Sir Bandelot

Sad to hear about your loss, Topaz.

Yes, I heard even the buddhists pray in their temples that one day all people will come to realize their own buddha nature. Imagine that... bastards

Also, it's not wrong to use a celebrity's death to raise awareness of breast cancer. Personally my first reaction was, too bad she died. I wonder if she ever forgave the old man for his transgressions, but in a way, I hope she didn't.

These posts of yours are just garbage. Give us the good jbg.

You are correct, there are problems. However we don't want to go from the frying pan into the fire. Our system is having difficulties, but so is every system in the world. The problem is not about the type of system, it's about corruption. Wherever there is a lot of money, that's where you'll find criminal activity. And healthcare is one of those places. and no matter what system is put in place, the problem of gouging the public for money will continue. I've worked in the health care system for decades, and observed it, analyzed why it works the way it does. I can say the health care workers themselves are the most dedicated people I know. The problem really begins in hospital management, and extends upward right into the government. I believe in our case, completely changing the system will only make it worse. There are no major gains to be made in going private. And most of the efficiency at the front line has been attained, nothing more to gain. It's absurd to cut back services at this point. The problem is corruption and it points to a much larger problem in our society as a whole, we've come to this point where everything costs huge and we are not effective at getting things done. Whatever we build is not made to last, compared to the 1950's.

I mean more like this: http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac101/Bandelot/WardChurchillGun.jpg

The fleas of heven

I believe it means Allah. Fleas will invade your private parts, causeing you to scratch yourself to death.

Yeah, things were fine until when they got sold to the USA. It all went downhill from there. Then they came back to Canada for a short while but it was too late. Not even sure who owns them now anyway. I am against them. Much prefer the good old home-town socialist donut shoppes. Places where you go in and people are wearing berets

I don't think their wages are extremely high in all cases, but I suspect there is a lot of "fat" that could be trimmed from the civil servants. So while we need to demand they use due diligence, it is also a matter of how much effort goes into something to achieve savings, vs. the amount that gets saved. This is less than a drop in the bucket. If it distracts our attention from the more important issues than it's not helpful to even argue about it. On the other hand, one might say that even civil servants are human beings (yes, it's true) and like everyone else they need to feel appreciated once in a while. So I am not against some minor perks like free coffee and donuts, as long as it's only once in a while. My view is that people with good morale will do better jobs than people who are demoralized and hate their jobs. So in the end a little bit of moeny spent on staff appreciation can go a long way. No need to be niggardly about this. Or can I not say that word around here

Agreed, I mean come on. Who are all these people in white lab coats telling us about global warming anyway? Surely, not scientists

Maybe, if it Tim Hortons

I agree It may not be "political" in itself, but still very telling that they've had to change their marketing strategy by removing the leaf from mugs in Quebec. Still, why bother selling the flag mugs at all then? Is Timmys becoming some kinda nationalist patriotic campaign? The fascist donut shop...

Kinky. You did what with the peacock feathers?

What happens when you take a glass full of ise cubes, and pour in some warm water? The ice melts. At the same time, the water gets colder. Seems simple enough.

Yes but the kings and princes of radical (and herectical) wahhabism are a more powerful enemy. Much easier to attack and blow up poor people with broken kalishnikovs.

Wrong, hunters didn't have to register their rifles or shotguns. You want to have it both ways. You want the government to punish people who smoke dope, put them in jail or cane them, but you don't like it if the government tells you can't have restricted firearms. Just because you personally don't like something, that somebody else does? Either you support government control, take away freedom of the people, or you don't. So which is it.

Oh, thats too bad. Now you can't play with firearms without a licence. But what can you do, government have spoken. Maybe need to go pound sand...

Yes it did. In the economic action plan, hundreds of billions was made available to the banks, to "encourage lending". This paltry 4 billion was a mere drop in the bucket. And now appears it did not live up to the hype, surprise surprise. But it's all good, right Arguss? Double plus good.

Greenthumb, I agree but at the very least it does open the door to consitutional challenges. This bill is not decided yet, it still has a few more steps to take before it becomes law. But I suspect that if it does, it will soon fall. As should any carte-blanche attempt at introducing mandatory sentencing, legislated by politicians who sit in their offices and know nothing.

The Vancouver Sun article in the OP is not correct. The senate did NOT pass this bill. So much for validity in quoting reliable sources. Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 3rd Session, 40th Parliament, Volume 147, Issue 69 Wednesday, November 24, 2010 The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Bill to Amend—Eleventh Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee—Debate Continued On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duffy for the adoption of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, with an amendment), presented in the Senate on November 4, 2010. Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, once again . . . [Editor's Note: Senator Watt spoke in Inuktitut.] Thank you. I stand before honourable senators today on the issue of Bill S-10, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. With this legislation, formerly known as Bill C-15 in the last session, we are again asked to accept mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and are again asked to accept a bill that provides for drug courts only in some parts of this country. Drug courts are not available in the North, East or the province of Quebec. Honourable senators, we are also looking at a bill that ignores a vital tradition established in the Criminal Code, known as the Gladue principle. Under this principle, judges are mandated under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code to look for alternatives to jail for Aboriginal offenders. Judges have been instructed to pay specific attention to the circumstances surrounding Aboriginal offenders during sentencing. The minister stated that Bill S-10 will override the Gladue principles and that the mandatory minimum will apply to all people. Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs received testimony last month from a witness, Michelle Mann, who spoke about interconnectedness of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, substance abuse, Aboriginal offenders and the mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. In the North, I have seen the ravages of alcohol on Inuit youth and the impact that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder has on the children. It is a fact that too many Aboriginal people struggle with this terrible condition without proper diagnosis or support. They too often find themselves in trouble with the law because they struggle with this condition, and not simply because they are criminals. Michelle Mann cautioned the committee. She said: Canada's legal framework protects the rights of all Canadians, including offenders, to live without being disadvantaged by discrimination because of their race or disability. Mandatory minimums for drug offenders in a context where Aboriginal people disproportionately experience substance abuse issues and disproportionately suffer from FASD raise the spectre of discrimination based on both disability and race against Aboriginal offenders within justice system. She then asked: Where the offence is committed as a result of substance abuse, compounded by the disability of FASD and by Gladue factors, what are the government's obligations from a legal and policy perspective? Does a mandatory minimum meet these responsibilities, particularly in areas where drug courts are not available? Honourable senators, if this bill is passed without addressing these issues, it places a judge in the position of having to give a mandatory minimum sentence. It eliminates their ability to suspend that sentence when certain circumstances, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are present. Aboriginal people are struggling against some pretty tough odds. This bill creates yet another road block to rehabilitation. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard from dozens of witnesses who all agree there are serious problems with this bill. Mandatory minimum sentences are not a cure-all remedy that will solve Canada's issues with drug crimes. Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code does not give preferential treatment to aboriginal offenders — it attempts to level the field, but clearly this is not enough, as we have such a disproportionate representation of Aboriginals in our jails. Collectively, Inuit and other Aboriginal people are so disadvantaged before entering the courts that we should be asking ourselves questions like: How can we tip the balance towards more equitable living standards? How can we provide culturally relevant intervention before crimes are committed? How can we ensure that Aboriginal people are well nourished, safely housed and have access to regular medical care? We should be asking what the best practices are for them in drug rehabilitation. How do we reduce depression and anxiety within our Aboriginal communities? As parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to pass laws that will encourage community leaders to invest in the health and well being of their members. I believe the time has come to hold an inquiry into the status of Aboriginal incarceration in this country. It is time for us to create new alcohol-free and drug-free communities in remote regions of the country where our youth can go back to the land and reclaim their personal well being. We need to create addictions treatment facilities in the North and on reserves. If Bill S-10 is truly the best that Parliament has to offer, then we have failed to uphold the honour of the Crown, and we are further perpetuating the injustices to aboriginal citizens. Motion in Amendment Hon. Charlie Watt: Therefore, honourable senators, I move: That the Eleventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be not now adopted but that it be amended: (a) in the opening paragraph, by replacing "following amendment" with "following amendments"; and ( by adding amendment No 2 as follows: "2. Page 6, clause 6: Add after line 14 the following: "(6) A court sentencing an aboriginal person who is convicted of an offence under this Part is not required to impose the minimum punishment for the offence if the court is satisfied that (a) the minimum punishment would be unduly harsh, having regard to the circumstances of the aboriginal offender; and ( another sanction that is reasonable in the circumstances is available. (7) If, under subsection (6), the court decides not to impose a minimum punishment, it shall give reasons for that decision." ". (On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.) http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/DEB-E/069db_2010-11-24-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3#48

It doesn't really matter much, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The sad fact is, marijuana smokers are treated far more harshly than alcoholics. This despite all the research into relative harm of these substances. And no one will ever convince me that criminalization is a solution for people who ave bad personal habits. On another note, I read elsewhere that this bill did not, in fact, recently pass the senate. It was only brought up in a committee meeting, but has yet to be actually voted on. Can anyone confirm this?

Probably because they hate Jack Layton. But my guess is, these "boys" are incapable of growing a moustache. They know they'd look even uglier with one than they do right now.