legamus

this sort of thing angers me perhaps more than anything else. i think most people, left-leaning or not, would be outraged by this. isn't there anything that we as citizens can do, someone to complain to, to stop this bullshit?? i'm tired of being impotently pissed off everytime i read about some piece of shit pedophile getting a lenient sentence for their crimes.

i think all political ads are stupid - is anyone actually swayed by these things?? i don't even like listening to interviews with politicians during campaigns b/c you know all you're going to get is a bunch of carefully rehearsed lines and ads are ten times worse.

that latimer decision is a tough one - i don't know what i think of it; i'm certainly glad i didn't have to pass judgement on him! (i think cases like that though are a decent argument to not scrap that notwithstanding clause - please excuse my putting that in this thread, it just came to mind reading (skimming) through that stuff.)

yes you're right, mar. i got a bit confused with what i was trying to say, but good point. i think i was just kind of relieved some native group saying the cons were ok b/c a few days before i heard the last little bit of a newscast saying a conservative had said something that some tribal leaders out west were calling a declaration of war.

yes. One of the things that I find intensely insulting to the Canadian population is the Conservative belief that the majority of us really won't let Conservative policies on relatively small minorities like First Nations peoples or the GLT community influence our vote. This calculation is expressed in Conservative statements regarding the the things you mention and in things like reopening same sex marriage in parliament. In both cases they are counting on voters being too self absorbed to care if minority rights are assaulted. Or to put it more simply: "If I ain't gay or Mohawk, what do I care." Certainly in my case it makes zero difference to my personal life if they reverse the SCC on same sex marriage as I don't plan to exercise that particular right. However, I DO believe our Charter is weakened and our commitment to equality compromised if we reverse the SCC so it IS a major factor for me. the aboriginal issue is important to me because i feel we have a historical responsibility to the first nations of this country. while the kelowna conference was great in giving much needed funds to natives it again failed to address self-government and land/treaty rights issues that as far as i know natives are pretty unified in saying that those are the key issues to developing a new relationship with the government of canada. something, incidentally, that government-run commissions have also been saying consistently most lately with RCAP in '96, but never implimenting.

The AFN is not merely the most prominent it is the offical elected body. The AFN passed a resolution in 2002 that stated among other things that: "...the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or other “aboriginal organizations” are not viewed nor accepted by the vast majority of off reserve First Nations citizens as speaking on their behalf nor of protecting their interests..." You can see the complete text here. http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1436 still, there were 5 national groups represented at that kelowna conference before the election right? "Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Metis National Council, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women’s Association of Canada." apparently not all natives feel represented by AFN either. "Individual First Nations leaders like Rolling River First Nation Chief Morris Shannacappo have pulled their support from the Assembly of First Nations to negotiate a deal on their behalf." i'm not sure i have much of a point besides that AFN though the most visible and probably widely supported is not the only national group. (the stuff i cut and pasted above is from http://www.firstperspective.ca/story_2005_12_6_first.php )

interesting. i'd heard of CAP before but didn't know much about them. there's 5 national FN org's isn't there, with AFN being the most prominent?

this kind of stuff burns me up. if that guy re-offends the judge should be tried as an accessory or something.

aboriginal issues were my only hesitation to voting conservative. the canadian government (both parties) haven't dealt with aboriginal issues the way they know they should for a long time and they probably still won't, but i really do not think the conservative will be any worse then the liberals. i really hope some day the feds will bite the bullet and implement some of their own recommendations concerning first nations.

"you guys" the only guy typing that stuff is river god (at least in this thread).

Not really, especially when one examines the details of the situation. Plus, I'm not sure your premise regarding "international law" fits with reality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> maybe it doesn't - i thought the only way a nation could 'legally' wage war was in self-defence. am i wrong?

Freud had a term for what you are attempting; he called it projection. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> maybe... from the little i've read of your comments on the whole iraqi thing that's the impression i was getting. it at least sounds like you believe that the recent positive developments in iraq justify the questionable means they were arrived at; is that much accurate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What questionable means? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, invading a sovereign country against international law - that's got to be a bit questionable.

the reactions to the election results by g.w. & co. should be interesting.

many thanks to all the answers - i understand the issue a little better now (i think ) can someone post a link to the international rankings on health care that were referred to?

What is the big deal with private health care? Those who are against it, is it because government would be subsidising them? I personally do not have the money to use a private health care clinic but I have no problem with them existing or people going to them if they can afford it. So is the issue private health care receiving funds for the government? It seems like many see privatization of health care as this huge evil and I want to understand why.

maybe we're reading too much into the no hand-shake thing?

And you would prefer the rape and brutalization option ???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i don't live in a world where the choice is limited to liberals or rape.

well, i don't know what to say to all that, but voting for the liberals seems to me to be the same as trusting someone you know has robbed you.

Freud had a term for what you are attempting; he called it projection. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> maybe... from the little i've read of your comments on the whole iraqi thing that's the impression i was getting. it at least sounds like you believe that the recent positive developments in iraq justify the questionable means they were arrived at; is that much accurate?

i would have voted had there been that 'other' choice because the more i learn the more i am convinced that there is no best type in general, only best types for different contexts. the type of government most suited for canada in 2005 may not be the same as the best suited for canada in 2075; the best type of government in canada now may not be the same as what another completely different country needs. that being said, options like fascism i couldn't even conceive as ever being good or desirable.

i'm a bit new on these forums - what you're saying, burns, is bush went to iraq solely as a benevolent liberator because of his belief in democracy and his deep concern for the predicament of the iraqi people? is that about right?

i'm only familiar with this based on brief news blurbs so my understanding is that he's on trial for insulting something turkish (the government? culture? turkey in general?) regardless of whether or not you agree with him or you consider him an idiot - isn't what's happening there an infringement on the freedom of speech? if it is, doesn't that concern you?

pocketrocket - i think the examples you listed are encouraging but in my experience people like that comprise the exception, not the rule, to immigrant professionals.

i voted 'no' for this survey because it seems to me to contradict the idea of living in a 'free' society - it's bad enough having people voting that aren't informed about who or what they're voting for or who vote based on emotion, or strictly along party lines - it would be even worse if you force people to vote who really are indifferent or who honestly feel that no choice reflects them; i'm sure there's a few of those among the non-voters. you can't force everyone to be politically active.

haha - i actually forgot i posted this last week but i'm happy about the responses. to whoever asked why i was comparing chomsky to moore - i wasn't. i just noticed that both had books on the best-seller list and both were politically oriented so i wanted to know what people on this forum thought of them. my conclusion is that chomsky's works are at least worth reading, given the discussion it has generated. moore seems to be less interesting. my 18-yr old sister says she like that 'bowling for colombine' movie so maybe his audience is more youthful. anyways, thank y'all for your insights; carry on.