I'm not sure that most here would guess me though.

Oh... the Queen helps people get elected and then tells them what to do once they are in office? Wow. She must be good at multi-tasking. I mean, how many countries are in the Commonwealth?

Exactly! Why should all of the story books in the library be about families with a mommy & a daddy and 2.5 kids? (All white, of course.) Why shouldn't some of those story books have single parent families? Why shouldn't some of them have homosexual parents? I am so glad that you have decided it is wrong to ignore certain lifestyles. Again, that's pretty much what the law says. Do not discriminate on the basis of appearance, race, colour and disability. Oh yeah... and one other thing too. Sexual orientation. When California had a law that said you could not discriminate based on race, were any of you crying out about how this meant that children would only be taught to be black? Or only taught asian culture? It really seems like there is a lot of overreaction to this. Particularly given the inflammatory nature of the web site linked in the OP. Although I must say, it is hilarious when a web site posts a news article claiming that not discriminating against homosexuals is horrible and then has an advertisement leading to a gay fitness web site right beside the article. You just can't pay for that type of entertainment.

Maybe we should start by deporting all of the people calling for revolution? I guess that's one way to go about it. Or we could actually try to build a justice system that is flexible and can deal with individuals and their individual cases. Using harsher sentencing where appropriate, and using alternative means where appropriate. The harsh sentences will still be there for those who need them, but we won't be clogging up our corrections system with people who don't need to be there.

With reasoned debate like that it's hard to believe that some people consider internet forums to be full of rambling idiots. You have every right to voice your concerns in this democratic country. No totalitarian country would allow you to speak that way about the government. Thankfully I am not the only one on here pointing that out. You love to use the word official a lot. What exactly do you mean by official? Because if you are talking about methods to find out what Canadians want, referendums are clearly not the only option. Weren't you the one saying that this law required the Charter? So why aren't you answering this question? Better yet, don't bother. The fact is, the government could have passed that law with or without the Charter. Because the federal government is entitled to do that, with or without the Charter. Wow, really? Seeing as you called me a socialist lackey earlier, when should I be expecting these truckloads of cash to show up at my door? I hope it's soon. Gibberish. How about making sure our soldiers in combat are equipped properly? It seems like they might be facing more dangerous conditions than the citizens of Toronto. How about finding ways to reduce long term negative impacts on the environment that could affect generations to come? (And that doesn't necessarily mean supporting Kyoto.) How about dealing with the poverty issues that still face many Canadians, including significant numbers of children? That seems to be a very complex issue that perhaps should get more attention. In this last Ontario election it seemed like a lot of people were concerned about the future of their education system. Rest assured there is no shortage of issues facing Canada today. Urban crime is certainly on that list. But let's not pretend that it outweighs all of the other issues.

Using that logic on its own implies that transit companies will make the most money with a transit fare of one cent. Which is obviously ridiculous since at one cent per person running any sort of transit system is unsustainable. Then again, Rush Limbaugh also says things like "The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them." Maybe he is not the best source. Right, we should only tax the poor people who earn wages for a living. That makes sense. There is always another side to an issue. Always.

Who is this mysterious "they" you speak of?

I loved that guy! His "press releases" were always the best. An interesting point. I wonder if there aren't some people out there who think it would be best for the Liberal party to run another crappy campaign and hope to have another Conservative minority in an effort to really rebuild the party next time around. Almost like putting a really bad leader in place so that when you do get the leader you really want everyone will be saying "Wow, he's so much better than that last guy!"

From the posts on here that actually quoted the laws, it would appear that the laws do not teach anything. They prohibit discriminating against people and allow the school boards to monitor for discrimination. Even if you think certain lifestyles are full of "sexual depravities", these laws would not be teaching anything about those lifestyles. Just preventing people from discriminating against them.

You complain that no one consults you on the issues that you think are important, but then you would refuse to tell people what issues you think are important? Or what you think about those issues? How would talking about this be incriminating? If you aren't willing to tell your MP what you think then don't complain when he or she does not do what you want. And you don't need a referendum to find out what Canadians think about every single little issue. Whether you want to accept it or not, polling is an accurate way of finding out what issues are important to Canadians and what Canadians think about those issues. I asked you to support your claim. What I got was something that proved my point, not yours. The section you linked to shows how the law regarding SSM accommodates those who oppose SSM on religious grounds and states that it does this because the Charter protects freedom of religion. Simply being able to copy and paste does not mean you have proven anything. You have to actually read what you are copying. This sounds like conspiracy theory talk to me. Obviously there is some proof that the polls were undertaken. For example the information about who did the polls, etc. But yes, fraud is a possibility, even if it is a very small possibility. Then again, there is room for fraud in referendums as well. The only difference is, polls are an accurate and cheaper way to cover a wider range of questions than referendums. Not to mention the fact that if the government was constantly running referendums it would never actually get anything done. You have to love internet forums like this. Drama queen? You are calling the Canadian government totalitarian because they don't represent your interests even though if asked you wouldn't tell them anyway. Now that's drama. As for replies, well... here are some good ones: "I think your still in primary school and won't admit it." "You must be one twisted little puppy" "Smell the coffee friend." "Where is your proof to back your ridiculous statement." If I am coming across as condescending then at least I'm not the only one. Ontario just had an election where it would seem that everyone had the chance to hold politicians accountable and did so to their satisfaction. So I'm not sure your first point is that big of a deal. I realize that you think differently, but without proof that the election was rigged or stolen, I think you just have to accept that most people in Ontario voted differently than you did. Gangs and crime are a serious issue. And perhaps it should have been discussed more during the campaign. But I'm not sure that it's such an important issue that it overshadows everything else.

OK. You said that your political interests were not being represented by your MP and then said that this was the same as ignoring all citizens of Canada and was totalitarian: You feel that your MP does not represent you. Fine, fair enough. But that does not make our system of government totalitarian. In terms of entertainment value, this may be the best thing you have posted in this thread. You claim that the Charter was required to pass same sex marriage legislation through Parliament. Did you even read the section that you quoted above? That is the section of the law that says people, based on their freedoms of religion and expression in the Charter, can oppose same sex marriage without suffering repercussions. This section says that the Charter allows people to not perform same sex marriages and even allows them to say that same sex marriages are against their religion. Maybe next time you should quote the entire section... That really is a valiant effort. I said that the Charter has support in Canada and then I gave proof of that. You then accused those polls of being manipulated. This means it is YOUR claim that YOU need to back up. If you want to say those polls are manipulated then show us how. The burden of proof lies with you on this one. Once again you assume you know something about me. How do you know I am not in "a position of authority"? As for meaningful contributions... well, if that was an actual criteria on this forum I assure you that your post count would drop dramatically. For instance, you could have posted something "meaningful" by answering my question regarding the "serious volatile problems" that were "conveniently omitted" from the Ontario election. Instead you told me that I am not in a position of authority (what you actually mean by that is unclear).

Passing a law or a constitutional document does not mean that you see into the future and decide the outcome of every possible legal case that might come up from now until forever. It is about setting up a framework to deal with the scenarios that you cannot think of. The Charter lays out what rights are protected and, in some cases, how they are protected. If your criteria is that a law cannot be passed unless it will never need interpretation in the future, then your criteria would ensure that no law would ever get passed. Nothing would get done. Besides, you seem to love the US so much. If you object to the Charter being interpreted, then do you also object to the US Constitution being interpreted?

Really? You claim that our government is totalitarian because our politicians do not do everything that you want. That is not debate. You claim that the Charter was forced upon Canadians and that Canadians do not even know what it is about. Yet you offer no proof of this. You even claimed a certain bill (Bill C-38) used the Charter to legalize SSM, but still no citation. You have yet to offer any facts that show the polls I cited were manipulated. Lots of claims - no facts - seems a bit like ranting to me. What are these serious volatile problems that are not being addressed? So let me get this straight. In order for an election to not be a sham, the people you want to win must win? Or the people who win must talk about only the things that you think are important? Sorry, but it sounds like you want a country where you are a dictator and just tell everyone else what to do. With your love of the US system, you must love this then. I think minority rights are equal to majority rights. And that is what the Charter is about. Not interests, but respecting rights. And that includes the right to receive services from the federal government in your choice of official language.