Peter F

And I am sick and tired of being forced to conform to incorrect socialist policies that have wrecked this country. If I was you I'd vote for the PC party. Maybe they can get us all conforming to your idea of 'decency'. Perhaps we should have a 'Decency patro' to ensure we all behave like Canadians. Punish those who don't. Sorta like Iran.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/aldridge060507.htm Decent Canadians don't do this - Decent Canadians don't do that - I'm sick to death of conforming to some boneheads idea of a 'Decent Canadian'.

Mind you, the 'Sending states' don't seem to have much interest in controlling or inhibiting the contractors from shooting at will. There are probably a few of these mercenaries being held for trial in the US or Britain or wherever - maybe, maybe not. The failure to reign in this shoot first attitude amongst not only the mercenaries but also the troops is what led the whole Iraqi thing to blow up in thier faces. Too much shooting whoever happens to even remotely resemble a threat. That and the high handed arrest everyone because everyone is a suspect. The recent saw about Rumsfeld's original plan having too few troops to evectively occupy the country is bunk. The Iraqis were, more or less, fairly content if insecure with the conquest. It was all the high-handed shit that sold the Iraqi's down the river. the CPA's order 17 was probably one of the stupidest things ever enacted. It is one of the key reasons the whole bringing-democracy-to-them went to shit.

80% of bilingual positions are occupied by Francophones?? 80% of bilingual employees never use the 2nd language? Where do you get these numbers from?

Should have been but wasn't. according to the linked article: (See order 17 here: CPA IRAQ) The CPA has, of course, ceased to function and legal power now resides in the Iraqi government. Wether the Iraqi government has or will or can rescind Order 17 of the CPA I do not know. According to Order 17 "Contractors" are subject to thier home state's laws. They are also subject to the whims of the ''Sending State'' and the Order 17 (Section 2 Iraqi Legal Process) So, if Order 17 still stands, the mercenaries are in fact subject to the rule of law...just not Iraqi Law. As such your question is flawed. You have assumed they are not subject to law - when they are.

What link? Who is exempted from all laws pertaining to thier actions?

Nr 3 is the killer for me also. Just what we need - more political appointees. Are there not enough party hacks as it is?

Too true (except for election day)

cybercoma: Actually the article doesn't clearly show that at all. The article says: So at least 20,000 Kirpan wielding Sikhs managed to kill 1 and injure 50-60. Sorta makes a Kirpan (even the long ones) kind of useless don't you think? Cybercoma: Nope. Personally religion don't mean squat to me. On the other hand, I usually do pay attention to old dudes telling me whats right and wrong...sometimes even old dudes long dead and speaking through ancient books. Anyways, its evident that my point was not made. Figleaf may have understood what I was getting at. Figleaf: .I also like to think so. In fact, that very same system of laws efficiently, objectivley and fairly determined that it was ok for Sikhs to wear Kirpans in school. ...and no ones been knifed with one yet.

Public Service Employment Act ( 2003) PSEA at DoJ Canada So merit actually includes language proficiency as established by the deputy head.

Figleaf: But the essential rules that the rest of us live by are not religious and/or ethic traditions? Or did we just make them up?

And yet, with (as you say) every reason to knife other students with thier Kirpans, it has never happened. The SCC deals with realities, not fantasy.

Actually, they could very well be allowed to run Afghanistan again. Neither Canada, the USA or NATO get to make that determination - Afghans do. If they want the Taliban they will have the Taliban

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur? How about because a Taliban controlled AFghanistan is a direct security threat to Canada and her allies. I would suggest that the Direct threat to Canada and her allies came from "Terrorist organizations with international reach" - not the Taliban. Indirectly, the Taliban aided such terrorist organizations by allowing them to operate from thier controlled territory. Fact is if they don't allow terrorism to operate from thier controlled territory then we have no complaint against the Taliban - other than they're right bastards.

Well, I made my case, such as it is. I suggest that it may be best to find the judges reason for the decision and argue with that. I can do no more based on the evidence provided.

You are ignoring the fact that the couple in question are living in a common-law relationship. Dragging teachers and nieghbours and one-night stands into it is pure bullshit. A + B want to live together and enjoy thier mutual attraction to each other, yet neither A nor B want B to be in anyway responsible for the child C. Too bad so sad. Don't live together. Have sex, see each other regularly, enjoy each others company; But live apart. Problem solved. No. I am saying they should not live common-law if they do not want common-law responisibilities. Let's suppose the court accepts the agreement...10 years later the mother dies. The child then has no parent and now becomes the ward of the state. Is this correct? Does any responsibility lie upon the significant other at all? Zero? none? Too bad for the kid, but we don't want men having to take responsibility. If he doesnt want responsibility for the kid then do not live with the kid. Simple. Why is that so difficult to follow? Do fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility? Do Step-fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility. Do common law fathers? What makes a father? Does the dead beat fathers responsibility vanish because he doesn't want it? Does the step fathers responsibility to the child vanish? Is there any such thing as parental responsibility? It seems to me that you are claiming that parental responsibility is voluntary and can be rejected at any time. What happens to the written agreement if some time down the road the mother packs up and leaves. If the co-habitant in the meantime has grown to love the child and care for its wellbeing? Does the agreement still stand? Is the kid shit out of luck ?

Well, I disagree. A child should be getting as much support as possible - the more fathers and ex-fathers paying/giving support the better. I am not telling these women anything. I am simply agreeing with the courts in the case of John and Jane Doe. That ageeing to co-habitate with someone elses children implies of itself a willingness to take on a parental role. In fact, as the relationship continues a parental role will be assumed wether the party's involved want to or not. If they truly do not want a parental role then dont assume a parental position. Signed agreements will not halt the assumption of the parental role. The courts recognize this and are saying the written agreement will mean nothing in this case. I would find the reasoning of the court at arriving at thier decision very interesting. Perhaps they had no reason at all.

The relationship between the step-parent and the child is irrevelant? How so?

Actually they do agree to raise a child together through the continued co-habitation. They can pronounce over and over again how only one of them is actually parenting - but the fact will be that both are actually parenting. I cannot imagine a reasonable means for John Doe to avoid any parenting as long as he is co-habitating with the childs mother and the child. A brother living with a sister would not be considered the father. But in this case neither of the co-habitants are siblings - so the brother sister argument matters not. Having sex with the mother does not automatically make you a father unless conception occurs - then it does. Living with the mother who has children that are not the male's will innevitably result in that male being considered a parent. The continued relationship under those cercumstances is tacit, if not explicit, acceptance of the position. A written agreement not accepting parental responsibility is meaningless if parental responsibility is in fact accepted. Mothers can indeed collect child support from multiple fathers through a series of relationships because each of the 'fathers' had accepted some parental responsibility. That parental responsibility doe's not end until the child is of legal age. There is nothing absurd about this.

Actually nowhere in the facts of the case have I seen that they plan to raise a child together. What is says that John Doe wishes to continue a romantic relationship with Jane Doe. Does that constitute "raising a child together"? From the article: "In Jane Doe v. Alberta, a professional woman was in a cohabiting relationship with a John Doe....Jane Doe and John Doe want to continue their relationship, but neither of them want John to be a parent. " I assume they also wish to continue co-habitating. How can two adults co-habitating avoid having one of the adults involved in raising the child? or not support the child? If the professional woman doe's not wish John Doe to be a parent, then the professional woman should actually make an effort to remove parenting opportunities from John Doe. ie: stop co-habitating. It is the co-habitating that makes John Doe a defacto parent. Having a written agreement that John Doe will not be considered a parent does not remove the fact that John Doe will in fact have parenting duties each and every day of the co-habitation. The agreement will not obviate the fact. Given the information provided in the article you posted, I think the courts are making the correct decision here. raising a child well or badly, for good or ill.

Yes, someone can be considered a parent by default. In the instance of John Doe above, Mr Doe and his woman friend want things both ways. They will raise the child together but John Doe will not be considered a parent. Sorry, doesn't work that way. To avoid being considered a parent one must avoid parenting.

Leafless: Is leafless suggesting that the 17% of Canadians who are bilingual are almost all Quebecers? That 90% of e Quebec so-called Franco-phones can in fact speak English well enough to be considered bilingual? Yes indeed he does! I'd call Leafless a liar if it wasn't for the Gatineau storekeepers crap wich indicates he actually believes this bullshit. LOL. What arrogance.

Its the local Quebec city militia unit. Voltigeurs de Quebec

Yeah? So the author finds me sexually unattractive. So what? Oh-oh. Systemic depopulation...NWO...removal of right to bear arms...so-called men left behind unable to defend themselves or their women after the removal of real men in military to foriegn wars...UN taking over... So very polynewbish. Its all bunk betsy.