shortlived

He needs his own radioshow. The Mr. Dressup and Flanagan Show http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uFT1tY6r4MI/TLqKbMYgn-I/AAAAAAAAAN0/XCHIez3XycE/s1600/CaseyFinnegan1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sentineldispatch.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html&h=323&w=430&sz=26&tbnid=q2I6CmgtyusyrM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=136&zoom=1&usg=__cUWh5EDDNytxdyMqKIGFAp5ZyEE=&docid=mltoQHy2EyaciM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-t4vUePGDeL10gHJ6oDQCA&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAQ&dur=1 hold on is this hate speech? --- personally I think his comments atleast have partial validity... last thing we need is some perv to be bunked with some young quebec pot smoker. You know work camps with willing hookers, or russian and Chinese mail orders is a far better solution. You know to keep them healthy and their minds right. Cause sterilization isn't moral. Or how about co-ed. the way the world really works.

This neutrality was around back in the days when all Canadians were green and supported the environment before the Conservative rape the planet deluge.

It is a waste of money to send people to jail, send them to work camps.

So what exactly happened with this... seems like it dropped off the map.. this earlier from last month? http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-state-north-america-u-s-canada-border-security-agreement-sharing-biographic-and-biometric-data/5321860 Is this just another magic13? Of course this comes from the whitehouse not sussex. these are just some of the things done so far all in the name of speeding up border wait times... Are people in Canada not equaly protected by privacy act legislations?

lol

I think this is an overly broad statement, I don't really know enough about the mind of pedophiles to refute your claim but I find it highly unlikely that all pedos like boys and girls, I would suspect some like girls, some like boys, and some like boys and girls, others likely like any object that can gratify them sexually. If there are so many varieties of fetishes even in the straight crowd, I would suspect as many or more varieties exist within the pedo crowd.

" The key word, in defamation, is "FALSE" statements." Defamation isn't required to be true statements, just defame the individual. However, judges don't determine true or false. They administer law, seeing anyone as a source of fact is problematic. This is in part why sometimes civil and criminal court cases determine facts to be different, likewise why an appeal can be different from the original case. A lot of judges sentence people on less than beyond a reasonable doubt, he said she said contexts. I think here is the point though there was no conjecture about true or false. What is the reasonable threshold, it seems that yes Gay people did have a publically profiled HIV issue in the 80's. A lot of African people have gotten aids, the aids rate in places like Ukraine are very high. Is this to associate aids with those people wrong or hate speech? I do think though that hate speech doesn't need to be false to be hate speech. It just needs to create HATE that is vilification etc.. I don't see where you are getting the true false aspect from. So lets see if I bring in one gay pedo does that make a statement calling gay people pedos "legitimate and not hate speech" I also have an issue with letting judges determine the validity of statements considering judges themselves are fallable and make errors quite often, and are overturned quite often. Them as the source of truth is problematic at best. That is if contexts are not established by means other than a judge saying that I think that is issued to call it "truth" Judges give opinions not truths. This is how saying someone was convicted of pedophilia is much different than calling someone a pedophile.

Environmental Performance Agreements http://www.ec.gc.ca/epe-epa/default.asp?lang=En&n=69737ECC-1

The goods from Canada should be adjusted to account for taxes that will be paid back for the tender prices. It is clearly problematic if stone costs less to ship from 5x the distance. Fixing up all these old buildings seems issued, unless it costs less than building new long lasting ones. They should just build out onto the River. They are basically buying old buildings then paying inordinate amounts to upkeep them. These pomp expenditures are just irresponsible when the government is a trillion dollars in debt and Canadians are languishing under personal debts. These upper class well to dos just don't get it. Not everyone can afford to dump money down the toilet into luxury. Why not make cement block locally for a fraction of the cost? It is not a time for splurging in a trillion dollar debt economy. Wake the hell up! This new meeting of big wigs under a wall of plain concrete can remind them of austerity. There seems to be a handful of cement companies right in Ottawa like Nepean Cement Works, Jamrock and Cement Finishing Co. This ties in with that, yah they spent millions on g20 housing for security staff.. yet they could have reused that in Ottawa and removed MP and senator living expenses.. but only the best for yourself right? Get the stooges out of office, they are irresponsible with your money.

I remember watching this one on beta for the first time tremors is such a good flick. With all this gmo stuff floating around who knows what could happen.

Also apparently saying someone is vegetarian and doesn't like beef is hate speech in Alberta. I have this feeling like there are some government publications on east Indians specifically Hindu's, buddhists and Jains that will be hate speech. Not even to mention the sheer number of books in alberta that may identify specific groups as cow lovers.

Yeah I read this too. I didn't laugh. I'm really concerned about the intelligence of Canadians. Its like having a son who is a chronic that you have hopes for to become a lawyer or doctor, you have that urge to move them on to cocaine or percocets so atleast they can be in the zone. (or atleast create a drive to earn high income) And the last three elections being ones involving electoral fraud.

=--

I agree Bryan, lets invite the TCI and the rest of the Caribean into Canada.

lol if the shoe fits right cause people from one area all think the same... (and mps vote for their constituents..) I can only suspect you are from some sheltered backwater untouched by the nuances of modern society outside hickville. I say that with love, not hate or contempt, or belittlement. Hows the cult in those parts?

lol

Yeah I think calling someone a criminal simply for who they are is a form of defamation (I'm not sure about hate speech, I think this would depend on violence against these people or some form of social contempt. I think calling them pedos was the real issue here, they aren't pedos they are gay, while gay people can be pedos and some are, not all gay people are pedos, it appears some straight people are pedos too. You know some black or brown people might be pedos but not all nor a majority of black people have been pedos, while white people may be pedos not all white people are pedos, and a majority of white people probably just have missionary style or occasional kindy style sex. However, you know not only gay people preform sodomy. Some straight people, although I can't geuss a majority of straight people have performed an act of sodomy. Anyway. I think this is problematic because legally reasonable people should only use force, to prevent force or threat. The court seems to be implying it is ok to marginalize "criminals" who are out of jail after they have served their sentence it is implicit that the court accepts this, or acknowledges this is happening, yet .. hold on wouldn't that be saying hate speech against pedos is happening? where are all these charges if they are reasonably aware this is what is happening? the underlying meaning hear is problematic. is it say that attacks against classes of people are OK? or is it saying that these attacks occur and they are being brought to court, or what? a reasonable person would view it as likely to expose a person or persons to “detestation and vilification" what exactly is detestation and vilification, and if it is not socially acceptable conduct why do some classes of people get exposed to it, and it is ok for them to be exposed to it. Wouldn't it be a violation of their right to personal security? Or does being in these classes have the attached convention of loosing legal protection against vilification. wouldn't then turning people into that class of people by exposing them as such by determination in court be a constitutional violation? because the court itself in ruling is creating a situation of detestation and vilification outside the bounds of the sentence itself? thus in the court ruling they are pedos, would it not then expose the pedos to vilification thus the courts ruling be a form of hate speech? and any publication of that ruling in media also be hate speech? the constitution specifically states that the government cannot violate the constitution and any act is null and void if it does, so wouldn't this then make the criminal code null and void? or atleast the sentencing provisions of the code also media reports before sentencing would also be hate speech for associating people with those acts that would bring on vilification.

This is exactly why government crown corporations in a community near you are required. The government should have a mandate to employ up to 2 million Canadians in resource, and manufacture to create a strategic reserve, and supply the government as well as do low skill labour which skilled labourers and higher income paid staff are performing. Without this unemployment and EI will continue. With this, instead of EI all that money going to fuel labour for out of work people EI and pogey wouldn't even be in the vocabulary of Canadians. Dropping into the neighbourhood workhouse and getting work immediately, would be a productive, rather than non productive endeavour. EI is just another stooge program. The work house system would replace provincial welfare AND EI for all able bodied people. but this anti socialist government is all about selling the public to debt to the ultrarich and banks instead of efficient program administration that helps the public and makes Canada productive. 50 hours a month alone would replace welfare for those who are temporarily unemployed. That is perhaps 3 hours a day, which gives ample time to look for other work. It also provides time for training. the government could also run public training for 1 hour to provide first aid, whmis, emergency response, emergency relief, agriculture and other valuable skills to improve the public capacities. Shortages in valuable community service activities, planting in community co-op gardens, installing solar systems, the list goes on and on. Where there was extra to be done people could work more than 50 hours a month. Although an optional EI program without any BS should be run and available at a rate based upon claims for people out of work. Not a forced program. Interested businesses could also buy resources and products produced through the program or place orders with the program to provide and fill needs of companies on a temporary or long term contract basis. The point is, policing people only encourages organized and intelligent crime. This while the government wastes money to police. The key is to structure programs not to need policing, by putting in premium increases based on use in insurance programs. So people don't claim more than they need to. This is simple actuary science.

OK, and how does that differ from any other business? See the above... oh and why doesn't the government just do it itself if it makes so much money, why not save the tax payer and develop their own resources? You know cut out the middleman? Like Venezuela pocketed like 130 billion each year... why doesn't Canada just make oil revenue and you know cut tax rates by 50% on personal income taxes? You know who this really makes money for.. oil companies. That's it. What's that, all the foreigners who make money off our resources wouldn't like it... who exactly got the good end of this one? We get the pollution, health issues, and destroyed ecosystems, and they get the money? Under stooge rule Canada is going into debt with this awesome deal and has been since 1867 or so. Since this latest troope came in public debt to gdp has soared to nearly 100% and undoubtedly their goal and making it impossible to pay off the debt so their corporate masters can the banks can continue to reap interest year after year as we get less and less for our tax dollars http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ca&v=143 This is NOT acceptable. This is just poor management at its finest.

Every federal law would be a federal referendum, I suggest at the beginning and end of the legislative process before ascent. That is Mps are "rubber stamped" or well taken to a popular vote. on any law they propose, as well the people should have the ability to send legislation to the house of commons. There should be a means of sending priority items to the house. I think what we will discover is in large part laws are just make work projects for Mps who have nothing better to do than make laws. I think it is well within the ability of most Canadians to go online once a month and vote on laws that concern them, or phone in and vote, etc.. what is so difficult about this concept for you? I would suggest a super marjority of 2/3rds for any law to be passed. With the aim of limiting partisanship. Likewise the effect of the public bringing forth the legislation would likely dumb stuff down, and address the issues people actually care about rather than an agenda of a stratified political party.

A direct vote for every citizen is the only way to insure fair representation, these new party politics systems only serve to enfranchise the most dominant parties political bureaucrats (often who are controlled by either the party heads itself or a very small segment of the local population), limiting choice and effectively just reinforcing partisan interest in government. The only democratic option is the direct vote, and open submission of legislation suggestions. We have the technology to allow direct vote via atm/id(with an id number which connects to their public moniker for vote verification although people could choose to use their real name as their monkier/online and phone in voting. We have internet to post legislation and to post amendment suggestions (a voting Wikipedia type "legisipedia" where people can amend and vote on amendments. We need to insure open participation of all to insure enfranchisement. Anything else is just more of the old, more corruption and more ignorance of the little man. It is just another form of party rule, that the west struggled against so greatly, why should our political systems offer as much freedom of those communist party rule systems that were fretted against so greatly? We must insure power to the people not the hands of the few LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL! We shouldn't be voting on people, we should be voting on issues.

you keep aluding to gasoline taxes without recognizing gasoline is not oil, and gasoline is imported from the us.... you are saying quiche is eggs. quiche ain't eggs. If buy quiche from your neighbour I'm not buying your eggs. You seem to have this convoluted system in mind that doesn't represent reality. Fosil fuel subsidies do nothing, It is a global market, it means they make more money and sell for the market price... it is supply and demand what don't you get, it is just their profit on an industry that already provides profit. it is giving them money, that's it. this almost makes me want to eat gas.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiche mmmhhh these look so good. a fair exchange would be money for oil. you know start a reserve or something rather than just giving them money for nothing. cause you know we are only giving them the oil to begin with.

I think if anything this is about weakening the governor general even more, because it is the GG that appoints not the prime minister, an election would more or less destroy the governor generals ability to deny senate appointments as a reserve power. This would change the senate from a place for capable people (as it is suppose to be) to a place of popular people where media will probably sway the uneducated masses to vote for any idiot with a good PR campaign.

Its not. A change to the constitution has to be done via the amending formula last I heard. It is already defined. Pull out a copy of Johnson's dictionary 1860 edition and read what the word means and save the tax dollars that would instead go to remake the past and let the corrupt manipulate fact . resident late 14c., as an adjective; see reside + -ant. The noun meaning "one who resides" is from late 15c. mid-15c., "to settle," from Old French resider, from Latin residere "to remain behind, rest," from re- "back, again" + sedere "to sit" (see sedentary). Meaning "to dwell permanently" first attested 1570s. Lets dumb this down a bit... THEY LIVE THERE. doesn't incline how many days a year they spend there but that Is where they live. The exclusion for living in Ottawa is if they are carrying out officers duties --for the crown. Obviously they would be expected to meet a few times a year. Some might serve in specific government offices so they would reside in ottawa http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/canada-gazette/index-e.html It is what you called administrative/beaurocratic drift. I also suspect the resident aspect only applies to at the time of appointment... somewhat. 29. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, hold his place in the Senate for life. Marginal note:Retirement upon attaining age of seventy-five years(2) A Senator who is summoned to the Senate after the coming into force of this subsection shall, subject to this Act, hold his place in the Senate until he attains the age of seventy-five years also query " A Resident, or in full Resident Minister, is a government official required to take up permanent residence in another country. A representative of his government, he officially has diplomatic functions which are often seen as a form of indirect rule." this all implies he should be traveling, performing government duties (official crown duties such as a minister or other officer), on a leave of absence, or at home. ---- effectively they own a pretty nice property have money and will show up every once and a while, and not do anything that they would be killed for.. that's basically it

You don't know enough about history to have an informed view. I can tell you only have a general knowledge of the events, likely from a history book that omits most of native history and takes a solely Eurocentric viewpoint. I'm talking about peoples biographies like Robinson, the culture and folkways of the groups their traditions, their language understanding of business practices and so on. Including the negotiations, stipulations and other factors effecting the treaty be they context of duress threatened violence and extortion, as well as non consenting members, and what they faced if they did not go along with the demands. The context and legality, especially by todays ethics is paramount to how we view native treaty.