bk59

Not at all. In the first half of my post I am talking about fire bombing in general and not any specific bombing campaign. And I think the arguments against fire bombing are quite convincing. There are other ways to bomb a city that do not needlessly and cruelly endanger civilian lives. As for the second half of my post, I am referring to the article which states that the contested language refers to language on the panel about the fire bombing of Dresden. I even gave a link that deals with how the decision to fire bomb Dresden was questioned at the time. I can see some confusion if maybe you just read the quote I pulled from the article ("the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested"). But within the context of the entire post I am talking about the fire bombing of Dresden specifically, not a campaign. You seem to have a problem with people examining history critically. Let's say we were talking about the effectiveness of the entire bombing campaign. I think there probably is a debate about the value of the campaign. Can supporters of the campaign point to evidence that shows German production was seriously affected by the campaign? Can those who criticize the campaign show that there may have been a more effective way of producing the same results? And if there really is a debate, why shouldn't that be mentioned on the museum's panel? I don't know what you mean by the "intellectually lazy morality of this [era]", but if you are suggesting that we should not critically examine our past, especially during wartime, then I think you are on the wrong track. How else can we learn from our mistakes if we blindly accept the opinions of the time?

Not generally, but I think that they do say that you shouldn't be targeting civilians. Fire bombing is particularly nasty because of how it kills and because you can't control it - it kills indiscriminately. Civilians are just as likely to be sucked into the fire or asphyxiated by these weapons. While it is true traditional bombs can kill civilians as well, fire bombing is much more likely to spread to the civilian population. I think this is one of the reasons why people have raised moral issues with the fire bombing of Dresden. Part of what was objected to was the phrase: "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested." That seems to be true. Hiding from that fact won't make the debate go away. Also, I think the decision to fire bomb Dresden was debated even at the time (see here). So let's not blame "the intellectually lazy morality of this" era. Whatever that means. These weapons & decisions were questionable at the time and remain so today.

The example given is just that - an example. I'm not advocating that we force kids into a fitness test for the purposes of a tax credit. Again though, here is the problem with the tax credit. It has to be a program. So if I go out & buy some sports equipment for my kid so that he can go skating on the local ice rink then it isn't eligible. I do understand what the government is trying to do, I just don't think a tax credit is the way to do it. Especially given that you can only really claim $77.50 per child. (I'm getting that from here which is where I assume you got your information as well.) So who is this really helping? Eight week programs and five day camps are going to cost a bit more than $77.50. The people who will enroll their kids in these activities will do so anyway. $78 is not going to be a big factor in that decision. But for families that really are struggling, $78 could go a long way in getting a pair of skates, or some baseball equipment, etc. Except that they can't claim that, because their kids would have to enroll in an actual program since just playing sports in the local park won't count. All I'm really saying is that I think the Conservative government is exaggerating how much these credits really help people and I would much rather see a blanket tax reduction where people get that extra money every week with their pay cheque and then spend it however they want. If you want to encourage something like physical activity in children I think you get a lot more bang for your buck if you focus spending on that area rather than hoping parents understand their taxes well enough to appreciate the small difference and then are willing to wait until the next April to get that money back.

Like I said, there are already people who do that in government. So not a big addition there. As far as the federal government working with provinces, I think that should be done a lot more often and have no problem with adding people to improve federal - provincial goals. And you've partially illustrated my point. I have no doubt that acting classes are better for a kid's health than doing nothing. That is a choice with respect to physical activity. If some kid is reasonably fit because he or she plays with their friends outside, why shouldn't they get some of that money for a structured activity that they want to do (e.g. piano lessons)? The fact is the incentive really isn't that big because parents still have to pay the full cost up front. If you really think the government should let the market decide things, then why don't we just let all parents decide what is best for their children in terms of getting them active rather than pigeon holing them into government approved programs?

The linked articles make it pretty clear: If they funneled money in an inappropriate way then the national party went over its spending limit. We'll have to see how it plays out in court, but if they did go over their limit then that is a problem. Particularly if they are then trying to be reimbursed for the money they spent over the limit.

Except that what you propose is even more limiting to the market. The government will now decide what programs are valid and which are not. The government will decide what constitutes "appropriate" physical activity. Let's say the federal government does nothing to set up new programs, but decides to give tax credits. The same choices will be out there in terms of programs for children, but the government now picks and chooses which are appropriate. Even without setting up programs, a broad tax cut will still give parents the money to enroll their kids in sports programs. With the added benefit that kids could also enroll in other programs that they are more interested in and are equally beneficial (music lessons, buying a baseball glove without having to actually be on a competitive team, etc.). A broad based tax cut will also mean that the parents have the money right away with every pay cheque rather than having to wait until April. Provincial governments already have physical activity programs as part of their education systems, so the work involved is not as much as you might think. So let's let the market provide the programs. And stop the government from choosing which ones are appropriate and which ones are not. Why not let parents and kids choose what to do with the extra cash rather than limiting their choices and pretending it's such a good thing? Incidentally, the more tax credits that exist, the bigger the government has to be to deal with them.

It would be convenient except that the case was initiated by members of the Conservative Party and has nothing to do with the Liberal Party. I guess we'll see how it goes, but I'm not a big fan of political parties attempting to get around election rules.

Even as a joke the "why won't anyone think of the children" line is pretty lame. The fact is that the more tax credits, etc. that exist the more confusing it is to figure out your taxes. Not to mention that to claim these credits you have to provide proof that little Billy participated in an acceptable sports program (or whatever). Tax credits can be used to target some goals, but you have to ask whether or not they are the most effective means to do so. If obesity is the problem, then why not work with the provinces to set up physical exercise and nutrition programs in schools? Or give money to community sports programs? A small tax break will not really encourage that many people to enroll their kids when they still have to pay the full cost of the program up front and then get only a small amount back in April. It also puts the government in the position of having to determine which activities are credit worthy and forces the government to check to ensure that people are claiming the credit legitimately. Aside from the fact that the tax code does become more complicated, there is also the issue that these specific tax cuts will only affect certain people. A decrease in the tax rate for everyone will help everyone, not just (for example) those people with kids who are enrolled in particular sports. I have no problem with trying to encourage kids to be physically active. But I do have a problem with a government that tries to tell me that my taxes are going to go down by $X when it is painfully obvious that only people who meet very specific criteria will be able to claim all of the tax credits necessary to save $X.

Trend analysis? With one data point? By that logic it's a good thing Martin wasn't PM for five years. By year five he would have been spending like crazy and racking up debt at an exponential rate! Many things can explain the smaller surplus. Including the fact that all governments will spend more when they think an election is coming up. The bottom line is that it seems pretty pointless to accuse someone of something that 1) they did not do, and 2) their past record contradicts.

I guess when you want to exaggerate your numbers you have to do whatever you can to justify it. Although it does seem a bit ridiculous to try and convince people that the 15% they paid one year is somehow more than the 15.25% and 15.5% they had to pay the next two years. I also find it interesting to see that both groups are criticizing the approach as well as the numbers. Personally I would rather see broad tax cuts that help everyone rather than the specific, targeted cuts that have been introduced by the Conservative government. Both groups have a very good point that this just makes the tax code that much more complicated and may not deliver the intended results.

So your proof that Paul Martin could not have delivered a surplus is that the surplus he delivered was less than you wanted? You can propose all the "what if" scenarios you want, but the fact remains that he still had a surplus and given his record as Finance Minister it seems unlikely that things would have changed as dramatically as you claim. I have to agree with gc1765 here. If I pay 15% one year and then the next year I pay more than that, then yes, my taxes have gone up. There is nothing confusing about that. You can dance around the mechanics of how that happened all you want, but the fact remains that Canadians paid more in taxes after the Conservatives became the government and implemented their policies. Comparing this to an election promise is just plain wrong. No one was enrolling their children in a national daycare plan and so there was nothing to take away. People were paying 15% and then the Conservatives made the number 15.5%.

In reality the rate everyone paid was increased by the Conservative government. How does that not count as raising taxes (in that one area)? Yes, we probably would have a surplus under Paul Martin. Why would I say that? Probably because of the numerous and consistent surpluses he reported while Finance Minister and Prime Minister. The same surpluses that the Conservatives used to complain about. As has been pointed out the CTF is not an opposition party. And quite frankly the types of things being lied about here are not rounding errors. Giving money to someone is not a tax cut. You cannot claim that you cut taxes if the cut happened before you came to power. Bottom line: the new government is the same as the old government. Figures will be manipulated to cast the government in the best possible light, even if it means talking nonsense to do it. The other thing that always stays the same is the partisan shots. One moment the CTF is a great organization exposing the Liberal government's faults in its tax policy. The next moment it is apparently an organization used by the Liberal opposition to slander the Conservative government. And don't get me wrong, there are Liberal supporters who do the same. It is quite tiresome.

Not to be too picky here, but I think the whole point of police surveillance is that the person being watched has no clue that they are being followed. Surveillance would be pretty pointless if the suspects knew about it. Do you not know how criminal investigations and trials work? You think a criminal trial would "uncover plenty that the inquiry did not have the power to investigate?" A criminal trial does not uncover anything. A trial simply means that you take the evidence that was found during the investigation and present it to a judge and jury. Arar was never tried because there was no evidence that would lead to criminal charges. The inquiry's purpose was partially to see if Arar had links to terrorism and it found none. Had someone tried to bring this to trial they would have been thrown out of the courtroom due to lack of evidence. A trial does not discover anything. As for the US evidence, it seems clear that each time they present it to Canadian officials it is found insufficient. The US can keep Arar on their watch list if they really want to, but if that evidence really was worthwhile then I think the Canadian government would be doing something about it.

Hmm... I don't know. You should probably find one of those people and ask them. I guess it was too much to hope that you might actually answer some of the questions in my last post.

I think there is already a thread on something almost identical (just a different university). In fact... oh look you're the one who started that one too. With an almost identical opening post. Do you have nothing better to do than repeat yourself? Good thing these "timely" articles keep appearing. Even so... I'll bite. For at least one reply anyway. Could you please show all of us the basis on which you have decided to label the UBC Muslim Students Association homophobic, militaristic and violent? Any evidence would be much appreciated. You are really going to ask if footbaths were used in Arabia? If you want to know, go look it up. The fact is, it is a part of the Muslim custom before prayers. If this concerns you so much I would imagine that next you will be asking for proof that Jesus was born on December 25 so that Christians can justify the celebration of His birth. Universities are not just sterile buildings. Many have provided worship space for multiple religions. In fact, many public universities have always had colleges or buildings dedicated to a single religious denomination. So please, explain how a footbath creates a "feudal religious enclave." Because I just don't see it as that big a deal.

I would agree that there is no excuse for violence. And I would say that no matter who is engaging in violent behaviour. And while I'm sure that history has cases of ethnic or religious groups engaging in this type of violent behaviour I am also sure that there are cases where groups rejected the same behaviour. Sadly there is a tendency to accuse people trying to fix the problems as being racist. But that is mostly because of statements like the ones found in this thread - general statements like "Muslims kill because they are Muslim" or "X group killed more people in the last five minutes than Y group killed in the five million years of the Spanish Inquisition." Statements like that can make it hard for others to differentiate between those people who really want to solve these complex problems and those people who just want to condemn a group because it is easy to do. Even worse, the people who want to help go so far out of their way to distance themselves from these general statement types that they become less effective at confronting the problem.

I suppose if you want to ignore what I have said about the differences between security certificates and Guantanamo then that would count as not reconciling anything. Do the hearings give comfort to those under investigation? Probably not. But then again a person on trial for murder probably does not get a lot of comfort from that procedure either and so, by the logic implied in your post, a murder trial must not fall under the principle of "due process." I find it interesting that in the link you have given there are claims that detainees are not given proper heating in their cells, that they have no access to religious materials and that meals are not provided "in a timely fashion." And yet... when the people mentioned in that link brought their case to the Supreme Court none of that was brought up. You would think that those facts would be something worth bringing to the court when claiming that this treatment is cruel and unusual. What did "BushCo" learn from Canada? It looks like they learned how to identify the safeguards that they wanted to avoid in Guantanamo. That the best way to indefinitely detain people is to not give them any access to the justice system at all. And this of course makes it easier to question those people with torture. Trying to deny detainees Geneva Convention protection does not hurt either. How do you reconcile that with your claims about Guantanamo North? The fact is the security certificate procedure is being fixed as we type. But I'm curious... you seem to be quite against secret evidence. (This is not a bad stance to take.) But you also seem to be against any procedure that is less than full disclosure. So how would you go about dealing with someone who, on the evidence, is involved in terrorism when disclosing that evidence to the person or their lawyer could endanger not only a current investigation, but also the life or lives of investigators or sources within a terrorist network? A balance must be struck. And so far the Canadian approach hasn't been the worst one out there. And even the Canadian approach is undergoing changes to ensure that it is more fair. I am not saying this approach is (or will be) perfect. But don't kid yourself... Guantanamo is not based on anything Canada has done in the past - it goes quite beyond what has happened and is happening here.

As someone who was arguing on here I want to make it clear that I was not dismissing the point by saying "these are isolated incidents." I was saying that it was pointless to make these general statements and then try to back them up with numbers like those listed on the website. There is clearly a problem with extremists in Islam. (As I think there is a problem with extremists in almost anything.) My real point was that when you start going through those lists you begin to see that many of these so-called terror attacks are not really terror attacks at all. So when someone says that those crimes "are all in the name of Jihad" and that they are killing with a "faith-based reason" then I have to say that is just plain wrong. There is not nearly enough information there to make that call, and in some cases it seems very unlikely that is the case. And so if the point trying to be made is that all of the crimes listed on that website are valid examples of religious killings and terror attacks... then I still have to disagree.

Allow me to rephrase. Mistakes will happen, and so yes, sometimes we will imprison people who look guilty instead of those who are proven guilty. But I think my point still stands. We should only imprison those we can prove are guilty. Nothing about that quoted statement would indicate Arar is a terrorist. So he didn't know or remember who witnessed his lease. What does that prove? Does that prove he is a terrorist? Not at all. How is that statement so damning? Making a mistake about who witnessed your lease does not mean you should be questioned by torture. Certainly the fact that he did not know warranted further investigation. But as the inquiry has shown, a further investigation revealed that Arar had no links to terrorists. So rather than blame the victim as some people on here like to do, maybe we should concentrate on finding out where the real problems were and then making sure mistakes like this do not happen again. Which is what the inquiry was all about.

I never made any statement as to whether security certificates existed before the Patriot Act. Mostly because that is irrelevant. Security certificates are much different than the detentions that happen at Guantanamo. You say the reviews are procedural at best - but that is the exact point. Due process is all about procedure. Giving people a chance to have their case reviewed by the justice system. Which is what happens with security certificates. The human rights violations that Guantanamo is accused of include torture, detaining people indefinitely, and detaining people without any hearings at all. Call Canadian prisons gulags all you want, but at least the approach taken here is a balance between national security and individual rights. As for the Arar case, yes the RCMP gave false information and Arar paid the price. But that is why my original point was that this should not be defended (as some people here like to do). Rather than treat people like Arar we should be sticking to the principles of due process, etc. instead of hoping someone will send a person somewhere they can be questioned with torture.

I'm not sure you really want to compare the Canadian security certificates with Guantanamo detainee camps. First, there are clearly some problems with the security certificates. Such as long wait times for the hearings to complete. But this is different than saying that people will be "held indefinitely." From that same wiki it is clear that these are people who are held while hearings are going on. (See the "Detention" section: "An individual may be held for several years, without any criminal charges being laid, before a hearing is complete, and can be deported without any criminal charge or conviction.") More importantly in the Act itself it is clear that detainees must be brought before a judge every six months to ensure that there are reasonable grounds for continuing the detention. See section 83. As for the secret evidence criticism, this I think has been dealt with in the latest SCC case. In the past a judge had to evaluate the evidence. (So at least someone was reviewing it to make sure it was reasonable.) It is likely that in the future special defense lawyers, that are cleared to review sensitive evidence, will advocate for the detainees. Finally, while Guantanamo probably does have nice weather, it apparently comes with the risk of torture. See here. Originally detainees were not even provided the protections of the Geneva Conventions, although the US Supreme Court put an end to that. These are detainees that are not even scheduled for a trial. That leads to indefinite incarceration. The Canadian version puts the detainees in front of a federal judge within 48 hours and provides for six month reviews. I see a huge difference between these two approaches. I am not a huge fan of security certificates, but at the end of the day there are some cases where evidence cannot be released because of national security concerns and something must be done. These certificates allow the government to deal with non-Canadians living in Canada who, on reasonable evidence, pose a threat. They are afforded due process in the form of an immediate and ongoing review by the justice system. If at the end of the process the certificate is deemed reasonable then the person is removed from Canada. The Guantanamo approach involves people captured outside of the US, possibly held without ever having their case heard before a judge (or military tribunal - although I think this has been stopped by US courts as well now). Allegations of torture and the fact that the US government tried to argue that the Geneva Conventions do not apply should underscore the difference between the two approaches.

Is there something specific in the Act that you think goes against the principles like those of due process and innocent until proven guilty? I ask because your question is kind of general. As far as I know security certificates are a process by which someone in Canada who is not a citizen can be detained while proceedings are carried out to determine if they are a threat to national security. There was a recent Supreme Court case that some of the provisions dealing with security certificates were unconstitutional, namely the fact that when a judge looked at the evidence against the accused there was no independent advocate for the accused (the judge would have to fill that role). If nothing else, that shows that Canada's system works to ensure fairness even when a law may not be fair. I'm not sure if that is the sort of thing you were asking about. Perhaps you could point out something specific if that is not what you were asking.

Without knowing the source of that bit of information I can't really say whether that is an accurate statement about what happened or not. Even if it is accurate, it does not justify sending someone to be tortured. It does not excuse the RCMP from responsibility for giving false information to US authorities. If the inquiry can find no links between Arar and terrorists then the RCMP could have done the same. Despite any inaccurate responses. At the end of the day we do not imprison people who look guilty. Only those we can prove are guilty. And we do not torture anyone (directly or through proxy) for any reason.

So deporting someone with the intention that they be questioned through torture is now acting responsibly? Maybe we should be protecting our way of life by sticking to our principles rather than compromising what we believe to be right under the guise of national security. Canada and the US are democracies where people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to use the US phrasing). This means that when someone is suspected of committing a crime we do not torture them. This includes sending them to someone else to do the torture for us. And you really think Arar had been "reasonably investigated?" The RCMP provided false information to the US authorities by a unit that was described as inexperienced. I'm not sure that counts as a reasonable investigation. Especially given that he has been cleared of all terrorist links. Mistakes will always happen, but that is even more reason to ensure that we do not take drastic action. How far do individual rights go? How about to the point where we don't abuse people because we think they might have something to do with a crime? The bottom line is that Canada is not pandering to terrorists. Canadians, for the most part, believe that people are entitled to fair trials, that people are innocent until proven guilty. And these beliefs existed long before the Charter was introduced. By continuing to provide these safeguards for everyone we show the terrorists that we will not jeopardize our free and democratic society just because they have made threats against us. Once we start giving up rights and freedoms (as was done in the Patriot Act in the US) then we are doing more to destroy our free and democratic society than the terrorists ever could.

Here is the result of a 5 second google search. Perhaps this is relevant: But really, this doesn't matter (as far as I am concerned). Because the original point still stands. Claims were made that Muslims were killing because they are Muslim. But if this was true then all Muslims would kill. If there are Muslims in the world that do not kill, then the Muslims that do kill must have had other reasons than simply being Muslim. In some cases it is because of a particular interpretation of aspects of Islam. In other cases on the list, the crime really has nothing to do with Islam other than that the perpetrator happened to be Muslim (which is why I have objected to the accuracy of the list and by extension objected to these broad generalizations). At the end of the day these attempts to demonize an entire religion will never solve any problems.