maldon_road

Sad, ain't it, when the taxpayer has to subsidize patriotism?

Don't know about Macleans but Levant said he laid out 200K on his defense before the turd dropped it. He's suing the guy now for recovery.

What precisely has he done to warrant this award? I don't recall human rights being a high priority with him.

In Canada for those of us in favor of free speech there are few good decisions. But here we have two of them.

Levant is cynical

Section 13 was put in to go after the hard-core hate-mongers - the Jew-haters and the white supremacists. Even that was controversial since we already have a hate speech provision in the Criminal Code. But thanks to the pointy heads at the CHRC it has become the cry-baby provision. If you are a Muslim and don't like the comments Mark Steyn made about Islam in Macleans, by all means file a Section 13 complaint. As soon as the CHRC staff saw the complaint they should have left in the can to be used as bum wad.

And one thing for sure, he will never spend a day in prison in this country. In fact he will never even be tried. Those who see him as a "victim" (he was 15-yrs old at time of capture) will drown out those calling him a "terrorist".

There's a big difference between someone ranting in a discussion group and using the power of the state to go after a magazine such as Macleans. Any effort by the government to chill free speech should concern us all.

The regulator is doing a review of its own regulatory practices? This is a free speech issue. At a minimum it should be done by a Parliamentary Committee but certainly at arm's length from the CHRC.

And of course that was why he kept four firearms in his home.

Two distinct elections of course - in the Primaries they are preaching to the choir but afterward it's the populace as a whole. That's why Obama has become less ideological on NAFTA.

Americans need to do what they do best, develop new technologies with the myriad of jobs that flow from that, eg, the Internet. Let Mexico and South Korea take the rust bucket jobs.

It seems that they are either talking to us or about us. We will hear a lot more about NAFTA (including allegations by Obama that Canada is profiting at US expense) before this election is over. And a lot more afterwards if Obama wins.

And the price they pay for factional politics it that the losing faction (in this case the female left) gets in a huff and threatens to vote for the opposition.

Steph, the working man's friend. DION

It took 13 years for the Libs to "achieve" all this. Let's see what another 11 years of Toryism brings us.

In democratic countries it is not the role of government to promote religion. In England the CofE is in a cushy position, it's the state religion. If it keeps losing members it's the leadership's fault. It has nothing to do with the government.

Talking of hypocrisy didn't Harper run on a campaign of accountability and transparency?

And of course the same thing was said about Romney, "Do Americans not want a Mormon president?". And with respect to Richardson and Hispanics too. The race between Clinton and Obama was very close and could easily have gone the other way.

Best comment last night about whether Hilly could become the VP nominee - "With Senator Clinton you would get a lot of baggage, the biggest being the person she is married to"

This is Mario Silva. I doubt he has much interest in the British monarchy. He's more thinking of his Catholic constituents and he would hardly be opposed to confessional schools.

He is showing that the Act of Settlement, 1701, discriminates against RCs in that it prohibits one from becoming monarch. Gordon Brown is on record that he would like to amend the act to eliminate that provision. He is not arguing against religious schools but public policy which discriminates on the grounds of religion.

No surprise here.

It is not up to judges to determine how much of the health services budget goes to help drug addicts as opposed to, for example, cancer patients. That's a decision to be made by the health authorities - in essence, a political one. Not surprisingly I see that some drug addict advocates are using the decision to now "demand" that other free needle clinics be established in other parts of the country. Surely an enlightened fellow like David Miller would welcome such an establishment in his fair city.

That's the issue; does it prevent conception or actually destroy a fertilized egg? But, whatever. Aren't there other aspects of abortion that take priority over this? In the eyes of the public argiung that the pill should be banned makes them look like a bunch of Neanderthals from the 1950s.