Peter F

And you read the Telegraph to supply you with that unadulterated, adjective free, news. So what are you asking us to provide again?

Rue post #48 A good post Rue. There are many confusing things about Turkey. I think that confusion is because Turkey is actually in a state of confusion society-wise. A large minority fully supports Turkey becoming part of the EU and becoming more of a secular state. These carry on the legacy of Ataturk and the 'young-turks' of the Ottoman days. Another large Minority is conservative and looks upon becoming more western as accepting the west's inherent perversions along with a rejection of Turkish cultural norms. This conservative minority has had to ride along the Ataturk modernizing train for many years. Lately many modern Turks have concluded that no matter what they (Turks) do, Europeans will never accept them into the Union so stop trying. The combination of the disillusioned and conservatives brought Erdogan to power. The good ol' days when the Turkish army was infused throughout with the modernizing ideology of Ataturk has gone. This confusion within Turkish society is carried into the make-up of its Army, naturally enough. Crowds appear in the streets to support the government along with crowds appearing in the streets to condemn the government. So the coup was 'spotty'

NATO doesn't give a fig about anyones 'undemocratic' nature. See Afghanistan...or Turkey! Turkey has tanks and troops and an airforce and thats all Nato cares about.

That is good advice. Its too bad the cop didn't have that in mind at the time.

Nope. Unless no effort is made by the Federal flunkies to communicate with them . Should the Federal flunkies decide to make no efforts because, y'know, they don't have to then yes those people are 2nd rate citizens. Two; the only official languages this country has.

As Homer said "The mere presence of the blade incites to violence" . That probably makes a lot of sense to cops. If the police are terrified by the presence of the blade - and the USofA, it is said, there are many blades - Then why aren't far more being shot? Perhaps most cops are not terrified but actually have some control over themselves as they await the situation to evolve. I do not think the particular cop here fits that description.

Sure, But they don't simply take the accused word for it. They also look at the circumstances and apply the standard of 'would an imagined reasonable cop behave the same?. Was there other options available? Was it necessary to open fire right now? As you say many cases are ruled that the cops behaviour was reasonable. But a few times not. I suspect that when the courts found the action was not reasonable the excuse of 'I felt threatened' falls upon deaf ears.

That does not mean you get to shoot them on whims. If you want to shoot somebody, no matter the level of terror you feel, you need a damn good reason to do so. Far more than he says he has a gun and he is making a movement. That in itself is no reason to open fire. That is panic!

Doesn't matter. It is well known that the state will license people for carrying fire-arms. It will not be unusual for cops to meet people who are licensed to carry fire-arms. Therefore some people will have fire-arms and its perfectly fine and not life-threatening to cops in any way. Unless the guy starts brandishing his firearm (licensed or not) in a reckless manner. Since this cop never saw the fire-arm at all I find it entirely irrational that he could then believe his life to be in imminent danger. This particular cop was irrational and no irrational people should be allowed to carry and be expected to use fire-arms.

In a state where he was actually given state license (if true) to carry - then to be shot because he was carrying is not right at all. It was wrong.

No. He was shot because the shooter could not wait 30 milliseconds to see. He opened fire. 4 shots at close range. To my mind the nervous wreck of a shooter should - if he escapes manslaughter charges - should never be allowed to be trusted with a fire-arm again. Desk job for him.

Heavens to Betsy! Have we forgotten all the court cases of the past? "I didn't hear her say 'no' or 'stop' at any time yer Honour" "Well, at fist she said 'no' and was a bit resistant but I thought she was just playing hard to get. After a while she stopped saying anything even when I took her shirt off..." " I thought she liked a little violence Y'rHonour - thats what her ex told me while we were in the bar, so..." Consent is crucial. Saying NO is crucial to even tiny children. Of course your sources deceive you by rephrasing No means No into 'teaching first graders to give enthusiastic consent".

Yes but Argus cannot imagine why anyone would venture because he never would so nobody else would either. It's all about him y'know.

When an employee is expected to communicate with the public in both languages then the position would (one hopes) require a higher rating. I am quite sure there are some bilingual people that communicate very well in either language. That you saw a case of poor language skills that one time does not negate the program. There are procedures that catch these things - appeals and such, like the IRB in your example. The problem with your solution is that it relegates the minority language to 2nd rate citizenship. They won't have access to services available to all the 1st rate citizens. Thats why the whole policy of bilingual federal services across the land (where numbers warrant) was instituted. I think its a good policy - even if it does cost money and even if sometimes it looks really silly. The government willing to speak to its citizens in either English or French - no matter the province - is respectful and even helpful to its citizens. This is a good thing.

But they can function and do the job just fine. Thats why they are employee's. The government has three levels of language ratings A B and C. Certain jobs are deemed by powers that be to require certain language ratings. If the employee meets that rating then they are qualified to do the job. That does not mean that the employee is fully conversant/fluent in that language. Thus the various ratings. Argus' OP says its silly and wasteful for high level execs to be bilingual just because they have employees who do not speak the exec's language. I suggest that it is a good idea that exec's be bilingual so they can communicate with their employees in the employees mother tongue because the employee is not guaranteed to know the other language all that well.

what illiterate?

Thats true and is the core of this entire thread. Argus' point was we did at one time have 1M under arms. and my counter point was yes - in WW2 when we thought they were absolutely necessary and there was no way in hell any government would continue to keep 1M under arms during peacetime. for the sole reason of Budgets.

and do you think Canada could sustain for all time 1 million people under arms?

For sovereignty patrols and making a show by transporting a company or two to the area. Like Derek 2.0 says the place wouldn't last 60 minutes in a shooting war.

Not at all. Vietnam borders on Cambodia; France borders on Germany and Spain and Italy; Germany borders on Poland and Austria; Agentina borders on Chile. South Africa borders on Zimbabwe; Iraq borders on Iran etc etc. But Canada does not border on Mexico or anybody else except for good ol USofA. We aren't going to go to war over Russian oil fields in an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean. We could not possibly succeed! UNLESS the USofA commits its forces. That is a reality. Even in Granatstiens wildest CAF fantasies we could field a mere pittance in the Arctic compared to what the Ruski's are conceivably capable of. A Pittance. Our only hope of staving off the seizure of our vast north - or even a part of it for that matter - is not to rely on our tiny military but on diplomacy

Common sense and logic? When the Creator creates people capable of interbreeding, common sense and logic says thats what the Creator wants. But then I don't think you know snot about the Creator.

Who claims Stalin wanted them as part of the Eastern Bloc? Nobody - not even Stalin. But inevitably they gave up a sizeable portion of their sovereignty. It even got a word invented: Finlandization. No words invented to cover Canada's relationship with the USofA - no need to because Finlandization already is used to describe the exact same thing. Point being - Cowtow to the powers next door or say goodbye to your sovereignty. Finland Kowtowed as does Canada and those major powers allow us to exist. Point being in relation to this thread. There is only one power we need be worried about and that is the Super-power to our south. Just like Finland we can have ourselves a glorious Batoche or actually three or four Batoches scattered around southern Canada and if we are really lucky we might even embarrass an invader for a day or two but there is no way in hell we can successfully stop an invader of the first rank. We can certainly die trying though.

Wilbur: Point of Order - Finns did indeed stop the Soviet invasion in 1939 however they surrendered in 1940 after having their armies crushed by said Soviets. They had to give up a lot more than what the Soviets demanded in 1939. And in 1944 a lot more again. As Marshal Mannerhiem advised the Finnish government in 1939 in regards to soviet demands: What the Soviets want is not crucial to us but very important to them. Agree to the conditions. The government of the day refused his advice and in four months it was all over ... 70 thousand casualties, over 23 thousand dead. Finland lost - but the lessons were not learned and the Continuation War resulted. The lesson was learned in 1944: Do not fuck with the major power next door. But it sure was glorious wasn't it? Unless you were a Russian soldier - or a Finnish one . For an excellent book on the subject with a fascinating focus on the Finnish diplomatic efforts see: Finland Survived by Max Jacobsen. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Finland-Survived-Max-Jakobson/dp/0951080601?tag=duckduckgo-osx-uk-21 So lets not pretend the Finns won.

There are levels of bilingualism. Those at the lowest level do not speak the other language perfectly. This is important to the employee when their non-bilingual manager is trying to communicate important things to them.

Exactly. Keeping costs within budgets certainly. But profit? in the civil service? Not a priority.