Molly

Well, I figure he, more than any other (possibly even including Mr. Harper) sets the tone. He very much is a leader. Soooo... here's a top 10: http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/5054-qlittleq-jason-kenney-comes-to-vancouver.html but this one, more particularly, provides some insight into his character, and where he would choose to take us: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/05/chris-selley-jason-kenney-s-sideshows.aspx

I truly wish that 'posters' wouldn't use these vague 'you know who you are, and you are very bad' sort of anonymous accusations. Others can't really anwer them without implying that the shoe fits, when in fact the accusation may well be out to lunch entirely. Am I one of those petty, narrow minded idiots, Wyly? (Small c said, "I'm not sure what it is that some westerners have against bilingualism. I'm not sure exactly why it's seen as damaging." I wonder also whether he intended 'some westerners' to include me, too.) Well 'some posters' don't get that the study of (specifically) French is not destructive nor even undesireable in itself, but it is largely impractical- both not very doable where there really is no one with whom you can speak, and not particularly useful for most western Canadians who could easily go an entire lifetime and never never have a use for it, never even hear French spoken by anyone but their own federal government officials. Where are the teachers to teach it? Where are the opportunities to use and practise it? How desireable are the doors that it opens? YES French is an official language, but so's English. All necessary services gan be accessed using either one, so that means learning both is locally redundant. It makes more sense by far for language studies in any given community to be based largely on the resources and needs of the community. Polish, for instance, would have been within reach for my kids in ways that French simply was not. I might well have come out with a useable second language had I spent my time and effort on Norwegian instead of French. As a westerner, I had more opportunity to use Spanish or Mandarin, German or Ukrainian. Economically, Japanese would have opened far more doors...

I can easily see how people who love Harper will equally love Kenney. From my perspective, Kenney is one of the most compelling reasons why the entire list is about as appealing as a Klingon lunch. Birds of a feather and all. (This is a flock of turkeys.)

You missed a level: individual. What we have here is: both the national and provincial level have both decided that this decision is personal and individual, but a mayor- NOT A MUNICIPALITY- being a majority of one in a pool of one, has decided that his own religious devotion trumps that of anyone else. No matter how you cut it, personal religious practice is not a matter that falls under municipal jurisdiction, even if it was the municipality, not just the mayor, pushing it. Turnabout is fair play: at what point would you consider a religious requirement for participation to be appropriate? If citizens must put up with being prayed at in order to protest the latest zoning bylaw, could they also be required to kiss a cross in order to recieve a municipal ballot?

Good to see you've got your talking points all lined up. 'Administrative problem' indeed! Who needs adscam kickbacks when you've got in-out? No matter what the ultimate rulings are, it was smarmy and crooked-- all the moreso because while they were heisting money that the Conservatives weren't entitled to, they were accusing the other parties of being the pigs at the trough. The 'sauce for the goose', though, makes me laugh. A party that gains such unbelieveable (unprofessional) largesse from the RCMP as the Conservatives did has little right to complain when EC wants to finish up the old-business challenge of their election-time activities before they repeat the misconduct! Justice delayed and all. An 'adminstrative problem'! Ha! Somehow that kind of cheating and thievery sounds different from just regular kinds of cheating and thievery.

Agent Orange = 2,4-D (a very common herbicide)+ 2,4,5-T (a herbicide that was equally common until the late 70's early 80's) How is it a surprise that a lot of people might have been exposed to a mixture of the two at some time or another? They were used, together or separately, on cereal crops and lawns and weed patches all over North America, for decades.

You could find it if you looked at the bottom of that Wikipedia page. However- a multiple-answer survey asking about ethnic origins in no manner addresses appropriateness of specific language studies, and bringing it up in that manner in such a conversation could do very little but decieve. Where is the honesty in suggesting that Manitoba and/or Newfoundland do NOT have viable French language communities? Where is the honesty in suggesting that Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC do? So, 16.5% of folks from Saskatchewan claimed French as some portion of their multi-ethnic mutt-hood... that's not a jot surprising. There's been a hundred years for wildly dispersed ethnicities to mingle the blood of Babel. Everyone is some kind of HungaRican. If, however, anyone assumes from that number that much more than 16.5% of the population of Saskatchewan even know someonewho speaks French as a first language they would be sadly misinformed. So bringing up that number as though it could add anything meaningfully honest to the discussion... that was a crock.

Nicely put. And to carry it further, what the parents are proposing falls more nearly under the heading of an indignity to a corpse than that of a life-saving or extending procedure, or even palliative care.

Aye.

Back there, Shwa, you belittled the issue, saying 'No harm, no foul."... That's double edged. If government sanctioned prayer is so unimportant that no one should be upset by it or demand its end, then it's so unimportant that it shouldn't bend anyones beak to eliminate it either. If you, personally, think it's of so little importance that 'no harm, no foul' could apply, why do you find it of any interest? Why do you care?

Took long enough... but it doesn't really look to me as though you get it even yet. The change- I assume you mean the removal of prayer or other religious practice from the government agenda- happened years ago at the behest and with the approval of the populace. It was not some unnamed 'special interest group' that created the list of defended rights or created human rights commissions. It was the people themselves. Grace and education periods have been going on ever since, but now have expired. This mayor is trying to override both the group decision of the people of his province, and the individual decisions of the folks attending local government assembly. So yeah! Allowing folks to choose for themselves would be better!

No kidding. Unfortunately, though, we've all run into similar sorts who seem to think that any old horse pucks their Mama taught them must necessarily be majority opinion. I can think of a few religion-pushers in Saskatchewan who managed to get away with stuff they shouldn't have, because folks chose to roll their eyes and ignore the doofus, instead of inviting him to PFO. They certainly exist all over, if not in great numbers. A township not far from here was going through the same process a dozen years ago when we arrived in this neck of the woods. I thought it was hilarious; that the doofus there must be the last fossil left in Canada to have missed the social studies class where they talked about the separation of church and state, and/or freedom of religion. However.. "Do you see this example in Saguenay as being a good example of cynical secularism?" Of course not. The guy thinks he's leading the majority, when he is, in fact, the obscure (embarrassing) exception. The honest truth is that he'll be dismissed as a redneck too, and be soon forgotten.

You nailed that one, Bonam. There has to be some opportunity to use a language in order to either gain or to maintain fluency. There will be no (or very little) French/English bilingualism any place where either Francophones or Anglophones are hens teeth. Same deal- I'm not going to learn to competently speak Russian unless ther's someone else around who speaks it by preference.

That is such a crock.

This is probably the first time we have ever agreed about anything, but... but that's exactly right.

That would seem to be your problem. Interpreting an issue that has been a bedrock question in all related jusrisdictions for... honestly, centuries.. has inspired provincial law, codes of rights, lines in constitions and wild-eyed rants listing points of xenophobic pride, not to mention the creation of administrative bodies to enforce neutrality.. an issue which even in recent days in in this very restricted environment has elevated to group efforts, lawsuits, judgements and appeals... to threats, harrassment and assaults etc. etc. etc. as 'a single complaint' is obtuse beyond description.

If anything, 'value survived' would reduce litigation (a LOT), not increase it... and honest-to-God, guys, I really don't see a presumption of joint venture. Show me what you are seeing that says that.

If there's any chance that the question might arise, or might matter anyway, where's the problem in doing so? You wouldn't let a mechanic fix your car (and you wouldn't take on fixing someone elses) without a work order specifying what's to be done and what rate of compensation is to be used... It's pretty darned slap-happy to leaves omething so much more important to guess and whimsy.

Beginning at the bottom of page 10: "To determine whether the parties have, in fact, been engaged in a joint family adventure, the particular circumstances of each relationship must be taken into account. ..." Read from there. Earlier on, it points out that the principle of Resulting Trust cannot be triggered by Common Intention on its own. It even explains the elements required for a ruling of Unjust Enrichment. It looks to me (so far) that the largest part of the ruling here is the validity and preference for a 'value survived' valuation of assets after, and only after, 'joint venture' has been established. I do, however, still have a lot of wading to do. Perhaps you should should be pointing out the bits that make you believe that they've moved to a presumption of joint venture. I still see no evidence of it in spite of looking, but in any case, the onus should not be on me to guess what you've seen. You are making the assertion. Show me.

Then take it back out. Objection is objection, and I see no signifigance to the nuance. Citizens object. Not just one citizen, but citizens.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Helena Guergis. 'Nuff said.

You know what pisses me off? That you would have the nerve to invent both a life story and a whole series of opinions for me, and then tut-tut about 'why should anyone listen to them, even when discussing them?' Hypocrite.

Obviously NOT accepted, else there would be no complaint, no law against, no human rights ruling, no lawsuit, no civil award. How much more evidence of the absence of acceptance of it do you need? Obviously there IS a mandate for change, else there would be no complaint, no human rights ruling, no lawsuit yada, yada ... How many times and ways must it be established, legistlated and ruled to be out-of-line before that mandate is recognized? Obviously NOT benign else no award for personal damages! http://www.mlq.qc.ca/interventions-militantes/priere-municipale/municipal-prayers/ In 2008 mayor Yves Lévesque of Trois-Rivières decided to cease the reciting of prayers at council meetings of that municipality, thus conforming to the recommendations of the CDPDJ. But this apparent victory turned out to be rather disappointing when it was learned that the mayor had decided to have the prayer recited by citizens in his stead. The situation took a decidedly revolting turn when the complainant, Louise Hubert, was seen in a television news report to be the target of copious booing, insults and even pushing during the municipal meeting of January 19, 2009. It was clear that mayor Lévesque found this incident to be rather amusing, and made no effort to re-establish order other than by asking Ms. Hubert to be quiet, when she was only making a legitimate attempt to intervene during the question period in order to ask the mayor for his official response to the CDPDJ. Ms. Hubert, fearing for her safety, requested police assistance when leaving the meeting. These alarming events were such that, on the day following the altercation, the CDPDJ found it necessary to issue an open letter to the news media, calling for calm. Ms. Hubert has subsequently brought formal assault charges against two citizens. She also has the possibility of submitting a new complaint to CDPDJ by virtue of the fact that the reciting of prayer by meeting participants, as instigated by mayor Lévesque, contravenes Quebec legislation concerning cities and towns. This legislation limits the right of speech of citizens during municipal meetings to asking questions of elected officials or of public officers present at the meeting.

And that would be a silly assumption, on many levels. Outcry is difficult to quantify, but our household is no stranger to municipal government. I know that substantial discontent is indicated by the reciept of a mere two letters on a single subject. One letter can be a lonely crank, but still carries more weight than several phone calls, each of which is more meaningful than an inboxful of e-mails... The foundation of an organization of more than a handful of members and the initiation of a lawsuit in the name of a non-member... is HUGE. When a complainant can expect harrassment and even assault for stepping forward, then the act of stepping forward represents very, very meaningful 'outcry' indeed.

Is that a trick question? (It's not an easy one to give a simple answer to.) No, I don't... but I do recognize it as having a far better sense of the cynical secular and a higher tolerance for a great many activities and viewpoints than much of the rest of tight-sphinctered North America. One of the traits shared with and no doubt carried from the motherland is limitless cultural conceit. Does that adequately place my neck in the noose for you?