Catchme

First off, Lamer, as an retired Chief Justice has every right to make commentary on what he feels would be harmful to our judicial system, and in turn to Canada and Canadians. He is not bound by any oaths or binding rules, unlike Hillier let's say. Moreover, he is not being partisan in anyway, also unlike Hillier. And that fact is quite evident throughout his commentary in the article. As such, his perspective, insight and findings in this regard carry definite weight and Canadians would do well to listen when he says what Harper is doing is flawed. And what is this with special interests groups? Harper, and the CPC, have long chanted there should be NO consideration given to special interest groups. Apparently, they were only speaking of special interest groups they did not agree with or recognize as being worthwhile. The hypocrisy is outstanding, as are the double standards that they do not appear to recognize as being significant and wrongful. Then Lamer notes the secrecy about the selection process, and how committee members cannot even know who they really are selecting, as there is no full disclosure. Excuse me, but where is the accountability, and transparency? There is none. Moreover, why would there NOT be full disclosure for the selection, where else would find such a thing in either private or governmental hiring? No where. Notwithstanding, is the fact how can people chose judges, who know absolutely nothing of the judical system? As Lamer points out, do they hire judges and lawyers to pickout fire fighters, or even police officers? NO. It is ludicrous and reckless, and a path that should not have been trod. The police cannot be considered as those who know the judical sytem, they may well, but they should never have been included in the selection committee in the first place. Judges are the ones who review what the police have done with the investigation and safe guard society with their ability to be impartial, and guard against wrongful convictions. This would be impaired by having police select the judiciary, and further impaired with the inclusion of other special interests groups in the selection process.

No, how is it hate language, it's simply negatively labelling? Odd, since you haven't condemned anything like that on the forum. But you only tend to condemn things which you deem offensive, as long as it's directed at other people it's fine. Were did I say that child rape should be legal? Catchme, feel free to call me a pedophile or whatever you like simply because of a few words. Either way any kind of discussion with you will denigrate into a debate over semantics. The example words you gave were derogatory terms based upon, race, sex, religion. If you have no idea of how hateful and hate inciting they are, as opposed to simple derogatory terms based upon actions, then no one can help you. And yes, I am on record condemning the negative stereotyping of police, in fact you responded to it even, in the other thread, when had I called another poster on negatively broadbrushing all police. So stop with your "as long as it is directed at other people commentary". You are trying to depict something that is not present. Your moral high ground commentary is not worth consideration and commentary on. Please reread your comment of: How is someone to take that? Which is why I asked for clarification of what you meant.

Exactly correct, along with the attempts to disavow their words and actions.

Well, your words "pathetic little country" certainly speak for themselves. Pathetic does not = apathy Patriotic does not = blindly supporting the military Criticizing the military doe snot = unpatriotic I have made NO accusations towards you, I have taken exception to your words and your words speak for themselves. Nor did I misinterpret anything, you words stand for themselves, and nothing you have said takes away from the fact that you feel nothing but disdain for canadians and Canada. Your never once used the term apathetic, until you were called on your calling Canada a pathetic country. There was no misinterpretation. How do you know people are not contributing to the greater good? You apparently feel the only way one can contribute to the greater good is to be a cop or in the military. If they are not, then accoding to you they are pathetic and have no rights to criticize, apparently because they are not contributing to the greater good, and are all talk and no action in your view. And it is a very narrow one at that if you really believe this. Again, you were the one that keeps mentioning the fact that the military is protecting Canadian values, and I am still waiting to hear what you think Canadian values are? Canadian deployment to the Balkans did nothing to assure our rights and freedoms, Canadian deployment to Korea did nothing to assure our rights and freedoms, Canadian deployment to Mayerthorpe did nothing to assure our rights and freedoms, and Canadian deployment to Afghanistan is doing nothing to assure our rights and freedoms. However, I do believe that WWI and II deployments actually did assure our rights and freedoms. It was not the military that built this country, it is ludicrous to think so, it was individuals, some of whom did serve in the military, both willingly and unwillingly. Calling you on your calling Canada a "pathetic little country", is not making accusations or assaulting you.

Well, as I responded earlier, sometimes words will have more power then an act of violence, and can encourage violence. Looking back at the comment, it was an unfortunate mistake, and shouldn't have been made by myself as I've been accused of being a pedophile, and apparently a cop hater. What values do I need to be enfused with, that calling people a derogatory and vile term is alright? As long as it's not directed at you right Catchme? If you call a person a nigger, kike, fag, spic, or butch, isn't that grounds for termination at many job's, and punished at organization's. Are you insinuating that I want child pornography and child rape illegal. Honestly, that is just an inane comment catchme. But a person who calls all police officers "things" and "pigs", and Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan as "murderers" who get off on killing the mentally handicapped is alright. Yikes. Again, you are minimizng autrocities committed against children by depicting the use of derogatory labelling as being worse, or equal to, the autrocities of child rape and child pornography. The names you used are racist/sexist terms, and as such hate language. They are not equal to simple name calling, or negatively labelling. Equating the rape of a child and the filming to simple name calling or negative labelling, is questionable at best, at moderation it condones and minimizes the autrocities committed against a child, and at worst it could signify other things like approval. Child rape and pornography is illegal, are you saying you do not want them to be, as you statement above appears to say so? No where did I say it was alright to negatively label the police, you are putting words where there none to try and deflect away from your words. Do you have any idea of the life long impact upon a child who has survived rape/pedeophilia? As you continually are minimalizing it, you either have no concept, or feel it is no big deal, as it is just like name calling, or you approve of it. Which is it? I would bet if you asked a police officer, whether they thought child rape and pornography, were equal to them being called a derogatory name, they would think you a little off.

It was fathers.ca that lists her as being evangelical I believe, though am not sure. I have been searching for the link I found it in , and cannot find the parameters I used to find it. Will keep on trying though. Oh, so, just his extended family are, and he just represents their interests, but he is not evangelical? Okat he is not evangelical then I never mke things up, and you are fully aware that I do not. Ellen Campbell - Zion's Evangelical Lutheran Church It is wrong to stack a judiciary committee with cornies let alone, religious appointees of the same faith when Canada is multidenominational. We for sure have 5, please stop trying to minimize this, and I still contend Pollock and Cotter are as well.

Again, Can blue, yes you did call Canada a pathetic country right here in this thread, as above, and in another one (will not go into that thread as I do not believe in dragging things from thread to thread). If Canada is pathetic, which is what you did say, ergo Canadians are pathetic, there is NO Canada without Canadians. Trying to split a hair on that one does not work. Then you say we are not a great country because of; "poverty, global warming and violence", and you tried to say many Canadians would agree with you that we are NOT great because of those things, trying to use the good old bandwagon, to try and bolster your denigration of Canada and Canadians.. You were not speaking of apathy or taking for granted, that have "disenchanted" you. You were speaking actual hatred towards Canada and Canadians with your use of pathetic and then saying many think like you, that canada is not great country, alluding to a fact that indeed there were other "great" countries that we should be emulating that have actually defeated those things, ergo who are not pathetic. Changing the term pathetic to apathy does not ring true either by intent of your words or by content. pathetic = pitifully inferior or inadequate, ABSURD, LAUGHABLE apathy = lack of interest or concern, lack of feeling or emotion So your saying: As an excuse, or word change, holds no water. Canadians are not apathetic about our country, nor are we uncerned about it. And we definitely have strong feelings and emotions about our country. Trying to take back such a hateful term as pathetic will not work. hate = intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING <had a great hate of hard work> And just what are we allegedly taking for granted according to you? Those who died in Europe in WW I and II are not the Canadian military of today, and that is what I said "today's military", I narrowly defined it for a reason, nor can I see any of them calling Canada pathetic. It is just not the police who uphold laws, nor do I believe the Canadian military has been protecting our sovereignty, since WWII, please do give me an example of this protection? It is not I, that should remember those things, as I know full well that it is just not the police forces and the military, on the other hand perhaps you should, as you seem to give the greater credit to the military and the police, as if they were some superior entities, when this is simply not true. Hey, you were the one that said the military was protecting Canadian values, and now you say you do not know what you think they are protecting? Yes, you did call Canadians pathetic, and NO I did not go into it too much, you are simply trying to excuse your calling of Canadians pathetic. You just bashed ALL Canadians and Canada, it is amazing that you feel you can condemn others for what you believe they are doing. You have no idea what people do, but you feel to condemn them for what you yourself are doing, sitting in your room behind a computer bashing ALL of Canada and Canadians at large, ranting and raving about everyone else. Pot call the kettle black. And listen, if military personal, such as yourself allegedly, are so worried about their safety and that Canadians are not worried enough about it, because they are concerned about innocent Afghan civilians getting murdered, then they should've chosen a different career. There is absolutely NO reason for killing innocent civilians.

WOW! There's a wild example of moral relativism if ever there was! Calling police 'pigs' is just as bad as filming child rape?!?!? CB, you need to get a sense of proportion! Personally, I would say that more than a sense of proportion is needed with that comment. When someone likens name calling to child rape and child pornography, what is needed is an infusion of values and morals, if not more. And if someone thinks that name calling is equal to child rape and pornography, I would ask why then is is child rape and pornography against the law, while name calling is recognized as just bad behavour with no criminal offense attached? Frankly, someone who equates name calling with child rape and filming of it gives me the creeps.

First off, we only know that you say you wear a uniform. And if you are in uniform and feel that Canada is pathetic, God help us, we do not need people like you in uniform representing our country. I think a good many Canadians would disagree with you most vehemetely, actually . Moreover, you know, I hardly ever hear Canadians refer to our country as pathetic. In fact, you are the only one so far, other than a couple wanna be Americans from the extreme right of center who in habit freak dominion. What in countries in the world do not have the things you listed that make us not so "great" Can blue? I will answer for you, NONE! That is a complete red herring that has no substance in reality. You have simply used it to try and bolster your calling Canadians and Canada pathetic. Please, get off the band wagon that it is today's military that have ensured us the rights we have and keep us safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. And if you think, you, an alleged military person, calling us Canadians pathetic is safe guarding the values of this country you would be in error. If you are military, or actually even Canadian, then what you are exhibiting by calling Canadians pathetic, is NOT Canadian values.

Jean Poutine, Yes, actually I have listened to it, and am amazed at how far you’ve gone in denying Hillier's partisanship, and from a completely erroneous position, I may add. Did you actually listen to it? Because ALL the newspaper quotes were quite correct, in fact IMV they did not go far enough. Yes, you are right, he did say in “years perhaps decades” at the very beginning, but he also said; “Those actions, dollar deprived, have now led to some deep wounds in ... the Canadian Forces over this past, what I would call, a decade of darkness," More importantly, what they missed him saying, which was far more pointed and partisan, was: “re-equipping with energy on a scope that we have not seen in years, perhaps decades, and with a speed which would’ve been unbelievable just 2 years ago.” So, he pinpointed his approval, of the CPC even more firmly than his “decade of darkness”. But even that wasn’t enough, because he went on to pour out wonderful amazing partisan things about O’Connor: “and great credit goes to Gord O’Connor, his work, his effect, his stubbornness in dealing ..And his moving, caring and driving a bureaucracy to achieve all we need.. Now, one would think that Hillier just couldn’t get, anymore partisan than he had been, as really it was Martin who actually got the equipment they are using now. But he made absolutely no mention of that or Martin. If he was NOT being partisan he would’ve. In fact, he was basically chastising the Liberals all the way through, it partisanship to the 8th degree. However, not content with that, he actually narrowed it further and went to the nth degree of partisanship by saying: “… most important over the past 1 to 2 years now, we have begun to realize the impact of the reductions from 1994.” And right there, he completely disregarded the cuts of Mulroney, prior to 1994 and focused it in a significantly partisan way against the Liberals and for the CPC. So, one can see Hiller really takes his oaths and his military rules seriously, NOT. He was campaign stumping to the military personal listening, on behalf of the CPC and nothing more. He is NOT a civilian, and he passed the accepable line of military conduct and broke rules.

baylee, are you conflating the opening of the 2 news schools, as being in addition to what is already existent, as opposed to the closing down of 2 old schools and the opening of 2 new schools? And were they elementary schools as opposed to secondary? Integratioon cannot occur successfully unless the child has abilities to integrate with. From this perspective elementary schools dedicated to enabling successful secondary integration are a good thing. Some children who have low special needs do not require enhanced special needs education, they can and do successfully integrate at much earlier levels/grades. The discussion of integration and separation, and when integration should occur, is not simple, and it is one best decided by the parents indetermining what their childs needs are, in accompany with the educators. geoffery and kimmy are correct, the AB government has just recently dedicated significant monies, 10's of millions, to autism specifically in AB. Those programs and additional research programs will be coming on line in the new fiscal year, as the money was just announced a couple of months back. And it really should be considered a huge step forward, as it is beyond that of what other provinces, excluding BC, are doing. Here is a link to to a reserach project that Calgary did with special needs families in regards to what they perceive their childrens needs are in the area of education. http://www.cgyed4sn.org/

Well, actually Canada is doing that exact thing, we are totally depleting our own oil reserves, and not saving any for our own requirements. We import most of the oil we use and export all most all to the USA. This is a very smart move on Iran's part, forward thinking to use nuclear power as opposed to burning oil for hydro electric purposes. Moreover, they are decreasing GHG emissions and by burying the reactors are decreasing any potential future environmental impact. As for their seeking nuclear arms, well again that is their business, if they are in fact doing so. Other countries (India Pakistan) have done so, without receiving all the posturing the USA is doing with Iran.

And some people still long for the days of Stalin, what your point? "Some" denotes a small, undefined minority. Engaging in semantic gymnastics in an attempt to make the wishes of a handful of radical yet powerless dreamers as being representative of worldwide Jewry is well.....without foundation. Strategic geography and demographics. Assure Israel even an iota of security, and the situation would be much different. The same applies to question #3 dealing with Oslo. Strawman that you kicked down with that Stalin analogy. The recent history of Israel's actions in its expansion well beyond the 1967 borders denotes that, it is neither a security expansion, or without foundation. Nor are we dealing with world wide Jewry in this case, we are dealing only in Israeli parameters. And Israel is founded upon Zionist principles and has long had Zionits governments. Though, I suppose you could say, if you wanted to, that the actual numbers of Israeli Jews that ascribe to the "Greater Israel" is up for debate. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...ater-israel.htm

There is nothing unusual for government to retailor it's language to meet its audience. The Conservative Language was creating negative feedback. Now that the study is out of the bag, the opposition are having a field day with it. The study was a waste of money. You are quite correct there is nothing unusal about government retooling its words use, however, this is not quite the same thing is it? This is the purchasing of focus groups perceptions to try and sell WAR to Canadians. They used Canadian tax dollars to fund the research for their personal agenda propaganda campaign, again unusual, and as I said Sheila Fraser condemned the Liberals for doing much less in her report of 2003. Not only is trying to market war wrong, Harper and the CPC again show astounding hypocrisy, and prove they are willing to go well beyond that of what the Liberals did.

Well, that's on topic.

Interesting, perhaps you should research the Irish famine and the British government of that tiime, and see who was in power and what they did to the Irish, maybe you would not take it so lightly.

My bets are on carrying opium, and snatched people. Or both.

And you would know that how? Oh that's right you wouldn't, just another empty comment. Moreover, I did not man it in the way you took it. For example, my Grandfather was a signalman and a runner between lines and trenches in WWI, they did not have the radio equipment, that today's military have. All communications were done by signal flags from a high point, or runners carrying messages. They had NO body armour to protect them and in the last days they barely had boots. What they faced was much harsher and way more deadly than what our military in Afghanistan is facing. My grandfather, his brothers and cousins comprise a good portion of the people in the pics in the link below. http://www.heritage.nf.ca/greatwar/gallery...ts/default.html http://www.heritage.nf.ca/greatwar/gallery.../big_b3169.html He lived through this unfortunately not many did and he lost brothers and cousins in one fell swoop. He was there until it was over, and he was there from the beginning. Please do not again dismiss his actions and that of my extended family because of your personal perceptions of me. It is unworthy of a Canadian military person. My grandfather was gased in the trenches, but came home to live a life fiull of nightmares and PTSD, only to die later from wide spread cancer, in Calgary Veterans Hospital from being gased at Ypres. Take a look at the History of the First 500, and see if you think you could measure up. And BTW how is Harper about phoning the families, oh I know he doesn't call, if he did you would've mentioned he did, so he is not too much different then Chretien in that regards, eh? And Harper was not even goiing to let those brought home to be filmed coming home as has been the long standing Canadian tradition. So, truthfully he is even less than Chretien was in the areas of being non-supportive, and more politically motivated as opposed to actual caring. Also, I see that you failed to explain why, if you are military, you feel you have a right to break the military rules as were posted, that you are breaking. Care to offer up an explanation of why you feel you have the right to break the rules? No I thought not.

No, I reread what I said a few times, and no where did I mention a thing about wantin Bush's approval. Moreover, a thanks of appreciation instead of being ignored, really isn't seeking/wanting approval now is it? But what I did mention and what is pertinent: It seems, those who over look this aspect, really do not care very much for our military personal, even though they profess too. If they did, they would acknowledge the slap Bush gave to our military, and the families who have suffered through injuries and loss of a loved one. In particular those who have lost loved ones to US friendly fire incidents.

So, if you are in the military, you have no problem breaking the military rules either like Hillier, eh? Labelling those on the left, as being against the military is short sighted and spurious at best. Yes, I have a friend who was Airborne, and is still furious over the 4 paratroopers, whose actions prompted the whole disbanding of the Airborne. In fact, I myself have been a bit teed off about it since it happened as well. The Liberals did not do the correct thing in that regard. Having said that, today's military, IMV is not that of WWI and II, and no compare can be made or paralells or prestige drawn from them.

jbg, but you fail tom ention the Palestinians have had to deal with their border shifting, the Israelis keep encroaching so it is not the same thing at all to your likening of the US Can border, a bit of a problematic strawman there, eh!

Oh wow, me thinks thou all doth protest too much. Why was she picked then because she was kidnapped or a billionaires daughter? Of course it is because of her religion. She has no credentials for this position Google is a wonderful thing geoffery it seems you folk forget about it. One can find anything with google if one asks the correct questions. And yes he is, but perhaps more to the pentacostal side of it. Garth Smorang - Evangelical Are you freaking kidding me? This is one of the most qualified people we could ever ask for. Past president of the Manitoba bar association... I'm sure that makes him crraazzyy... Your accusation here is purely BS. No evidence of being a hardline evangelical. I notice you added "hardline" evangelical, you do not quite want to venture too far from the truth eh? Again google is your friend geoffery, I do not care about his "credentials" he is evangelical. Again you are putting words ion my mouth I never mentioned the word crazy once. And again google is your frind geoffery, just google barbara, and evangelical and you get all the goods. And her ties to the sponsorship scandal are interesting. She has no qualifications it seems either other than being Evangelical. And again geoffery, just put evangelical at the end of his name in google and it pops right up there. Who says he is the most brilliant? Yes, the evidence is a bit slimmer here, and one has to look deep but I noted that, but the trail is there none the less. Again just added religion and evangelical to his name and title and start searching. I agree, she is not a bad appointee, if it were NOT for her being an evangelical as well. Again, one needs only google her name with evangelical attached and it pops right up there, and I notice that you did not deny she was, you just said where is the evidence she would be out to persecute gays. Which is a strange red herring kinda comment. So, you are being disengenuous at best. .No geoffery, I am not, and I believe you know I am not, you have directly misrepresented another 2 you know for sure who are and as you do why did you bother denying in the first place and ask me to prove it and who were they? o much for any type of honesty and accountability with anyone associated with the CPC and harper. All anyone needed to do is enter all these names into google, individually of course, and attach religion evangelical or pentacostal to it, and boof you get all the goods. Please do remember evidence is always waiting to be found, so do not forget search engines find it all, if you know what questions to ask. __________________________________________________________ can blue, sorry never lost any argument just because you say so does not mean it is true. Good try though. They are advancing the CPC agenda or the CPC would not have cherry picked them. That's kinda obvious eh?! OPne would never think they would be supporting the Liberal agenda eh. Plus you seem to have forgotten Harper came straight out and adnmitted he ws picking those with a CPC bias. They are Evangelical across the board it seems pretty with maybe a couple who are not, will have to research the police appoitments relifgious affliation as well This staate of the judiciary committee does meet any unbiased criteria needed in a multi denominational country. They made NO attempt to represent all religions because they have an agenda. Evangelical is not the "state" religion we have none as a matter of fact. Talk of partisianship - and one type of thinking. I thought you said you could not take anyone serious that used profanities can blue? be careful about being the pot calling the kettle black yet again. Canadian Blue said: Tsk!

Well they shouldn't starve themselves, silly. Those security certificates have nothing to do with the law we are questioning currently, they fall under the Immigration Act. Glad you brought up security certificates, as I was sure you would, as I was sure you knew more than you were pretending to know, bit of a bait there geoff sorry. As you know full well, it is those very same security certificates, that make the investigative hearings NOT necessary. Those investigative hearing would only be necessary if you wanted to suspend peoples human rights for whatever reason.

jean Poutine, try again with the attempted white wash, and please verbal abuse is not tolerated here, thank you. Hillier followed O'Connor speaking at the same venue reitering, in fact, O'Connor's points and speaking of him glowingly. He limited it to a decade, and quite clearly labelled it the 90's and the Liberal government trying to cut the deficit. He did not say "decades" and did not go back further than the Liberals. Then Jean, there was this military rule breaking of his partisian endorsing, get it endorsing O'Connor: Then he said it again: Of course, after all of that, he tried to say because of course he knew he crossed the line: "As the chief of defence staff, I care not who governs our country as long as they support the Canadian Forces," he said. No matter which way you try to split hairs Hillier was partisian, and that is unacceptable.

The Balkans do not factor into this topic at all, and I consider it a red herring and nothing more. And you were attempting to put words in my mouth. You can try selling that they don't need the oil somewhere else, because I am not buying it. Further when you go down that tangent, then why did the USA illegally invade Iraq based upon lies? And why are is the USA et al leaving about 140 other countries, that have ethnic violence and civil war going on alone? why have they gotten control of Iraqi oil, by making contracts prior to the infamous election? You see, when you go down that ethnic cleansing saving the people avenue geoffery you have to keep your viewpoint narrow, or it doesn't work with rational thinking.