August1991

Women are less inclined to take risks than men do. The causality might go in the other direction.

You seem very quick to dispense with freedom of speech in the case of "hate speech".

I just had a nice walk on the Montreal mountain. I noticed quite a few whites, blacks and many skin variations in between. I have no doubt that I walked by many gays and lesbians. I was unable to identify any one of them. What logic is that?There is a big difference between parking my car illegally and saying that I'm going to park my car illegally.

The glib answer would be to say that the RCMP burned down a barn. The correct answer is that Trudeau felt the RCMP did not give him adequate intelligence during the FLQ crisis. A commission of enquiry led to the creation of CSIS which at the start was largely populated with RCMP officers. This mirrored the US distinction of the CIA and the FBI. The Tory talking paper meant, I think, to create a department to oversee all security/intelligence/border matters as is done now in the US. I don't think there was any suggestion of re-joining the RCMP and CSIS. Incidentally, CSIS is purely an information-gathering body. It also provides advice to other government agencies. It is not a deliberative body.

If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Michael, I suggest you look through the other, older thread specifically about C-250. Look at the posts at the end.

The effect of C-250 is to alter the Criminal Code. Specifically, it will include "gays and lesbians" as an "identifiable" group. This thread raises two perfectly valid points: First, are gays and lesbians "identifiable" in the same way, for example, blacks are identifiable? Second, what is "hate speech"? Is this what we really want to forbid? A "hate crime" is not the same as "hate speech". The distinction is critical.

TakeNum, read through this thread. You will find my arguments (and of other posters) that are valid arguments against C-250. Everyone can also judge whether the level of debate is better or worse now.

Gee whiz, are you people ever self-centered. You seem to enjoy discussing each other more than discussing anything concrete. TakeNumb, imagine if people guilty of armed robbery and of murder received the same sentence. Soon enough, there wouldn't be many people charged with robbery. The crook might as well kill the robbery victim. This is the principle reason that different crimes lead to different penalties.

The Liberals are desperate on both sides of the Ottawa River. The CBC and Radio-Canada will be deployed as required. Harper will hurt Kids CBC and Harper's Secret Gestapo CBC says Harper is Pro-Abortion Harper will destroy the Environment CBC says Harper has no interest in Canadian Arts Harper wants to destroy Canadian culture All of these tactics were used in similar fashion at various times by the Federal Liberals against the Parti Québécois. Wait for the big splash of media noise just before the vote. It may well work. This Liberal crew are counting on the old line and the old methods.

Got me there Willy. What's your point?

I read through the first few posts on this thread some time ago (silent people read what you post!) and wondered whether I should get involved. I decided not but with these past few posts, I feel I must. The question seems to be, "Right and Wrong: How to Know". Here's a simple, obvious answer. It's straight from nature and in practice, the basis of existence. "Don't Waste." IOW, the only good (right way) is to use wisely whatever we have. The only bad (wrong way) is to squander, collectively or alone. I think that's a good moral guide, and it has the advantage of possibly getting universal agreement.

There are two critical questions: ONE: Who gets to go first to the House? TWO: What happens on the first confidence vote? I go Harper on one, and BQ support on two. Once your virginity is lost, there's no big deal involved. It might even be fun.

These last posts remind me of a student who used this forum to write a term paper. For fun, I started to correct it and after about the third quote, I gave up with a sarcastic remark. The following exchange was ugly I know that editors delight in and cringe at our writings. Balzac and Dickens wrote like this. And it's the best way to learn. I know my written English is much better now. (And TakeNumb, I like your style.)

Willy, I am extremely respectful of people's religious beliefs. I cannot imagine anything so private or personal as a person praying. But I must say something. The threat of eternal damnation, or hell, or whatever you want to call it, is not a proper way to start an honest dialogue. Any intelligent person can see through such a negotiating position immediately. Children maybe not.

Quebec, utterly self-obsessed, has been down this path before. Quebecers love talking about themselves (Faut se parler!) and polling is obvious. First, polling firms have no interest in playing around with numbers. Their reputation makes their profit. Everyone knows which guy accurately predicted the final result. Second, no answers. Or answers, but doesn't vote. The issue here is whether the supporters of one party are more inclined not to declare or not to vote. If all party supporters do the same, it's a non-issue. In Quebec, pollsters have refined this correction to a high art. In Canada? I'd say potential Liberal voters are under-represented in phone polls (they don't answer) but potential Liberal voters also don't bother to vote. Overall? A wash. The first factor is probably less important than the second so I mentally lower all Liberal percentages by a 2-3%. Historically, that's the typical difference between Liberal polls and Liberals votes.

TakeNumb, you don't trust organized religion. I don't trust the State. I gather that what we both don't like is coercive (involuntary) relations. And I suspect that we both understand that kids have no choice because they don't know. I say turn the page, move on, but never forget.

Prayers aside, I note that all of your last examples are Muslim countries, takenumb. Ever wondered why?

Sorry Bionic, I can't help myself. This has been bothering me. Shouldn't that be patrimonial rights for gays? And I guess, matrimonial rights for lesbians. Whatever. That comparison is misleading if not wrong. There were specific laws forbidding blacks and whites having sex together (the term was miscegenation, a word as common in 19th century America as fundamentalist is now). There were no laws forbidding white/black marriage - the idea was absurd.I think most Canadians now accept Trudeau's dictum of bedrooms and the State. Sex ain't the point. Few if any object to two consenting adults shacking up and doing whatever the hell they want to do. Most Canadians even accept that two adults can sign a contract of mutual liability, giving rights to survivor benefits. None of this is the problem. Instead, it's something extremely silly. For some weird reason, the traditionalists want to keep the word "marriage". I say, they want it? Let 'em have it. This is style, not substance.

We have that now, de facto. Gays and lesbians, as well as straights, were entitled to "civil unions" before which in fact is just the freedom to contract. What is asked for now is the word "marriage". This is an argument about whether we should say "couch" or "chesterfield", that's it! As to your other points Argus, the notion of "family" varies by culture and in history. We, in the "West", have thankfully increased the importance of the individual and in particular, the individual's freedom to choose. We are less the son of our father and more an independent person. Whether the word gays can use the word "marriage" or not strikes me as insignificant in these broader changes.

I agree with you.I think the problem arises because, as in a war, everyone is expected to rally around the flag. And if you don't, then it means you're a traitor. What you are saying, and I agree, is that the freedom of dissent is a more important value than solidarity before a perceived threat. Here I strongly disagree with you. To say that the US in any way planted the seed leading to bin Laden is absurd. bin Laden came from a wealthy family in a wealthy country. You might as well blame the Republican Party for causing Ted Bundy. Or why not the provocative clothes his victims wore? Smart people in countries suffering strife need only hold up a mirror to see the "root cause".In Quebec, for almost 40 years, there is an ongoing peaceful war about independence. It has distorted local and federal politics. This "strife" is entirely of our own doing. At least, we use peaceful means, not violent.

It is an interesting article, MS. Thanks for providing the link. After Confederation, it was the Tories that were the Natural Governing Party. This changed with Riel and Laurier and since then, the Liberals have never really looked back. The four great PMs were Macdonald, Laurier, King and Trudeau. American Catholics tend to vote Democrat and Canadians tend to vote like American Catholics. With many more people of Catholic background, Canada would be strongly Democrat. The article alludes to but doesn't make explicit something unhealthy in Canadian politics. It is an extension of something extremely unhealthy in Quebec politics. We do not, in Canada, have a legitimate debate between the so-called left and right. In fact, the Liberal Party should not exist and we should merely have the Tories and the NDP. The reason the Liberal Party survives is because it is perceived as the only federalist party in Quebec. If the question of Quebec independence were ever to disappear (impossible), it would be interesting to see how Quebecers would vote between NDP and Tories. Canada (and Quebec) would have a healthy democracy.

It is my way of responding to nonsense. Argus prefers separate posts. I find that takes up too much space. The thread provides the context. Between WWII and 1991, the US was involved in an extremely serious Cold War against Communism. This war was a major preoccupation of every Administration. There is no doubt in my mind who the real thugs were in that war. Americans acted in general like a firm policeman. My reference was to the "real anti-Americans" who want to eliminate people like you and me because, among other things, we freely discuss topics on the Internet.

MS, I'll avoid the druggie remarks if you agree to keep your quotes short. (We can all jump to the link and read for ourselves.)

Martin will be able to deal with neither. The only hope for a Liberal minority is if the NDP holds the balance of power. Given current polls, that will not be the case.The BQ and Liberals are like the NDP and Tories on this forum. Cats and dogs. In fact, this means that Martin will not be able to form a survivable minority government even if tries to - and the GG lets him. The BQ will support the Tories, however. And they'll have to at first because there is no way Quebecers will tolerate another election so soon. Bear in mind that the BQ wants independence - although Duceppe will downplay this in the English debate. (On my French forum, every single thread breaks down to that debate.) The BQ believes there is more chance of that if there is an Anglo PM leading a Tory party. As it is, the BQ can almost say they represent French Quebec.