Machjo

Thats not at all what I was implying. What I was implying is that if we made voting compulsory, we'd get the eeny meeny miny moe types who would not be nazis but who could just as easily vote for one unwittingly. or inversely, Bolsheviks.

There's a difference between associating freely and engaging in walkouts. I'm all for not criminalizing the existance of unions. I'd just propose that they not be legally recognized in the law. This would mean that, legally, a gathering of union members would be equal to any loose gathering of people.

By the way, instrumental versions of Oh Canada do exist, at least one having even been produced by the Federal Government itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0jhJA1Hjxk

Just a correction here: bilingual versionS. I'd once heard, for instance: O Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, True patriot love in all thy sons command. Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix! Ton histoire est une épopée Des plus brillants exploits. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Now I don't know if the student in question intended to mock it, but you'll notice that as much as possible it was always the more controversial verses that were chosen from each. Anyway, I do agree that whether it have lyrics or not, it should not just be played from a CD. It should either be sung live or played live, either way.

To be fair though, whereas the Star Spangled banner has but one version, what if someone had risen up to sing: « O Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix! Ton histoire est une épopée Des plus brillants exploits. Et ta valeur, de foi trempée, Protégera nos foyers et nos droits. Protégera nos foyers et nos droits. » Remember, Canada has two official versions, so from that standpoint, there is in fact an advantage to a wordless Anthem. Add to that that some nations do in fact have wordless Anthems.

Yeah, and it was the ones who wanted the Anthem played were were making the death threats, he being one of them. It wasn't the parents requesting the exemption. In a sense he did win. The provincial government has since made it mandatory. Do I agree with that decision? I don't know. However, I do agree with the government taking some kind of clear stance so as to take that burden off of the shoulders of principals. Principals have more important things to do than worry for their safety and take people to court to put them in prison.

I can agree with that. Though bear in mind that production is not an end in itself, but a means to consumption.

Civilization is artificial by definition, as it is a purely human creation not to be emulated in nature. Unfortunately, the word 'artificial' seems to have taken on a very negative connotation over the years. On the surface, it means bade by artifice, by art, as is all of our civilization and its institutions. The word 'artificial' is not necessarily a bad word.

As mentioned below your post: it's a luxury to some, and as such, it's the government's responsibility to tame the economic nature of the beast to protect the most vulnerable members of society from the unemployment of recession and the burdens of inflation. Besides, if the government is to just let nature run its course, then what's the point of government? We might as well scrap it, then, no? Guvernment is by nature unnatural as it is a human creation. It is artificial by creation, by design. Then again, so are much of the comforts in our society. But if you want to go back to living like the beasts of the fields, be my guest.

Like partisan politicking you mean? If so, I fully agree. I'm thinking next election to ask the following or similar question to my candidates: "What 70-year plan do you propose to introduce to Parliament during the course of your mandate?" Hmmm... that might be cruel To be kind, I might have to e-mail them all the question about a week before the all-candidates' meeting so that they're not too stunned by it.

When I was an atheist (or hovering somewhere between that and agnosticism anyway), I did take issue with the mention of God in the Anthem, though I was also less universalist too, which made up for it a little. After believeing in God, that part didn't bother me too much, though my belief in God made me even more universalist than before, viewing myself even more of a world citizen. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the Anthem in school, but merely that we should not react too harshly when a person may oppose singing it. After all, there are various phylosophical views that go through even a young person's head as he tries to make sense of the world around him, the concept of the nation-state in the world, etc. It's not an intent to offend, but a genuine desire to understand that world around him. To intimidate a person into submission would simply lead to an empty parrotting of the Anthem. Personally, I'd rather people sing it with their whole heart, mind and soul behid it or not at all, than to have them just parrotting it out because they know what's good for them. If a puritan Christian, JW, or atheist should refuse to sing the Anthem for whatever reason, it's not necessarily out of intentional disrespect, but rather out of sincere belief. So are we to beat him into submission, or just respect his wishes... or his parents', whichever is the case?

Bang on! That's exactly what I meant. And I share your sentiments on it.

So how does the National Anthem sit with what you just said? Now I personally have no issue with it per se, but just trying to understand your reasoning. I personally believe in God, so naturally I have no issue with the mention of God in the Anthem. However, as a universalist, I may feel more limited in the Anthem as I'd consider myself more of a world citizen with a wider loyalty and patriotism. But that's another matter. Now I know that some strict Christian groups insist that there can be but one undivided loyalty, and so though they'd naturally see no issue with reference to God in the Anthem, they would take issue with any nationalist sentiment in it, on religious grounds. I would fall in that category myself, albeit to a more moderate level in that I can still enjoy the sound and the imagery of the Anthem, etc., without necessarily agreeing with every word of it. Atheists might take a different view, naturally, some suggesting that God should not be referenced in the anthem. I'm not challenging your views as such, but rather how they fit in the wider picture since you'd suggested quite emotively above that the religius should go to religious schools. Taking that at face value, then you'd be denying the singing of the Anthem in secular schools. I was just wondering how you reconcile these ideas in a logical whole.

What is the only real functin of government? To plan ahead, or to not do so? I'm not sure which you mean? And how would that apply to things other than the economy, such as military, etc.?

And Christians are among some refusing to sing the Anthem in schools. In fact, though I have heard criticisms from anti-Muslims, I have yet to hear of a solid case of a Muslim refusing to sing the National Anthem. In fact, there is even an Arabic-version of Oh Canada! Anyway, back on topic, it would seem you're now contradicting yourself, saying that religion should be limited to religious schools, but now saying the Christian Faith is an exception. Last I'd checked, Canada has no Established Church.

Sorry. Then I'd just misread your quote to suggest that governments need not plan ahead. My mistake.

But it makes for a stimulous package, doesn't it?

"...God keep our land..."? And that's just for the English version!

Dave ON. Thanks for the info there. So I'd be curious then. Had the principal had a discussion with the community as to how to settle the issue with the parents requesting the exemption, how do you think the community would have reacted? Would it have calmly proposed an amicable solution whereby those children only could be exempted and that the school would have to accommodate it? Would they have demanded to know who those parents were? If so and the school refused to divulge that information, then what? Would those parents have been safe? Woud people try to guess who those parents are and react vindictively on their hunch? I don't know the answer, and that's why I'm asking. I never realised that they were so emotional about it that they woudl literally resort to such threats. I'm just curious.Had there been a open consultation, how do you think it would have turned out? Oh, by the way, I know the Anthem in both Official Languages fluently, do consider myself patriotic, yet would still not be that emotional about a parent refusing to sing the Anthem. I'm well aware that more than a few of the more traditional Christian sects would refuse, not to mention the JWs, but would just unemotionally respect their views. Then again, I'm a Franco-Ontarian. Naturally, the French-speaking side has taught me no attachement to the Queen as such, other than a quaint English-Canadian thing. As for the Canadian Anthem, I view it as symbolic of secondary importance to common kindness. But again, that's from my backgound, and it does seem the Eastern mentality is radically different. I wasn't aware of that, and yes, if it's that different, the Principal should have known and perhaps should have been debriefed about it before taking the position.

I meant the parents who'd requested their children be exempted. Like I said above, I don't know their religion for sure, but from the information I have gathered from the articles and the TV coverage lead me to believe they may have been JWs.

It's a reflection of our values as a society, isn't it?

The biggest concern I have is with repeating the recession fiasco. Before the stock market crash, not one politician that I know of had any plans for so much as a potential recession. Only after the crash did most party leaders react, with Harper the exception, and that in the beginning of a recession. Then, we had debate end up in prorogation of parliament, and finally, long-winded debate and finally action. By the time action came, however, special interest groups had already had plenty of time to all get their hands in the pot. Now I could see a parallel happen with a boom too. Imagine the following parallel scenario: We climb out of recession and everyone's happy. Later, we have an election, and right in the middle of the election, the stockmarket experiences a sudden price jump and the market really starts to heat up. Only then do politicians finally wake up to the reality of a boom, though some still deny it. After the election, we have another prorogued Parliament, and finally agreement, but only after a bunch of special interest groups have already secured minimum wage hikes, salaries and other financial services pinned to the inflation rate, government mandated price freezes, etc. You get the picture. Another fiasco like the recession. Now of course we might be lucky and we could be sounding an alarm for nothing. But considering that so much as the possibility of infltiton should be enough to get any responsible politician raising this in Parliament to try to work out a plan now that Parliament can agree to so that when inflation does strike, a plan of action is already in place to be implemented. Would it really be too much to ask for politicians to plan ahead?

Wouldn't removing all official and legal recognition for unions do just that? Since unions would no longer exist in the law, it would mean that striking empoyees would be braking their contracts and so would risk getting fired, not to mention there would be no legally recognized union to negotiate with. Also, some systems could go on a voucher system. Example, school vouchers at the provincial level. Seeing that even Sweden, a renowned social democratic country, uses school vouchers, I don't see why even the NDP could be convinced of going for that. And seeing that republicans in the US support school vouchers too, i'ts clear that it could be a non-partisan issue. After all, Sweden and the US are as opposite of the political spectrum as democracies get.

Also, I'd be open to the idea of some government monopolies being gradually privatized as consumers co-ops, thus ensuring that consumers have a direct vote on the board of directors and no longer giving the unions direct access to public funds.

My issue with labour unions is that they're too confrontational and not collaborative enough. Not conducive to firendly labour-management relations. As far as I'm concerned, labour unions should have no legal recognition whatsoever, neither legal nor illegal. Simply that if workers walk off the job, they're breaking their contract. Now, I could agree with giving workers voting rights on a company's board of directors, as is done in Germany, but even without that, labour unions should get no legal recognition whatsoever. Unionization is just organized thuggery in my opinion. And as for their being staunch defenders of 'socialism', BS. Modern labour unions are about as capitalist as they come, seeing striking as nothing more than a free-market means to a higher salary.