segnosaur

Yes, monty16 seems to be bordering on troll-like activity... posting inflammatory remarks, and then when challenged he runs away, or reposts the same crud. I wonder if he understands that he is actually tarnishing the image of the "left wing" by such childish behavior?

As another persion said...the beginning of person hood may not be irrelevant. If the government dictates a particular point in utero where life begins (and the court agrees to it) then an abortion would be considered assault/murder. A couple of other things: - Keep in mind that the part of the charter that deals with the "right to bodily autonomy" is probably 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Notice the part in bold? It means that there are exceptions to basic rights... if the government brought in an anti-abortion law and managed to convince the courts that "fundamental justice" involves protecting a fetus, then that would override the right to "security of the person". - Also keep in mind section 33: the 'notwithstanding' clause, which can allow the government to override certain sections of the constitution. I could be wrong, but I think the government could invoke this clause to allow an anti-abortion law to stand. (Not only that there is also section 1 of the charter, which limits rights by what is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". - Some jurisdictions (e.g. Quebec) have "good samaritan" laws that actually require a person to render aid (assuming it does not in significant risk). That law already contradicts basic freedoms (freedom of association, possibly the right to not be detained, etc.) yet it still stands. It wouldn't be difficult to see an abortion law as an extension of that. So, while I have no problem with abortion, or the current status quo, I think your argument that "no law can be written" is flawed. There are multiple ways that an anti-abortion law could (in theory) be written and pass constitutional muster.

Its already been explained to you multiple times: his actions as leader of the opposition and head of the Liberal party hint at how he might act if and when he becomes prime minister. Running roughshod over members of his party (e.g. requiring them to be pro-choice), kicking the senators out of the party (when at the time he might not have had the authority to do so) suggest an individual who is at least as "dictatorial" (if not more), as Harper is purported to be, and just as willing to engage in dirty politics. Its useful to know that as potential voters, and its also valuable to understand that lest others attempt to portray Trudeau in an undeserving light. If you still don't understand, I really don't know how to make it clearer to you.

Hey, I never claimed I agreed with everything the conservatives did. I even stated quite explicitly in post 366: that does not mean I like each and every action that the conservative party has taken or policy that it has enacted. (Heck, I can even point out other things that they've done that I don't like, such as using omnibus bills, or appointing a chiropractor as science minister.) However, when criticizing a party, its not just important to consider the actions of the party, but those of the alternatives. Take for example the flack Harper got for Proroguing parliament. Sounds bad, but when you consider the previous Liberal government had used the same tactics, then that criticism falls flat. At best, Trudeaus actions have shown him to be no better than those of Harper and the conservatives (who again, are admittedly flawed). However, he could even be worse than the conservatives...

And once again... The key part of this issue is how it reflects on how Trudeau would run this country if he were prime minister. Would he be a truly revolutionary leader, being open and honest, building a consensus among people while allowing reasonable dissent? Or would he be the same-old same-old? Would he be an even bigger dictator that Harper is supposed to be? Or will he act like he's caught like a deer in the headlights? Obviously we won't know for sure unless he actually spends time as prime minister, but how he leads his party and how he acts while in opposition will at least give us a hint of how he'd be like if he becomes P.M. And so far, what we are seeing is anything BUT the revolutionary, consensus building leader... instead, we're seeing the dictator, with smatterings of "deer caught in the headlights".

While I am not a Liberal party member (and admittedly I voted conservative in the last election), that does not mean I like each and every action that the conservative party has taken or policy that it has enacted, nor does that mean I wouldn't consider voting Liberal in the future. A takeover by social conservatives in the conservative party, significant scandals that exceed what happened under previous governments, or favorable policies by the Liberal party would all make me consider voting for the Liberals. As such, consistency and trustworthiness is a significant matter, and being hypocritical over this particular issue is something that bears consideration when deciding who to vote for. (Much like a politician who says he's gay would still get my vote, but one who claims he's "100% hetero" yet is caught having man-love in the local truckstop bathroom might make me consider him as untrustworthy... not because I'm anti-gay, but because their actions contradict their public claims.) And since when did "you're not voting for that party anyways" become a useful argument around here? Most people around here are fairly entrenched in who they vote for, so if not voting for someone meant you couldn't criticize, this forum would become very quiet.

So is Trudeau. (After all, why bother with his "pro-choice candidates only" proclamation? There is little chance that strong anti-abortion laws would ever be put in place, even if the Conservatives remain in power.) About the only party right now that doesn't seem to want to play politics with the issue is the Conservative party (as a whole, notwithstanding particular members), who probably want to avoid the issue like the plague.

Once again (since you might not have noticed the multiple explanations in the thread)... The problem is NOT with a party attempting to enforce a certain policy platform or taking steps to ensure party discipline. Its an understandable and ultimately smart action. The problem is that it contradicts statements that Trudeau had recently made about how his party would be different, more open, etc. You can't criticize the other parties (with a "Boo hiss! Harper runs the tories like a dictatorship! We'll be different! We promise! We won't interfere with riding selections"), while simultaneously setting rules that interfere with riding selections. Tell that to those who are claiming Trudeau is "protecting the right to choose!". No, he's not... he's implementing a policy that can be reversed at any time. At best its symbolic. At worst, its a crass political move (something that many complain about...)

Has anyone tried looking between the cushions on the couch? That's where I usually find the remote control when it goes missing...

Given the fact that any future leader can reverse his decision, or that a future post-Trudeau Liberal government could (in theory) bring in anti-abortion legislation, no he's not. At best its a symbolic act (since the law was unlikely to change anyways, even if the Conservatives remain in power). At worst, its a crass political move.

I never claimed that those cases (late term abortions) are common... Only that a majority of Canadians support a law guaranteeing that they would continue to be rare, and a blanket "don't oppose abortion" policy may exclude the opinions of a majority of voters.

But that's the thing... he's not "just" supporting the status quo. Canadians may be completely comfortable with the way the system works now, but in theory a doctor could set up a practice allowing "abortion on demand right up to the 9th month" (assuming it was supported by the medical establishment) or allowing "abort children of the wrong sex". (both practices a large number of Canadians would likely oppose). The problem is, abortion is such a hot-button topic that saying "Don't oppose abortion" might come out as suggesting you actually have no problem with either of those cases. Edited to add: I want to make it clear... I have no problem with the "status quo" or abortion law as it sits in Canada. I have no problem with Trudeau requiring members of his party to adopt certain principles (although given the fact that the status quo was unlikely to change, the move seems useless in the best case, dictatorial in the worst case. My main criticism was the idea was the contradiction of claiming the Liberals were "open" when they are not.

That would also imply that 52% of people (i.e. the remainder who aren't "conception on" or "birth on") are pro-choice, but with restrictions (e.g. believe abortion should be available, but not in 3rd term. Yes, I know in a practical sense those are typically only done in rare circumstances, but there are no LAWS regarding that.) And Trudeau's Pro-choice platform doesn't really address that 52%. So, 20% (those opposing all abortions) + 52% (those opposing SOME abortions) = 72%.... a pretty substantial majority.

In this case, I do think its safe to say a significant majority of Canadians support with some restriction on abortion (as opposed to "any time/anywhere/for any reason"), since that question was fairly unambiguous. Now, whether that support actually translates to actual votes is unknown. Its possible that many of Canadians support adding restrictions but not enough to influence how they vote. Its also possible that some might favor restrictions on abortions, but recognize that there are already mechanisms in place to prevent "any time/anywhere/any reason" from occurring.

Its releatively easy to find statistics on this, although I suspect how people answer the survey depends on how the question is asked. From: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/ People supporting SOME restriction on abortion (e.g. such as in 3rd term): 60% Strangely, the same poll states that 49% of Canadians think a woman should be able to get an abortion "whenever she wants one". So, not sure how the 11% say they want "full" access to abortion, but with restrictions.

Minor point... while that article does mention the elimination of the mandatory long-form census, it seems like the majority of the article is discussing other problems with Stats Can, totally unrelated to the census... it talks about cuts to stats can in general (including things like labor market research). In fact, I can't see how any of the issues raised in the article relate to the census at all... things like job vacancy rates are probably not going to be gathered from a census (since the delays in collecting and analyzing the data would probably limit its usefulness.)

You seem to have ignored the fact that 1) your "source" for that statistic is questionable, and 2) it lacks any sort of statistics to back it up. So, Alberta has the most incest... does it involve 0.0000001% of the population or 99%? How does it compare with the national average? More importantly, what is the majority opinion in the province... do they look down on incest as negatively as everyone else? Simply taring the province as "hillbilly" is idiotic. Its like me saying "black people are all criminals" because they happen to make up the highest percentage of the prison population, because it ignores context, and also ignores the fact that the vast majority of black people are actually decent hardworking people.

Yes, the F35 has had many problems with cost over-runs and delays. (And like any other military jet, it wouldn't be surprising to see other problems appear in the near future.) However, from the point of view of Canadian purchases, past delays and over-runs are in many cases irrelevant... The key factor will be what the negotiated price and delivery date is. (If the plane took an extra 7 years to be developed would be irrelevant to us.) Not all pilots are 'afraid' of it... While I'm sure you can find a few pilots criticizing it, many like it: From: http://breakingdefense.com/2012/07/first-air-guard-pilot-to-fly-f-35-gives-a-positive-review/ “It was a very easy aircraft to fly,” said Air Guard Maj. Jay Spohn in a phone call with reporters Tuesday afternoon. “There were no surprises, there were no malfunctions.” From: http://gizmodo.com/371752/first-military-pilot-review-of-the-f-35-strike-fighter-verdict-kicks-ass "The aircraft flew very well, exceeding my expectations," Kromberg said. "I was surprised by the amount of power on the takeoff roll. And the handling, particularly with the gear up, was phenomenal. The aircraft was very stable flying in formation with another airplane. It was really a joy to fly." Keep in mind that many of the issues brought up in that article may not be due to actual problems with the planes, but simply because certain things haven't been tested yet. Some of the issues listed involved problems with the helmet (e.g. night vision). However, a version of the helmet (with many of those problems solved) has been completed. From: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display The Gen 3 HMDS “will include an improved night-vision camera, new liquid-crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements,” As Derek 2.0 pointed out.. no, we have not been "flying them for years". The CF-18s we have are basically modified versions of the F18A/B. The Superhornet is a modification with the designation F18E or F18F. The Superhornet is pretty much a completely different plane from the F18A/B (and CF18)... much larger, different engines, different avionics. There will probably be very little compatibility savings if we decided to use the Superhornet. That is... questionable. Opponents of the F35 like to jump on every cost over run, every problem, and say "Boo! Hiss". However, whatever plane is selected will be in use for 3-4 decades. This is a long term project, and any problems now have to be weighed against potential problems that can occur in the future. The super hornet might have a lower initial fly-away cost. The problem comes in 2 decades time. Right now, the U.S. and Australia are the only users of the F18E/F, and both countries selected the plane as a sort of "stop-gap" measure. What happens if we buy a fleet of Super Hornets, and they need maintenance or upgrades? We may be the only user of the plane... Canada may be the sole country stuck with the cost of upgrades. (Heck, we may even have to buy extra planes and/or spare parts to handle any attrition.) On the other hand, the F35 has already been ordered by multiple countries... The U.S., Britain, Norway, Italy, Australia. . When it comes time to upgrade these planes, or we require spare parts, any development costs can be split amongst multiple countries. (And Lockheed Martin will likely continue building F35s for the forseeable future, unlike the F18 which may stop production by the end of the decade. This will make replacements much easier to obtain.)

Quite possible he's trying to cause divisions in the Conservative party. Remember, there are still elements of the Conservatives who are "social conservatives" (i.e. anti-abortion). At this time, they do not have any real power (fortunately), and I doubt abortion laws will be changed under Harper's tenure. However, Trudeau bringing up abortion is like waving a red cape in front of a bull... there's a good chance that the social conservatives will start to speak out, with an "end all abortion" message. Hopefully Harper will be able to shut up the social conservatives within their party, and change the issue from an "abortion rights" issue, to one of "Look at Trudeau! Says he'll be different than the other leaders, but he's doing the same-old same-old". For the record, I have no problem with Trudeau's actions in enforcing a pro-choice policy... a leader has to be able to exert a certain amount of control over his party, to keep it from getting hijacked, to keep unsuitable candidates from becoming candidates, etc., and his pro-choice policy is an extension of that. My criticism is regarding his "open government/Big tent" claims from before this issue.

A couple of points... Wikianswers isn't always considered a reputable source. (At the very least it should have provided some links to source material to validate it.) And even if it was, it had just a single word answer: Which province has the most incest? Alberta. For it to be relevant, some statistics would be userful... How much higher is the rate of incest in Alberta as compared to the next highest province? Compared to the national average? If the difference is within statistical error rates then it may not be particularly relevant.

A company might want to know where the most bathrooms are in a postal code, which government could sell back to them. It's an idea. Oh yes, its quite possible for a company to be interested in that type of information. It might even bring in valuable income. But then, there are the following issues: - Should the government have the right to force people to answer a survey just because it can earn money from the results? People have pointed out that the survey takes less than an hour, but that's still time that I might have preferred doing something (anything) else... pulling the wings off flies, plotting my revenge on society, building a bunker for when society collapses. There are cases where the government needs to dictate how we spend our time in order to keep society functioning (e.g. jury duty); whether this is one of those cases is questionable. - While the survey produces data that is less accurate than a mandatory census, would that really be significant when the data is used for commercial purposes? I can imagine (for example) a plumbing company being interested in the number of bathrooms in a community, but if the numbers are off by a few percentage points, it probably won't make a difference in the company's business strategy. (Not to mention the fact that data would already be years out of date even if the census was mandatory.)

Not to put words in Bryan's mouth... But it might be possible for a person to recognize that the government already has the data they think it needs, while the data that it doesn't have (that would be collected from the census) is stuff it doesn't need. For example, its possible for a person to think "It would be useful to have statistics on household income... so they could (in theory) get that from Revenue Canada. The government should not care about my race or religion or how many bathrooms in my house (which might only be captured from the census). Its data they don't have, but I don't WANT them to have it."

In addition to the issue of training on a new system/procedures that was mentioned earlier, you probably have the following additional costs: - More forms are sent out (with the hope that the government would receive roughly the same number of voluntary responses as if they sent a smaller number of forms, but made responses mandatory). This drives up printing costs. - More effort must be made to analyze the data. Its not simply a case of tossing all the numbers into a spreadsheet and calling it a day... analysis can be fairly complex. (e.g. if a particular city or demographic has a lower response rate, they'll have to 'skew' the data for that city when figuring out national numbers.)

Most of them would use almost the same wording regarding their right not to vaccinate. The difference is, those wanting people to get vaccinated actually have science on their side. They can point to multiple scientific studies that show that vaccination reduces the risk of disease, and the benefits FAR outweigh any potential side effects. Those who are claiming vaccines are unhealthy are relying on either: - Bad science (e.g. the Wakefield study) - A lack of understanding of things like statistics, or of cause and effect relationships Take for example the earlier posting here where someone claimed "OMG! Vaccines contain Formaldehyde!" Sounds eeeevilllll.. But it is also scientifically ignorant. The fact is that the quantities of formaldehyde are tiny, much smaller than the amount known to cause harm. (And, I should point out, the body actually produces its own formaldehyde... if it were really so dangerous we'd ALL be dead by now.) The question is whether those "concerns" are actually based in reality or not. When you get right down to it, most of those concerns seem to be based on bad science. If I said "I must drive drunk, because I have a concern that if I don't evil space aliens will steal my brain!", people will consider that a false concern. Likewise, if people claim "vaccines cause autism!" (they don't) or "they have dangerous chemicals" (they don't have such chemicals in a quantity that is harmful) then those are false concerns. An anti-vaxers ignorance does not a valid concern make.

Perhaps not... but, we do have legal protection against being assaulted, or against people unlawfully risking our lives. If I hit someone in the knee with a baseball bat, legally and morally I am to blame for inflicting harm on another. And if I decide to drive drunk, I am likewise legally and morally at fault, not because I'm actually harming someone, but because my actions are risking the lives of others. Not getting vaccinated is much like driving drunk... You might "get away" with it multiple times, but you are still risking those around you.