manasketa

Is it possible to live in a world without religion and gods? Absolutely. Is it possible to live without a belief or assumption of some sort? I would be very interested to see that. While atheism is not a religion, it is a worldview or paradigm, with a set of assumptions. Religions, although they come with gods and explicit moral codes, are likewise embedded in a paradigm, with other such assumptions. How would atheists like it if I questioned the fundamental goodness of democracy, or individual rights? I am not condoning stoning or other practices, I am just pointing out the fact that atheists stand much in the same place as do religious folk, and are subject to the same problem of fanaticism. If this woman sought to embed islam within a more modern worldview with more equal rights for the traditionally underprivileged, good for her. IMO, we could all use more humanism.

Throwing money at the First Nations is not going to help them improve their quality of life, it's just wasting our tax dollars. A lot of efforts to help are viewed with disdain, partly justified because the initiatives are ill-conceived by people who do not understand the Indian paradigm, let alone aspirations. I say, let's pay our outstanding debts from treaties, and leave them be! We have tried "development" from above, it obviously does not work (and indeed this asbestos repair business is yet another example of bandaging bullet wounds), so lets let each group go their way and develop themselves, with the resources they have a right to (the treaty money). If they choose to build casinos, that's their business, not ours. But since policy dictates we must improve conditions for the Tsu Tina (even though asbestos, I read somewhere, was 1000x less likely to cause fatalities than car accident deaths), I don't think it's reasonable to leave them homeless during the repairs. And where else in Calgary is there room for 600 people, with a vacancy rate of almost zip?

Interesting that he should be able to benefit from every loophole in the system, while circumventing the regulations designed to restrict asylum shopping (the Safe Third Country agreement). Methinks someone has a good immigration lawyer.

My understanding is that DeCicco opposes the purchase of a dump outside her "jurisdiction" because she's been pushing hard for the expansion of the dump near Westminster, which is part of the City of London now. The reason? Toronto pays a quarter of a million dollars a day to dump trash there, or did anyway. I wish I could cite this from somewhere, but the info is from a community hearing I attended in Westminster a few years ago, about protesting the expansion.