Peter F

From the SCC decision (the original and not a 2nd hand dogs breakfast from the media) available at Supreme Court of Canada website and further They base that conclusion upon the following (again from the SCC decision linked above): They also determined that the actions of CSIS and DFAIT functionaries were in violation of his charter rights (same link): So you see, your example of Maziar Bahari is irrelevant. Canadian FA officials were not interviewing her to gain information to be used against her in criminal proceedings in Canada or Iran. If they had have been then they too would have been violating her GodGiven charter rights as a Canadian citizen. Bottom line: CSIS and DFAIT f*cked it up again. They should never have questioned Khadr. CSIS flunkies should never have even got on the plane.

Not hard to say at all. Im positive they would have said the accused still gets charter rights just like every one else in Canada - even if they are vicious bloodthirsty evil-doers - even if treason is involved and even if the treasonous prick killed a Canadian soldier! To suggest that its even remotely concievable that the charter creaters would say "Oh, well in that case then no, they don't get any rights" .... I guess they simply forgot to put that clause in there... You see people commit horrid crimes quite often - even murdering police officers in cold blood or even the holy of holy's a Canadian soldier. And they still get arrested, interviewed and tried and often found guilty, all the while enjoying thier undeserved charter rights. At no time are these despicable persons charter rights to be cast aside. If the rights are cast aside then they get to appeal and seek redress. The courts of the land have never said at any time that the nature of the crime may cause the vile criminals charter rights to be tossed. If you are correct and that is indeed how the cons see the problem; then we got the wrong crowd running the show.

And why must that be borne in mind? Is there some signifigance?

Ok I am lost Who claimed?

Cold water survival is not necessarily related to winter and ice fishing. Almost all bodies of water in Canada are cold - even in the summer. One does not have to have been ice fishing to end up immersed in cold water. A capsized canoe can put people in cold water, for example, or going swimming at the lake, or taking a ferry. As for "are people in cold water worth saving?" it all depends on ones point of view I guess. Are pedestrians who are hit by moving vehicles worth saving? Are people trapped in a house-fire worth saving? Are these really the type of folks our society should be spending money saving? I understand you find a grant to some boating club on lake simcoe to be questionable. Thats ok with me. But I really don't understand this hang up with ice-fishing on lake Simcoe and wether or not some government employee should be doing what the boating club is getting a grant for and why even bother saving anyone anyways...

I have no idea. You'd have to talk to the folks that make the proposal and the other folks who approve the proposal. Tests are required prior to being able to pilot a boat and safety instructions are required on boats. There are various licenses required depending on size and purpose of vessel. These vary from Small Craft Operators License all the way up to Master-Foriegn certificates. I'm pretty sure that far more people boat on Lake Simcoe than icefish on it. because SAR spends millions every year searching for and rescuing people that don't already know and do the proverbial silly things. Wich particular SAR personnel are you refering too? Helicopter pilots? SAR technicians? CG officers? RCMP officers? I doubt if you would find very many 'spare' personnel.

I beleive these grants are coming from DND because DND is the lead ministry in Search and Rescue operations. See National Search and Rescue Secretariat and within that site: SAR new initiatives fund

It could mean that those without dark eye's are cold-blooded psychopaths

Except for the one's that aren't

Actually, the sun is always perfectly aligned with the milky way. Odd, don't you think, that the milky way had little gravitational effect all these years, but in 2012 it suddenly will. Was the gravity turned off?

Then provide links to MSNBC and Fox news to support the point. By your own terms your argument becomes meaningless.

Terrorism wins again! Now Swiss muslims are feeling like their country is out to get them. There isn't a Minaret in this world that has any effect on religious radicalism. This Swiss ban on minarets for mosques doe's absolutely nothing to stop Muslim radicalism. That is an obvious fact - even to Wulf. So, if the ban on minarets has zero to do with religious radicalism - and I note that Wulf is the only one who claims it does - Then wtf is the point? To inhibit them somehow? to restrict muslims in some way or other? Or is it just so's non-mulsims can feel like they have some sort of control of thier lives? Since this ban is entirely without rational point it makes me think that this minaret ban is only the first step - There's more to come. Again the west plays right into Osama's hand.

double post

The Taliban can't, and never has been able to, kick US arse. They won't even be able to raise the intensity - and they'd be idiots to try. The Taliban stratagy should be very simple: Lay low and let Obama have his victory.

Jamie Leigh Jones for one. KBR's mandatory adjudication forced upon her due to employment contract. She went to a Texas court to get out of the adjudication. The Texas court said the mandatory adjudication stands. She appealed to the US 5th circuit court and they allowed the appeal. IE This woman - allegedly raped in KBR barracks by KBR employee's - was not allowed to seek justice in a court-room until the 5th circuit appeals court upheld her appeal. So you see US courts did in fact "override a person's ability to seek resolutions from outside the company". The rest of your post about company policies completely ignores US mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Companies with such clauses not only demand employee's report abuses - as you mention - but also require employee's abandon any - any - other means of seeking redress from the company. Thus Jamie Leigh Jones' mandatory arbitration with KBR was upheld by the Texas court. Fortunately she won her appeal. That is not to say that all mandatory arbitration clauses become invalid. In my view, this legisltation does not "block the government from doing business with companies that have NORMAL and INTELLIGENT internal policies." since NORMAL and INTELLIGENT companies do not have mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

Of course its political. What war isn't? The President has now got his politically acceptable exit from the quagmire. The surge will supposedly kick taliban arse forcing the Taliban to lay low. Or the Taliban will lay low to wait out the surge. Either way, in 18 months things will be toned down and Afghan forces deemed ready to assume security ops. Then victory will be declared and the majority of US forces pulled out. Mission Accomplished!

There's nothing fake about this story. A bill was passed in the senate that disallows companys with mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment from getting Defense contracts. Some Republicans voted against the bill and been called 'supporters of rape' by political partisans. What else is new? What is fake about that?

The flap isn't about 'punishing' anyone. To quote from the linked article: So, you see, your firm wouldn't be punished for your deadly negligence. Only that your firm wouldn't get a pentagon contract if your firm has employment clauses that say employee's cannot use the normal court process to persue claims against the employer.

ah! Well thats far more understandable. They don't like seeing minarets poking skywards. Maybe even don't like to hear the faithfull being called to prayer 4-5 times a day too. The sights and sounds displease them. ...but that would have zero to do with "Swiss Move to Stop Radicle Islam!".

Of course the Swiss get to do whatever they want, as does everybody else. That the Swiss are not seeking permission is not the issue. What the swiss have done is being held up by Wulf as a shining example of how to deal with Muslim fundamentalism and Sharia Law. Wulf says we should do the same in this country. JBGlobe has asked how mosques lacking minarets works towards achieving his goal. I think its a really good question.

hmmm...I'm still don't understand how mosque's lacking minarets combats that...

Well, if they feel banning minarets will somehow combat sharia law and mulsim fundementalists, then I guess thats what they feel. I feel they are idiots.

I'll Ask for you JB... how does banning an architectural element common in the religious buildings of a specific religion do anything to combat radicalism in that religion?

" The question raised by this appeal is not whether employees have a remedy against an employer who closes a workplace for anti‑union motives (they do have such a remedy under ss. 12 to 14 of the Code)..." is a quote from the judgement, not the dissenting opinion. Nothing frightful about it. Rather soothing actually.

Hmmmm...So no employee should ever have a pay increase. Any such increase has to be compensated for by an increase in price - all to the detriment of the consumer. Employers have dick-all to do with it. An employee seeking higher wages is a detriment to the consumer - a bad thing. But the employer can seek maximum profit margins from the consumer - a good thing. Sorry I don't buy it. Employee's seek higher wages if they believe the employer has the profits to pay those higher wages. Whats wrong with that? According to you, whats wrong is that the Employer will then seek to maintain his profit margins by raising prices - wich is completely beyond the power of the employee to do. So if the employer raises prices - its the employee's fault. Why? Because the powerless employee made him do it! And, it seems, people seeking higher wages is purely a unions fault. Nobody in a non-union workplace ever seeks a pay raise - right? And, it would seem, they'd never get one if they asked for it, or even deserved it. And what happened to 'supply' in that formulae? Supply would not increase? Supply is fixed? The only variable is demand? I'm no economist, but it seems to me that an increase in demand will result in an increase in supply (lagging to be sure), until some sort of equilibrium is reached. Is that not basic economic theory? An increase in wages - increase in demand from wage-earners - increase in supply to meet the demand from entrepreneurs - more jobs to supply the demands. That is the basic argument behind lower taxes.