NorthGuard

An old thread, and mostly picking nits, but hopefully taken in the right way: I agree. They're usually punished far more severely, both by their employers and by the media. The type of error that in any other job would result in an informal reprimand often results in a suspensions, fines, forced transfers, or terminations. The media screams bloody murder over honest mistakes, especially when they were justifiable. There's a lot of reasons for this that would make a discussion in of itself, some of them valid and some not, but it is grossly unfair to claim that police have it easier when it comes to punishment for error or malfeasance (especially malfeasance). These are some pretty interesting assertions to be making without evidence. Number 1 is a sadly common belief, that IMO is much, much rarer than your statement purports. It is also a very common human behaviour that you will find in all environments - I would actually argue the police do it less than others, but I also have no evidence of this. As for Point 2? Well, their belief is in many cases correct. There are many instances in Federal and Provincial law where peace officers are specifically exempt from certain laws, because they need to be to perform their duties. There are also other cases where police have to follow laws that civilians do not. I believe you are alluding to instances where police flaunt the law due to percieved immunity where it does not exist - I concede that this happens, but not so often as you seem to suggest. Number 3 is so specific and nigh-inflammatory that it would be best verified with actual evidence. I positive that it is not true, but if you have some facts to prove it, I would reconsider (and be very suprised). Number 4 I will not dispute. It is true, and 99% percent of the time totally necessary. As society in general becomes ever more litigous regarding privacy, this trend will continue. The media is not terribly helpful in this regard. It doesn't sound like we're that far apart. I guess my point is that bad apples can be found in any barrel, and genuinely bad cops are so rare that I think you should assume that the *person*, in addition to the uniform, is worthy of respect until proven otherwise.

For greater clarification, as stated in the previous exerpt from Wikipedia, Official Bilingualism is constitutionally enforced only at the Federal Level (which it has been determined includes all courts). Provinces choose their own official language(s) - New Brunswick is the *only* bilingual province, Quebec's official language is French, and it is English everywhere else. As a result of court rulings and subsequent legislation, all provincial buisiness in New Brunswick must be able to be conducted in either French or English, at the request of the citizen. This has had the interesting effect (among others) that RCMP working in NB *must* be bilingual, and every interaction with the police must be conducted in the official language of the citizen's preference. In other provinces, except Quebec, the police (and other provincial servants) can conduct their buisiness in English only, if that is there choice, and it is perfectly constitutional, no matter how much someone might wish it were not so.

To a certain extent, I agree. I think you'll find employees with no concept of customer service in most industries, the key difference is that the insulation you describe combines with negative effects of unionization to create a work culture that sometimes incentivizes that attitude. Poor and mediocre performers recieve promotions and advancement that they might not if they were employed in the private sector.

Here's some interesting commentary on the danger and difficulty of flying the F-102 from a pilot: If someone wanted to 'dodge the draft' by volunteering for safe assignment in the National Guard, flying the F-102 would not be an opitmal choice.

To address the other half of the argument, as some said, land-based oil does not belong to Canada, and is not under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Resources belong to the Province, and once a province sells the mineral rights to an interested party, said party owns the resource, and they may do as they please with it.

To add some context, The OCS Lands Act, aka The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, applies only to off-shore resource extraction (which is currently banned until Congress gets off their rears, anyways). Furthermore, there is not a broad, mandatory, or permanent condition that all oil produced from the OCS be used only for domestic consumption - Lou Dobbs sold you a tale, or you misunderstood. What OCSLA does is grant the US government right of first purchase to a small portion of the resources. They can also ask for the royalties to be paid in resources rather than cash, and the royalties count against the portion the government has right of first purchase on. The government must pay fair market value for resources purchased. Another clause is that, in a time of war, the President can make an order to claim First Right of Refusal on all production - but the government must *still* may full market value. OCSLA does not do what you claim. It has clauses to *fairly* ensure 'first dibbs' in extremely limited cases. It is neither intended to, nor capable of, allowing widescale nationalization of the oil industry. Source: Minerals Management Service