scribblet

Agreed, especially as tolerance invariably become intolerance. I can't resist posting this, its a letter in today's National Post National Post Published: Friday, November 24, 2006 Re: Wearing A Niqab Is Not A Big Deal ... , Letter to the editor, Nov. 23. G. Epema's letter on female covering in Islam is misdirected. Such covering is only symptomatic of male sexual psychosis. Christianity and Judaism have also gone through it (some sects within each still suffer from it). The real issue is the inability of men to control their sexual desire. In current Islam, this is manifest in the ejaculatory machine-gun bursts that photo-journalism, to depict Islam's otherness, has made a fetish. Aberrant behaviour elsewhere, such as infibulation and honour killings, further demonstrates the psychosis. Treat the symptom as such. It is no consolation that, in the West, the remnant psychosis is only rape. At least a woman is free to dress as she wants, protect her genitals and speak her mind. name removed for privacy © National Post 2006 Whoa...... okay guys, any comments -

Bye, don't slam the door.

Are you kidding?? When was that discovered??? I am sure the law predates our perception of health issues and risks. I wonder why Calgary still requires businesses within the city to provide rails for tying up horses? I should have said, the reluctance 'today' is due to the health risks etc. I do expect that eventually it will be brought in line, but not to 14, only if 16 is passed.

A hint of what will happen when Rae becomes PM. He would have allocated half the Senate seats in Ontario to women in the event the Senate became elected. So only women could have run in those seats. Rae keeps telling us how much he has learned since then. Lets hope one of those things is that this approach is undemocratic Bob Rae didn't care too much about democracy and equality when he pushed 'employment equity' legislation (affirmative action by any other name). This is a timeline of goals, http://annemclellan.com/response_summary.pdf he does say that using power to parachute candidates should be used sparingly and the party needs a cultural shift. He also wants an 'equity officer', something similar to 'employment equity officers' employed by larger org. when he was premier. They reminded me of the Russian 'political However, I vividly recall what happened with employment equity and how it was supposed to be voluntary etc. etc. I saw some of the tactics used and what happened when visible minority job applicants didn't get the highest score. I suspect that similar things will happen, rules will be bent or broken to achieve these ends, likely resulting in lesser qualified candidates. At that time, it all seemed very similar to a book I read years ago, Children of the Arbat, The NDP had a number of resolutions up for convention debate: one proposed that an affirmative action committee "charged with recruiting affirmative action candidates for nomination" prior to the 2009 provincial election. And the women's rights committee is calling for changes that would ensure at least 50 percent of constituency association convention delegates and constituency association executive members are women. I don't know if they passed, but the wording 'affirmative action' is indicative of their intent I suppose. BTW if anyone else wants to discuss abortion they can open another thread.

The reason for the reluctance to equalize the legal age for anal sex today is mainly health issues, higher risk of anal cancer, not to mention many other well known sexually transmitted diseases, along with increased morbidy and mortality. The current law may effectively prevent adult males from using minors for such a purpose, but hopefully we all want to see our young people protected - why wouldn't we? And why wouldn't we want to protect them from a huge increase in risking their health. The language of the Con. bill clearly intends to protect children from advances made by adult pedophiles to engage in sexual relationships, why wouldn't we want to protect our young people. http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec159.html Can. Statutes Criminal Code PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT Sexual Offences Anal intercourse 159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Exception (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between a) husband and wife, or ) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more, both of whom consent to the act.

Actually what PM Harper suggested was: "That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada" he is referring to people, not a province. These are very interesting times, I think Harper sure took the wind out of the sails of all the other parties. However, I do think he is treading on dangerous ground, even though it was brilliant politics at the time. Heck, it pulled the fangs out of the Bloq's motion, upstaged the self-righteous NDP; made Iggy's remarks insignificant and made obvious the indecisiveness of the Liberal Party on the subject. Brilliant! Even old Bill Graham made a great patriotic speech then our PM crossed the floor and shook his hand; a very gracious gesture and moving.

It is 18, if you have a source to back up that it is 21 I would like to see it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/ag...onsent-faq.html try section 159 of the criminal code Does Canada have a different age of consent for homosexual sex? In Canada, the age of consent for female-female sex is 14. The age of consent for anal sex between unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, is 18.

This ain't Alabama, and their are no policies that give the government that right. As for peeping through keyholes, are you talking about how the state has no right to regulate what goes on between adults, or adults and children? Good question as this topic is about protecting children from adults. You are right, no party has a policy to do that.

This is true, it may not even reach the convention floor. As far as the CPC convention re abortion I don't have the figures, but I do know inane rants about how Harper would regulate abortion have always been absolute nonsense, although there supporters in both the Liberals and the CPC who would like to do that. Policy declaration 58. Abortion Legislation A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. Now back to the topic of gender parity in parliament, which I feel is incompatible with democracy. However, it does make for a good political vote getting instrument. The Swizz people rejected it and I believe so did France Bob Rae, has said "a quota of 50 per cent of the seats in the Senate being occupied by women," in addition to striving for gender parity in the elected Commons." I guess as long the Senate is un-elected that could be done, but the Commons - nada. I do believe that a parliamentary 'code of behaviour' is a good idea, even without the issue of gender 'disparity'.

This adds a new twist, as the G & M put it: but the Tory move presents a quandary for Mr. Rae. If he supports Mr. Harper's motion, he'll lose a weapon to wield against Mr. Ignatieff, and perhaps in the eyes of some, appear to be accepting his rival's position. If he opposes it, it could raise fears that he would be outflanked in Quebec by the Tories. Actually this is some pretty good politicking on Harper's part and has them all scrambling - cos now according to the Star, the Quebec Liberals, (with Ignatieff's backing) have pushed forward a resolution to have the convention recognize "the Quebec nation within Canada," and to "officialize this historical and social reality." Gilles Duceppe is now trying wriggle around it, he wants now to amned his motion: declaring that Quebecers form a nation “that is currently within Canada.” This is a hoot, they are all tying themselves in knots over it and jockying for position.

And under the bed it seems LOL could this be classed as a an OCD ? The left wing agenda around keeping the age of consent low thereby allowing adults easier access to minors for sexual reasons, is testament to their lack of committment to protecting youth against adult sexual predators.

According to various news sources, the PM did talke about various human rights issues - Cretien promised many times to do so, but never delivered. Strange how its okayfor other parties to discuss HR issues but not the CPC -

Conservatives were calling it a dumb idea last week. What's changed? The motion from the Bloc changed it, this is an attempt to circumvent the bloc motion and defuse a bad situation - to sieze the initiative as it where. "Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will alway" We should be focussing on strengthening a harmonious, co-operative and peaceful relationship with Quebec, keeping in mind the parallels with the relationship of Britain and Ireland. Personally I'm tired of pandering to Quebec, but if this puts the issue to rest, so be it, I can live with it. Edited for spelling

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11...2431573-cp.html Another Liberal policy: A party plan to guarantee gender parity in Parliament within three elections. How on earth do they plan to implement that without usurping the democratic process. What next, guarranteeing affirmative action for visible minorities in parliament. I don't see how they guarantee quotas.

Increasing the age of consent to 16 across the board should solve the problem of equality, assuming the CPC bill rightly passes. Not all resolutions will make it to the final vote at the convention, if the CPC bill passes it will be a moot point (the Liberal resolution).

"Within a united Canada" Not necessarily a good idea, however, my guess is, he's trying to head the bloc off at the pass. He's pre-empted the Bloc motion they were to introduce on Thursday - the CPC would have voted against it. This motion is not as much of a slap in the face to Quebekkers.

I guess some folks would rather have a sticky fingered corruption oriented group in power. As for the article, its blowing smoke, anyone who uses the words "sole" and "possibly" has no gravitus.

What is it this week, the Illumanit, The Bilderbergers or is there a new one these days

IMHO this is part of Hezbollah's campaign of murder and intimidation, they are getting ready to make their move to take over Lebanon. I wonder where the handwringers are who wanted to restrain Israel from dealing with them.

Is it called "Fisking the News" Hezbollah has said it will bring down the Lebanese gov't if their demands are not met, wonder how much of a hand Hezbollah has in this.

Nothing but threats and games from Liberal Senate as Liberal Senator Joseph Day promised to use obstructionism to block the act. Liberal Senator Dan Hays, said the Senate must be cognizant of the major policies in a government's platform, and the public opinion expressed in an election. (Calgary Herald, February 2, 2006) Liberal Dan Hays, the leader of the opposition in the Senate, wouldn't promise anything on Thanksgiving, but did acknowledge it would be difficult for unelected senators to vote against legislation advertised as a cure for corruption. ``I note with interest that the House of Commons passed it with support from all parties, and that's a strong signal,'' Hays said. (CP, June 22, 2006) and iberal Senator Catherine Callbeck said she believes the Senate will respect Harper's plans to do things differently. "The Senate has respected the popular will of Canadians," she said. "It has sometimes held up legislation such as the free trade bill until there was an election on that issue. But it's only held it up in exceptional circumstances. We realize the House of Commons is elected." (Charlottetown Guardian, April 10, 2006) They must be forgetting what they have said. as the Liberals are playing partisan political games and actually flaunting about their obstructionism. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads= Liberal senators table ethics act amendments

Spurious drivel indeed. It appears that the smear campaign is heating up and the Liberals are afraid. The best they can do is run on malicious attacks, the public should see this for what it is.

Many, many seniors will gain from it, and not a few couples. I see nothing wrong with giving couples a break, and would not deny it to some simply because not all will benefit from it. In other words, if I can't benefit, no one else should - very selfish attitude. It would be nice if down the road all income taxes can be reduced, but baby steps first. A flat tax would actually solve all of this. All income splitting does is shift income from higher tax bracket family members to lower tax bracket family members. Due to the progressive nature of Canada's tax system (i.e. marginal tax rates increase as taxable income increases), such a shift effectively allows a greater portion of the family income to be taxed at a lower rate, thus allowing for tax savings, and a corresponding higher level of after-tax income for the individual and/or family. Thew degree of benefit will vary, but reading anything else into it such as sexism, keeping the woman in the kitchen type of thing, is nonsense.

Its a campaign strategy, you can see it on this board, but it could backfire on them again if they are not careful. They (Liberals) can only hurt themselves with the use of over the top vicious rhetoric, opposing any and everthing the CPC does renders much of the complaints, even valid ones, as not credible. They can cry wolf too often. As an example, the Liberal Senate has sent back the accountability act with over a hundred amendments. Foot dragging on measures that would tighten up political fundraising until after the party's leadership convention was over will be a good campaign issue - they increased the ceiling for political donations to $2,000; they want to maintain a separate ethics commissioner for the Senate; and limit Access to Information coverage for The Canadian Wheat Board, the Nat. Arts Centre and Sustainable Development and Technology Ca. That along with their foot dragging on the anti crime bill is good campaign fodder and another excuse to get rid of the Senate. The CPC will likely restore it to the original so this could be an endless loop unresolved until an election is called. Very good material for a campaign, and not good optics for the corruption-addicted Liberals - just in time for a spring election and a public reminder of Liberal perfidy. They should be careful of what they wish for (the Liberals that is)

It won't pass, and it won't be a confidence vote.