Machjo

It goes both says. Animols can't vote, but are also exempted from the law. In other words, if the poor don't vote, they can freely crap in the park. After all, they didn't vote for the anti-crap laws, so why should they be subjected to them? Now let's day a poor man decides to sell heroin out in the woods. Again, if he doesn't vite, then the law doesn't apply to him, right? He'd be free to log on Crown land too since if the crown doesn't acknowledge his existence, same in reverse.

It's still the second-largest after Islam and the most oppressed.

You're confusing personal religion with state religion. The Baha'i Faith is the second largest religion in Iran and the most oppressed. Does the fact that Iran is an Islamic state and that the Baha'i Faith is the most oppressed religion in Iran change the fact that the Baha'is Faith is the second largest religion in Iran?

Somalians profess every religion. Even in Iran, the second-largest religion is Baha'i, and there are Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians too along with Sunni Muslims. And I bet there's the odd secret atheist to boot.

The Chinese are well-educated and dilligent, so a valuable asset to the economy. They're also socially conservative, which could benefit the Conservative Party. But they also give a high regard to family values, which in their case would mean supporting more open immigration, and therefore the Liberal Party. What I could see after this is either the Liberal Party woudl feel more pressure to become more socially conservative or the Conservative Party would feel more pressure to become more open to immigration. However, Chinese social conservatism is more universal (clamp down on drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc.), so they won't go for anti-Muslim dog-whistle politics. That again could benefit the Liberals. All in all, the Liberals would gain more from this than the Conservatives while still feeling pressure to become more socially conservative.

About he-said-she-said cases, that is a problem too. Cops have been known to exaggerate or even outright falsify statements. In one case in Canada itself, a cop had actually planted cocain in the house he was investigating. Walked into a room alone, pulled the drug out of his pocket, and walked out saying look what I found. In that particular case, the cop was cought. I don't remember how, but I think it had to do with the fact he was already being investigated for taking bribes, the accused swore up and down that he knew nothing about the drug (where most people would just admit to it given the guilty appearance), and the cop's registration of previous drug quantities were often off. But that kind of thing is very difficult to prove. I know of another case of cops falsifying statements. In that case, it was proved on a balance of probabities that the cops and the CBSA officer had written false comments. but for a criminal offence it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also in that case, it was unclear whehter the false comments were intentional or as a result of simple carelessness and misunderstanding on the part of the cops concerned. So yes, I'm fore capital punishment in principle, but we've got to approach it with extreme caution.

Yes, high-level distributers. Again, I think it could be the default punishment, but the judge could waive it for life in prison. In most cases, the judge proably woudl waive it. But the simple fact that he could choose to not waive it would deter some people. People still consider the risk of getting caught.

Again, people can be at the wrong place at the wrong time. If a person is unlucky enough, he could innocently find himself at the wrong place at the wrong time twice. That's why I say that while I support the death penalty, the judge absolutely must have the power to waive it in favour of life imprisonment for any reason without question. Always special circumstances. Let's say the judge is sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, but the person is still denying it and his story, though very difficult to believe, is still within the realm of possibility. The judge may have no choice but to find him guilty, but might choose to waive the death penalty due to some doubt none-the-less. The judge should have that power, but not use it too frivolously.

I could support capital punishment for murder, arson, and drug crimes. However, the judge must have the option of waiving it in favour of life imprisonment or banishment. In short, it should not be used frivolously, but the fact that a judge could use it would deter some.

Give credit where credit is due. A professional propagandist makes claims that suit his views and crosses his fingers hoping people don't check. That way, he can spread rumors that he can then regurgitate repeatedly to strangthen his claims.

You can't presume a person's religion from his nationality.

Secret Canadian values. LOL

A Canadian man marries a foreigner. They have a child. He cheats on her and she learns about it while they were walking along a riverside path. Witnesses witness her slap him. One happened to be a police officer so he immidiately arrests her for assault. She should now be deported?

They'll include the questions and correct answers in the citizenship study guide.

And those tests aren't necessarily accurate.

What you're describing there is a knowledge-test of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Universal values, not Canadian values. Canadian values are those that are unique to Canada, like official bilingualism or the separate school system.

What do we do about those with only Canadian Citizenship? I was thinking that we could carve out an uninhabited part of Canada, make it a protectorate of Canada, and ship them there?

How would vetting have prevented Russell Williams from immigrating to Canada?

Canadian-values questionnaire: 1. Do you believe that a woman should have the right to have an abortion? 2. Do you morally support same-sex marriage? 3. Do you think prostitution should be legalized? We can only imagine what kind of crazy questions could be asked in a Canadian-values questionnaire. No thanks.

Firstly, are we willing to pay the higher taxes to train them? Secondly, would allowing skilled foreign nationals in not expand the tax base to obtain the extra money needed to train unskilled Canadians? You seem to be treating it as an either-or scenario.

You can't blame Canada for that. If I were China, I probably would have done the following. 1. Create an international Chinese-language passport that anyone can obtain by passing a Chinese-language test. 2. Create an Esperanto passport that any person under the age of fifteen can obtain (but that expires before his fifteenth birthday), that anyone who pases an Esperanto test can obtain, and that anyone with a compassionate exemption or specialist-knowledge can obtain with the rationale for the exemption and its limitations being printed in the passport or the specialist knowledge being indicated in the passport. 3. Only a holder of a Chinese passport (including any SAR passport), a Chinese-language passport, or an Esperanto passport can enter China. This could hurt the Chinese tourism industry somewhat in the short term but would save the economy far more in the long term due to Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English. I'd lived in China, and most Chinese learnt just enough English to pass the test and then forgot about it. Waste of time and money.

Even without that new tax, the market was bound to pop eventually.

Si why not raise the minum wage to fifty dollars per hour then?

New York, Paris, and Toronto have all tried tent contrils. In every case, it had made matters worse.

What I was responding to suggested that the government has a duty to keep prices from dropping. I disagree with that. If the price drops, then it drops. That said, I disagree with the method used in this case.