scribblet

I too was wondering if this crusade had anything to do with what's going on, it certainly has a chilling effect.

Peaceful protesters don't carry molotov cocktales around with them.

It's a great deal, a terrific achievement. Tariffs eliminated and wider marker for seafood, cheese and cattle, no more protectionism for the dairy cartels holding us hostage. A wider market with less reliance on the U.S. No doubt there are some downsides but over all it's a good deal for us, the consumers in the end. Congratulations to PM Harper !

No surprise, the U.S. failed to ratify it. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/10/bipartisan-members-of-congress-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx?s&st&ps

As the council said, the hearings were not intended to confirm the veracity of the allegations, only that the rules of journalism were properly followed. They said the process was clean, it remains up to the public to come to their own conclusions. Well, I don’t see how totally anonymous drug users and pushers is totally credible and if the rules of journalism were properly followed then they need to upgrade their rules. I doubt that this will change the perception of anonymous sources, at least when all of the sources are anonymous and nefarious at that.

So none of what kImmy says about republicans is true ?

There's nothing wrong with asking migrants to contribute towards the cost of their health care or to require heath insurance for some. Britain is overcrowded now and lets in more immigrants than any other of the 27 EU countries. Their NHS is straining under the demands. more info here http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/consultations/34-healthcare/consultation-health.pdf?view=Binary

There where a couple of neo nazis involved in another lawsuit by the same person, but they weren't on FD's site. At least he was pretending to be one, This is one he lost... http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/09/22/warman-v-lemire-the-constitutionality-of-hate-speech-legislation/ On September 2 of this year, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision in Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26. Making national news in doing so, Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis declared as unconstitutional section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act) for unjustifiably infringing on the freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2( of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision would effectively strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to stamp out internet hate speech under the impugned section. For its shocking result and for the questions it engages as to the constitutionality of hate speech as an exception to the freedom of expression, this Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision is covered here on TheCourt.ca. Then there's Mark Steyn http://www.steynonline.com/3563/warman-sues-blazing-cat-fur-for-linking-to-far The least does is put a chill on commenting.

Maybe in the U.S. but sure a lot less true in Canada. As I said, I know no conservative who wants the police to be paramilitary, it's just crazy. There are many people who think the CPC today is not conservative enough. I've heard some people say they believe the Liberals are more conservative. Being friendly to big business is just helping the economy and providing jobs. However, the throne speech appears to be more consumer friendly. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-signal-consumer-friendly-throne-speech-1.2021739 Again, you may be right about the U.S. but not Canada.

Wow, that's pretty bad. He's apologized but as this says, it's too late... He's the commications chair, or was. SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – A Sacramento County Democratic Party leader has resigned after being thrown into the national spotlight for tweeting a death wish for a Republican staffer’s children. He didn’t just tweet that he hoped for her children’s death, but tweeted he wished for a horrific one. .

It seems that was and is the intent as you say it's a tactic he's used before. I think the repeal of section 13 should slow down the SLAP suits . Michael Geist has reported on some of this back in 2009.. It would be interesting to see his take on the final outcome. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3777/125/

I think most of it is up on FD's site, there is a thread somewhere about how he pretended to be a racist etc. This goes back for a few years. It's a lot of reading... One thing is clear that site owners must be very careful about what the posters say. Not just about politicians et al but about other posters. In fact, if I were Greg I would have more moderators. I wonder how long it will be before sees something ike the EU ruling, and where does the definition of offensive start? http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/3473236/eu-court-holds-news-website-liable-for-readers-comments/#ixzz2hRzxmokj So far the MSM isn't reporting on the story which is a shame.

Right, and this is part of the issue, even that comment could be fodder for a law suit. There is a website (not FD) that has documented everything and the issues iincluded the impersonation of a 'racist', a sting so to speak or entrapment. I'm not sure if even posting that could be a problem.

I think you are right. I'd say that they don't necessarily subscribe to any or all of that. I'm sure if they thought all of that applied they would have to rethink their position. I think they could accept the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security. Our freedom of speech is allready compromised. I don't think any conservative is accepting of turning the police into a paramilitary force... There may be a small faction, the radical social conservatives who believe religious mores should be the basis of social policies, but not many.

Just more stereotypes really.

Not all conservatives by any means line themselves with dogma and religion, there are social conservatives just as the NDP has a radical socialist wing. The Liberals have their share of religious people and have voted against abortion for instance, and even brought forward bills. It's just too stereotypical to paint all conservatives as being religious dogmatics. Many writers and posters have tried to paint Stephen Harper as some raving fundamentalist evangelical, but he never talks about his religion and sure doesn't wear it on his sleeve like Stockwell Day did. I agree about the 'free to choose', it's the liberals who tried to shut down free speech and didn't want the Sun news channel. Just my two cents worth..

Anonymous posters were sued as well, so it could be a lot worse than being banned. The site in question is hosted in Panama, they did that years back thinking it would protect them, it didn't. If you are interested in reading more about that I think they may have posted transcripts, if not they've given the whole account in a thread. I haven't read it all and I don't post on there, but I think it is a free speech issue as more sites will close down the commenting section. The owner of this forum should be very careful too.

Hope this is the right forum... Has anyone been reading about the lawsuit on Freedominion.ca ? I have to be careful about how this is worded and not mentioning names, so maybe you could go to FD to read up on it. Websites must be very careful now about what is said as the site is responsible for reader's comments. Daniel Dickens has closed off his comments http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/10/jury-rules-in-favour-of-warman-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanielDickin+%28Daniel+Dickin%29 The day free speech died in Canada http://usuryfree.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-day-free-speech-died-in-canada.html Now I read this : EU court is holding websitges liable for readers' comments http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/3473236/eu-court-holds-news-website-liable-for-readers-comments/#ixzz2hRzxmokj Seven top European Union judges ruled Thursday that a leading Internet news website is legally responsible for offensive views posted by readers in the site's comments section. I'm surprised there isn't more about this in the media.

Do you believe they actually were there to take part in this demonstration and actually did so? Their story is different of course and the one wholly supported by the media.

The treaty regulates all conventional arms within the categories of battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers and small arms and light weapons. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46005&Cr=arms+trade&Cr1=#.UlH4t9KbNgg Why would anyone want to hurt Canadians working in these industries, and therefore our economy ? If the United States, Russia and China (major arms dealers) are not in, what good is the treaty anyway? Not that there's anything wrong with trying to curb arms and wars, but the U.N. is pretty useless and to many people it's a step towards the 'one word order' . Not to mention many people don't trust the U.N., and rightly so. It's not clear on how this will keep weapons out of the hands of oppressive dictatorships. If I understand it correctly, the intention is to also stop revolutionaries/rebels from getting their hands on weapons. This of course would include the rebels or freedom fighters in Syria and elsewhere who want to overthrow a despotic regime. Not sure that this treaty has much to do with controlling “illegal” weapons, and may have a lot to to do with the eventual banning of civilian ownership of all firearms, they maybe on to something here and not totally off the wall when they say it could lead to another registry. http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf The United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty - would require nations to create and maintain a “national control list” to track “all conventional weapons.” (See Article V and Article II.) Article 5 General Implementation 1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner, bearing in mind the principles referred to in this Treaty. 2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty. I wonder if this treaty would stop Pres. Obama from waiving the provision of federal law in order to provide military aide to terrorist groups (e.g. certain 'vetted' opposition groups in Syria)

Of course it'll never happen, but maybe we could have a joint currency. Whoever split the country originally got it wrong, it should've been split down the middle vertically then we would've had Florida and wouldn't need health insurance to get down there. Just saying....

I tend to agree somewhat.... Some additional info. This guy orders "military grade" rifles from the United States: It’s non -restricted in Canada, because it's a bolt-action rifle and the round it shoots (.308 win) is also a very popular hunting round in Canada.......but the above rifle and round is also used by police and the military as a "sniper rifle" http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/7529/Armalite-AR30-308-Win.aspx Now this rifle from the same dealer Comes from Finland and is non-restricted in Canada, is a bolt-action, chambered in .308 but doesn't require an "end user agreement" from the Government of Finland to be sold to Canadians http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/12480/Tikka-T3-Hunter-308-Win-Rifle-Left-Hand.aspx Make sense? Of course not, anti-gun folk don't have a clue what they're talking about.......The difference between a "sniper rifle" and "gramp's moose gun"? About $100 black plastic stock and maybe a scary sounding name And the American end user agreement: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/licensing/documents/DSP_83.pdf One thing that our gov’t must be considering is the sale of STRYKER light amoured vehicles in Canada. These or similar models are sold to many NATO countries so if Canada signed on to this treaty one of our largest employers in London, Ontario could be shut down. London and area is struggling to survive the loss of auto manufacturing, and diesel locomotive building. The loss of the Stryker plant would be the death nell for that area. Of course, this is all a moot point as the treaty doesn’t have much chance of passing in the U.S. as it needs 2/3rds support of the U.Senate, the same Senate that couldn't pass "gun control" with a 50% +1 vote.

Family friendly Canada, and I'm not totally against it. It's not the worst thing in the world or the country I don't think it's that big of a deal.

I guess the Canadian 'village' got it's two 'useful idiots' back...

Nope, and besides there's no mechanism to enforce the treaty. Funny enough though, the portions relating to rules surrounding import and export of firearms in the UN treaty are allready in place in the U.S. They have banned the import of firearms and ammo from Russia and China, limited the import of firearms with higher cap mags (as such, companies like Glock, Sig Sauer etc opened plants in the United States) and with some firearms that they export for civilian use they require an end user agreement, in other words, a registry and assurance that the end user will not pass along or sell said firearm. Really, the prospect of a new back-door registry for new imports is the killer. The conservatives won't be in power for ever so when the Liberals eventually get back in, they surely will use it to bring back the dreaded registry.