Peter F

Yes, they probably were.

oopsie. The US forgot to list those things on Mr.Khadr's charge sheet: charge sheet

Absolutly. He's Canadian 'cause he was born here. Outside of that and gaining citizenship through proper immigration methods, there is not another legal or non-legal means of being a Canadian. That is ample reason for the government to offer its meagre help to any Canadian Citizen in foreign lands. And also clearly, as a Canadian, I am not one of yours and certainly vice versa. It matters not that I am not one of yours or you mine or Khadr to neither or both. The Canadian government should take certain minimul steps for its citizens without conducting popularity polls or variations of such. So who gives a goddam that you don't like the man or that his sister loves him dearly. Its all neither here nor there...and rightly so

Lictor: I'm curious; Did the children who opted for 3 lollipops tomorrow actually get 3 lollipops tomorrow? If not, wouldn't that change the interpretation of who made the smarter decision?

Jordan.

Children As Decoys Thread Peter F Posted on: Mar 29 2007, 11:12 PM Post #116

Thats right. and the threat of invasion of Northern Canada is as much now as then...ZERO.

Very aware. Also aware that France claims lots of the east coast seabed and the USofA claims lots of the Beaufort Sea and claimed Georges Bank and Denmark claims Hans Island. The underwater shelf up to the North Pole is undisputably Russian. Lots of people have planted Flags at poles. Just because nations drop flags at poles doesn't mean Canada must begin constructing Carrier Groups. Hell, even during the hieght of the cold war we weren't very worried about Russki's, who were an actual super-power, invading our northern territory. Now we need a huge military to defend Northern Canada agains Russian Invasion? Horseshit.

Oh. Well sure, if a pissy US wants to buy our water, we'll sell - if we have any brains... Kumbaya, brother!.

Thats ok, Jerry. Anyone who seriously thinks we absolutley must spend billions to defend the north agianst - well, we're not sure who, at least not now nor in the foreseeable future - is pretty much on the edge of insanity.

Well, if the USofA ever gets pissy then the jigs up. Our real concern is keeping the US from getting pissy (at us, anyways), not how big of an army we need to stop a pissy USofA. As for other future possible threats. Well, outside of Martians, there is no future threat, and thus no one for the USofA to protect us from.

Sure! A Bear would be great. Load em up with LRASM's and make any future invader pay a hefty price in lost shipping for their aggressive ways. Be a hellofalot cheaper than Carrier Air Groups and the carriers to carry them and the escort groups to escort them and the thousands of sailors needed to man and support them.

Well, first off, there's gotta be somebody to appease in order to appease. As it is nobody is now, nor has ever,c challenged Canada's claim over the arctic islands ...ceptin Denmark re Hans Island. Alert, by the way, is of no practical importance to anyone. The Evil [enter favoured nationality here] could sieze Alert and, for that matter, all of Ellesmere Island, and the only actual loss we would suffer is loss of our stinkin pride. There is no requirement/need to blow billions on Carrier Groups or Naval Bases in the Arctic Archapeligo.

Canadair_CL-28 CP-140 Aurora CP-140 Aurora

...And wear a hat!

Been away for a few days on PAID LEAVE. Produced absolutly nothing for the employer during this time! .... and now a moments silence for my union forebearers who fought long and hard so that I could actually enjoy my alleged life.... I have no idea. Nor do I care. I am not a manager. Efficiency is thier department. If the employer finds giving me paid time off innefficient then they can refuse to give me paid time off. Pretty simple really. But I am in a union, wich negotiated the terms and conditions of my employment and one of the agreed upon terms was that employee's get X paid time off. Is that efficient or inneffecient for society? Unions are democratic orgainizations. They have to be because its the law. How is a public service union abusing State Force for private ends? Again we see the divorcing of managers from their inherent responsibility to manage. Unions have become, in your mind, the ones responsible for government budgets. The politicians actually have no control over things do they? Public Sector unions write the budget for the finance minister - who then signs because some woman thug is holding a gun to his dogs head. If the unions want more money they get more money right? Its a done deal and bosses are helpless and have no control over events. ...yet, at the same time, the government of the day passes bill C-10 mandating what pay raises for public sector employee's will be. Even to the extent of over-riding previously negotiated contracts. Unions made them do that of course, because government is helpless before Public Sector thuggery. Paul Martin, through acts of parliament, did the very same thing in the 90's because he was helpless before the might of Public Sector unions. Poor bosses. So weak and feeble.

Hear Hear!

This is funny! Politicians wont act because they fear union votes. Police wont act cause they fear politicians. Managers are helpless before union demands. All this with falling union membership to boot! Its the unions fault that everyone else is wimpy.

The unions have achieved much in regards to working conditions and labour laws etc. But unions did not enact these protections by thier lonesomes. Unions cannot enact legislation. All they can do is bring such things to the attention of the public who then get political partys to be elected or, if governing, to enact the legislation. Yes, abuse is things that unions were meant to stop and many abuses have been stopped. Union activity is still - even now with all this protective labour legislation - a means to stop abuse. example: My daughter worked for a cruise company in Quebec City selling cruises to tourist groups. The employer required many hours of overtime from her but never paid her for it. Labour laws in Quebec say overtime must be compensated at time and a half (or double time, I cant remember exactly) yet the company refused to pay her and her co-workers for overtime worked, unless, of course, the specific employment contract states otherwise. Management claims the employment contract states otherwise so no overtime. She asks to see the employment contract. They refuse to produce it. As a non-unionized employee her only option was to file a complaint with the Quebec Labour board. Of course this takes lots of time and depends on overworked Labour Board public servants to persue the matter with alll the intendant delays appeals etc until eventuallly the Labour board has the facts and then sits down to hear the case. All this takes lots of time usually about a year. Being a union guy she sought my advice. My advice was to persue the matter with the QLB and also that she must realize that if not the end of her employment the certainly the end of any hopes for advancement and that she would not be hired next summer either. But in the end, about a year from now, she would get her overtime as long as she doesn't quit the action with the QLB. In the meantime she would be subject to all sorts of trivial abuse and stress brought by her managers for putting them in the juice. So she needs to decide wether persuiing the matter was worth it or not. In my books she should persue it cause she's getting screwed by management no matter how it turns out so make them pay the price of it. She thought different and dropped the issue. Well, that was her choice. So be it. But the company got hours of free work out of her and the Labour laws didnt stop their abuse. Labour laws are pretty innefective in protecting a worker. Almost always the employee who filed the complaint is out of a job by the time the complaint is decided in thier favour (if it is in their favour). And if its not in their favour the employee is most probably already out of a job. Any Union worth its salt (and many unions arent) is far more effective at ending abuse and saving the complaining employees job.

Thanks. But whats your point? Is it that its the Unions fault that government doesnt enforce the law? Its the Unions fault that police wont arrest stikers for behaving in an illegal manner? Is the fault that Unions have too much control of the Police? of Management? of government?

Obstucting access to facilities is illegal. Strikers can put up pickets but they cannot deny access. Thats the law. The police can be sent in to arrest the obstructors. Whatever should we do to deny citizens the power to act illegally? There aughta be a law against such things...

Same here. COL clause in contract is what I was after because I thought we have a very good wage. The rest of the bargaining team thought COL was great but wanted a wage increase to boot. vote 6-1 favour of them. Anyone who thinks unions are filled with Marxists are in dreamland. Edit to add: Turned out management agreed to a wage increase (about half as much as the demand) but refused to discuss COL clause. Good thing the vote went against me cause if I succeeded we would have got nothing!

Section 13 of the CANADA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT? from the Vancouver Sun link provided in the OP of this thread posted by Jerry Seinfeld: So if you want to talk about Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act why are you complaining and whining (robustly so) about Lesbians in Vancouver filing complaints under the BC Human rights legislation?

Getting rid of public sector unions is very easy to do. Enact legislation to that effect. Nuthin to it. Am I required to say its a grand idea or something? I think it would suck. You think different. Thus politics. No one can stop the government from disbanding unions, least of all unions or me. Bullshit. Why is that August? What is it that politicians fear and why is it wrong for them to fear it? Unions want far more than money, August. far more. They want decent working hours and conditions and lots of time off and pensions and medical plans and most of all, to be treated by managers as human beings and not as cattle or serfs. I suggest you take a little time to review Jerry Fortins posts. Bad Management makes for Strong Unions. And I am always amused by capitalists who claim that the wellbeing of the worker is very high on thier list of priorities and then sell thier workers down the river for a buck. But I understand Capitalists only need be concerned about profit. The uneducated and unskilled masses deserve nothing from capitalists. They can be easily replaced should they ever realize they are not as powerless as the bosses continually tell them they are. Then they will fade away and you need not worry.

and again you are wrong. Section 13 of the bchrt has no mention of hurt feelings and being offended. Those are not grounds to have a complaint heard. yes the two threads are closely linked. You are complaining that others take you to task for things that you say and you think that people shouldnt do such things. I think you should get some training in robustness.