bk59

And what does that have to do with her sexuality? (Hint: nothing) It certainly isn't rocket science. That's why maybe looking at the facts is important. Because both parties had Christian beliefs. Both parties wanted to care for people with developmental disabilities. The woman was not forcing her beliefs about homosexuality on anyone. In fact, aside from one conversation in 1999, it looks like she kept this part of her life private. It was Christian Horizons that made this an issue.

The "whackos" with their "whacko lifestyle" should be stopped, eh? What an informed point of view. If Christian Horizons wants to be funded by the people of this province then they should stop discriminating against the people of this province. If they want to promote their own ideas of what is a moral lifestyle then they can do it on their own dime, not with Ontario tax dollars. Maybe we should apply some common sense here. Sexual orientation has absolutely no impact at all on caring for people with developmental disabilities. The woman who was fired is a Christian; she grew up as a Christian and even has a degree in Religious Education. She had also been working for Christian Horizons for five years before she was fired. She began employment in 1995 and was fired in 2000. It wasn't until 1999 that she began to see herself as a lesbian. She did confide this to two co-workers in the summer of 1999. As for the statement that she "got hired, and promptly announced to everyone she was a lesbian, and began talking about her sexuality to anyone who'd listen", from the facts this isn't even remotely true. She had worked there for four years before any mention of her homosexuality was made. And it was other co-workers and the complainant's supervisor who confronted her about her sexuality in 2000, not the other way around. She did not lie in her interview. She was not asking for people to push her buttons. Isn't it interesting how actually looking at the facts of a situation makes all the difference? This is a Christian woman who wanted to care for the same people that Christian Horizons wanted to care for. To characterize this as a godless, whacko lesbian wanting to destroy a pure and innocent Christian charity is ridiculous. While there is disagreement between different sects of Christianity on homosexuality, the goals of this person and Christian Horizons were almost identical. It's a shame that Christian Horizons couldn't find room for another Christian in their organization.

That is unlikely. See 238.1(7):

The proposed law applies to people who cause the death of a foetus while committing or attempting to commit an offense against the mother. So it would make sense to look at what offenses we currently have that would apply. How would the foetus likely be killed / terminated (depending on how you think of a foetus)? The sentence for assault is up to five years. For assault causing bodily harm the sentence is up to ten years. One would think that causing the death of a foetus would constitute bodily harm to the mother. Aggravated assault is assault that endangers the life of the complainant, in this case the mother. Aggravated assault is punishable by a sentence of up to fourteen years. I would think that these offenses would apply. I can't see how you would harm a foetus without committing at the very least assault against the mother (5 years). More likely it would be assault causing bodily harm (10 years), with the potential to be aggravated assault depending on the circumstances (14 years). Perhaps a person's position will depend on whether or not they think these sentences are enough. But the Bill does seem to give the foetus independent rights in 238.1(6) and status as a human being in 238.1(5). I have heard it said that similar laws in the US have been used to attack abortion rights, but I am not sure that would happen here given the proposed 238.1(7).

First, subsidizing R&D does not mean giving money to Ted Rogers. You can misrepresent the issue all you want, but giving tax subsidies to companies for R&D is not the same as handing big wads of cash to an individual. Why don't you just say that you don't support the government giving tax breaks for research & development? You say you support it, and then go on (misguided) rants about how the government is taking money from your pocket and giving it to rich people. OK, let's use your logic here. The American government gives tax breaks to Americans who are richer than you. You, a Canadian, go to the American government and demand money. When they deny you, is that racist? You seem to think that they owe you something. They don't. I have never said that non-Canadians "don't matter". But back to your analogy that has almost nothing to do with the topic of subsidizing R&D and wanting to keep at least some hi-tech companies controlled and operated in Canada... So it is now Canada's responsibility to eliminate every single problem in the world? That seems a bit unfair to Canadians doesn't it? I mean, shouldn't governments take primary responsibility for their own citizens? Why should one government take responsibility for citizens of another state? When talking about issues like poverty and hunger Canada should, and does, give foreign aid. Obviously Canada should also deal with these problems domestically as well... but of course that would help Canadians and I'm sure you can find a way to call that racist. If you want your analogy to actually make sense then we are not just dealing with one family at a table. We are dealing with a restaurant full of tables, each with a family. Does Canada have the responsibility to go to the American table, or the English table, or the Japanese table, and give them the food that the Canadian family paid for? As I said, Canada should give foreign aid to those less fortunate tables, but that does not mean that Canada should give up all of its food. But to make things totally clear... we are not talking about poverty and hunger issues. We are talking about subsidizing research & development. That is a domestic decision designed to help the Canadian economy. Other countries can implement their own policies on R&D and economic stimulus. It is not our job to do this for them. Actually, you do seem to be advocating sharing Canadian tax money with everyone in the world. To you anything less is racist. I have no problem with my ideas on sharing and discrimination in the context of tax subsidies and R&D. Canadians pay Canadian taxes. Canadians should get those tax subsidies. Anything else is foolish economic policy (at best). And certainly not racism.

Everything you said above this line says that you are in fact against government subsidizing research and development. You characterize this as corporate welfare, which you are supposedly against. You can't say that you are in favour of R&D subsidies except when you actually give the money to a real company like MDA. Yes, I think taxpayers should subsidize "RIM or Bill Gates or Bell or Ted Rogers" under the right conditions. There is nothing inherently evil, immoral, suspicious or discriminatory about any of this. If those companies undertake research that will benefit the economy, and the only way to make that research initially affordable is through a tax credit, then they should get the credit. There are obviously limitations and conditions that must be met. There is not unlimited money for this. Only certain activities should qualify (making a new version of the Blackberry is not research & development - the research should be new research). But the criteria should not simply be the size of the company or your conceptions about which corporations are evil. It should be about the R&D. No offence, but chances are any corporation engaging in advanced R&D will be richer than you. I know they are certainly richer than me. But I am not waving the words "hi-tech" and "R&D" as magic wands. You are so focussed on the idea that someone might be richer than you that you miss the whole point. It is about the R&D, not the personal characteristics of who is engaging in the R&D. If you support government subsidizing R&D then the people who deserve them are people just like MDA. How rich they are personally makes no difference to the question of which company and which activities should get the money. So you are OK with the Canadian government giving health care to Americans? You would be OK with the Canadian government spending Canadian tax dollars to improve American infrastructure such as roads and highways? This would solve your racism / discrimination problem, wouldn't it? You see how this is ridiculous? The Canadian government is there to serve Canadians. So in the context of subsidizing R&D, it is preferable to subsidize Canadian companies, not foreign companies. While it is true that foreign owned companies in Canada can still get these subsidies, I see nothing wrong with saying that the Canadian government should encourage a homegrown and self-sufficient approach to R&D and hi-tech companies. Every other country in the world does it. Why should we be different?

It is not even remotely discriminatory. It is not the Canadian government's job to help American companies or citizens. That is why the US has its own government. We are not talking about foreign aid here. We are talking about hi-tech companies, research & development tax subsidies and foreign control of Canadian companies. By what possible logic do you think it is better for the Canadian government to give money to American companies & citizens? With attitudes like that it is no wonder people say that Canadians have no national identity or pride. We are also not talking about rich Canadians and poor Americans. As a side note, Alliant is hardly poor. In fact, this has nothing to do with rich or poor or fatcats or "corporate welfare". Many hi-tech companies get R&D tax subsidies to make research more affordable. This benefits the entire economy, from the people being employed in these fields to those who benefit from the technology once it is brought to market. All developed nations do this. At least all developed nations who want to actually compete in a hi-tech, global economy. This is not corporate welfare, any more than any other corporate or personal tax break should be considered welfare. The other money that has gone to the company is from the government purchasing goods or services. Again, this is not corporate welfare, but in fact is how the government always purchases goods or services - with money. No one is just giving "your money" to some "rich Canadian". No, it is not racism. The Canadian government is there to serve Canadians. It is not there to distribute Canadian tax dollars to the world at large. Subsidizing research and paying for goods & services is exactly what we are doing. The ownership and control of the company is a valid consideration when determining who is "someone worthy". All other things being equal, it makes more sense for the Canadian government to want that money to stay in Canada and not go to foreign companies. Both Canada and the US are civilized democracies which share a continent and have many of the same security interests. Fine. And yet no one thinks it strange that the US puts in place huge restrictions on foreign ownership of hi-tech companies, particularly those which work on, or have the potential to work on, anything related to national security. Yet when it is suggested that Canada should also look to keep a domestically owned and controlled industry on the same terms, people seem to say "Oh don't worry. It doesn't matter if an American firm buys the company. They're our friends." They may be our friends, but we have the talent and ability to have a Canadian industry. Why should we just sell that off? No other country in the world has such an apathetic attitude about their hi-tech / national security industries.

Except that a lot of these jobs are in Ontario and BC, not Quebec. This is also not a case of tax payer funds "supporting" the company. Tax payer money was not simply given to the company. As just one example, the government of Canada bought a share of a satellite that will be used by the government for the life of the satellite. It is hard to see how they would have bought that interest without paying for it. And this has almost nothing to do with Marc Garneau. I have no idea why you would think it does. All other things being equal (as is the case in your example above) then yes, give the money to a Canadian rather than an American. Why? Because we are talking about the CANADIAN government. We can let the American government support Americans. Maybe the reason this question is a joke is because people see no problem with giving control of Canadian hi-tech companies to foreign companies. We do not have the defense industry here that the US has - and that is probably a good thing. But that does not mean that we should have no hi-tech R&D capabilities owned, operated & controlled by Canadians. This does seem to be the case. There are only so many different constituencies you can piss off with actions that can be characterized as anti-Canadian. However I don't think we've seen the end of this. Alliant still has 30 days to convince the government that the sale is a good thing. The Tories are a party that generally prefers to avoid government interference in these matters and I think this sale could still go through. I personally think keeping this company as a Canadian company is a good thing.

This has been answered, but I will attempt a shorter reply. Go back and find the link in this thread regarding homosexuality and pedophilia. Pedophiles go after children because they are children, not because of the child's sex. Pedophiles, whether they go after a child of the same sex or not, are not attracted to adults of either sex. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have no interest in children whatsoever. On the face of it, I can see where you are coming from: "hey, that's a man with a boy". But sexuality is not that cut and dry. Pedophiles have no interest in heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. They are something different than either heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Before that post I had already made it quite clear that the police were excused from liability under certain circumstances. (Have you not been reading?) Just as individuals are excused from liability under certain circumstances. None of this changes the fact that there are situations where both individuals, and police, will be held liable for killing someone under other circumstances. Something you have yet to recognize. Please continue to repeat your statement. Repetition does not change the fact that there is no requirement that a justice system kill convicts. The simple fact that many justice systems do not have as a goal the death of convicts is sufficient to prove that. How can you underpin an argument for capital punishment because the state can take a life when it is clear that the state cannot take a life in most situations? Your logic is simply bad. You say that because the state can take a life in situation X, then it is permissible to take a life in situation Y. That is wrong. Just because the police can shoot a person who is about to shoot an innocent, does not mean that they can shoot a person for jay walking. In the criminal justice system, the state should never take a life simply because it can. Particularly when that individual is no threat to anyone else. Which brings us back to... No, you have not. Actually make the comparison... go through and see when an individual can kill someone and when the state can kill someone. In the criminal justice system, an individual is not allowed to kill another person. In very precise circumstances - self-defence where someone's life is in danger - then the individual will be excused from criminal liability. Even police can only use deadly force when the person they kill is an imminent danger to someone else. Compare this to the convict sitting in a prison. What danger is he or she to anyone else? It is hypocrisy to say that an individual cannot murder someone because of something that person did in the past, but the state can murder that person for that reason. Justice can be equally served by locking this person up for the rest of their life.

I am sure that in most cases there is no intention to use underhanded tactics. But the line blurs a bit when you ask questions like "Is there sufficient evidence to show this person is a murderer". This question may be answered by different people in different ways. A moral person may make what he or she thinks is a moral decision, and yet when examined from an objective point of view that decision may be morally questionable. Sadly, adequate defence counsel is not always available. Particularly for those who cannot afford their own lawyers. Resources being what they are, sometimes those facing trial get the short stick and get a lawyer that is either sub-par or simply too overloaded to dedicate sufficient time to the case. It is true, no system is perfect. We can just keep trying to improve. Unfortunately the number of wrongful convictions that are discovered decades after the trials are over can show that even with a good defense, innocent people still sometimes end up being convicted.

I'm not entirely sure I can answer the question, but there are definitely distinctions between civil & criminal. In criminal you will definitely see the same presumption of innocence. In civil, the burden of proof would probably be case specific. My guess is that the crown would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the person had certain income, etc. that if true would lead to owing $X. Then the individual could attempt to prove, again on the balance of probabilities, that the information was incorrect and that they should only owe $Y. That is just my guess though. Certainly stare decisis is the cornerstone of all common law systems (I think). And would be the doctrine that applies in this case. No judge is going to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada when nothing about the situation has changed. They would get appealed so fast it wouldn't even be funny. Res judicata is certainly a doctrine in Canada, but at this point I couldn't really tell you the ins and outs of it. At its basic level I do believe that it prevents individuals from relitigating the same issues. As with many things law, the specifics of how & when you can plead res judicata get a bit more complicated.

Yes, police are trained in using deadly force. No, all actions that involve deadly force are not automatically supported in law. Your reasoning here is flawed. Not really. Let's be a bit more clear here, since you seem to be unable to place the statement within the context of this topic. No one here is talking about armed combat. We are looking at state sanctioned killing within a criminal justice system. When is the state allowed to kill someone who is not an immediate danger to someone else? Compare this to the situation of when is an individual citizen allowed to kill someone who is not an immediate danger to someone else? You have given the goal of the death penalty. Not the goal of a justice system. There is a difference. If the question is whether or not the death penalty is acceptable, then you cannot say that since the goal of the death penalty is to execute people then the death penalty must be acceptable to reach that goal. This is never a valid reason to kill people. States have in the past enacted laws that allowed slavery. Saying that it can be done in a law does not make it acceptable. Your argument boils down to the state is allowed to kill in certain circumstances therefore the death penalty is justified. This logic is weak at best. For the very simple reason that the state is NOT allowed to kill in other circumstances. If we used your simplistic argument then the death penalty would not be allowed simply by rephrasing the sentence.

Plea bargaining is not the same as threatening someone's life. It is true, a person may be more willing to plead guilty when threatened with the death penalty than if they were only facing prison time. Then again, a person may be more willing to plead guilty after being sleep deprived for three days straight, or being beaten. A justice system is not concerned with simply getting convictions - it must be concerned with seeing justice served and finding the truth. Railroading people into guilty pleas is not the way to do this. Particularly when looking at innocent people facing murder charges. Do we really want them pleading guilty because they see the risk of death in front of them and choose prison? Or do we want them to have their real day in court?

If you, as a prosecutor, say to a person "We will do everything we can to make sure that you face the death penalty and that you are indeed put to death, unless you sign this confession" then I think you know what the consequences of your actions will be. In fact, I am hard pressed to come up with a situation where you threatened someone's life and you were not aware of the consequences of that threat.

No. Killing someone else is never encouraged. But you will not be held criminally liable if you kill someone in self defence. Of course, even then there are limits. You will be held liable if someone drunkenly tries to punch you and then you pull a gun and shoot them dead. Because even the defence of self defence has limits. Likewise, it is not a police duty to take lives. It is a police duty to preserve life. In some situations that means that police are allowed to kill. But this is not the same as saying that killing is supported in law. Killing is not supported in law. But certain circumstances will excuse you from facing liability. This distinction is important. The goal is not execution according to law. You have started from the assumption that because some killings are seen as acceptable then capital punishment must be acceptable. You have started with the assumption that the goal is to execute. The fact is, when a person is not an immediate danger to anyone no police force would be allowed to kill that person without being put on trial for murder. A police officer that shoots a man dead because he uttered a death threat (& only uttered a threat) will be himself arrested. If there is a non-lethal way of subduing that person then the police are obligated to use it. So the question becomes, if there is a non-lethal way for a justice system to deal with incarcerated criminals why would the state be allowed to kill that person? It seems hypocritical. Your point about numbers is meaningless. Very few innocent people have been gunned down by police officers just because the police felt like shooting people. That killing is still seen as unacceptable. We will give those people protection even though a greater number of people have been killed in wars. Armed conflicts are a much different beast than a criminal justice system.

Well, no, it's not. But feel free to continue writing that it is. Your opinion that it is does not mean that it is in fact reality. People on here are saying that pedophilia is something different from both heterosexuality and homosexuality. There has been evidence provided to back up this position. Your opinions do not change the evidence. Well, again, no there is no direct link. The difference between you and I is that I have give evidence to show that there is no direct link. You have not given anything to support your position.

Those court cases show that the federal income tax is a valid exercise of federal authority. The law says you owe money. These cases show that this law is a valid law. No, you would not win your case if you appointed the judge. Not unless the judge you appointed had no concept of the law, logic, or even common sense. Perhaps you should actually look at those cases. They do deal with personal federal income tax. Some of the cases also deal with the GST. But if you cannot even read those cases then stop posting. Maybe your problem is that you should be using legal counsel. Because if you did have legal counsel you would realize how foolish you are being. The tax laws have already been challenged and found valid. If it was in my power to charge you, I would. But it is not within my power. So feel free to go to your local Canada Revenue office and declare that you have never filed tax returns. Then you will get your day in court.

True. I'm not sure that no queenslave will see that distinction though. Thank you for the correction. That is indeed what I meant. Once a law has been challenged and found valid, it cannot be challenged in the same way again. I have avoided using phrases like stare decisis simply because I have doubts that no queenslave will accept that type of formal language.

But if the "let's make a deal" boils down to "we will kill you unless you tell us what we want to hear" then that is equivalent to torture. Plea bargaining is an important part of our justice system. But plea bargaining should never be used to threaten someone's life.

This isn't a false notion at all. In fact, you have given the response in your post. It is wrong for one individual to kill another. Yet, under certain circumstances, this will be excused. For instance, if someone acts in self-defence then they will not be held criminally liable for murder. The act is still considered wrong, but they are excused from criminal liability. Likewise, a nation cannot just murder its citizens. Yet if it legally goes to war then it is not murder when its soldiers kill other soldiers from other nations. The deadly force that is authorized for police forces are not authorized in routine circumstances. Deadly force is only authorized in very specific circumstances. So no, it is not an automatic conclusion that states are justified in executing people with due process. The same goal can be reached by locking this person up for life. There is no need to kill them.

It is true that the death penalty per se is not considered cruel or unusual in the US. However I think that there is a case before the US Supreme Court right now in fact, questioning whether or not the method of lethal injection as currently performed is cruel and unusual. I think it has something to do with untrained prison officials botching the job on a regular basis.

None of that really deals with the central issue of why Canada is now applying an inconsistent approach to the death penalty. That being said, the concern is not death for the innocent or coerced confessions. Much opposition to the death penalty comes from the simple fact that if it is wrong for an individual to kill someone then it is wrong for the state to kill someone. That an eye for an eye is not justice. So no, there is no certainty whatsoever that this guy should die even once, let alone a thousand times. You may think that is so, and you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is much different than saying that it is certain he deserves to die.

No one here said it was the circumstances in this case.

Yes The government does have to obey it. Yes to all of the rest. You are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Courts do obey the law of the country. Show me where they have not. Everyone can challenge any law of the government. But once that law has been challenged, then it is valid. If someone else tries to challenge the same law, on the same grounds, the court will toss out your case. Why? Because that question has already been answered. They aren't going to waste everyone's time answering the same question in the same way.