KeyStone

If she lost her natural-born child to CAS, it's pretty much certain that she was a negligent parent. There are many reasons to be ashamed of being Canadian, but Canada's refusal to not be more lenient to negligent mothers is not one of them.

Since we're so concerned about easing the burden to taxpayers, why don't we get rid of the rebate program that gives donors up to 75% of their donation back to them? You see, the Tories know that they benefit in greater proportion from the rebate program, than the $1.95 per vote. This is obvious Partisan politics looking at economically crippling the other parties. The whole idea of the per vote funding was to ensure that political parties that represented got adequate funding without having to be beholden to special interests. The $30 million per year to ensure better participatory democracy is a small price to pay. Let's stop pretending that the Conservatives are the slightest bit fiscally responsible. They've saddled Canada with a $50 billion dollar deficit in their tiny term in office, after years and years of Liberal governments whittling down the debt.

It's really not that complicated to understand why people focus more on Israel than on the Lord's Resistance Army. The LRA does not have a seat at the table of respectability. They do not get foreign aid from the US or Canada. They also do not have an electronic army out there, propagating myths and half-truths on behalf of Israel. They do not have a very strong effective voice in Canadian or US politics, lobbying on behalf of the LRA. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, in order for internet debate to work, you usually need someone to take the other side. So, unless someone is going to pop up and defend the LRA, a debate isn't really going to work. It's a pretty sure sign of guilt, when you have to point to a greater atrocity, in order to deflect blame from your own, hoping that it will get missed.

Shady Do you think that David Ahkanew was a Conservative? Have you even bothered to look up, or try to understand what 'identifiable group' means, or you plan to continue to exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the concept?

Where to begin.... 1) Ann Coulter was never denied permission to speak in Canada. 2) You don't seem to understand the concept of 'identifiable group', as defined in the Charter.

I'm sure George Galloway would agree with you.

Nutjobs are not an identifiable group under out Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She really has no idea what constitutes a hate crime under our legislation. Then again, constitutional law has never really been her strong suit.

Don't you listen to Glenn Beck? If you did, you would know that terms like social justice, compassion, and human rights are code words for anti-semitism, dictatorships, and communism.

Socialism has a very negative stigma in the United States. Regardless of whether or not some of Barrack's policies are socialist, he does not want them perceived as socialism, given the vast misunderstandings that Americans apply to the term. Now, if he were 100% honest (which no politician is), he could have admitted to being socialist, and then engaged in a year long semantic battle, to get Americans to understand what socialism really means. But, it's much easier to break it down into bite size pieces as free education and Medicare, which few Americans seem to be opposed to.

The Canadian and US governments won't say jacksh!t about this. As long as they continue to buy our technology, and give us their oil, they can do whatever they want. Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela however, are constantly under a microscope. The more you see the unbalanced, disproportionate responses levied by the West to such atrocities, the more you realize the West really only cares about prosperity though trade. All those other things like democracy, human rights, etc only come up when they are convenient to use against a government that doesn't give them access to their markets and resources.

Yeah, I live in St Pauls too, and I've never received a Conservative mailer. I suppose the domination of Carolyn Bennett in the riding, was one of the factors. Anyways, aren't ten percenters supposed to be sent out to adjacent ridings. There aren't any ridings even close to St Pauls that are Conservative.

I'm surprised that Israel gave permission for the Canadian government to 'regret' their actions. I find it hysterical that Harper encourages both sides to get back to the negotiating table, as if we now have any credibility with the Palestinian side whatsoever.

You mean there is a difference between: We want to remove the current government and we want to kill every person in your country? Looks the same to me. Pure semantics.

It's a fairly superficial savings. The vast majority of those positions have not been filled in over a decade.

There is a lot more to life than being alive. I don't really understand you TrueMetis. You dismiss photos because their source is allegedly biased, but then you post the opinion of a Pork Producer. You dismiss a video showing seal carcasses left behind to rot because it is biased, but then you post a letter from the sealfishery, from an unknown person. We have a total of four biased sources. One video, one set of photos, one opinion, and one letter. You dismiss the photo and video, and give credibility to the letter and the opinion? Doesn't that suggest a bias within yourself as to how you perceive and evaluate information. I could present hundreds of opinions stating that gestation crates and the seal hunt is cruel. I could produce dozens of letters explaining the cruelty of the meat industry, but I don't because I assume you will reject those, due to any lack of real evidence. Yet, here you are - parading out opinions and letters as legitimate proof that everything the HSUS does is corrupt and deceitful. Ahh, here we have a perfect example. You take this at face value. Clearly, if the International Society for the Protection of Animals is okay with the seal hunt, it must be humane. A strong argument - except for the minor inconvenience that there is no such organization. Do a search for them. Look for Trevor Scott. They don't have a website. They don't have any online presence at all. Google them both at the same time. The only thing that comes up is your Seals and Sealing website. So, please consider this deceit, when you try to determine who is telling "We have confidence in the data and management competence of our Canadian neighbors and in their judgment as to whether the harvest level may be damaging to the Harp seal population. Also, the method of killing has been examined by a number of independent groups and found to be the most effective as well as the most humane." The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies(1982) Wow, a group of hunters, doesn't think killing seals is cruel. Wow. "The Gulf of St. Lawrence seal hunt as it is now conducted and as far as the young seals are concerned, is without a doubt one of the most humane slaughtering operations I have ever witnessed." Tom Hughes, Executive Vice-President of the Ontario Humane Societies and former British Columbia SPCA executive" Well, this is a real one. You found one real opinion, from a source that seems to be qualified and unbiased. Of course, slaughtering is not all that humane in general. I suspect that the slaughtering process itself, is not any more inhumane than other slaughterhouses. The difference, is the age that the pups are taken, the fact that they are only taken for their coats, and the fact that the economic contribution is very insignificant. Right, unlike the real humane society, that you posted a quote from? The HSUS does a lot of good work. Even if that letter is legitimate, (which it may or may not be), the Humane Society like every big organization makes mistakes, and often in big organizations people would rather not take responsibility than get things done. This does not dismiss all the good work that they do, nor does it discredit the video in anyway. If you were to demonstrate something showing a flagrant intention to deceive and distort the truth, it may have an effect. However, it seemed quite clear on the video that the seal carcasses were left behind to rot. As for the sealers chasing the videographers, we can both speculate as to why they were doing it. What do you think is worth more? A pound of lean, tender meat, or a pound and a half, of tough, sinewy meat? No, as much as you want to believe the meat industry's rhetoric, it makes economic sense to treat animals poorly, which is why they do it, and why they don't open their doors to show us what is going on. No, ALF did not sent letter bombs. You have that entirely incorrect. It is not within their mandate. You may be thinking of ARM. Yes, they do destroy medical research that is gained at the expense of torturing animals.

"Picture can look bad when they really aren't." Well, based on that, we can pretty much rule out all evidence, by any source that might have a bias. Stop being so difficult, and simply admit that there are gestation crates in Canada. Maple Leaf has even admitted it, which is lucky because it seems there is no other way you would have believed it. The meat industry loves people as gullible as you. "I don't consider gestation crates cruel. Neither does the American Veterinary Medical Association" Well, most people do, once they are explained what they are. The AVMA does not rule on cruelty. They rule on health. As long as the animal stays healthy they don't care. Any organization that deals with cruelty, such as the ASPCA or the HSI is against gestation crates. " -I'll agree with that -Agreed as well -After emailing maple leaf food this seems to be true -Think that depends on the animal in question. eg the Harp seal hunt is one of the best regulated in the world. " Well, it seems that we are making some progress, although I have to strongly disagree on your seal hunt claim. But we'll save that for another thread. You also agree that the meat industry should open their doors, to let people see how they are treating the animals. That's all I want. I want voters and consumers to make those decisions, but in order to make informed decisions they need to know the truth. "No you're right it does seem they are avoiding it." I respect the fact that you were open minded enough to investigate it yourself. That certainly says something about your character. "Because the photo's are used to promote a message that isn't true, and many of the protesters harass the sealers." How does a photo lie? And if it does, would they even need to go near the seal hunt. Here is a video, which will give you a better idea of what really happened, prior to the new laws that restrict protesters. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-28131871518847999# "I think that would violate some trade agreements." True, sadly. "See report. Though the real argument from him is the "Farmers trear their animals well because they's just good business" which I would argue is true because many animals give inferior quality meat or other products if they are unhealthy or stressed." It sounds nice, but it simply isn't true. A lot of companies including Wal-Mart say they treat their employees well, because it's just good business to value their human resources. If they can save money, they will. In fact, treating animals poorly creates better meat, because restricting movement ensures the animals don't develop muscle, and the meat stays tender. "PETA supports terrorists that makes them terrorists. " You don't have to convince me that Ingrid is a bit of a nutter. However, PETA would be a terrorist if they aided Rod in carrying out his actions. They merely helped him get his life back on track afterwards. Besides which, while the US government likes to label the ALF a terrorist organization, they have never harmed anyone. That is part of their mandate. Their 'terrorism' includes destroying fur farms, and animal testing labs. Vandals or economic saboteurs would be a more appropriate phrase.

Working the 9-5 shift at Tim Horton's in downtown Toronto. It's hard work. The pay is not great and living in Toronto is damned expensive.

"Now it's quite obvious to anyone that the socialists, namely the NDP dislike Israel and Jews in general however they veil it behind just calling Israel an aparthied state or by saying they are just being critical of Israel, however one cannot be critical of Israel without being anti Semitic." Absolutely incorrect. I think that you will find if you draw a Venn diagram with one circle representing Jews, and one circle representing Israelis, that they will not overlap perfectly. Furthermore, one can be critical of a particular action of the nation of Israel without disliking the nation as a whole. I can be upset with my brother for cheating on his taxes, without hating my brother. "Wow, can you imagine? A free Canadian citizen needs to get approval from Jack Layton before they can plan a visit to Israel because it upsets many within the party." LOL. We all know that Stephen Harper gives his MP's so much freedom to express themselves any way they want. "This is even more antiSemitic in nature. Can you believe this is happening in Canada by a left wing party that is meant to be for the people? Seems like it's for any people as long as you're not a Jew. This is blatent racism and I don't know why these NDP MP's aren't pushed harder about this issue they have within their own party. After all if a Tory is deemed a racist he or she is run out of town immediately why are anti Semities given the free pass?" Hezbollah has a secondary arm that does a lot of charitable works. Secondly, by making Hezbollah a political party, it gives them a mechanism for change other than terrorism. Thirdly, there are only a handful of nations that list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. "This smacks of antiSemitism. I would call this one the lefts boldest, most public displays of anti Semitism seen in Canada in a very long time. Why is he still employed by this union unless it's decision makers feel the same way he does. In order for Sid Ryan to say this publicly his contempt for Jews and for ISrael must be so overwheling that he couldn't contain himself any longer and just let it bubble to the surface." I don't fully understand why we would punish everyone from the country, for the acts of their military. And I really don't understand why the head of the union feels empowered to wade into Middle East affairs. I'm fairly certain that most of the union members are not paying their dues, so Sid can re-invent himself as a foreign policy expert. "By contrast, Mr. Mulcair is a defender of Israel's right to defend itself. Not only is his wife Jewish but her parents are Holocaust survivors. He and other pro-Israel New Democrats like Ms. Wasylycia-Leis and Pat Martin led a caucus revolt against Mr. Layton two years ago, after the NDP criticized the Conservative government for boycotting the United Nations Conference on Racism in Geneva, dubbed by its critics "Durban 2". At the time, one MP said the party was in danger of being "hi-jacked" by extremists." Mulclair is awesome. I would love to see him replace Jack.

Mike. You need to wake up, and start taking responsibility instead of looking for excuses. Making up excuses is easy. Taking a hard look in the mirror and improving yourself is hard. Are you really telling me that an immigrant who can barely speak English, with no work history in Canada is more qualified to work here than you are? Nonsense. If you speak English fluently, and you don't have an attitude problem, there are an abundance of jobs in Toronto for more than $12/hour that you could have in a single day. Something in your job-search program is going wrong. Maybe it's the positions you are applying for. Are you applying for jobs on Workopolis or a newspaper? If so, you are competing against hundreds of other candidates. Your resume and cover letter have to be pretty damn good to get an interview. A better approach would be to figure out what companies are a good match for your skills, and contact them directly. If you contact them directly, you give them the option of hiring you without going to a recruiter or advertising, saving them thousands of dollars. If you like, you can send me your resume and cover letter and I would be happy to give you some feedback on it.

Curious. Firstly, didn't Harper tout the freedom he afforded his MP's when they had the vote on gay marriage? Secondly, given that there is no possibility of this passing, given the 95% support the parties have for the hunt, strongarming the rogue senator isn't really needed. Thirdly, does the author have the first clue about how the Senate works? Does he think that Liberal senators are part of the caucus? Does he think Ignatieff can throw Harb out?

While I generally don't agree with anything Mr Canada does or says, I can't find fault with him here. Regardless of any homophobic agenda he may have, the fact of the matter is that people should not be having sex in public, particularly during a parade, in which people bring their children out to see. There are only two possibilities: 1) He sees nothing, causing him to rethink his views of the gay community. 2) He sees public sex, in which case, I applaud him for taking action and working to clean up the parade.

Alright, So, other than financial qualifiers, what else would render a person unfit to have children? Also, given that this plan would reduce the number of children born in Canada, and given that birth rates are already low, and given that the aging baby-boomer population dictates a need for us to have an even greater population to sustain this aging population, I can only assume that you also plan to greatly increase immigration levels to compensate. Is that accurate?

First, you state that if parents can not look after children they should not be parents: By this, do you mean: a) If they fail to adequately provide support for their child (without government support), the children should be confiscated? If so, should those children be placed into government care? Or, should they be immediately adopted out? Do you favour reinstating a system of eugenics, whereby those deemed unfit to be parents are sterilized? c) We make it illegal for non-desirables (and I am sure you are able to define this category) to have children, and we force abortions on anyone who tries, that does not meet your parenting requirements? Are these the barriers you speak of that you want put in place? Secondly, you seem to suggest that there is a much greater probability that the wealthy will make better parents (as defined by the money their children are likely to make) and that we should remove barriers for them to have children? What barriers are you talking about? Infertility? Do you propose free fertility and egg donors for all infertile rich people? Careers getting in the way? Do you propose to give large amounts of money to mothers who have children, providing they have proven themselves capable of having children? I mean really, if these people are fit to be parents (which means they are wealthy, using your only mentioned determinant), then they should have no need for money to help them? Perhaps you are referring to free will as a barrier. Should we perhaps force wealthy females of child-bearing age to give birth to multiple children? I would really like to understand the specifics of your ideas to eliminate child poverty, as it seems like you have given this a lot of careful consideration.

Well, that's quite a stretch to say that there is no free speech in Venezuela. There are numerous publications and media outlets that are all quite critical of Chavez. Venezuela has regulations for TV broadcasters. Granted, I would not want to have to watch Chavez on every channel. Canada, under the CRTC has regulations as to how much Canadian content must be broadcast on Canadian radio etc. To suggest that this regulation means that Canada does not have free speech is equally ludicrous.

Here is the complete saga of RCTV, for those of you who have only caught the-sky-is-falling headlines. First of all, Chavez is removed from office by force, under a planned military coup. RCTV helps the coup plotters in various ways, including refusing to tell the people of Venezuela when Chavez is returned to office. They chose to run cartoons instead. RCTV does not have its public license renewed. Incidentally, Western media jumps all over this story, claiming that Chavez allows no free speech etc, and he shuts down all media critical of him in Venezuela. Within a year, RCTV is back on cable, and is the number one viewed station in Venezuela. Western Media of course, doesn't bother to report on this. Instead, we don't hear about RCTV again until: RCTV is shut down as a cable channel because of some regulation that says they must broadcast the President's speech, as they broadcast more than 30% domestic programming. Naturally, the media jumps all over that story. RCTV finally agreed to comply with the laws, instead of flouting the laws, and will be back on the air soon, ensuring that they have less than 30% domestic content so that they do not have to air Chavez's speeches. Good luck finding Western Media printing that story. They only like to print sky-is-falling stories here in Canada and in the US. The Western media despises Chavez and will do anything to villainize him.