Wild Bill

Justice and revenge are not synonyms, Smallc. Also, you are still implying that it is right for the minority to decide, perhaps because it agrees with your own views. You are entitled to do that. Myself, I simply can't, even when things might not be MY way! As I've said, I'm a populist democrat. The people have the right to have their society run their way, by majority rule. If they are wrong, they will sooner or later get a reality check! This will further their civic education and as a people they will be the better for it! Or to put it more succinctly - "Democracy is a system of government where the little people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard!"

VH, EC has never had any investigative capacity! Surely you must have had the usual pair of ladies from EC knock on your door, asking how many citizens live there and how many are of age of majority? Have you ever known them to ask for any proof of citizenship? Has ANYONE ever had them ask for such proof? It is purely a "take their word for it" system! Mind you, supposedly party scrutineers at polling stations have the right to challenge someone on the voters'List if they suspect fraud but in practice no one EVER does this! Why? Well first off, the days when polling stations were always in communities small enough so that everyone knew each other are long gone from most of Canada. The world has changed, long ago. Second, it is only common sense that much of the fraud would be in large metropolitan cities like Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, that have high immigrant populations. Although as a demographic immigrants have become integrated enough to no longer blindly vote Liberal or NDP, there is still much of this going on. So all an immigrant without citizenship has to do to get on the voters' List is to simply say "Yes!" to the EC ladies at the door. I actually asked a couple of EC ladies once about this situation. One started off with the official line about how it is an offence to lie and fraudulently get on the List but I interrupted her, saying I understood all that but how was it relevant - did anyone ever actually CHECK? Both of them immediately clammed up and changed the subject to the weather! In their zeal to get some of their monkeypoo to stick to Harper, the critics are starting to demand EC be micro-managed to check EVERYTHING, assuming that all that will be uncovered would be things to support their witch hunt. It would be ironic indeed if their hunt uncovered something different, such as that EC has almost no budget or resources to investigate problems and far more interesting, irregularities with non-citizens voting in urban ridings with overwhelming support for the Opposition parties!

Yes Michael, but with some cultures there will always be suspicion that some, particularly women, are forced to abide by a religious court that has what we consider to be demeaning ideas about women's rights. Wouldn't this be extremely difficult to identify? Women are killed every day for less!

Because I believe that those who are injured have the first claim to justice! Long ago we gave up seeking justice as individuals or as clans because we accepted that the State, or King, had more resources than we did ourselves. This made it a much more level playing field, in that a rich and powerful baron no longer could murder or rob a peasant with impunity. We also came to believe that the State would always be fair and just, with sentences that were appropriate to the values of the ordinary citizenry. Somehow that appears to have changed over the years, or there would not be poll results showing such numbers of people who disagree with the sentencing for murder in Canada. From some of the discussion here in this thread it would appear that many people today believe that murder is ONLY a crime against the State and ONLY the State has the right to decide an appropriate sentence. Arguments are used that reflect the will of a minority, not the majority. Some even go so far as to state that their views, even if in the minority, must prevail because THEY believe that they are true and proper! In effect, their values are constants of the Universe, no matter how many of their fellow citizens disagree! As a populist, I just can't accept this as democratic. It is a value system that is imposed, not accepted, no matter how you paint it. I believe that is always wrong, no matter what the issue. With this growing disconnect between the values of the mainstream and those of our ruling system, it is not surprising to see voter participation dropping. More and more people are feeling that their values are ignored so why participate except to make a nice-looking sham that the MINORITY gets to brag about!

Well, it could certainly add a few more layers for lawyers to take fees! And what if a real court repealed a religous court's decision? Would that not be like igniting a barrel of fireworks?

Then you agree with me!

Yes and no, AW. I'm beginning to believe that impact statements mean very little in Canadian courts. The judge is the one who determines the sentencing and he can and it would seem usually does ignore them! It seems like a sop, like smoke and mirrors. Everybody says "Oh, wasn't it wonderful that the little boy got to say how losing his father has hurt him so badly!" Meanwhile, when it comes to sentencing the little boy is nowhere around and his father's murderer may be out on the street before the child is out of his teens! Except as window dressing, victim impact statements don't seem to actually mean anything, as far as I can see. Certainly, if I was ever so unfortunate as to have to make one, I don't see how they would make me feel any better. Words are cheap! An innocent life is not.

I've never denied I have a heart, Star! I just think that it doesn't rule me. If I am going to be led by my heart, I try to make sure that it is in an honourable direction. To dismiss victims and their loved ones so cavalierly is not a direction I would take. I can foster some feelings toward a murderer but nowhere near what I feel for the loved ones of the person he slew.

Once again, you show you have no clue! The reason for Vic's claim is that the tweets give him no opportunity to defend himself. That is the basis for all libel and slander laws. If I publish something bad about you in the newspaper I could be wrong but the damage to you is done and you'd have to live with it. With tweets it's exactly the same! Now I happen to agree with the tweet claims myself! I don't have a very high opinion of the man. However, that is irrelevant. The fact remains that his reputation has been tarnished with no chance for him to tell his side of the story. I realize that you will not agree with this. I'm sure that since you hate Tories and Vic in particular then you wouldn't waste a second thinking about what was fair or legal.

I too am against any religious law having legal force in our Country. As for existing Jewish religious 'courts' handling divorces, I don't see what's the problem! We have always had religion and law separate at a wedding. The licence comes from the state, the minister does the religious rites and as a matter of courtesy makes sure that all and both sets of documents are in order. Why could that not be done with divorce? Could a Jewish couple not be divorced by the laws of the land and appeal to their church to be divorced in its eyes? Actually, is that not the way it is already in the Catholic faith?

Exactly, Michael! I find it amazing how so many people not only think their own views are the majority but they have difficulty understanding how anyone could feel differently.

That is totally impossible! You might as well suggest Iran would offer to pay the old age pensions of all Israelis! Why one earth would Russia or China fund a scientific station that helps establish Canada's claim to the arctic regions? Especially Russia, who has claims of its own. China of course wants the North West Passage to be an international waterway. I get your point but it is totally lame. It just shows you needed to grab something quick to make a slam against Harper. How about "Gee! Wouldn't it be funny if someone gave Harper a wedgie! Huyuck! Huyuck!" It would be consistent.

You don't call blackmail an act of contempt? Oh, I forgot! Those are YOUR guys, so it's ok!

Well, one thing past history tells us, it will be FAR worse than the powers-that-be are telling us now!

Well, it was Kennedy who got them to put a man on the Moon. Wasn't he a Democrat?

This attitude from our government just illustrates one personality flaw with many conservatives. They are stodgy! They tend not to be science buffs, because they think things are fine the way they are, whether its our present level of technology that is the status quo or if its horse and buggy time. As per usual, our other choices are equally flawed. We have politicians supporting wind and solar power with huge sums of money long before these technologies are at the point of being self-sustaining, because they themselves simply are too ignorant of how the technology works! Or they think that big whacks of money will be guaranteed to "bootstrap" the technology to the point to where it WILL be cost-effective! One of my favourite cartoons shows a manager with a flip chart, pointing to a box on a flow chart labeled "Engineering Breakthrough Here!" It seems we just can't win!

Well, then we must agree to disagree. BTW, torture is YOUR word, not mine! I have no interest in torture. Death by lethal injection would be fine by me. I do not consider my position to be emotional and frankly, Dr. Dre, I find yours somewhat harsh and uncaring. You have not convinced me at all that you give any value to the needs of victims and their loved ones. Once the State takes over, I guess you expect them to simply shut up and go away, after a victim's impact statement that the courts can promptly ignore, of course! I guess it depends on who you consider more important. I've always considered individuals paramount. You clearly don't. Let's move on.

So the Tories used a call centre. Wow! What a news flash! Of course, EVERY party used call centres, either third party or volunteer! Wow again! If that isn't proof positive of something fishy, what else could?

I found your response interesting Dr. Dre. I've heard similar arguments from others many times before. Do you realize you never once mentioned the victims, or their families and loved ones? Capital punishment satisfies a very deep human emotion, one that few can understand unless they themselves are touched by such tragedy. This emotion says that a murderer should pay with his own life! It gives closure, and says that the victim's life had value. To my mind, the victims and their families and loved ones come first! The needs, wants and values of society come second! The crime was against an individual, not against his society. When someone defines things only as to how it relates to society, I am reminded of the best definition of society I've ever heard, from the novelist Ayn Rand. She said (I'm paraphrasing here from memory) that "society is everyone in general and no one in particular but it is never, ever YOU!" I always considered this definition to be a truism.

If the law truly does, then how do we have a difference cited when polls ask about the death penalty? Last time I looked, a majority wanted it and we don't have it, going back for decades!

You are skewing things a mite, I would think. I don't recall anyone saying that the Muslim world is evil. Just Iran! Not all Muslim countries are like Iran or Syria. I might have gone along with you if you had restricted the definition of evil only to fundamentalist Muslim religious regimes. Muslims of modern cultures are quite different and it's hardly fair for you to brand them the same as their backward cousins. I am so against religious governments of any stripe that to be honest I'm not that comfortable with the Vatican!

Guyser, I have seen a couple of sentences for murder up close. People who I knew were killed. I have no respect whatsoever for the light sentences they received. That's why I believe as I do!

Ah, but that has been my point all along, Smallc! Do I have to convince the majority of my fellow citizens, or can just a small minority of us get to have OUR values made Law?

Everything from petty theft to jaywalking? Sez who, Guyser? You? Do you really expect the Canadian people would allow such a thing to come to pass? If you do, you really have a low and extreme opinion of your fellow citzens. I for one think better of them! You say the system works overwhelmingly fine? That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. All I'm saying is that if your opinion is to be made into law you should have the majority of your fellow citizens on your side. If you don't then you're just another elitist, plain and simple. You shouldn't be able to just blow off the majority who disagrees with you and get your own way! I agree that the police can be biased and corrupt in the way they handle evidence. That's why the death penalty should never be mandatory! Was there any doubt about Paul Bernardo? How can you class him with a simple thief as far as receiving capital punishment? Again, as far as setting a legal limit for capital punishment, I never said some 100% utopian ideal. I said "beyond any reasonable doubt". Paul Bernardo would fit that description. Regardless of all these arguments, I still believe the law should reflect the wishes of the majority of the people. When someone starts saying that the people are not qualified or should not be trusted I seriously question his arrogance and his motives.

Considering baseless is an opinion. Who's opinion prevails? Mine, yours? CharterofRights? Once again, if the people are wrong then the people will eventually learn a lesson. If given no opportunity to make mistakes they will never learn anything. There are many people's opinions that I consider baseless. When do I get MY chance to have my opinions become law?