bk59

Umm... has anyone who has actually seen the film provided an opinion and answered the original question? I'm alright with people choosing not to see the film... it's your choice and makes no difference to me either way. But personally I won't judge it until I've seen it. Having said that, it's not high up on my list since it would appear to be more hype than substance. Review on www.rottentomatoes.com.

Thanks for the link. If I find any other similar articles I'll make sure to add a post here.

The only problem with having stringent rules on sentencing is that the justice system becomes very inflexible. Historically, when many crimes had very severe punishments (e.g. you get hanged for stealing a loaf of bread) the courts - juries and judges - would not convict because they didn't think the sentence was appropriate. The only two alternatives were to kill the convict or let them go. By having certain sentencing guidelines and giving flexibility to a judge it ensures that people are convicted for the crime solely on the merits of whether or not the jury or judge believes they committed the offence. Then the specific sentence, within the guidelines, can be tailored to the individual and the circumstances of the crime. That being said, if there is a general problem with sentencing for certain crimes, then adjust the guidelines (e.g. minimum sentences). But I really believe for a justice system to work and be fair, a judge must have some flexibility when they impose sentences.

Really? That surprises me quite a bit. Is there a link or article for that? I'd be very curious to read it.

You're right! How dare the CBC create a Canada web page that has links on it to other sections of their site! Outrageous I say! Thanks for the laugh though. I didn't realize that a picture of spices (leading to an article about their potential medicinal uses) could have a political spin to it.

Did you read the article? Because it seemed pretty benign. It just talks about the Senate Committee that is looking into what went right and what went wrong with the evacuation. It brings up some of the accusations made and some of MacKay's responses. The substance of it seems balanced. Could the headline have been more neutral? Sure, it could have been something bland like "MacKay Testifies Before Senate Committee". Clearly the headline was meant to get people reading the story. And the first two paragraphs put the headline into context so that it doesn't even seem that bad of a statement. Are we really so oversensitive that we have to see bias hiding in every article? Complaining about stuff like this just means that when a truly biased piece comes out no one will be listening to you. To say that something is not a valid news story without public outrage is a bit ridiculous. I mean, if people had to be upset about something before it was reported on, then we would never have any news. You can't be upset about something if you don't know that it is happening. The news media is supposed to report on events. This was a report about what MacKay said to the Senate Committee. Reporting on that is perfectly valid. This is part of what news organizations should be doing (i.e. reporting on what the government is up to). Just because you don't think it's a big deal, or just because you don't want to see something in the news, does not mean that it is automatically a biased article.

Yes it would! Sorry Higgly, but you've got this one dead wrong. Legally Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants. I think the only exception is when Parliament passes a law that goes against the Constitution. So what was said in an election doesn't matter at all. Very eloquent responses though.

I'm not sure that the combustion engine does have many substitutes. After all, if I wanted to buy a battery operated vehicle or fuel cell powered vehicle, where would I get that? These are theoretical alternatives right now, not practical ones. So even if I was not willing to pay the current price for gas, I'm not sure what realistic alternatives I have for travelling in areas without public transportation - and even then there are limits to what you can do with public transportation.

Hopefully the only alternative to what we see as suburbia right now is not living "in cramped quarters in a filthy over populated dangerous city." There is surely a better way of mixing residential and commercial areas so that living in a suburb does not mean (for most people) that a car is a necessity to get to work, buy your groceries, etc.

Agreed, there is probably an approval process already. I just don't have a problem with a postal worker confirming that the material actually went through that process. Mistakes happen. Things slip through. Once confirmed... deliver away. Yes, there would be an uproar. Just as if a church group sent out a flyer about an upcoming church picnic and postal workers refused to deliver it, there would be a huge uproar about freedom of religion. In both cases there would be a guaranteed uproar from people who feel their rights are being trampled on. And rightfully so, because in both cases the flyers were clearly not hate mail. The issue here is that the pamphlet seems to border on hate mail. It at least pushes the boundaries. There are numerous examples where Christians do have their voices heard. In this case it is the message of the pamphlet being criticized, NOT the fact that the pamphlet came from a Baptist group. The reason it's not a question of WHO is simply because if this pamphlet had come from a completely non-religious organization it still would have been flagged by the postal worker in question because of the content.

But that's just not the case. The objection to the material was not based on who it came from. It was based on what the message was. Not only that, but no one was silenced in this case anyway. Canada Post said that they were going to deliver the pamphlets.

This is similar to the argument that those employed by the government to perform civil marriages should not be able to refuse to perform same-sex civil marriages. They were hired by the government to do that job; if they disagree with the policy then they should protest in their off-hours. There is one difference though. In the same-sex marriage case the government has clearly said that all same-sex marriages should be recognized. In the Canada Post case, the material that the postal workers are objecting to has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. So if a postal worker sees something that they think is objectionable I don't have a problem with them saying "I won't deliver this until I hear that Canada Post has officially sanctioned this and finds it acceptable to deliver." However, as soon as Canada Post says that it is acceptable, they should deliver the material. And are free to protest in their off-hours.

I'm not sure it's a question of who is being silenced, but a question of what is being said. I think there is a large distinction between someone saying "I want an equal place in society" versus someone saying "This group of people through their immoral actions has caused a plague on society." Of course I haven't actually read the pamphlet, I've only seen the title of it as pictured in the CBC link in the original post: "The Plague of this 21st Century: The Consequences of the sin of Homosexuality (AIDS)".

I have no idea why the quotes are not working when I previewed this... so I'll just try to indent the quoted text... Sorry. The same thing that stops people from abusing their power now: nothing. Be realistic: how are they going to make the most money if they are constantly abusing people? Slaves do not work as efficiently as salaried employees. However, there is a more clever and convincing way of addressing that issue. Again, I will quote: from Not enough cops The same thing that stops the police from abusing their power now: nothing. You claim, twice, that there is nothing stopping the police from abusing their power right now. This is clearly not the case. We have an entire court system set up to do just that. If the police break into your home without justification and seize evidence, you can go to court and get that evidence thrown out. If a police officer randomly walks up to you and beats you, you can go to court. Police even have departments set up within their forces to monitor their behaviour. This is also the answer to Hugo's point about the "checks and balances against State police". These exist in our government. I have not heard any comparable alternative proposed for a world without a government. Hugo says that your own police force will rescue you. What if you don't have a police force? Or yours isn't as strong as the one that kidnapped you? This turns into "might is right", where if you don't have the riches and/or resources to protect yourself then you are subject to the whims of others who have a bigger mob at their command. As for your point about slaves being less efficient than salaried employees, let's assume that you are correct (and I think that you probably are). For my example I am going to say that a slave will only be as efficient as half a salaried employee (who is happy, working voluntarily, etc.). Let's say I have my own private police force and run a company that builds roads. I decide that I'm going to hire five 'police' and use 15 slaves. The 'police' are going to keep my slaves in line, make sure they don't run off, and make sure they keep working. Using my handy-dandy conversion rate, this means I am getting the equivalent of 7.5 happy, salaried employees. That means I'm saving 2.5 salaries by using slave labour (since I have to pay for my 5 'police'). I might even pay the police less than I would have paid the labourers, since all they have to do is sit around and keep the slaves in line. My point is that you can't assume that, without the rule of law and a government to enforce it, a private company / police force would play by the rules simply because it is cost effective. Let's face it, if it wasn't efficient to use slave labour then chances are the Southern states wouldn't have tried to secede from the USA and there would have been no US Civil War. They go to war. However, war is expensive -- unless of course you are a government, money is unlimited and labor is unlimited. ... Remember: gangsters or protection rackets will not make money if there is no peace. That's only true up until the point where one side thinks that it is more beneficial to just eliminate the competition. You can make decent money by dividing up territory with your competition during a time of peace. Or you can make more money by taking a temporary loss, going to war, destroying your opponent, and taking his turf. Then you make even more money. It's also helpful to note that people don't always behave rationally. Even if it was in someone's best interest to not use his/her army (which is essentially what a private police force is) to go to war with someone else, that does not mean that they won't. In a world without a government to maintain order, wars like this would likely erupt. Why wouldn't a private force be allowed to set up a speed trap without the owner's permission? When a group of armed men walks up to you, put guns to your head and say, "We're going to set up a 'speed trap' on your road. You got a problem with that?"... what exactly is that owner going to say? Remember, not everyone can afford their own private police force. First, there is an assumption that it is possible to arrive at a "mutually agreeable tribunal". In the above example, the trespasser in question could easily claim that the anarchist was falsely accusing him and trying to stack the "tribunal". He could then claim that the anarchist was defaming him and ask for his own tribunal. Even assuming that you could mutually agree on this, who pays for it? Who agrees the rules by which the tribunal will proceed? Can you not see that there is a huge waste of resources involved in trying to sort all of this out every single time? Because for each case, you would have to go out, find a tribunal that the two people could agree on, agree on the procedure, etc. Yes, the legislative branch is elected by the majority in a democracy. But our court system upholds certain constitutional principles that are independent of what the (simple) majority wants. Our constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that every citizen has certain rights that cannot be taken away by the majority. Penalties are standardized to a certain degree. Yes, the courts have some flexibility in handing sentences out. But these are not whims, and are subject to strict guidelines. I will try. Unfortunately there is only so much time in a day. So if I repeat something that's already been said or answered, please be patient. In your example, yes, it would be very likely. However, that is not how justice would work. You are implying that I would be forced to sit in front of your judge. That just sounds like a kangaroo court. Give me a specific example of a crime. But according to the above example, there is some type of judge. Some "mutually agreeable tribunal". So who pays for that? I really don't see how a court system without a government could possibly work. It seems to go against centuries of history. Leaving this type of justice up to individuals to work out amongst themselves seems... unlikely to work. But you asked for an example... so... let's say a woman comes forward and accuses a powerful man of raping her. There are no witnesses to the actual rape. The man "owns" the police force in the area as well as the local hospitals. Who investigates the crime? When the woman walks into the hospital who would look for and collect any physical evidence of the rape? How would this proceed in the world that we are discussing, a world with no objective government? Pretty much the same as they are now: through negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs. But laws don't really come from negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs. For example, criminal law is based on what Parliament says is criminal law. Much of this has been handed down for centuries and updated through the years. There is also the common law, law decided through cases that determines how the courts decide future cases. Bringing back the idea of self-defense that I mentioned in my last post... Self-defense is defined in certain ways in our current system. Without this basis in law for what constitutes self-defense, how would anyone in the anarchist world know what self-defense is? This post is already WAY too long to attempt to answer that one. It probably deserves its own thread. Plus... I'm too tired to try. Maybe later.

I'm with you in terms of "I don't have the right to harm you and you don't have the right to harm me." And maybe you don't need a law or justice system to tell you what theft is. But how about self-defense? Because self-defense to you may not be self-defense to someone else. So now, in the world with no government, we have a concept that is variable depending upon the individual. I'll come back to this in my next post since it has more to do with the issues there. I'm not saying that "somebody else [must] provide the necessities of life" in the sense that your arctic example seems to imply. What I am trying to get across is that without some entity spreading out the cost burden of some of these necessities (for example sewage treatment or electricity or roads) then some people will pay much more for these services than others soley because of their location. You may be alright with this and you are (obviously) entitled to your opinion. I just happen to think that society is better off when its citizens equally share some basic burdens allowing everyone the chance to live as they wish. But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. OK, yes, governments protect corporations from having their executives assassinated due to vigilante justice. And yes, in Hugo's example the shareholders of Enron punished the company when they learned of what happened. At least, as much as they could. Because let's face it, when the news became public the damage was already done. The people Hugo is talking about did not actually punish the company and ruin it. The company was already ruined because of what the executives did. The point of laws in this case, is to prevent what happened in Enron's case, not just punish companies for this behaviour after the fact. The system isn't perfect; clearly it did not prevent Enron from doing what it did. And there will always be people who try to get around the laws (and some will succeed), even after they are revised to fix the holes that Enron found. But the laws do prevent at least some companies from behaving unethically and stealing shareholders' money. The examples of private police forces only deal with the punishment aspect. Who will take care of the prevention aspect if not the government? And while some people would undoubtedly act ethically simply out of fear of vigilante justice (or private police force justice), others will not. History shows us that there are always people who will attemp to take advantage of others no matter what the consequences, simply because they think that they will get away with it.

Charles, I am curious to see what your answers would be to the following. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of your positions. For now I am going to ignore the "taxation is wrong because it is collected by force" issue. Let's assume that everything in Canada would be provided by private companies, and no government services exist (since there are no taxes to pay for them). 1. Also assume that everyone is moral (i.e. people like those who ran Enron and stole shareholders' money do not exist). The cost of services in high population areas would be much lower than areas with small populations, based on the efficiency of providing services to so many people in a small area. Are we willing to say that in Canada, people in rural areas must pay substantially more for basic services like sewage treatement, electricity, natural gas, etc.? Currently governments spread out the costs of these services (although fluctuations in price still exist). Shouldn't Canadians everywhere be able to access the necessities of life for more or less the same cost? 2. Clearly not everyone is moral. Without any governments around to monitor corporate behaviour what is stopping people (like those who ran Enron) from gouging Canadian citizens every chance they get? I have a feeling you are going to say private police forces... so maybe just go to my next question... 3. With a private 'police' force, what stops the person (or people) who control that force from abusing their power? What prevents them from arbitrarily deciding that person X violated a law and then sending in their 'police' to imprison that person? What happens if the people who control two different 'police' forces decide that the other is violating the law? Could we not have mini-wars amongst these private forces? 4. One of the principles underlying our current society is that of judicial independence. Where would our judicial system come from if there were no government services? If private companies hired judges, how likely is it that those judges would then rule against their employers if the alternative was to be fired? 5. Where would laws come from? Without a government to pass laws, how would people know what conduct is wrong and what is acceptable?

I agree with the whole "no harm, no foul" approach. Which means that I just have to throw in a monkey wrench... Let's say that instead of ties, the bank requires that no headwear of any kind be worn. A Sikh then applies to work at the bank. As an article of faith his hair will be uncut and so he wears a turban. In this case, which belief takes "priority"? Does the bank have the right to say "no, you can't work here" simply because of the turban, or does the Sikh have the right to say "you cannot prevent me from working here simply because of my turban"? The courts have obviously ruled on this type of issue, but I'm more curious to see what people have to say about it from a first principles approach. I'd throw my two cents in, but it's getting late & I'm tired... so I'll just throw the question out there for now and post again later.

This is another one of your "views" that needs to be backed up if we are to have any sort of debate. For example, HOW are charter rights discriminating against your Christian related rights (aside from the SSM issue which I already addressed in a previous post)? I'm going to echo gc's post by saying, how exactly has your freedom of religion been in any way harmed by the Charter or the federal government? I'm also going to go one step further and say that even the issue of same-sex marriage has not harmed anyone's right to believe in the religion of their choice. It has been made very clear that no religious organization is required to marry a same-sex couple. In fact, they are not required to marry any couple. The Catholic church has been refusing to marry certain heterosexual couples on a fairly regular basis. You may not agree with same-sex marriage because of your religious beliefs, but when the government allows civil same-sex marriages, that doesn't affect your choice of religion at all. There are several different religions and/or denominations that believe drinking alcohol is immoral. Yet no one claims that when governments or private companies sell alcohol they are taking away someone's religious freedoms. Not agreeing with the government on religious grounds is not the same as having the government actively punish you for believing in a certain religion. So let's have the example that shows your point. (And as a quick aside, when someone asks you to back up your point of view, they are not trying to limit your freedom of speech. They are trying to decide whether or not your point is useless rambling or if there is actually some merit to it. If you don't want to provide any support for your argument then that's your right. People will just classify it under the "useless" category rather than the "meaningful debate" category.) So again, let's get that support for this statement about the Charter and the federal government infringing on your rights. Something along the lines of "the federal government took action X that prevented me from exercising my right Y." Keeping in mind that just disagreeing with a government action does not by itself mean that your rights have been somehow limited.

Hilarious. I had no idea this was a creative writing site... Is there a source for your information? Any website or news article or anything that supports these generalizations about the ethnic makeup of gangs? Any crime stats on how prevalent gang fights, shoot-outs and drive-bys are in Alberta? Or anywhere in Canada?

I guess people just see what they want to see. Walking around Toronto you will see groups of people all from the same race. You will also see many groups of people of different racial, cultural and religious backgrounds. I have yet to see this hatred for Jamaicans that apparently exists everywhere in Toronto. If there really is this "huge, surging undercurrent" of racism I think somebody from at least one media source would have picked up on it. Yes, it's true, that just because the media doesn't report on something that doesn't mean it isn't there. Then again, a lack of any objective information seems to indicate that maybe, just maybe, it really isn't as large a problem as you make it out to be. Normally a lack of evidence indicates that the problem does not exist.

Given the amount of sheer BS that has been flung about by this case I'm willing to give geoffrey the benefit of doubt. Who knows what he may have read and had every right to believe? I agree that there is a lot of information and misinformation floating around about this case. And in my opinion everyone has the right to interpret that (mis)information however they want. The statement that I was objecting to had nothing to do with this case specifically. The statement implied that simply knowing a terrorist was grounds to be punished. That pretty much goes against the whole principle that you actually have to do something wrong in order to be sanctioned. Simply knowing someone isn't a good enough reason to deport or imprison someone. Of course, having said that, geoffrey is entitled to believe whatever he wants.

What a ridiculous sentiment. As has been pointed out above, the connection to terrorists was pretty thin. On that basis we should just toss out our freedom of association? If you do nothing illegal then why should you be held responsible for an associate's illegal actions? By your logic, if you own a convenience store and you end up on a first name basis with one of your customers who comes in every day, and then that customer goes out and commits a terrorist act, you should be charged as a terrorist. After all, you were clearly associating on a regular basis with a terrorist.

Sorry... Wasn't trying to hijack your topic. I just wanted to point out that changing positions on an issue isn't limited to any one (or two) parties. In terms of the GST... I think you have to consider the amount of time that has passed since it was brought in. No matter which party you look at, there are different people in the party now (to a certain degree). Plus, you can't go back to the beginning of time to say "look how party X has changed its mind". After all, no one is walking around accusing political parties of changing their minds about allowing women to vote. Even more importantly, to me anyway, I don't think we should be going around trying to lock people into a position just because it has become a political game to accuse politicians of "flip-flopping". We want our leaders to think critically about the issues, and if there are new circumstances around an issue then maybe it is OK for people to adjust their views. That being said... that doesn't excuse people from promising to do something and then not doing it right away. Or the hypocrisy of denouncing something one month and then embracing it the next. Not without some real reasons anyway (in both cases). Another thought occurs to me as well. In terms of the GST cut, I think that both the Liberals and NDP were in reality saying that they preferred the income tax cuts that the Liberals implemented just before the last election over the GST tax cut.

I agree with you that there isn't anything inherently wrong with crossing the floor. My big problem with the Emerson situation was that he switched to the Conservatives within days of being elected as a Liberal. Had he switched after maybe a year, then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. To me it just seems like this guy didn't like to be on the Opposition side of the floor and jumped ship the first chance he got. It seemed to be about keeping power, not about principles.

While we're at it, why not ask why the Conservatives were all up in arms about Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to join the Liberals, and then they have no problem with the fact that within days of being elected the government Harper brings David Emerson into the cabinet? It didn't even take a year before he changed his mind about members crossing the floor (the worst part being that Emerson had just been elected as a Liberal days before he conveniently switched). I think it's safe to say that most politicians will do what's in their best interest and it doesn't matter to them whether it's consistent with their past positions or not. Although I guess I'm more inclined to believe the 'different people, different times' argument when some actual time has passed. Preferably at least a few years...