bk59

I think they had a good idea. It's not like the idea for a Charter came out of nowhere one night. It was debated on, proposals were modified, the provinces and federal government negotiated aspects of it, etc.

A government is not totalitarian simply because it doesn't do exactly what you want. Welcome to democracy. Our representatives have to listen to everyone, but that does not mean that they have to advance everyone's position on every issue. That would be impossible. All of your ranting seems to come down to the fact that you have different views than most Canadians and have decided to blame the government rather than look at why it is your views are not accepted by most Canadians. Prove that Canadian elections are shams. My political interests are being represented. I can identify positions in various party platforms that I agree with. Sometimes those parties win, sometimes they lose. It's called the will of the people. I don't cry just because I'm not always on the winning side. That does not show the election was a sham. It shows that most people were more concerned about an issue that you did not think was important. People still had the option to look at the other positions taken by the parties. People still had the option to vote for what they wanted. It wasn't a power grab - no one forced people to vote a particular way. Perhaps you need to start realizing that not everyone agrees with you. And start realizing that maybe people did look at what they thought was important in the Ontario election and voted accordingly. No, it is not. Giving white, English speaking, Christian Canadians special status in the Charter would have been discriminatory. White, English speaking, Christian Canadians were given the exact same rights as everyone else. That seems equal to me. And to everyone else who can understand the definitions of equality and discrimination. You mention religion once again. Show me how a religious group was given special status by the Charter. You can't, because that didn't happen. Yes, religion is a part of culture. But there is no special status given to any one culture in the Charter. You claim that Quebec gets special status, but it doesn't. There are French speaking populations outside of Quebec that get the same language rights, and there are English speaking populations within Quebec that get the same language rights.

Slavery is not limited to chains & whips. But that does not mean that because you pay taxes you are a slave. You have the right to live where you want, work where you want, choose what career you will pursue. You have the right to go to school, to leave Canada entirely if you so choose. You have the right to marry, or not marry, to raise children, to practice whatever religion you want. You will not be shipped off to a labour camp, or subjected to secret police interrogations and disappearances in the night. You have the right to vote in an election or even run for office yourself. Do you see why I dispute claims that Canadians are slaves simply because they pay taxes? Especially given that in all likelihood most people would choose to pay some form of tax in order to receive certain government services. When it comes to being tied into the laws of the land... no offense, but that's life. In every form of government ever attempted on this planet there have always been people in the minority who must abide by the will of the majority and / or powerful. We at least live in a country where minority rights are protected. Where if you feel strongly about government's role in our life you can join a political party and do something about it. I guess my point boils down to this: if this is how you feel, then do you have a better suggestion about how to run this country? I do not claim that Canada is perfect (no country is). But I can think of places a lot worse than here. And I have no problem arguing with those who would characterize our society as a society of slaves.

Once again you have made a claim (about Canada's "totalitarian" government) and offered no proof. I asked you for proof, and none is forthcoming. You want "official" proof that we do not have a totalitarian government? I can offer proof of a democracy. Take for instance all of the elections that have been held across the country recently. Is that "official" enough for you? But let me guess, you think these are shams, and not real elections. Tell you what - why don't you offer some actual FACTS to back up your position that we have a totalitarian government instead of continually demanding "official proof" from others? As I said, the Charter did not give Aboriginals any new rights. So if you want to complain about Aboriginal rights you need to look at something else other than the Charter. But now you claim that the Charter divides Canadians into distinct groups with different rights. Fine. Please give examples of these different groups and the rights that they have been given by the Charter. Aboriginal rights do not count, as the Charter did not give any rights to Aboriginal peoples. I would particularly like to see how the Charter has created discrimination based on colour or religion (as you claim above). See below for my comments about the French language. French is not just a foreign language. It is also a Canadian language and has been since Canada's beginning. Actually, computers are not at the point where they can offer full service in any language. Sure we have automated phone systems that guide you through different services, but when you really need assistance you talk to a real person. The bottom line is, I'm glad we have a government that can offer French services to French speaking people outside of Quebec and offer English services to English speaking people inside of Quebec. You disagree, and that's fine. But trying to ensure that people can get access in their native tongue is not a bad idea when the languages in question are those that this country was founded on. Oh, do I hate those things? Thank you for telling me what I hate. Could you also please tell me what my favourite colour is, or what foods I dislike? I'm so glad you came along to tell me what I think. Here's an idea - don't pretend you know me. You make ridiculous claims about the Charter and our government and I call you on it. Nowhere does that imply that I hate any of the things you mention above. No wonder you have such a hard time coming up with facts to support your claims. You are too busy assuming you already know what is going on.

OK, let's have the cite then. Show everyone where in the Bill it relied on the Charter. Incidentally, by admitting that some things were not recognized under the Bill of Rights you are admitting that the Charter offers rights and freedoms that the old Bill of Rights did not. So how about we stop hearing from you about how all the rights in the Charter were just a copy of the Bill of Rights.

My guess would be none. But I'd be happy to consider any facts that you may have that show that Canadian tax money is somehow being paid directly to the Queen. I think some people need to get their heads checked when tossing around the term slavery. Paying income tax does not make you a slave, not in any recognizable sense of the term. Perhaps if you experienced real slavery you might begin to notice some of the differences between being a slave and living in Canada. How does one tax someone without requiring them to give up some of the fruits of their labour? All taxation requires a payment. This comes out of the tax payer's earnings, one way or another.

Yes, you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding a normal federal law and a constitutional document. A normal federal law is not binding on future Parliaments and can be changed or repealed on a whim. The constitution has a very specific formula that must be followed in order to change it. The Charter ensures that rights are respected despite attempts at government to do otherwise - or at least makes it much harder for a government to disrespect those rights. A normal federal law does not give that advantage.

Once again you fail to provide any information that would support your view that Canadians oppose the Charter. Of course this has not stopped you from demanding that other people support their positions with facts. I wonder at what point you will realize that your hypocrisy only hurts your arguments. Have you even read the Charter? Where does it mention "white Canadians"? Where does it categorize anyone based on their culture? The Charter says that Aboriginal rights and freedoms are not affected by the Charter - it gives nothing new to Aboriginals as a specific group of people. Yes, we all get that you hate French. But whether you like it or not, this country was founded by people who spoke English and French. And ensuring that the federal government, in all of its forms, provides services in both of those languages is not a bad thing. By providing services in BOTH languages, it does not discriminate against either language.

You seem to have backed yourself into a corner here. On the one hand, you say that the government needed the Charter to recognize same sex marriages. On the other hand, you say that the Charter was not needed to recognize equality and other rights because these were covered in the 1960 Bill of Rights. Which is it? Either they needed the Charter for SSM, and therefore it has something the Bill of Rights does not have, or the two are equivalent with respect to equality rights and freedoms and therefore the Charter was not needed to recognize SSM. The government did look to the Charter when recognizing SSM. But you seem to be unaware of one of the most basic principles of Canadian government - the Canadian Parliament can pass laws recognizing things like SSM without relying on any previous constitutional document or legislation.

Please state my official source? Really? I say to you if the Charter is against the wishes of Canadians then please point to some proof of this. And your response is "please state a source"? If you have no proof that significant numbers of Canadians are against the Charter then just admit it. But I will not be presenting any sources just because I asked you to back up your claim. Would you like to know why it would be political suicide? Because Canadians SUPPORT the Charter. If Canadians were opposed to the Charter then they would support a party that also opposed the Charter. It wouldn't matter which party had been in charge. What do you mean by "official democratic" source? What exactly is a democratic source in your mind? Nonetheless, I will do what you refuse to do - show something to back up a claim. Link. It is also interesting to note that despite your claims about how the Charter favours Quebec, support for the Charter in Quebec is lower than other areas of Canada. If your claim had merit I would expect the polls to show the opposite. "Well it is." What a reasoned response. Very eloquent. How exactly does the Charter discriminate? Because statements like "Every individual is equal before and under the law" seems non-discriminatory to me (see section 15(1) of the Charter). Section 16(1) also puts English and French on an equal footing: "English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada." How then is the Charter discriminatory? (Try not to respond with more "Yes it is!" type posts.) I said constitutional protection for a reason. The old Bill of Rights was not part of any constitution.

Wrong again. The government did not NEED the Charter to make a case for SSM. Even if there was no Charter, the government could have decided to extend marriage to same sex couples. Nonsense. Please show me how you reached this conclusion. I do not put a lot of stock in baseless accusations. Gee, you're right. I guess if there was ever a national emergency the government should wait six weeks, set up a referendum and then see what the people want to do about it. We elect representatives for a reason. To represent us. Is there an argument that the Charter should have been voted on by the population? Yes, there is. But this is not the same as saying that because there was no vote the Charter is somehow invalid or undemocratic. It was still put in place by our elected representatives.

"One who has no freedom of action." Has the Queen been visiting you recently, telling you what to do and where to go? Has she, or anyone else, been forcing you to do manual labour of some sort? Do you honestly think that if the Queen was not our head of state we would have no taxes? I assure you, we would have taxes no matter what type of government was in place in Canada. Here is something else to ponder: most people in Canada are willing to pay some level of taxes. Why? Because Canadians generally enjoy (among other government services) their healthcare and education systems and realize that it takes money to pay for that. (Please note, that does not mean that everyone will agree these systems are perfect, but it does mean that Canadians want some sort of system in place.) So if most people are willing to pay at least some taxes, isn't that democracy? The will of the majority and all that. Trying to paint the other person in a discussion as indoctrinated instead of educated is one of the first signs of a losing argument. Although I think that claiming the Queen has made you her personal slave probably wasn't the best way to start your "argument".

When did we get the right to live? When did we get the right to express ourselves? When did we get the right to choose what our favourite colours are? Nothing you have said supports the title of this thread, including your post about the BNA Act. Perhaps you should look up the definition of slave. Just because the Queen is the head of state does not mean that we are slaves.

Saying something was not ratified does not mean it is dictatorial, socialist or discriminatory. If the Charter is against the wishes of Canadians perhaps you could point to anything that would indicate that many Canadians are in favour of getting rid of it? Perhaps you could point to a political party that includes getting rid of the Charter in its platform? Not only was the Charter brought into being by representatives of the people at both the federal and provincial levels, but after two decades the Charter continues to find overwhelming support in Canada. That doesn't really seem dictatorial to me. Maybe you should take a look at a real dictatorship before you continue to engage in this exaggeration. Also, the Charter is not discriminatory. But feel free to say it over and over again without ever showing proof or even some shreds of logical argument. Luckily the Charter has given your right to express yourself constitutional protection.

There is a lot that is new there. A constitutional document is not the same as a regular federal law. You're talking nonsense again. Anyone, including the government, can take whatever position it wants in the courts. The government doesn't need the Charter to do that. It's also worth pointing out that the courts have both agreed and disagreed with various government positions. This is hardly a totalitarian government. I think you need to wake up and realize that just because you don't agree with something the government does, that does not mean that the government is totalitarian. No expansion of public funding for faith based schools? A holiday in February? A government that talks to its employees and does not purposefully antagonize them? It doesn't really matter does it? The fact is, Ontarians chose a majority government under McGuinty.

Let's see... the Charter says every one is equal and that every person has the same rights to express themselves, hold religious beliefs, associate with others, etc. If this is your definition of dictatorial and undemocratic then I'd be very curious to know what a democratic society would be like in your universe. You must live in a crazy world if you think someone isn't going to vote for the government that they think will help them the most. If a teacher thinks the Liberals will make their lives better then of course they will vote that way - as is their right. But I think it's clear that many Ontarians felt that they wanted a Liberal government, not just Catholic teachers.

There are some absolutely ridiculous posts in this thread. For all of you complaining about Chretien's medical condition, how many of you are doctors? How many of you are cardiac specialists? Anyone? Lines like "The fact that Chetien was not brought to the hospital by ambulance or any other emergency means, speaks volumes" are pure gibberish. So now we only treat people who arrive in hospital by particular means of transportation? Mode of transportation has no bearing on whether or not you have a medical emergency. Other drivel in this thread includes "Chretien didn't seem to be in an emergency becuase he was supposed to have a speaking engagement that he only cancelled the day of the surgery." Of course! How silly of those doctors. They should have realized that if you have prior appointments you must not have a medical emergency. What? He canceled the speech the day BEFORE the surgery? AFTER being diagnosed with this problem on the weekend? It's almost as if that is what anyone would have done after being diagnosed with a serious heart problem. From the article it seems like he began having problems and asked a friend who happened to be at the same event. A friend who, as a doctor, recognized the danger signs. How exactly is that special treatment? The anecdotal evidence in this thread alone shows that people with emergencies get fast treatment. If you don't like Chretien's politics, then fine. That's your right. But grasping at straws like this, trying to somehow blame him for having to undergo surgery... that's just stupidity. And for those of you actively wishing him death on here, congratulations for once again proving that the world is full of morons with computers who have nothing better to do than flood the internet with their hatred and nonsense.

With an attitude like that you could be a great help to the OPP. After all, you seem to know exactly what happened. Sure the OPP is doing an actual investigation, but who needs that when you can just assume you know everything. As a short list of details that you may have gotten wrong, Gualtieri wasn't working on the house at the time of the attack, (as far as I know) he's not dead, the OPP are actively investigating and no one has been turned over because (again, as far as I can tell) no one has been identified. Harris and Eves essentially lied about having a balanced budget by including one-time things like selling off the 407. So yes, I'd rather someone actually give a balanced budget, even if they have to include a health tax, than have someone lie about the finances of the province. I've never said that McGuinty is the best we could ever hope for, but I'd say that his version of fiscal management is a vast improvement over that of the previous government. Oh, you know where the money went from the health tax? Please show me. If I've been duped then please show me how. Otherwise it just seems like you're latching on to another smear aimed at a politician.

What are you talking about? This is about voter access to the candidates not the other way around. Politicians can use various means to get in touch with voters, including many that have nothing to do with the media (speeches, dinners, etc.). But voters have a right to know about their politicians. Voters have a right to hear the responses that politicians give not just to the soft-ball questions, but to the hard questions as well. The media allows the voters to do that, because quite frankly we all can't follow our politicians all of the time and one politician cannot meet with millions of voters. More importantly, this topic was started in relation to politicians choosing one media source over another not because a particular source lied, but because that source asked a tough question or ran a story that while true happened to display the politician in a negative light. Politicians are responsible to all of the voters, including the ones that want answers to tough questions. In a democracy politicians owe it to the people to engage with them through the media. We will end up in a bad spot if all of a sudden we let politicians decide which media sources are appropriate, which stories are appropriate, and which questions are appropriate.

Not quite. What was said was: As in, the Ottawa Citizen column has decided that there are only two explanations. The first explanation they give is to say that McGuinty looks down on other religions and considers them worth less than Catholicism. So I stand by what I said. If it's the Ottawa Citizen saying that McGuinty is intolerant of these other religions, as they imply, then I think it's safe to say that they can be ignored.

Oh, so you're saying there was no crime when Harris was Premier? Or should we use an example of a white guy beating someone up as proof that under Harris everyday citizens had to fear attack by roaming gangs of white thugs? Maybe there are other lessons we can learn from Harris's leadership. Like how to deliver a "balanced" budget. Oh... wait... we already sold the 407. McGuinty may not be the best Premier ever, but he's not bad. Certainly not as bad as people make him out to be. After Harris & Eves were gone it was clear that Ontario's finances weren't quite as great as they claimed. McGuinty did a decent job dealing with that situation. Tory has yet to show me anything that would make me think he can do as good a job, let alone showing that he can do better.

As I said, there are some valid criticisms of McGuinty's stand. Notably that he sends his own children to Catholic schools. But that's it. That he spoke with people in 1998 is unimportant. Especially when all he said was that he was open to the idea. I don't think anyone wants a leader who hasn't changed his or her mind on anything in almost a decade. The whole "point" about him not giving any indication that he thinks his father was wrong is meaningless. His father is not running for election. Since when do political parties need to include commentary on what their parents' think? And just because the Ottawa Citizen has called McGuinty intolerant of other faiths does not make him intolerant of other faiths. In fact, given how they began that column, their speculation about what McGuinty thinks is worthless to me. They clearly are more interested in painting him in the worst light possible, rather than trying to engage in anything meaningful.

True, the idea is definitely not new. And while Harper did complain about the media, he did not restrict access during a campaign. Which in my mind actually makes it a bit worse. At least during a campaign people can see what they are getting and vote appropriately. Freezing the media out once you are in power is more dangerous in my mind.

Yes. Why do you think otherwise? The fact is, this is not a hard line at all. Canadians do not want to see the authorities gain access to information like this without a valid warrant. This is an easy call for every party.

Not really. Maybe if another party was campaigning to limit people's rights in this way. But no one is. No one, that I have heard, wants to do this.