Machjo

I've sometimes been undecided between the NDP and the CPC, or between the CPC and the Libertarian Party, or the CPC and the Green Party. I like ideas from all of their platforms. Probably more conservatives than you think vote Libertarian, Green, Liberal or NDP depending on where they stand on various matters. Heck, I even agree with the Bloc on some points. As a strong believer in due process, presumption of innocence, protection from arbitrary detention etc., I'd say the CPC has made a complete dog mess of the CBSA and IRB! Yet due process is definitely a traditional conservative value even if every other major party surpasses the CPC by far on that field. Some Conservatives could turn libertarian for that reason, or another party. Responsible exploitation of our natural resources is likewise a traditional conservative value which could lead some conservatives to vote Green. The principle of fundamental justice is also a traditional conservative value. For example, how does the CPC defend spending so much money on official bilingualism while underfunding schools on reserves?! Keeping one's word is also a traditional conservative value, yet how do we do that while running rough shod over treaties we'd signed in bad faith? A traditional conservative does not separate the people from the Government and recognizes that a treaty signed by a democratically elected government is signed on behalf of the people across generations, the government being the constant of society from generation to generation. In many respects, the other parties embrace many traditional conservative values that the CPC has rejected. There is also a long-standing debate between authoritarian and Liberal conservatives going back at least to Burke's time concerning law as a reflection of morality, whereby the authoritarian streak leaned towards criminalizing all that it considered I'm moral whereas the liberal branch distinguished between the two, recognizing that to not criminalize an act did not necessarily equate with condoning it but rather with balancing the seriousness of the act against the resources that would have been needed to suppress it. This explains why prostitution itself has been legal in England going so far back in history and why at some times conservatives opposed punishing homosexual acts, again going as far back as the 1700's at least. The fact if the matter is that no party has the monopoly on any ideology and in reality probably moat Canadians are conservative at heart.

In principle, yes; though it must be balanced with the need to reduce the Federal debt. One possibility would be an austerity policy of high taxes and low spending until the Federal debt is eventually eliminated, followed by the elimination of corporate taxes. One problem with high corporate taxes is that it can cut into workers' wages or lead to layoffs. German-style codetermination laws could mitigate could mitigate these negative side effects at leaSt somewhat by ensuring that should workers have to take a pay cut, that upper management will have to do so too.

This election is not for the NDP to win, but for the CPC to lose! Most Canadians ate conservative at heart, and so a principled and competent conservative-leaning candidate would be a shoe-in in most ridings. The problem is with the lack of principles and competence of the CPC. The Libertarian Party could fill the void on the CPC's fringes (and with that party having moderated its policies over the years, it's no longer as fringe as it used to be), but that still leaves a vacuum within the non-libertarian conservative movement.

This election is not for the NDP to win, but for the CPC to lose! Most Canadians ate conservative at heart, and so a principled and competent conservative-leaning candidate would be a shoe-in in most ridings. The problem is with the lack of principles and competence of the CPC. The Libertarian Party could fill the void on the CPC's fringes (and with that party having moderated its policies over the years, it's no longer as fringe as it used to be), but that still leaves a vacuum within the non-libertarian conservative movement.

News in the last few months has revealed the Vancouver transit authority breaking its ties with the CBSA, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation breaking its ties with the CBSA, NGO's increasing pressure on the police to break their ties with the CBSA, and Lawyers criticizing the CBSA for seemingly arbitrary detentions and manifesting a culture of the presumption of guilt and with no oversight. More recently the Federal Government has expressed concern for the decision of various provincial government departments breaking their ties to the CBSA and thus weakening its effictiveness. Presumably the CBSA was originally designed to overlook the presumption of innocence and due process for reasons of efficiency, but with so many innocents getting caught in its web, provinces broke ties now causing the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction of probably many guilty being more able to go undetected in Canada. It would seem to me that the simplest solution would be for the Federal Government to adopt a law guaranteeing that anyone charged with an offence requiring extradition shall be protected from arbitrary detention, shall have his presumption of innocence protected, and shall be informed of his right to counsel among other things. Once the Federal government can guarantee the presumption of innocence and due process and protection from arbitrary detention of those believed to be inadmissible to Canada, then maybe provincial governments would be willing to consider re-establishing their ties to the CBSA. Never should a foreign national be arbitrarily detained and extradited without having had so much as a chance to get a fair and impartial hearing just because he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, on mere suspicion of guilt, by simple association, or maybe even because the CBSA officer had an argument with his wife the night before and needs to take it out on someone, anyone.

To my surprise, I've learnt from personal dealings with the CBSA lately that Charter rights do not apply to extraditions. For example, a tourist who is charged with studying or working in Canada without proper authorization can be arbitrarily detained for extradition with no obligation to inform him of his right to retain and instruct counsel or even to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reason for this is simply that such charges are not considered criminal. In other words, if a foreign visitor to Canada should be charged with killing someone, his Charter rights to the presumption of innocence, to retain and instruct counsel, and to a fair trial would be protected because it would be a criminal charge. If he is accused of studying or working in Canada illegally, it does not qualify as criminal and he can therefore be detained at the CBSA's discretion without recourse unless someone from the outside finds him a lawyer, and even then rather than going to a regular court based on the presumption of innocence, he goes to the IRB based on a presumption of guilt. Essentially, a visitor to Canada can easily be extradited on a mere suspicion of guilt. How many have been so extradited and how does that affect Canada's image among foreign nationals as a country that respects due process? We might as well put an ad saying 'Welcome to Canada but leave the presumption of innocence at home unless you are accused of a criminal offence.' We can imagine the abuses that this allows for. Should the police suspect a foreign visitor of a criminal offence for which the police have insufficient evidence, it could pretty well write any bogus charge and turn him over to the Canada Border Services Agency for extradition with no recourse. Another example: a foreign visitor decides to visit Canada for six months as is his legal right according to his specific circumstances. The CBSA decides he can't possibly have that much money without working and so arrests and detains him for deportation without even giving him the opportunity to prove that he is wealthy or at least has enough money from back home to live off of while visiting. A CBSA officer could pretty well approve extradition because he does not like a visitor's face as long as he writes a different quasi-legitimate rationale that of course will never be investigated unless someone from the outside hires him a lawyer. This is nuts. How does the Constitution allow for this just because the charge for which he is being extradited is not 'criminal?' If that is the case, then why not recognize studying or working illegally in Canada as a criminal charge so that a person's right to due process can be protected?

Double poat, sorry.

I believe that such a law could even save money. The first reason for this is psychological. Why would the guilty accept a police officer's offer to collect more incriminating evidence? Should he turn down the officer's offer, the officer would have to note it down and the accused could then be questioned about it in court. Should the officer himself ask why not, such a simple question aimed at eliminating him as a suspect could lead to him confessing to the offence, thus making a trial far less expensive and the guilty easier to prosecute. Inversely, should the accused accept the offer with enthusiasm, the police who initially believed him to be guilty might start to wonder if it's a case of the suspect being at the wrong place at the wrong time, thus causing them to ask further questions before determining whether it's worth arresting and detaining him given that he'll obviously put up an expensive fight in court, the prosecution's side at taxpayers' expense. If it's serious enough (e.g. child sex abuse, human trafficking, etc.) they might decide that they can't afford to ignore him but not wanting to charge an innocent man for such a heinous crime, they decide to call his possible bluff figuring that the victim is worth the money to ensure a conviction without which he'd likely be found not guilty due to lack of evidence anyway. If it's not deemed serious enough (e.g. prostitution), they might decide to let her go but nail her the next day in an easier and less expensive manner with an undercover cop with a hidden video camera. If she doesn't take the bait the next day, maybe the cops were wrong about her after all. In this way, the police would better allocate its resources towards more serious offences, the guilty will be more likely to be found guilty, and the innocent will be less likely to be arrested in the first place, thus saving money on court cases.

Why we need this law to ensure all the guarantees necessary for our defence. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 (1) states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11 (d) states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal." All police officers in Canada (which would include those of CBSA and other similar special departments) should be legally obligated to offer a suspect to collect fingerprint, DNA, blood, photographic, electronic, or other evidence and then collect such proof for processing at the suspect's request or explain in writing to be presented in a public trial why he chose not to do so prior to detention in the case of a non-violent offence and immediately after detention in the case of a violent offence. I understand that since the state is obligated to prove his guilt, its failing to collect such proof would only make it more difficult for it to do so, thus increasing the likelihood of his being legally found not guilty. That's fine from a strictly legal standpoint, but what about the court of public opinion or of the accused's family and friends which can impose a punishment of its own? For this reason, regardless of there being no need to prove an accused's innocence for legal reasons as long as guilt can't be reasonably proved, the police should be obligated to give an accused the chance to eliminate suspicion in the court of people's minds too. A person should even be allowed to sue the police for failing to offer to collect such proof and then collecting it or explaining in writing why it did not do so. The police should consider not only the legal ramifications of any charge made against a person but also the social ramifications beyond the law. In principle, the police is already required to collect evidence that could eliminate a person as a suspect, but its failing to do so imposes no consequence on the police beyond its inability to prove a person's guilt at a public trial. What I am proposing is that failing to offer to collect evidence that the suspect might want collected without a good reason to not do so would allow a detainee to then sue the police for not having given him a chance to prove his innocence. To take an example: A woman goes to visit a friend out of concern that her friend might suffer gambling addiction and worries that something is not right. The police arrive and accuse all of the women in the house of working in Canada as sex workers without proper authorization and detain them for deportation. We can imagine that had the police offered to collect proof at the women's request, the innocent party would ask the police to collect DNA from any used condom, pillowcase, or bed sheet that might be found in any room, fingerprints from unopened condom wrappers or boxes and money in the house, a written statement from any accused client in the house, and her cell phone and e-mail record. Because the police neither collected nor offered to collect evidence which could have conclusively proved her innocence beyond reasonable doubt, she is found not guilty at a hearing due to lack of evidence but is unable to prove her innocence. The legal consequence of being found not guilty due to lack of evidence is the same as that of being found innocent, but the social consequence might not be. Due to her inability to prove her innocence due to lack of evidence, her fiancé, aware of the charge made against her, is left wondering about her. I'm sure we can imagine many other examples in which a charge of which we can not prove our innocence could have social consequences beyond the law. Imagine being unable to prove your innocence of a charge of sexual abuse of a child, of rape, or other such charges. I know that for me, to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence would certainly not be enough; and given how proving innocence is already more difficult to do than proving guilt in the best of circumstances, imagine if the police does not even collect the evidence that could help us to do so. What are your thoughts on this? Should the police be legally obligated to offer to collect any specific evidence at a suspect's request and then collect it as requested or explain in writing why they did not collect it, with the suspect being able to sue the police for having failed to do so should he be found not guilty due to lack of evidence but unable to prove his innocence as a result of the police's failure to have offered to collect evidence at his request?

What does Israel have to do with Canadian immigration policy?

For example, I can imagine that those who have replaced religion with an secular ideology of nationalism would tend to oppose immigration far more than a religionist would.

I wonder to what degree religious beliefs affect beliefs about immigration, especially the belief in one God who created man from the same dust and to love our neighbour as the second commandment that is like the first, to love God.

What does that have to do with what Jesus teaches a about immigration?

What does Jesus teach about immigration?

Short of prohibiting international marriages and denying Canadians access to their foreign spouses and children, you'll have to accept at least a certain degree of immigration.

Ignore this post.

Exactly.

Exactly.

I have neither conservative nor Libertarian candidate in my riding yet. I can choose between Green, Liberal, and NDP at present, the Green candidate appearing to be the most 'conservative' in relative terms. I'm definitely leaning towards a blank ballot unless of these three can present something good.

That would obviously be going too far. That said, if a company wanted to operate in a sign language rather than English or French, it should be allowed to do so. English and French should not be obligatory. As far as I know, this is in fact allowed in Ontario except for official government documents, but not in Quebec because of Bill 101. Bill 101 excludes neither sign languages nor indigenous languages. Believe it or not, in Quebec, if your sign includes the local indigenous language at the same size as French, that is illegal. If your company chooses a sign language as its working language instead of French, that is illegal. Again, though I can be wrong, I'm not aware of anything like this in Ontario. It might not be a common occurrence and might not necessarily be a good business decision, but unlike in Quebec, it's legal if a company chooses to do so.

I'm increasingly leaning towards Libertarian or bust. I've handed blank ballots in the past and it's looking increasingly like I might do so again this election unless someone presents something good.

There is a distinct difference between threatening a culture and marginalizing it.

Firstly, just as there are different oral cultures (English, French, etc.), so there are different Deaf cultures (American Sign Language, Quebec Sign Language, etc.). Secondly, though a Deaf culture can threaten another Deaf culture, an oral culture can't easily threaten a a Deaf culture. For exanple, excepting those for whom a cochlear implant works, you can't teach a profoundly deaf person to understand spoken English or French no matter how hard you try, and can't prevent him from learning or developing a sign language short of isolating him from other deaf people so as to limit his communication to the written language. That being said, you might be able to marginalize Deaf culture by not investing in sign-language education and refusing to liberalize the linguistic free market to give consumers more free choice of language.

As far as I Can tell, English isn't threatened either. I tend to lean more towards a free market economy, but language policy is what makes me a swing voter, figuring that if the government is intent on subsidizing English and French, then it should do the same for other languages too. Unfortunately, none of the big four parties supports defunding English and French. The Liberals want to increase funding for indigenous languages, but nothing for sign languages or other languages while increasing subsidies to English and French. The Libertarian Party would not eliminate the statuses of English and French, but at least reduce them significantly. At present, I prefer the Libertarian approach followed by the Liberal one. The NDP would only further expand subsidies to English and French by subjecting its national day care programme and other government expansion to the Official Languages Act. The Conservatives would do the same by expanding the army reserve. With no Libertarian in my riding, I might swing Liberal.

I take it that by "our culture" you mean English or French to the exclusion of Deaf, indigenous, and other cultures. Given that these other cultures would not threaten English and French in a comparatively free market, are you sure you mean "protect" and not "impose?" Is this not a case of a tyranny of the majority wielding democracy to ensure the laws give it the advantage against the minority in a less than fee market?