Machjo

I guess I'll have to keep an eye peeled in the next few days.

I can't believe it's that common. You must have searched for those.

Seu if it's oll djust sili simbolizm, dhen sertenli yu hav new ishyuz widh mai adopting a mor ladjikel speling, rait.

Now if the concern is for logical spelling, then why not this: http://www.mittelschulvorbereitung.ch/content_new/engfr/eZ550EuroEnglish.pdf

It's the symbolism of it. In all schools in Canada, if you spell it 'center', the teacher will certainly correct the spelling. No, it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but symbolically it does seem strange that while practically every shop in town spells it 'centre', that a government institution spells it 'center'.

I'd noticed awhile back that the Canadian Forces Recruiting Center in downtown Ottawa does in fact spell the word according to US English spelling. I've passed it many a time and each time I pass it I can't help but look at the spelling just to be sure it's not my imagination. Who in the world decided to use US spelling for the Canadian Forces Recruiting "Center". Was this work contracted out to a US company? If so, and that company was offering the best deal, I have no problem with it. But we would have thought the Canadian Armed Forces would have ensured the spelling was correct as per our standards. Are they all so illiterate in Canadian spelling conventions at the recruiting centre that they'd never even noticed this yet? Or are they just blind?

Hadn't that already happened with the establishment of Upper Canada? Replay!

So we've come full circle then to the days when Britons were moving to Upper Canada in droves. My how history repeats itself.

What do you mean by Christian Nationalism? Do you mean they consider Canada to be Christian, and so want to build a fortress Canada to protect against the foreign heathen? Or do you mean that they consider Christendom to be a nation and so support building closer ties with other Christian states, breaking down national boundaries with these states along the lines of an international federation, and imposing Christian laws on the local population. Just these two examples alone (that Canada is a Christian nation, or that Christendom is a nation)show how widely interpreted your OP can be understood for those of us who have not read the book. Or is it something totally different?

BS. I eat vegan, I walk or ride a bicycle whenever I can (and usually take the bus otherwise), I'm a teetotaler and non-smoker. And I pay my taxes too. So I make minimal use of our roads and highways compared to most in my income bracket, I will likely not depend as much as most in my income bracket on healthcare, I pay as much in taxes as any other in my income bracket, I've learnt both official languages on top of other languages to do my part in reducing the need for interpretors at shops, airports, government agencies, etc. anywhere I may go in Canada and to avoid cultural hegemony as much as possible, I recycle, and I give to charities, and then you'd expect me to sit there and watch as vandals would come to my house and smash in my home windows. Or let's say I did in fact own a shop or restaurant. After all I do in my daily life for society, after all the work I'd put into building my livelihood, you'd expect me to just sit there and smile while people bust my windows? So what do you do for society in your daily life?

What does that have to do with downtown shops getting their windows smashed in in Toronto?

This thread is about Canada. So Canada is a police state now?

Hey, now I understand US militarism today. Losing a few wars sure hurts your national pride. Nothing like big tanks to compensate for little guns

In the event the investor is breaking the law, turn him over to the police. After all, he has no bat in his hand, does he? And if the law is unfair, then what about a letter writing campaign, a petition, voting in elections, writing a column for the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of peaceful options. But the second one turns to violence against my property, as far as I'm concerned, that ought be be construed as equal to violence against me, and even if I'm not personally in danger, I ought to be allowed to use whatever force is required to defend my property. I realize the law currently allows it only for my personal being, but I think it should extend it to my property too.

I think we need to make distinctions here: If someone smashes my storefront window, drops his bat, and walks away, I try to arrest him, and he does not resist, then yes I have no right to hurt him since he's no longer a threat to my property, especially if he's destroyed it already. That said, if he has not destroyed my property already but is trying to destroy it, I should have the right to use the minimum force necessary, even lethal if that is the minimum necessary, to stop him from destroying property. Looking at it that way, there is no comparison to Madoff. By the time we'd realized what he was doing: 1. the damage was already done, and 2. He could be stopped without resort to force. Therein lies the diference. These vandals raise the level of intensity considerably via the force and threatening demeanor they adopt, making it ore difficult to prevent them from causing such damage without resorting to the use of force. Looking at it that way, they force us to be more aggressive in the defense of our property. But I do agree that if one of them were about to smash my window, and I was just about to kick the bat out of his hand, and just then he decides to drop his bat, then I fully agree I'd be in the wrong to intentionally kick his hand after that. But if he insists, I kick the bat out of his hand, and others try to hold me back while he picks up the bat again with the intention of smashing the window, at that stage I ought to be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to get out of their grip and strike at him again. And if there are many trying to do this, then I may have no choice but to give a few of them a concussion so that while I'm dealing with one another one is not smashing my windows. That in my opinion is justifiable force.

Another point on this. One could argue that as long as you let them smash your window that your life is no in danger. My argument would be that I ought to have a legal right to defend not only myself, but my property too. If we should extend the law that way, then I have a right to approach the group to make a citizen's arrest, and if it's clear that I cannot do so peaceably, then by all means I ought to have the right to use lethal force if I'm not armed with a firearm, or at least the right to maim if I do use a firearm, in my attempt to make the citizen's arrest. The point here being not that my life is imminently in danger, but that my right to make a citizen's arrest in such a case should be so fundamental that even if my life is not otherwise in danger, that I have a right to clear the way so to speak so as to allow me to make a legal and peaceful citizen's arrest of the person who smashed my window. In such a case, the people I'd be attacking would not necessarily be the one who'd smashed my window, but rather those obstructing me from making a peaceful citizen's arrest.

And just appoint about people not hearing me over the noise as I announce my warning. If it's that loud, and they're swarming me and yelling at me, then that alone indicates highly aggressive behaviour.

And that's where I disagree. If some anarchist kicks down my window, I should have an inalienable right to try to make a citizen's arrest, and use lethal force if obstructed from doing so, even if only via threats, verbal or behavioral. On that front, I'd say wearing a mask, wielding a makeshift weapon, hanging out in numbers, and smashing my window is a clear threat. As for making a citizen's arrest, of course I should have the obligation to give the guy a chance, announce that I'm arresting him, to please drop his weapon, o down on the ground and stay there until police arrive. Should he refuse to do so, I should have a right to approach him and use force to arrest him, and should he resist, or should others defend him or even stand by him, I should have a right to then consider him a danger, and so have a right to use lethal force against him and the others standing by him who should intentionally obstruct the arrest for as long as they continue to obstruct. If I have a firearm, then perhaps the rules could be stricter, whereby I'd be allowed only to maim, aim for the arms or legs for instance. But if I have no firearm,then yes I should be allowed to use lethal force.

Then how do you propose that a property owner be able to defend his property when his own life is not in danger? The right to maim but not kill? What about breaking bones? I don't mean any bone but specifically those required to wield a weapon, such as elbows, and of course with force used to a minimum whereby if breaking one bone eliminates a potential threat, that person is to be left alone with the property owner being required to move on to the next attacker as long as the rioters don't disperse? Certainly we need at least a little more power than we have now to dissuade such riots.

I think that depends. If a person smashes my window, and I try to make a citizen's arrest, and others help me with that, then I agree with you. But if I try to make a citizen's arrest, and others oppose me, at that stage they are not only obstructing the law, but I must assume that should I fully exercise my right to make a citizen's arrest that they could hurt me, at that stage I ought legally be allowed to announce in a loud voice that I am going to attempt a citizen's arrest and will interpret any obstruction of my attempt as a potential threat to myself. We're no longer dealing with an individual case, but an organized mutiny resulting in a breakdown of law and order. Or another way of looking at it: Should an organized group cause a breakdown of law and order (i.e. an inability on the part of citizens and the police to defend their property within the regular constraints of the law), then the participants in this group forfeit all protection under the law for the duration that the breakdown lasts, with defenders of their property being expected to target any force, lethal or otherwise, strictly towards those intentionally obstructing his right to defend his property or make a citizen's arrest.

That's why you introduce certain criteria. But otherwise ensure they have the right, within certain restraints, to use lethal force in the defense of themselves, others, and property.

Anybody with a mask? Going too far. I'd say we could apply my last post above, minus the requirement to have a recording, to any citizen as long as he has minimum two witnesses. And again, if people have issues with firearms, when what about non-projectile weapons, such as swords, staffs, etc.? With the police wielding firearms, and citizens wielding non-projectile weapons, and with the law granting both the right to strike at proven vandals, I'm sure vandals will start thinking twice.

How is their philosophy relevant to their acts? If they were of a different ideology, what would that change?

Or alternatively, change the law to give the police the right to shoot to maim if the following conditions are met: 1. The person is concealing his identity, 2. He has thrown a projectile with intent to do harm to a person or property, 3. He is being protected from being arrested by others, 4. He is showing no sings of voluntarily surrenderng to police, and 5. All of this is on tape. If all of these five conditions are met, the police should be allowed to shoot to maim that individual. yes, with real bullets. After a few end p with bullets in the legs, others might smarten up.

Fine then if people are so opposed to firearms, then at least universal compulsory martial arts training for 9 years starting at 5. It's not like we could throw 30 punches per second at the speed of sound at a range of over 300 metres. As for the police, I'd say change the law to give them the right to shoot to maim anyone wearing a mask and who has been spotted throwing a projectile and who is being prevented from being arrested by others and who is showing no intent on surrendering of his own will. I can guarantee that after a few of them get shot in the leg with real bullets, that others will start thinking twice about it. Besides, there are laws against mutiny against the state already, no?