bk59

I wouldn't first associate with al-Qaeda suspects... his associate is actually friends with the Khadr's according for my brief research. Second, I'd renounce a Syrian citizenship before travelling to the US after associating with such people in a time of the most hightened terrorist awareness. There is definitely some 'contributory negligence' in this case. That is hardly 'contributory negligence'. So now Canada should start deporting or charging people because they have a certain citizenship? Or because they have an associate who is friends with someone else who has a terrorist link? That's a bit tenuous. If there is not enough evidence to lay charges here, or anywhere else, then a Canadian citizen shouldn't have to go through all of that. No one is perfect, including Arar. After all, there were legitimate reasons to identify him as a "person of interest". But to blame the victim, when it has been shown that he should never have been sent to Syria, is just as shameful as the fact that he was sent to Syria.

I think the tradition you are thinking of is Parliamentary sovereignty which says that a particular session of Parliament is not bound by any prior acts (i.e. it can change or repeal any laws that it wants). That isn't the same as saying that "the government" is not continuous. Ministries continue on, no matter who is in charge. Because of this, my opinion is that if someone in the government screwed up, then Arar should get an apology from the PM. It does not matter who the PM is now, or who the PM was at the time. Just look at the Chinese Head Tax issue. Harper apologized for that, but no one in their right mind is going to say that Harper had anything to do with the tax.

I see that we've upped the melodrama... I think the United Church understands free markets just fine. At the very least, more than you're giving them credit for. They seem to be more concerned with keeping water as a public resource, paid for and taken care of by public institutions rather than private corporations. In the drought example obviously someone has to pay to get the water to where it needs to go. I think the UC position would be that forcing people to pay more for it by buying from a private company is wrong.

The analogy between Canada's immigration policy and the settlement of North America by the first European settlers is a poor one. Those settlers came here with the explicit goal of setting up colonies in the image of their motherlands. Of course they destroyed the Native American cultures that existed here. Today, most people immigrate to Canada to live in Canadian society, not to re-create their previous society here. This does not mean that they give up their entire cultural heritage, it just means that they keep their culture within a larger, Canadian, context. For example, celebrating different religious holidays, other than the traditional (i.e. European / Christian) holidays, does not in any way hurt the pre-existing Canadian culture. Before anyone jumps the gun here, I will say that there are some people who come to North America, Canada and the U.S., with the explicit goal of destroying our society. Anyone who denies this simply isn't paying attention to world events over the last five or so years. But the number of people who enter this country with that goal in mind is extremely small. And anyone who claims that these types of people somehow make up a significant portion of immigrants is also ignoring reality. Another tactic that I find tiring is that of over-exaggeration. Toronto is arguably one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and every day people interact with others of different cultures without any problems or issues. These interactions range from people simply being tolerant of one another to people actively embracing other cultures. Is there some racism? Undoubtedly. But it is overshadowed by far by the number of people who embrace those differences, or at the very least tolerate them. The reality is that the widespread anger and racism you claim is a natural consequence of having enough immigrants simply does not exist.

I wonder how these "religious" warriors would deliver water to a drought stricken part of the world??? I think you've missed the point of the boycott. They aren't objecting to bottled water per se, they are objecting to how water has been turned into a product. The United Church specifically talks about how access to water is a basic human right and that the value of fresh water to the common good should take priority over commercial value. Clearly in the case of a drought they would support getting water to the affected people. Even if it came in bottles. As long as that water came to the people freely, and someone wasn't trying to charge the people for it.

From the link, the specific example that is closest to what I was talking about was this: "Should a town of 100 people spend $6 million on a piece of equipment that is likely, over the long run, to save one life? Not if a life is worth only $5 million. Buying the equipment means forcing the average taxpayer to spend $60,000 for a level of safety that's worth only $50,000 to her." I think it's safe to say that in the above case, the individual taxpayer would consider that extra $10,000 per taxpayer to be wasted by the town (i.e. better spent somewhere else). I think you may have reacted a little too quickly... If you read the whole paragraph that I wrote it should answer your question. Specifically my last sentence. myata, thanks for the link. I did a quick search, but must not have been looking under "Federal Politics". I don't want to get too much into the gun registry simply because that wasn't the point of the thread. But... It is an excellent example of a government program that really could provide value and yet its cost has been WAY too much for what it gives us. It's just too bad that our politicians only take extreme positions on this one: either kill the whole thing (and lose the value it gives us) or do anything it takes to keep it going (no matter what the cost).

Interesting question. Do you have a link for any info about the Everest situation that you brought up? August's link brings up the fact that economists have placed a dollar value on a human life. Let's say, based on the link, that a life is worth $5 million. From a purely economical standpoint, spending any more than that $5 million would be a waste. In terms of the question "what should a government spend its money on?"... I'd love to say that a human life is priceless and they should spend whatever it takes to save even one life. Unfortunately, governments can't really do that. You could imagine half the federal budget being spent on saving two people. Likewise, a government shouldn't be saying that it won't spend more than (from our example) $5 million per person on a program that could save lives. They have to find that balance of helping the most people for the best dollar value. The example of a two lane highway brings up an interesting problem though. Where do you spend money meant to save lives, when the outcomes of those expenses are uncertain? For example, to save lives that were lost on a two lane highway, do you spend money on expanding the highway to four lanes? Or do you spend money to better educate drivers? Or maybe spend it on improving car safety standards? As for the original example... I would hope that everyone votes in favour of saving the drowning person. Especially because in the example it wouldn't cost you anything. You may not get the job anyway, meaning that you let someone die for no reason. Aside from that, chances are that after saving a life the company would let you reschedule your interview. In a weird, selfish way, saving that life might even help you stand out from your competition.

Just in case that wasn't sarcasm... what a waste of tax payers' money. Would you be willing to let the government waste money by moving French populations around the country in the same way? Wow. Talk about empty rhetoric. "Vote Liberal and you're voting to kill children." Let's say you do have a valid point somewhere in there. Saying stuff like that just destroys any credibility that you might have had. Let's take a look at your scenario though. Going to this Statistic's Canada site shows some unemployment rate information. This is from the 2001 Census, but it gives a breakdown by language which makes this relevant to our discussion. (If anyone has equivalent data that is more recent please post it.) Changing the geographic area to "Ottawa - Ontario part" shows that the English unemployment rate was 5.1%. This is hardly massive unemployment. Not only that, but unemployment rates such as this have never led to the type of mass welfare and/or mass suicides that you seem to think is right around the corner for Ottawa. In fact, Alberta as a province also had a 5.1% unemployment rate among its English labour force. Vancouver's was higher at 6.2%. Watch out Vancouver... massive social unrest might be just around the corner... My point is, there seems to be little proof that the situation you are talking about even exists. And no proof whatsoever that would indicate children will be dying in the street anytime soon. Or ever. To show that the official status of the French language is causing the types of problems in Ottawa that you claim exist, you would have to (at a minimum) show that the unemployment rate amongst the English labour force in Ottawa is substantially higher than the rates in other English labour forces in any other city in Canada. I won't be holding my breath for that data.

I'm curious to find out how I or anyone else has been trying to purposefully mislead anyone. You stated that no province is officially English. I gave you sources that clearly showed multiple provinces as being officially English (Alberta, Ontario). I also gave an example of a bilingual province (Manitoba). I don't recall saying that English and French were somehow official at all levels of government in Canada. As for addressing facts, I would be happy to look at any materials that you reference. Just don't expect anyone to take your word for a fact that you can't find a source for.

There seem to be a few problems with your facts. This is taken from Ontario's official webpage: In fact, many provinces have official languages. Wikipedia lists Alberta as English, Manitoba as bilingual, etc. As for Canada and Ottawa, other posters have clearly shown that they are officially bilingual as well. I think a lot of your arguments about minority language rights are contradictory. You accuse Quebec of discriminating against the English language minority communities within Quebec, and then talk about how horrible and undemocratic it is that French language minority communities in Ontario have the right to use French. You can't have it both ways. Either English and French minority communities both have the right to use their choice of official language, or they both don't. If your problem is with bilingualism itself, then I'm afraid you'll have to go back in time and find a way to build Canada without both English and French cultures. Both languages and cultures were an important part of Canada's beginnings and both continue to be important today. Regardless, none of what you are saying now has in any way supported your statements that the Charter is a piece of garbage. In fact, many of your arguments appeal to the Charter as something good. (e.g. When you talk about trying to give English language minority groups in Quebec more rights - something the Charter specifically addresses.)

Originally the opera didn't even have that scene in it, it's just that the director who added it didn't want to remove it: From: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/09/26/op...ontroversy.html There are many Muslim immigrants who are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with Canadian society. Should we really ban all immigration from certain countries because of some extremists in those countries? Isn't that what our immigration policies are supposed to weed out? While they won't be perfect, we should instead focus on improving the ability of immigration officials to do their jobs rather than barring everyone from entering the country. Should we also ban refugees from these countries, who have legitimate reasons to flee and want to find a better life? I find it hard to rationalize the position that, for certain countries, we should shut the doors to Canada for everyone in the country because a few people in those countries are extremists. The problem really is extremism, not the religion of Islam. To say that Muslims are not adaptable to modern civilization denies the fact that many Muslims here in Canada are not only fitting in to our society, but actively and positively contributing to it as well. As for the reference to the dark ages (aka Middle Ages), it should be helpful to note that during the Middle Ages Islamic culture and science was quite advanced. Arguably more so than the European counterparts of the time.

OK, I'll bite. The Charter is not a piece of garbage. Its purpose is to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally. Could this discriminate against a decision supported by the majority of Canadians? Yes, actually. As an example, if 51% of Canadians all of a sudden decided that everyone who speaks English as their first language should no longer be allowed to vote, the Charter would put a stop to that discrimination. Why? As a society we say that characteristics like language or religion should not affect your rights as a citizen, and that even a majority decision cannot strip those rights away. A look at Germany in the 1930's should, I hope, show enough of a rationale for this principle. Speaking of discrimination based on language... Please give a specific example of how Quebec is discriminating against English speaking Canadians. By specific, I mean something like: "Quebec has passed a law that requires all English speaking Canadians within its borders to wear pink tutus at all times." If we are talking about Quebec's language laws, then these are provincial laws that have nothing to do with the Charter. And provincial laws would certainly not have to pass any national referendum. But perhaps you were referring to the fact that the Charter enshrines both English and French as official languages of Canada... When Canada was formed, it was formed giving consideration to both French and English speaking populations. The Charter reinforces this attitude, saying that at the federal level both French and English are to be treated equally. Remember though, that this goes both ways. Minority English communities in French speaking areas can expect to communicate with the federal government in English, just as minority French communities in English speaking areas can expect to communicate with the federal government in French. I admit to being confused by the statement that the "federal government... gave Quebec... the 'rights' to the country of Canada." What rights does Quebec have over any other province, or anyone or anything outside of its borders? (None.) In fact, these sections of the Charter protect English populations within Quebec at the federal level. Quebec has always had the right, and continues to have the right, to do whatever it wants within its provincial jurisdiction. Which brings us to federal jurisdiction... You are right in that the government's job is to protect the rights of Canadians. However, when you go on to say that the government's job is not to legislate according to their interpretation... well... that just indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada's legal system. The federal government is elected by the people of Canada. Once in office, Parliament can enact any legislation that it wants within the federal jurisdiction. Any legislation. (The exception being that it cannot go against Canada's Constitution, which includes the Charter. For example, Parliament cannot pass legislation that would go against section 7 of the Charter, the right to life, liberty and security of the person.) To say that society should "establish its own social concerns", not governments, makes no sense. How else does society do this unless through its elected government? And if Canadian society is unhappy with the laws being passed by Parliament, then they get to vote in someone else at the next federal election. Then that new Parliament can pass whatever legislation that it wants. So, not only can Parliament legislate rights, but it already has legislated rights. In fact, it was legislating rights even before the Charter. You say this cannot be done without "major problems". Please provide a specific instance of a major problem that has come about because of the Charter. Better yet, please show me how the Charter was the source of even one problem leading to discrimination. Sorry for the long post, but there is one last thing I would like to address... When the federal government enacted the Charter, they were not giving away rights to groups to equalize some other group (in your post white, English speaking Canadians). The Charter specifies that every Canadian citizen has certain rights. These apply to your white, English speaking Canadians just as much as they apply to anyone else. How then can these rights discriminate against white, English speaking Canadians? How does allowing a French speaking community in (for example) Alberta access to federal government institutions using French hurt any white, English speaking Canadian anywhere? In the end, the Charter protects every Canadian citizen equally. Even in a democracy, sometimes this means that the majority is wrong. After all, you don't want the majority to have the ability to ban Christianity from being practiced in Canada, do you? These rights were enshrined by the Parliament that was elected by Canadians, and as such reflects the democratic ideals of our society. Vague statements will not convince me that the Charter has somehow damaged Canada, or that it has somehow elevated certain people to positions where they have more rights than anyone else.