Peter F

Quote from the only link supplied so far: "Jesse Rau, who has worked for Calgary Transit as a driver for about a year, says he’s a Christian and can’t support homosexuality."

He won't be fired for not driving the bus. He says he will quit his job rather than drive the bus.

That doesn't explain student population in the 60's when there was no internet/facebook yet schools were jam-packed with kids

Yes that is quite right. I should have said that the BQ agreeing to support the coalition was democratic and not stealing votes from anyone.

Oh, I think our founding fathers very clearly foresaw a party like the Bloc coming to power - very clearly. Thus all the Confederation conferences and agreements on numbers of senators and Supreme court requirements etc. Our founding fathers had the Bloc dominating all their discussions! Harpers arguments didn't hold water and could never hold water - they were lies and bullshit. What did hold water is that the coalition raising its ugly head caused conservatives - elated with winning the election - to lose their collective minds! Oh noes! the Blok! Oh noes Stephan Dion! Oh noes our votes and victory are being stolen! followed by a bunch of bull**** about Lack of Democracy.

They don't need to do that before/during an election. They run on their individual parties platforms/supposed platforms and get as many members elected as they possibly can. THEN they form a coalition (if needed). Its actually a lot less complicated this way . Its a lot less complicated because what you suggest would require quite a bit of time to put together: Who's party would withdraw from which ridings? What is the Liberal-Conservative party policy on what? etc. This would require some sort of national convention where it would be determined and broadly disseminated what exactly the running members policy is. One can only imagine the press heyday during an election with Liberal-conservative members contradicting each other from day to day without such a policy convention. Better a back-room deal After the election when everybody involved knows who's got what coming to the table. And the end result will be pretty much the same.

But how does that counter Waldo's claim of Conservative Lies re Democracy and vote stealing? The fact that the BQ agreed to be part of support the coalition was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone. The fact that the coalition would have Mr. Dion as PM was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

No we don't require nor have ever required the USA to protect us. The USofA doe's not do what Canada requires of them unless the USofA considers it to be in their (USA) interest. That Canada may require the USA to defend Canada doesn't mean squat to the USofA. But the USA, conceivably, has a definite interest that foreign powers not take over significant portions of Canada without their (the USA) say so and, I suspect, will definitely do their utmost to stop and reverse such things if they (the USA) doesn't approve.

No, most people couldn't care less.

Thanks! I've been looking for that a long time.

NDP = 66% Green = 63% Liberal = 61% Communist = 57% Conservative = 11%

The Libs ain't done yet, and I suspect they never will be. This ain't the USofA and a two party system will never catch on. Canada has an entirely different history. There are many many thousands of people who switched votes between libs and conservative and vice versa. They haven't and are not going away. The libs may be down now but they are far far from out. Just like the cons after Mulroney. Doomed, everyone said, irrelevant everyone said.

Well said. I approve of this post.

One must also remember what the court was asked by TWU to do - overturn a decision by a board that was legislated the power to make such decisions. The courts in reviewing such decisions don't decide wether such boards/committee's/tribunals were right or wrong in the decision made but only the reasonableness of the decision. The court decided that given the situation involved it was reasonable for the LSUC to come to the decision it did.

The courts decision spells out why the situation with TWU vs. BCTF is different from TWU vs LSUC. see http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/files/judgments/2015ONSC4250.pdf para 59+ page 18. as para 60 states:

But it had something to do with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Recap: They were asked by TWU to accredit their law course. If TWU minded their own business they would simply have a law course and to hell with accreditation - but noooo, they gotta start imposing thier values on the Law Society of Upper Canada by going to court to have the Law Society's decision overturned.

Yup. There is no way they could support it. Accrediting a university that discriminates in contravention of the OHR was not going to happen.

Yah,me too. I never bought into the propaganda mission either. But Hey! some of the concerts in the park are pretty good. I'm also glad they kept the fireworks.... and tbh, the name change doesn't really matter one bit.

...just to be clear: I am not acknowledging that he did anything wrong. I don't think he did anything wrong. American soldiers have killed/maimed thousands in pursuit of their war. Most of the time it was ok for them to do so. Why is it ok for Americans to kill in pursuit of a war but not ok for Americans to be killed while persuing their war? Making bombs to be used as IED's to inflict casualties on American soldiers is a perfectly legitimate act of war.

Yes, well it's been obvious from the get-go that you hold that honest opinion. I hope its equally obvious that I do not.

I'm fine with him being caught. I'm not fine with all the bullshit the Americans put on him after he was caught. That nuance is important. The whole point of the Khadr issue is not that he was caught. Or even shot up prior to being caught. Its what happened after he was caught that has all us bleeding hearts weeping buckets of tears. It's what happened after he was caught that brought the SC of Canada into picture. It's what happened after he was caught thats the whole reason why anyone recognizes his name at all. That he was caught isn't the issue in the slightest.

A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is not terror - it is considered treason, and then only if Canada was at war with the Taliban when Sgt Speers was injured - which I am pretty sure Canada wasn't. Even the mess of the Military Commissions didn't charge him with being a terrorist - all his crimes were actual war crimes - all his crimes were "in violation of the laws of war" ergo he was expected to adhere to the laws of war. That means he was part of the forces of the Taliban who the US had declared war on. His crimes were not terror - his crime was not being in a uniform recognizeable at a distance - and therefore an 'unprivledged belligerent'. But a recognized beligerant nonetheless. None of his actions were directed against random non-beligerants. All his supposed actions were directed towards the US military. The same military that was there prosecuting a congressionally sanctioned war against the forces/associated forces of Taliban government of Afghanistan which, under the laws of war, include 'irregular' forces. I do not see a single hint of terror in any of his actions. As for treason: One must wonder why this present government - who despise the little sod and have never ever lifted a single finger to help him, even in the slightest. Even when the highest court in the land decreed that the government had failed in its duty, they still didn't do a goddamn thing. Even when this government finally agreed to take him off the US hands after he was found guilty they tried to renege on that until their hands were forced by further court challenges. This government, who couldn't give two shits about Omar Khadr have not and never even hinted it might even think about charging Omar Khadr with treason. Why is that do you suppose?

Posted by Rue 23 june 2015: Sure they can sue in civil court. Hell, anyone can sue in civil court. The real issue is can they prevail in civil court? Often they can and you have provided examples of that. But it isn't open and shut is it? The mere filing of the suit does not guarantee success. There are issues that need to be resolved - legal issues. I'm no lawyer ("but I play one on the web") but I see some issues that may need overcoming before plaintiffs prevail. 1. as Cybercoma pointed out, Was the death of Sgt Speers and the wounding of the other soldier an Act of War? Or was it an act of Terror? If it was an act of War then no compensation will be forthcoming. The US government had most definitely declared war on Al Queda and the Taliban. The US government whole-heartedly directed the US armed forces against Al Queda and the Taliban to prosecute that war. That was why Sgt Speers et all were at Khost. That is why they demanded the surrender Khadr and his compatriots. The entire legal basis of his capture; designation as an 'enemy combatant'; detention and trial under the 2006 Military Commissions, is because the US is at War with Al Queda and the Taliban. The argument that it Sgt.Speer and Morris were victims of terror and not War seems pretty slim considering the conditions and circumstances under which they were injured: An assault on a compound being held by those their superiors were conducting war against. This isn't somebody lobbing a grenade into a passing jeep, or trying to ignite shoes/underwear in an airplane, or planting bombs in luggage. The examples of civil suits prevailing (Lockerbie, Beirut bomb etc) occurred in conditions of no state of war whatsoever existing. 2. Will the child-soldier argument be addressed and decided upon at the civil court? Can a child-soldier be held financially responsible for his actions? Can any juvenile? Usually, as I understand it, the parents of the child are held financially responsible for redress of the actions of the juvenile. In fact Tabitha Speers and Layne Morris got a default judgment of quite a few millions out of Omar's now deceased dad for the acts of his juvenile son at Khost. (Actually they haven't got a dime for that since the US govt seized all daddy's assets and yet to release them - if any actually exist). I think there was a very good reason Mrs.Speers and Mr. Morris didn't seek a civil judgement against Omar Khadr back in 2006 but pursued their claim agains Omars dad instead.

"Conspiracy to commit terrorism” not a war-crime. It certainly is a crime but definitely not a war crime therefore the U.S.of A.’s Military Commissions trials in Guantanamo had no authority to try anyone of the charge. This is an example of ‘Made Up Law’ that many blame judges for doing except in this case it was the government making up law and then creating a court system to try that made up law. The quotes below are from http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/al-bahlul.pdf (and I’ve omitted the many many citations) I particularly liked judge Tatels explanation for his joining the majority judgement: