Peter F

So I can go squat on your private property no problem.

Simply living on the land does indeed deplete it; Clearing the land, sewage, water use etc etc etc. Thats why there are laws restricting public use of private land and allowing for rents etc

Share the revenues man! I just bought three tickets Season ticket to see the Bombers. Share that revenue!

So are royalties paid to a government - say by an oil extraction company - illegitimate?

Understood; you do not agree that the treaties have/should have legal force.

If FN has claim to the land then the government must, by the treaty agreements, collect the rent. Perhaps the government will do so through a tax. Such monies collected will then be held in trust or submitted to the FN's involved. And, yes, I understand that paying such when you never had to before will really truly bug your butt. Edittoadd: I agree that the reasons these claims are never resolved is because of the backlash from voters who will blame the politicians for their taxes/rents rising. But that does not negate the fact (if true) that certain lands by treaty actually do belong to specific FN's and are thus due their rightful rents/royalties. So the fault isn't those stubborn natives that insist the treaties be adhered to. Its the fault of present and past governments - and the electorate as a whole - who, out of fear, refuse to address the issue.

So any restriction would be that one cannot abort because of the sex of the fetus. That wouldn't work. It would be completely useless. So to be of some use, the restriction would have to be that NO abortion after x weeks for whatever reason except medical reasons as approved by some board or other. Right - all to stop theoretical possibly maybe might be gender abortions. Your fix causes more problems than not fixing. See Cybercoma's point about infanticide.

Rather naive huh. You got some figures to back up certain communities most likely to engage ? I may be pleasantly naive but I'm no bigot. So if a woman must get approval from someone in authority for an abortion...right now - today... then what would be the purpose of these abortion regulations?

So taxes to landowners is bad but rent to landowners if fine?

paying rent (via taxes) on land sounds very much like Municipal taxes.

Really. Thats because I don't really care about the Liberal Party and therefore not inclined to delve into their internal politics.

Now thats funny. You do realize that refusing to open the abortion debate is the same as supporting abortion on demand right?

Keep it Simple: I'm pretty sure that both sides are welcome to join the Liberal party too. Hell, their even welcome to join the NDP party. Probably even the Communist Party (marxist-leninist).

Ok. and a large majority of Canadians have the choice of voting for someone else knowing where the liberal party stands on the issue.

No. He means 'Choice' - as in : if somebody wants an abortion they can have one. If somebody doesn't want an abortion then they don't have one.

I think people can vote for a different party if the Liberal party doesn't meet the requirements of their conscience. Imagine the possibilities!

Jesus wept.

y'see Argus? We agree. No one should have control over a woman's pregnancy.

What you are suggesting is that a woman must justify her reason for procuring an abortion to some sort of committee. Such a committee will then approve or deny her wanted abortion. I cannot abide that control of third-parties over a woman's body. What about selective gender abortions? A woman gets to end her pregnancy for whatever reason.

I am a bit astounded that you think this will somehow work where invasion didn't.

Any nomination for a Liberal candidate will be among candidates that agree to support the party policy. That will be a given. It couldn't possibly be more transparent than that.

Yes, and anyone who isn't accepted as a candidate in those two parties can run for any other party or as an independent. Why worry? They will gather up vast amount of votes taking their stand on abortion policy. Lets be honest here, Party's have platforms that those running for election must be willing to support in order to get the party nomination. My socialist views regarding nationalization would be reason enough to have any nomination as a conservative candidate rescinded by the party leader. So, whats the point of any party if the proper thing is to let anyone within that party vote however they wish? Do parties not stand for certain principles?

I agee that there are many different views on what restrictions women should have regarding their pregnancies. Personally, i do not consider such restrictions valid. Others think different of course. And no doubt, once those that think different manage to elect some party or other to parliament then perhaps a law restricting women will be passed. Until such time I for one am quite content with the abortion laws as they are. I see no validity in accepting third parties determining wether some other person can abort or not.

'Exclusionary'? What? Those that disagree with the all-or-nothing abortion on demand position are forbidden to run for parliament?