August1991

d'Aquino came into being, I believe, to support Mulroney in 1988 during the free trade election. I think it would be wrong to say that he is a Bay Street mogul or whatever. Gadfly might be a better description. You underestimate the desire of all these guys to be top dog. They are very competitive, in particular with each other. One would never let another get the whole cake.

I simply don't see a kid deciding not to steal a car because if he's caught, he'll lose his voting rights. It's not a deterrent.On the other hand, to the extent you believe in reform, I think a prisoner's right to vote might be a positive factor. Very true. But this is a complex issue that deserves another thread.

The Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) has 76 candidates running. Or is that the Marxist-Leninist Party (Communist)? Their web site is here. In 2000, the party received 8204 votes out of 12,857,773. (The Marijuana Party got 66,258. The CHP doesn't seem to have run.) These parties have every right to campaign and run. In 2004, I bet the Marijuana Party comes sixth (if "non-valid" doesn't count as a party). I would prefer a ballot with the explicit choice "None of the above" instead of the option of simply crossing out the whole ballot.

Marriage is best understood as a long term contract signed between two people. It is impossible for an animal to sign a contract. I don't mean to be legalistic about this; I'm just applying common sense. Could you hold an animal liable for breach? How? Incidentally, the same logic applies in the case of children. I agree with BD. I can understand though how some might prefer the term "civil union" and keep the word "marriage" solely for opposite sex unions.

Quebec Conservatives

Asking the CCPA to analyze a Tory tax proposal is like asking the Sierra Club to analyze an Exxon environmental initiative. The answer is a foregone conclusion.For anyone interested, the CCPA Web Site is here. They don't provide membership lists nor even a national Annual Report on their web site. They say they get funding from "organizational and individual members". Following your logic MS, if all the rich men vote Tory then I guess that leaves all the poor women to vote NDP. What's your point?

BD, the US is safer compared to the UK and indeed to many other countries. The murder rate in Toronto is now higher than New York City.Check this OECD data in Excel format. or you can see this thorough report comparing crime in the US and England. How is punishment any different really from deterrent? In different societies, punishment is meted out in different ways. But its purpose is to deter bad behaviour.Does it work? Obviously not perfectly. The risk of getting caught and the chance of avoiding punishment even if caught play a part. More broadly BD, if you think the threat of prison doesn't deter illegal activity then you are really arguing that all criminals are lunatics; that is, they don't think at all. I don't disagree with you Rev, and I too am inclined to let them have the vote. Did you read the G&M article above?But don't forget: We don't put people in prison to punish them as such. We put them in prison as a warning to others of what happens if you break the law. Good but minor point. I thought sentences of less than two years are served in provincial prisons, two years or more in federal penitentiaries and jails are municipal. Anyone know?

As BD stated above, this has been debated in another thread. Well, we've got new posters so we either revive the old thread or start a new one. Argus, do you think gays and lesbians should get survivor benefits in pension plans? Should they have to pay alimony in the case of a relationship breakdown? Should they be able to adopt children? Should they be mutually liable for debts? Have the right to co-sign on debt?

You are welcome to have this debate but it belongs under the category "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". The Senate will not be reformed if this requires a constitutional amendment.Electing new Senators does not require a constitutional change and that's why the proposal is interesting.

In this morning's NP, based on Barry Kay, it was Tories 125-126 to Libs 95-96 (if memory serves). CanWest Seat projection

I feel the same way, Hawk.This thread is all over the map. We've got the Iraq war in general and Canada's participation. Health care. Gay marriage. Would someone please start separate threads?

Have you noticed how PM PM is always kissing babies, holding kids, going to day care centres? How about Harper and his kids? For non-political types, they like pictures with kids. Remember the famous photo of JFK with his daughter under his desk?

I strongly disagree. The fear of going to jail is a great deterrent to illegal activities of all sort, not just violent crime.If only house arrest and fines were imposed, there would be more embezzlers. The sight of Michael Milliken in prison orange made many people think twice.

I disagree, MS. I think Harper was on the right side of an issue that matters to people out of the political loop. I think Harper's comments have brought some undecideds particularly in Ontario into the Tory fold. It's the chattering classes and political junkies that have criticised Harper. Their minds are already made up or don't matter. The Liberals and Canadian governments in general have not made this more of a priority. The UK and other jurisdictions have done more than Canada has. I agree that going negative is simplistic and demagogic. But it sometimes works. The Libs have gone negative on Harper to a much greater degree. Layton opened the campaign with his homeless remark. In truth, the Libs and NDP are more inclined to care about reforming the criminal rather than ensuring the punishment deters others.

Benefits? We give them food, medical care, a decent place to sleep, the chance to watch TV and read newspapers and books. (In prisons in other countries, this is not the case. Family must provide this.) The issue here is where to draw the line. The right to vote is such a minor deal that it strikes me as irrelevant. I'd opt on the side of "reform" aspect of incarceration for this particular right; but if Harper wants to remove it, so be it. This interesting G&M piece changed my opinion on a truly minor issue.

What religion have Canada's PMs been in this century (both English and French)? Why do people send their kids to immersion? Why does anyone still speak French on this continent? "Got the crap kicked out"??? What planet are you living on? You imply that if someone is gay, then they'll eventually be a child molester. I used the water to Scotch analogy. Maybe I should have pointed out that most child molesters seem to be heterosexuals. I still don't what you mean by "socially acceptable" and "socially natural". To my knowledge, one of the first States to experiment with democracy was Athens, around 450 BC. I don't believe religion had much to do with it.India is a functioning democracy and religion, much less Christianity or Protestantism, has a small role to play. IMV, there is no obvious connection between democracy and religion. What values are you referring to? Are they religious values or political values?

In 1939, the Canadian government chose togo to war; the US government did not. There were people on both sides of the border that variously criticized these decisions, sometimes heatedly.The same occurred recently in the case of the Iraq war. Since these stakes are smaller (than in 1939), the debate was less heated and will likely be forgotten sooner. Most important, all these decisions were taken in democratic fashion. Lastly, the situation is obviously different but the principle is the same. I think the Canadian government has chosen to fight when the stakes really matter. We avoid less serious battles. Can the US government say the same?

That's false. Canada was at its inception Catholic and it remains a country dominated by Catholic belief. How do you define "socially acceptable"? Do you mean that if I drink water, it's inevitable that I'll become an alcoholic? Do you really mean that it is impossible to have democracy without religion? Whare was democracy first used to guide the affairs of State? What role did religion play?

Few leaders have the powers of Canada's PM. PM PM referred to the problem as the "democractic deficit". The only serious check on the federal PM's power comes from provincial governments. We have never had an elected Senate with any legitimacy so we don't know what would happen. I think the proposal is interesting. I know that if Harper is elected and holds a Senate election in Quebec, it will draw much interest. The BQ will probably run a candidate. Incidentally, Charest was asked about this and he wisely did not answer the question by saying he will not take sides in this federal election.

Gays and lesbians had the right before (I believe grandfathered to 1985) to a civil union. This grants all the same rights and obligations of a marriage contract. What is being requested now is only the name or the word. How do you define a "fair trade"? When Canada refused to join the US in this Iraq war, we were not backstabbing anyone. Would you say the US backstabbed us when it chose not to join us in 1939? Governments in different countries choose as they wish to do what they want. Canada and the US and France are all democracies. The governments chose in democratic fashion. Respect that choice.

This would require a constitutional amendment hence it won't happen. There is no way Quebec would accept fewer Senate seats than it has now. Not working? It has worked for over 200 years.Harper's propsal has raised interest in Quebec - although it seems confusing. Several have already noted that it could lead to separatist Senators. Why not let the people decide? Why not have a check on the power of the PM?

This raises such a fascinating question. Consider this: In stead of getting one vote, we get 100. We can then give those 100 votes to various parties as we see fit. 80 to the Liberals, 20 to the NDP. Or, 40 to the Greens, 40 to the NDP and 20 to the Conservatives.IOW, we could express, in part, the relative degree of feelings we have for different political parties. Our prison system must be based on punishment. Reliance on people's better nature is unlikely to lead to civil society. The Tories believe denying voting rights to prisoners should be part of the punishment. But is this really punishment?

The Constitution only states how many senators will come from the different "regions": West 24, Ontario 24, Quebec 24, Atlantic 24. (There are also discretionary "senators" that a PM can also name as Mulroney did to get the GST through.) I think the Constitution even has ridings for Senators. In theory, a Senator born in Alberta could be named to a Quebec seat. The Constitution is silent about selection method. Hence, Harper could easily do as he has said. Appoint a senator who was elected in a particular "riding". Harper could not change the numbers, however. Incidentally, the US Senate has been elected by general suffrage only since 1924. Prior to that, the State governments named the federal Senators. Two questions: Would elected Senators have more weight than appointed senators? Would Harper's change become a respected precedent?

Good point Argus. The Israelis used the term "terrorist" diuring their incursion in Lebanon. Reagan used the term "freedom fighter" in Nicaragua. Tito used the term "partisan" in Yugoslavia. Now, you use the term "militant". Druze militants? Druze terrorists? Druze freedom fighters? Druze partisans? How about the US Revolutionary War term? Militia? Journalists love words, and love playing with them. The real world is something else.

Kyoto is an international agreement that excludes China and India (as well as most other "poor" countries), that benchmarks Germany with pre-1990 East Germany levels, and UK with pre-natural gas levels. In fact, it's an attempt of the poor south to get more money from the US. It has nothing little to do with the environment at all. Chretien may have signed on but the Libs have no way to implement the accord. This is the worst form of bureaucracy: "Say we did it or make the numbers fit because no one checks anyway." Faced with the complex question of protecting the environment, we now use simplistic shibboleths to decide whether someone is good or not. Pro-Kyoto=good and anti-Kyoto=bad. It's as meaningless as Greenpeace endorsing the NDP but not the Green Party. (Greenpeace CEO is ex-NDP.) Is this going to be the next ant-Tory scare tactic?