August1991

Do you mean that "China equals Chinese Government"? IOW, what is "China"?Populace? Dissent? Living standard? Sorry, I'm confused.

Life, truly, is a two way street.IOW, the more chances we have to take that two-way street the better we all are. Or, I never did like one-way streets. Or, two way streets are "globalisation".

Certainly not.Canada is Canada. Or rather, there are several million people living in northern North America, and several hundred million living in North America. For collective questions, we Canadians have our own way of doing things and we think this works, more or less. (Les quelques millions de francophones de ce continent méritent autant.) The club/family next door is worried. What could be better than to say to a neighbour, "Give us the key and we'll check your house. If we see a thief show up, we'll do something." We Canadians belong to a community. Our community includes those big, loud Americans. True, they're sometimes irritating, but they generally leave us alone.

Got me there. Sorry, do you mean China exports more/less than it imports? No problem with this one. The great advantage of our species is our ability to communicate (and trade)."Outsourcing" is just a way to arrange things differently. Cheap labour? Well, cheap for Canadians but a good job for others. (Have you ever got the job/promotion you wanted and celebrated after? Have you ever thought that your employer probably celebrated too because you accepted such a low "price".) Finally, let's make it easy to talk, trade, outsource - and who cares if cellphone companies or Internet providers make money in the process. We're talking, trading. We're doing better the human thing. We're co-operating.

The people I know in Quebec will either 1) vote BQ or not vote or 2) vote Liberal or not vote. (Some in category 2) have wondered who their NDP candidate is - IOW, they probably won't vote.) (The idea that people in category 1) might vote for Harper is truly weird.) But then. I have had some people visiting from Ontario recently. They said, honestly I figure, "I don't know who to vote for." Is this an Ontario phenomenon? Am I missing something? "Out" in BC, does one hear the same question? "I don't know who to vote for?"

That's the tip off, KK. It's security, not drugs.The Americans are freaking about security, not drugs. We Canadians should be co-ordinating with Americans all entry of people and goods to North America. For example, we should have a common tourist visa for both countries. We should let Americans participate in entry checks of containers from outside North America.

Martin HAD to go to Washington for the photo op. But it was Bush that opened the dialogue by saying: Bush was unprompted. Martin didn't get Bush to say that. It's what Bush thinks.

Martin did something different from the usual Canadian PM approach to US politics. Martin decided to get involved in local politics by meeting Congressmen individually. That's what US Governors do when they show up in Washington to lobby on their State's behalf. (I doubt Chirac or any French President would ever go to some Senator's office; Trudeau spoke to the joint house.) Will Martin get anything out of it? Doubt it. He has no coat-tail and no votes to deliver. Can he give a speech in Omaha to support a Democratic candidate? Lower-level people, not our PM, should do this leg work reminding US politicos how their voters depend on Canada. Was the Bush message to open the border for beef a subtle signal to Albertans? These Bushies are well advised. Harper chose to present his Quebec candidates at the same time Martin got his Bush photo op. This campaign will be interesting.

It is wrong to say that the US takes marijuana possession more seriously than Canada. I believe 10 of the 50 States have decriminalized possession of small quantities of marijuana. (And think of San Francisco...) US Marijuana Info Links In addition, the UK, Portugal and Belgium have also apparently decriminalized it. In Amsterdam, of course, there are many cafes selling it for consumption on the premises. Marijuana Info The Canadian Senate has recommended that marijuana be legalized. Check out this photo

One poll shows the Libs at 40% and the Tories at 23%. I think the baselines are rather Libs at 37% and Tories at 28%. IOW, wait for several polls to show the story. In addition, this last Ipsos-Reid had a rather smallish sample (950). This is too small for Canada given the regional nature of the vote. Ours is not a national vote but rather several separate regional votes. The sample size in each region is too small, and the margin of error too great. Harper and Layton are basically unknown quantities. The NDP at least means something to people. The "new" Tories under Harper mean nothing, or send mixed signals (Mulroney, Clark). This campaign will be interesting. The current poll numbers are not fixed in stone.

G & M Martin in DC Am I wrong in thinking this guy can't stop? Forest vs trees? He wants to jump around so much to solve the world's problems that he's willing to become a Governor? He looks for the big picture because that's what the Main Guys do. I would never have expected this. Harper should now wrap himself in the flag. He has every right to do it. A Polite Canadian in New York.

You are welcome to post, Watcher. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE MORE SILLY IDEAS, QUESTIONS OR MAKE MORE SERIOUS SPELLING MISTEAKS, OR GRAMMATICALS ERRORS than the postings here, on this site. IOW, if you just say what you think, however crazy, weird, without anything to support you, don't worry. (PS, there is no better place to be completely foolish/stupid than the Internet. It's anonymous!) I, for one, will support you. (Just be polite, and avoid insults, please.) But in fact, you won't need my support. Small Hint: You will have more credibility, and others will read your words, if you first look for web sites on the Internet and provide a link (http:// button) to support your POV. But if you're lazy, or you don 't know what POV is, don't worry. PS. POV = point of view and IOW = in other words.

Judging by the activity on this thread (posts/views), Canadians care not a whit about the only "International Affairs" of possible importance to Canada. IOW, if journalists report anything about Rwanda, Argentina or India, it is completely irrelevant to Canadians. Canadians do not care about the outside world. When the CBC talks about all this stuff, nobody is listening. In one ear, out the other. Static. Can Canadians possibly care more about Rwanda, Argentina and India than they do about America? WTF? Which country matters to us? Or do we care about stuff that only matters to us as "humans"? WTF? (Thare are public sector union strikes in Nfld and BC. The strikes are not about Rwanda, nor Iraq, nor about PM PM's trip to DC.) Canadians, posting here, care more about marijuana laws, electoral systems, gay rights than what happens when their PM goes to Washington. PM PM goes to Washington. No discussion, no debate. How much does the CBC report international stuff badly. Why? My point is NOT to editorialize, CBC style, about the ignorance and backwardness of ordinary Canadians who prefer to discuss hockey and gay laws rather than Palestinian suffering and conferences in Washington. I'm just observing a fact. How many posts/views here and how many posts/views to the thread on Bill C-250?

I posted some of these ideas earlier in another thread, before I realized there was a specific thread (important) on this issue. IMHO, Alliance Fanatic has every right to say what he (she?) said. I often agreed with AF once I cut through the rhetorics. But I usually found AF expressed ideas in a vulgar manner. While I agree with free speech, that doesn't mean I have to tolerate vulgarity on my screen, in my home. This open, public forum is also a "private" club. Regular participants can choose membership. I would vote for the broadest membership possible. As an Easterner, new to Internet forums, looking for Canadian political debate, I was lucky to find and I truly appreciate this forum. I am worried that other potential newcomers would be frightened away by some posts and posters, but there's also the chance the newcomers won't participate because the forum appears too sanitized. What should be the limits to individual freedom in a private club properly seeking new members because the club desires open civilized discussion? Greg, you seem to do well.

I've been wondering about this thread's question. I'll answer later. But, I'll post a comment now. RB, do you know this article? Coase Interview And is that Posner as in Richard?

Good expression, you're right. Gee whiz, Canada Rocks, how come?First: I have a friend who is an excellent proofreader/editor. She has figured out computers (sort of) and the Internet. If she was told that she had to vote on-line, she would be offended. Worse. She hires a mechanic to fix her car. I'm sure the mechanic pulls her pants on one leg at a time - yes, my friend insisted on finding a woman mechanic - but that's not the point. We hire other people to do special things for us: Politicians figure stuff out and then decide on our behalf. Like a mechanic. Second: There are several flaws in democracy but I'll note only one of them. In a large society, my vote (your vote) WILL CHANGE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. CanadaRocks, admit it. Whether your one single ballot, your X on your piece of paper, is in the box or not, it will make absolutely no difference to Canada's Parliament or Government. Your single vote is irrelevant - paper, proportional voting, Internet - makes no difference. If you don't vote, the result will be the same. (Don't believe me? Check after the next election to see if your vote changed anything.)

Equality is not the issue, Hugo. Nor in fact should justice. The severity of the penalty should be determined, in part, by the ability of the victim to avoid the crime. If it costs you $10 to install a burglar-proof lock, then you should be encouraged to do so since installing the lock is a cheap way to prevent theft. The penalty for such crimes should be relatively small. It is costly for members of identifiable minorites to avoid crimes specifically against them. Hence, the penalties for such crimes should relatively great. Hugo, have you have ever lived in a society in which you were an identifiable minority? Do you realize how hard it is to hide or blend in? That is the issue. My points are: First, do gays truly fall into this notion of "identifiable" minority? (People wearing wide lapel, leisure suits are identifiable too.) Second, we are not speaking about violence to gays but rather incitement to violence (hate speech). Third, the Canadian law seems to note incitement to "hatred". What's that? Fourth, the US has a clearly written First Amendment: that limits the judiciary.We have a freedom of expression clause that is tantamount to open judicial review: ... and: Heck, if we decide to go down this Roman/French Civil Code route as the Americans did, then let's do it. Instead, we Canadians combined a Code with Common Law interpretation! WTF? Lastly, I am offended by the treatment people receive if they object to the passage of this law, C-250. They are branded as extremists when in fact they are peaceable people who believe in "live and let live". There is an idea about that Canada is being "progressive" with such laws. It's not true. We are being foolish. The 1960s were apparently a time of rebellion and breaking taboos. Freedom is a wonderful thing. The writers of the American Constitution also lived in a time of rebellion, but I think they gave serious thought to what "freedom" is. Svend Robinson and Alan Rock, even Joe Clark, are reminants of the 1960s. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were in a very different class.

The Americans had prohibition and we didn't. They lived with all the bootlegging (of a "drug" that is far more common than marijuana). We have decriminalized (and the smell of marijuana on downtown sidewalks in Montreal is quite common). An Amsterdam situation (c 1960s) is not far. It is interesting that Revenue Quebec is changing its status in part to collect, I suspect, from such activities. The US fear factor is greatly, greatly exaggerated. The historical evidence is there.

I tend to agree with BD's (good) arguments throughout this thread. I favour marijuana legalization on pragmatic grounds. We obviously can't control the marijuana trade and it leads to so many other social problems (eg biker gangs and so on). Willy makes a good point that we have to live with our (porous) US border and what the US government thinks. But Willy, there's a precedent, interesting in more ways than one. The US had alcohol prohibition between 1919 and 1933. We essentially did not. During that time, the Seagram's made their fortune, and the US mafia was large created. Protestant Americans have a puritanical streak whereas we Catholic Canadians suffer from moral catechism. Same diff. I have no doubt that in 50 years, marijuana will be legal on both sides of the border. As in 1933, the US will eventually realize that forbidding it is worse than accepting it. By the way, check this out: Canadian Encyclopedia Wow! In 1898, we had a national referendum on alcohol prohibition that passed!

BlackDog, for once I thought you made reasonable points. If I understand properly, the Americans have "hate crimes" and "hate speech". Hate crimes would be committing a crime which was motivated in whole or in part based on, for example, ethnicity. Hugo wondered whether motivation is relevant. I think Hugo is wrong.I can easily hide my gold Rolex against thieves but it is hard to hide my black skin. Crime against the latter should carry, for this reason alone, a greater penalty. BD, you give a good example for restrictions on free speech. First, note that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is likely to lead to injury. But, shouting "Fire!" in a city park will at most raise eye brows.Restricting "hate speech" combines both these ideas. "Hate speech" is the incitement to commit an act (that may well never occur) against an identifiable group rather than committing the act itself. ACLU on Hate Speech In Canada, it seems to me, we've done something different and our law refers to "hate propaganda". Canada's Criminal Code Examine 319 (2) where is states: What constitutes "hatred"? I don't know. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association web site is silent on the issue. Incidentally, the import of C-250 is to include gays and lesbians in the definition of "any identifiable group". This also strikes me as strange in that one's ethnicity is identifiable in a way that one's sexual orientation is not. My fear of "political correctness" stems from this attitude (of BiGunner to me): Nowhere have I stated here my point of view about gay "lifestyles". C-250 is being used as some kind of litmus test to hound or bully people.Lastly, as to the nonsense expressed by AF, I agree with free speech but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate vulgarity in my living room. This public forum is also an open but private club. I kind of liked BlackDog's suggestion of allowing "plonking" (filtering by individual choice) certain posters.

I'm afraid that Canada is falling victim to political correctness. If people can't say what they think, they will go underground to say it. The "truth" cannot be ordained, and we are foolish to believe that we can make it so. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." When does an opinion become a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime? Am I guilty if I say I intend to park my car illegally? A simple parking ticket requires a date, time, place and description of the physical infraction.

I'll do some PR for you BlackDog: Question 1: What Bush do... You have fallen for Bush Jnr's shtick. (His Dad taught him that.) Lower expectations and you always win. Duh.My query - what can Bush do to get rid of Martin and get Harper elected? You didn't answer. What kind of political analyst are you? Question 2: What Martin gain... Martin, pull a Mulroney? No way. Dumb NDP/Turner/post-Modern Chomsky answer. "You sold us out..."Here's a fun video clip: Turner Mulroney Debate Clip Question 3: Harper... Interesting. Mulroney won in 1988. The Con choir is a Can choir.

Canada, a choice between Churchill and Lennon! (Sorry if I go with UK examples.) First, French Quebec is a small 6 million Iceland in a North Atlantic of 300 some odd million English. Whaddya do? Second, English Canadians and Americans? Same thing. Absolutely no difference. To understand this (and I'll assume you're English Canadian), do you make a difference between Americans? Pro-Kerry, pro-Bush? They're Americans, and Americans are well, you know, basically clueless. French Quebec views English Canada the way English Canada views America.

Canada's Competition Act is designed to forbid monopolies, cartels, agreements to fix prices that would result in buyers having no choice but to pay non-market negotiated prices. ("Buy from us, or not at all.") This legislation does NOT apply to unions (collective bargaining). Why? Because that is precisely what unions do - fix prices through a cartel. Is this good or bad? Are cartels good or bad? Is it better to negotiate prices outside of a free market? I dunno. But let's be honest and tell the truth at least.

I cannot disagree more strenuously with this statement. By inventing mathematics and prices, we have made property rights tradeable. It is now easier to buy rather than to steal. I think the Palestinians in Gaza will be happy. The Security wall may be a land grab but it will work.IMHO, there is a tremedous frustration among young Muslim Arabs (men as much as women) and this frustration is great among quick-thinking Palestinians. They blame America but they know the problem is theirs - and as individuals, they simply don't know what to do to solve them. The frustration concerns social class, jobs, money, the variance between official truth and real truth and the sexual rules Muslim society has fallen into. Meanwhile, Kurds, Maronites and other Christians, Israelis, even Turks stand around and watch. As much as I dislike the UN, here is its report on the Arab world. BBC article on UN Arab Report The European Catholic Church went through something vaguely similar some 600 years ago, or about 1400 years after the inception of Christianity. (On the Internet, look up the life of Savonarola and Florence.) Some 1400 years after the life of the Prophet, Islam faces something similar. Bin Laden is a modern Savonorola. Maybe Muslims should be left alone to deal with this problem. It's their problem; not ours.