Keepitsimple

Sorry Balck Dog - I forgot to include the link. Here's the video that was posted earlier in the thread. At about one minute and 10 seconds you'll get a fairly good look at some of the yahoos that the police had to put up with. Your smart-aleck comment of "stay focused" is not required. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILTtIGVRS9k

Here's the video that was posted earlier in the thread. At about one minute and 10 seconds you'll get a fairly good look at some of the yahoos that the police had to put up with. Your smart-aleck comment of "stay focused" is not required.

It was quoted several times in news releases and in this thread that the cops were only identified because they would not throw rocks after being encouraged to do so. So......one of them happened to be carrying a rock to blend in with the other yahoos and somehow, that makes the three of them "agents provocateurs". It happens that there were quite a few stereotypical violent protestors - look at the video where the hooligan gets hit with a rubber bullet - it's only a few seconds of the clip but he and his masked pals don't look too peaceful to me.

Topic Removed on the advice of another member.

You've identified two very important areas - First Nations and National Unity - and you've hit the nail on the head - the Tories act differently in these areas. First Nations: Year after year, decade after decade, governments of both stripe have thrown money at First Nations - with little to show for it. There's been a lot of noise about the so-called Kelowna Accord. It's always portrayed as a $5 billion deal but it's over 10 years!. The money was not budgeted, nor was there any definitive plan for how the money would be targeted and distributed over the 10 year period. But again - it was more money. Nothing fundamental was changing - no accountability for the money, no recognition of off-reserve people, no human rights/Charter initiatives, no land claims restructuring. Nothing - just more money. And yes, now the Tories are doing things differently in all those areas. National Unity: Jean Chretien and his paternal approach to the provinces had Quebec heading for separation, Alberta and BC starting to talk about the same thing, Danny Williams saying that Newfoundland would be better off on their own (yes, even back then). All the provinces were ticked off with the Federal Government hoarding supluses and making spending announcements that intruded on Provincial juristiction. Ontario was livid with McGuinty saying that the Feds owed them $22 billion a year. Although there will always be quibbling with the Provinces and the Feds, the Tories have rendored the separatists in Quebec almost irrelevant, Alberta and BC are back in the fold, and even Ontario has quieted down. Danny Boy of course, is still at it. So yes, the Tories are doing things differently - is it working - on balance, it looks like it is - is it still up for debate - sure it is but it's a healthy debate and I see no signs of Canada coming apart at the seams. And by the way, Stephen Harper was the first to table a Clarity approach - essentially the framework for the existing Clarity Act. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The Globe and Mail, of all sources, printed an Editorial today that put Canada's Kyoto targets in perspective and condemned Stephane Dion's position on the matter. As usual, you have to pay for the complete article but here is their lead-in followed by a few quotes - there is plenty of additional information in the Editorial that supports their opinion but I guess you'll have to buy today's G & M: After presenting the facts and figures, here's the summary And to close the opinion piece.....here's the final word:

What planet is this guy from? Let's put an end to this kindergarten thread.

There have been many posts in this thread from people who have at best, watched a video. I was scanning the Letters to the Editor in the Saturday Star and found this one from someone who was actually there - it puts things in a little different perspective:

Here's a quote from the CBC News Story:

Nobody has posted the Youtube CTV news footage of the demonstration.....so here it is. Whether these guys were cops or not seems to be irrelevant after watching this clip. Dancer has a good point - it's more a ploy by the unions to deflect criticism of the unruly actions of the hundred or so who chose to act like idiots. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILTtIGVRS9k

We've all seen the anarchists that frequent these demonstrations around the world. It appears that Canada was spared a lot of this nonsense with the exception of a few hooligans. I wonder if this fellow Dave Coles, who raised the allegations about Government "plants" will apologize when their true identities become known - I won't hold my breath. That's how these conspiracy theories live on - the initial story gets front page coverage while the eventual truth or retraction gets buried. I saw Coles' rant on CTV and I don't think it's a stretch to call his claims dubious. That fact should have led the reporter to ask that question "if the individuals are found to not be "plants", will you accept our invitation to return and apologize?". Now THAT would have been interesting.

You are correct, very little of that is going on today. African Union forces - even if some are Christian, are not the same as soldiers from Canada, the UK, United States, etc. (i.e. the West). In the context of Darfur, Muslims are not the problem, per se.....I'm saying if Western countries, as those described above, enter the fray, it will draw Al Queada into the "battle". I do not consider Al Queada Muslims - they are criminal terrorists who murderously distort the Koran and Islam to further their own goals.

Sorry....but anywhere you find a conflict where Islam is involved, Al Quaeda will be watching closely. Even though Muslims are killing Muslims in Darfur, if Western forces "desecrate" Islamic soil, Al Quaeda's murderous presence would soon be felt - along with all the bloody beheadings and roadside bombs. Although the Western world does not want the so-called "war on terror" to be a war against Islam - Al Quaeda encourages it. They want to weaken and divide Western society - the non-believers - the infidels - the blasphemers. They measure time differently than the West. We tend to lurch from election to election - Al Quaeda has all the time in the world and while we fight among ourselves, arguing whether this "war" is worth it - they are consolidating their fear campaign and religious fervour.....and country by country, from the inside out, they want an Islamic Caliphate that will rule the world - even if it takes 200 years.

I agree. Our media has been sucked into the theory of moral relativism.......the West is supposedly more "civilized" and should know better. The rest of the world can be excused because they need more time to mature - they don't know any better. Hogwash. High-browed moral relativism is nothing more that censorship. The truth - the whole truth - is what's important - how we decide to respond to that truth is a separate issue.

I'm pretty sure Flaquismo is trying to pull our leg - his tongue is planted firmly in his cheek - right Flaq? Either way, it's pretty humerous.....but he does touch on a subject that bothers me to no end, and that's this fluff about proportional representation. In it's pure form where you simply ignore ridings and count up the votes for each party - you get all the power centred in the big cities with a natural tendency towards Socialism (government will pay for everything). This leaves 90% of Canada's geography - our breadbasket, without adequate representation. That's why we have ridings - so that every part of Canada can have their say and send the representative of their choice to Parliament. But back to Flaquismo - he was trying to be funny, wasn't he?

We are probably heading down a road that will bring the "notwithstanding" clause into play. When Trudeau tried to bulldoze the Charter of Rights into our constitution, the provinces would only allow it if they had access to a "notwithstanding" clause - in other words, the ability to "over rule" the Supreme Court on an issue by issue basis. If Polygamy was viewed as a Charter "right" by the Supreme Court, I would hope that ALL provinces would use the notwithstanding clause and make it illegal in every corner of Canada. There may be a fringe element that would find Polygamy acceptable but I feel that I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that Polygamy is at odds with core Canadian values.

I don't have my history book so I'll reply on the fly. There's really at least two questions here - why did we unite in the first place and secondly, why are we staying together now. With regards to the first, lets remember that back then, it was Britain versus the renegade, former colonist yanks. The United Empire Loyalists had fled to the Maritimes from Massachusetts. The Yanks had stormed into York in the Fenian wars, if I remember correctly. We travelled to Washington and burned the original White House. So it was very much us versus them......and whenever you're in such a position, it's better to unite - so to a large degree, it was for defence. Provinces started to sign on with Newfoundland being the last. The growth of Canada to include all the provinces was mostly driven by practical trade issues - there was nothing that approximates free trade back then so whether it was farm goods, minerals, lumber or finished good - each province had something to give and something to get - and it was much easier to do it amongst like-minded traders. As for modern Canada, there are scales of economies that do make sense - one defense (army, navy, RCMP); common national infrastructure like railways and highways; and a bunch of others. But the important question is what would Canada be like if each province was its own country. Certainly, BC and Alberta could go it alone for the forseeable future. Ontario might have a chance. Quebec might also but their language would be swallowed up in an ocean of English. The Maritimes , Newfoundland/Labrador, Sask and Manitoba would have a very rough time. The Territories and First Nations? As taxes rose and services went downhill, I think you'd see a cry from many to be absorbed by the US. Why Confederation? Call me naive but I'd rather continue to be part of this grand social experiment called Canada. With as much as we have in common, if we can't learn to live together and thrive - then there's not much hope for the rest of the world, is there? It's like a marriage - you constantly have to work at it. If you're going to teach our children, I hope you'll work at adopting a more optimistic view of Confederation.

I'm onside with Michael and Geoffrey - I think that this time, Danny should have kept his big mouth shut.

Beautiful work. The government probably didn't participate very much because from what I can tell, it didn't go over-budget!

When the report comes out, I'll be surprised if it gets any play in the Star or the Globe.

I have to chuckle sometimes......as I sit back and realize that almost all posters are partisan to one degree or another - including me of course. If we didn't have opinions, we wouldn't have this board to express them. But with regards to the many comments about Harper being a "Liberal", let's understand something. When you become Prime Minister, you have a duty to represent all Canadians - even those who did not vote for you. That means that the partisan policies that got you elected have to be broadened and in some cases modified or even discarded. For those who say there is little difference between the Liberals and Conservatives, I somewhat agree but with an important distinction. A ruling government must work at the "big tent" philosophy - and both parties do. The difference is that with regard to the long-term direction of the Government, Liberals tend to make incremental moves towards big government whereas Conservatives tend to move towards a little less government and more personal responsibility. It's really a subtle distinction in the course of day-to-day and month-to-month events but over 10-15 years or so, it can make a difference - as we have found out with the recent long reign of the Liberals.

What the heck is Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla doing on the front page of today's Star? Front page news in the Star today was once again trying to do anything but give credit to the Conservative government. A 10 year old policy, created by the previous Liberal government, put severe roadblocks in place for would-be immigrants with the surname Singh or Kaur. The Conservative government yesterday reversed that policy. The way the article was written and presented makes it appear that the Conservatives introduced the policy in the first place, which of course they did not. Not only that, Dhalla was featured throughout the article as if she was some sort of champion. Why was this policy not changed during the 8 or 9 years that the Liberals were in power? There is a difference between media "bias" and blatant partisanship. This is just another example of the Star being the Liberal mouthpiece. Link: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/240030

It requires further thought but it's not as scary as Mike makes it seem. Here's the important part of the proposal: There are no laws that I am aware of that govern the amount of religious/cultural education received in a private school. Without an alternative, religious minority private schools could intentionally or unintentionally introduce an unbalanced amount of religious doctrine. With a publicly funded alternative, many religion-conscious parents in minority communities could choose be part of a mainstream education system and still get a modest amount of religious/cultural exposure. I say "modest" because in order to be taught the Ontario Curriculum and be part of standardized testing, there wouldn't be enough classtime for an excessive amount of religion/cultural teaching. So....Tory's approach could be a sensible way of preventing/marginalizing future pseudo-madrassas but still protecting the Charter of Rights.

The crime that bothers most people is the violent stuff and more recently, the young violent crime. The stats seem to bear out our concerns:

I read the article you posted from CBC....but I can't see any mention other than the influence that the Sikh community has exerted on the Liberals. I don't see any mention of Jack Layton or the PMO. I don't think there is much love between Harper and the Sikh community. The Conservatives were pushing for the "in private" hearings that might have blown the lid off Air India. I remember that during the Liberal leadership, it was speculated that the Sikhs threw their support to Dion in exchange for opposing the "in private" hearing legislation. The fact that he pretty well whipped an opposition vote against extending the legislation seems to support the allegation. Anyway - it's old news that really dates back to last year.