Shwa

I agree that some of the worse cases shouldn't be walking our streets without controls - as I would agree with some of the worse case schizophrenics and other forms of severe dementia. But with FASD there is much more to it than simply making more prisons when preventative measures, treatment and treatment research, community awareness and support structures could be used to combat and greatly reduce the instance or impact of FASD within the population.

A start at what exactly? Do you not think that the ruling government wants control over the bureaucracy and always has? There have been outsourcing initiatives over the years with brutal results that cost more than the scheme they replaced and several reversions back to bureaucratic processes. So you are one of the biggest advocates of more government accountability and openness and now that Argus has - rightly - pointed out there is MORE accountability because of the openness you crave, you change your tune into saying the costs of what you want is too high, let's outsource. You want to outsource? Then hire all the staff to handle the transition including more clerks and middle managers to deal with the contracts. Don't forget more legal staff too. Because there is going to be a bloat during the transition phase where both systems are operating. And let's not forget developing a system that will guarantee the security of the information because I am betting that when it comes to privacy issues some people might have a problem with private firms handling all the personal information. But, hire more staff and managers to provide oversight to those systems to ensure they don't. Hire more RCMP to enforce the law if they do. And, of course, hire more lawyers. Or better yet, how about providing a real time model of a current company to scale that actually is as efficient as you would have the federal or provincial bureaucracies. You want the public service to resemble Bell Canada? God forbid if your EI cheque didn't arrive and you had to call them... And so on...

Agreed. But why would the Star - and Torstar - really care if some small time promoter decided to sue them for using a well known phrase, such as 'conflict of interest? ' It seems they do everything but call it conflict of interest. It is not like the Star hasn't called people out for conflict of interest before, I am sure. And really, is 'conflict of interest' such a loaded phrase as to cause a lawsuit? It seems to me that there is an intentional moderation of language - PC-like - going on here and it is almost as fishy as Szeman's unique arrangement...

Very interesting, eyeball, bring up Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alscohol Spectrum Disorder as a point against building super-prisons at the expense of preventative measures. Especially one that is proving to have a profound impact on the justice system. I know someone who is a leading Canadian expert in the field and FAS/FASD is mentioned often in policy circles, but doesn't seem to have the same traction with legislators. I wonder why?

And yet you continue to invest in trying to "prove" some point you are making about MMA and "outdated fossils." It is amusing in a sad sort of way. Meh, no worse that you posting in any thread that has anything to do with politics.

Interesting story from the Star and their on-going peering into charity funding in the GTA, this time from Oshawa. Charity boss hires own firm to fundraise Back in the day this was called "conflict of interest." Nowadays it is called a "highly unusual arrangement." My, how political correctness has truly taken over. Now it is called a "unique situation." One has to wonder if the foundation chairperson has taken a clue as to WHY this is a "unique situation" in the first place. One also has to wonder why the Star ins't calling it outright conflict of interest, cheating, double dipping and so on. Perhaps the legal fallout drives this version of political correctness like social fallout drives other versions of it...

The only person in this thread upholding hockey as an example of "Real Canadian Manly-Man Values" is you. No one else. Gutless. It's a contact sport, keep your head up. Or better yet, watch some football and see how many players get paid out in a game for not paying attention - when they are on their feet. Another typical kimmy strawman. Assign "notions" to people and then argue against those notions. Hockey is a contact sport, keep your head up, even the "smaller, weaker players." Don Cherry has no problem with the odd scrap now and then.

OK, so now you are comparing the CF & police with MMA. Riiiight. Not really, if those CF members have been taught our Canadian values. Marquess of Queensbury Rules. Nope you said that, I have no "notion" of that at all. Ifyousayso. Better yet, use a baseball bat, a crowbar, knife or gun. Or brass knuckles which tend to end fights fairly quickly.

This begs the question whether the NDP, The Reform or the Bloc were effective in getting rid of ultra-partisan politics when they entered the scene. Well if you are saying it still exits, I doubt that they did. This begs a further question as to whether there is a critical number of parties that will cause a collapse of this ultra-partisan-ness and will adding another party necessarily make everyone smarten up? I doubt it. So I would then question if there was really any ultra-partisan politics currently going on to any great degree. The fact is that the current minority government is being supported by someone which would indicate that the type of politics being played are not too ultra-partisan and likely much of it being played out behind closed doors or in the some of the more trendier or upscale bars on Bank St. or in the Market. There is complicity going on - for one purpose or another - but silence is approval. And the silence is deafening. I would go out on a limb and predict that if they did a poll, the prevalent Canadians attitude is like the famous line in 'Won't Get Fooled Again' by The Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." I doubt adding another party - one that resembles the old PC - will change this attitude one bit.

Really, Ghosthacked, China? Don't you think there would be some siignificant social changes first? You mean books and TV?

Interesting story from the Star. I would going to post a separate thread, but "Justice canadian style" still sounds about right. No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court But it is not as bad as it seems...

Or worse - shaking down their own community in Canadian urban centres, like Toronto, to pay for those bombs.

Then I believe it is incumbent on you to be a little more specific with what sort of adaptations patriarchy needs in order to be a worthwhile social structure, keeping in mind that some of those adaptations may just as easily be applied to the structures that are currently replacing patriarchy. That is to say, do you believe in the viability of patriarchy in these modern times or are you only interested in the adaptions? But again, you are looking at this from a static, synchronic perspective since I have already introduced the idea that the current forms of liberty that we enjoy are the result of a processual change - a rationalization of the concept of liberty which is always being interpreted, revised, examined, re-examine, etc. My kids ideas of liberty are different from my own, as would be their idea of patriarchy. It is coming to the point now where the patriarchical mode is becoming more of a curiosity and a historical phase to refer to when discussing some of the cultural traits that are remnants of it. Fair enough if the "tradition" of marriage is truly a worthy goal as opposed to, say, a 'partnership' perspective which has been raised by a couple of posters already. It would seem easier to provide adaptions to the modern partnership concept than entrench male family dominance in law. Those sorts of things have already been either levelled or are slated for a levelling. As for stable families, or more stable people (which is what I think you are really getting at) I agree that there could be improvement, but I am convinced that this has more to do with extended families and community participation in raising children. Not in a socially engineered Platonic republic, but in the availability of structures in the community that are oriented towards raising good kids. But even still, these sorts of services are being enacted even if a little too slowly for my liking.

But the Tamil Tigers are right?

No problem since practically all of the seaway lands are Iroquoian, Algonquin, Mi'kmaq and Abenaki homelands which would be claimed long before Quebec decided to leave anything. Then there is the rest of Quebec of course, and the Cree, Innu and Algonquins would likely have some say in what goes on as well.

So are you defining 'terrorist attack' by the scale of the actual attack amd simple murders, bombings, plots and such don't really count?

Does Scott Roeder count? Although this sort of thing stays in the news for quite sometime...

Although I think you'll find that there is no such things as "unfettered" immigration in Canada thus the racist label isn't heard that often. Although, when it is heard with regard to our present policies, we ought to pay attention to those concerns if they are warranted. I think a review of our immigration policies should be a regular occurance and those reports published by CIC on their website so people can become better informed. If any other group - such as a conservative think tank - wants to open a Centre of Immigration Policy Review - why not? The problem here is that "our society" is already multi-cultural, unless you would be looking to have that aspect of our society changed. With all the foregoing do you think that is possible?

Hey Tim, good topic and thanks for being honest about your views. I have enjoyed reading the enlightening debate, many interesting points to be read here. Since I wish to reply to your first post only, you will have to forgive me if I repeat some ideas that have already been stated. However, I think the problems I see with your idea of a *new* patriarchy are not about application or upon what forms it must be applied against, but about what is being applied in the first place, or your notion of what patriarchy is. It means, to me, the dominance of a male member of a particular family or other family related social group, extending into the overall organization of the society in which that family or family group belongs. This also suggests that behind the dominant male(s) there is a chain of ranked subordinate males organized in such a way as to ensure that should the dominant male be removed from his position, someone will be there to take his place. If this is the case then, patriarchy requires a complex system of kinship rules, protocols, and behaviours that support the overall structure including a reasonable and steady supply of males. Well it is hard to know what a term entails in your "own personal experience." However, "cultural unheavals" have been going on for a very long time, some of it recorded, some of it not. While I would disagree that there has been a 'demonization" of patriarchy or that the subject is taboo (many women still take their husbands last name as do her children) we have to be careful not to confuse the term "patriarchy" with "patrilineal." I grew up in an Anglo patriarchical family constellation in the 60's-80's and I never thought there was any perverse male sexism or exclusion of women and children from any benefit of the law. In fact, a quick glance over the past 100 years or so of history of this continent would indicate that contrarily, women and children were obtaining more benefits of society in a progressive manner into modern times. We have to be careful that we do not rely on limited synchronic views to inform diachronic questions. However... Again, your view is synchronic and personal whereas I can easily counter that, due to the progressive rationalization of the concepts of personal liberty: what you see as demonizing, radical and built-in, I see as a levelling effect over time. All cultural change comes with a price, even positive changes such as the progressive rationalization of personal liberty. In some other areas, our definitions of words and ideas change including the weight of the underlying concepts of those things. Again, it isn't as demonized, hated as you think. In some circles, maybe, but the general trend is toward the concept of patriarchy fading away like any other cultural concept that no longer suits the purpose and most people, I think, move along like a school of fish with it. First of all, partiarchy is not the "sole system of social organization that actually" encourages and protects the male role and involvement in the family, if that is even a requirement for social organization anymore. The egalitarian configuration appears to offer the same, if not more, encouragement and protection for the male. What I think you mean to say is that patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually protects or preserves the patriarchical male role and involvement...etc. It is important that we not confuse matriarchy with matrilineal, for one. For two, it appears that your definition of matriarchy is limited and somewhat informed by emotion and a sense of morality. For example, your definitions of both appear to disqualify the egalitarian effect of particular societies with regard to either system. Not necessarily so. If you agreed to my definition of patriarchy above, then you will note that it is not limited to a narrow, patrilineal aspect. A brother, uncle, male cousin or adopted outsider can all be considered as the dominant male role in a partiarchy, not just the biological father of some children. Furthermore, if the symbolic choice of "our father" is extended into a particular society some abstract kinship rules have to be applied so that "he" becomes everyone's "father." Take a look at the etymology of the word "king" for example (as opposed to the word "queen" too). The law appears, to me, to be leaning towards the personal liberty of the individual as has been pointed out and this has had a levelling affect on some of the organizational aspects of our society. Also, there is a confusion between the terms patriarchy/matriarchy with partilineal/matrilineal without a clear boundary provided including how that boundary affects your personal definition of the terms. If we could clear these up a bit, the argument - or bias - might be stated a little more clearly.

How would you know that, are you an expert in "Islamic law" and hence, the whole lawyer thing?

So you are admitting that "the country" doesn't work now? You know jbg, for a self-admitted "lawyer", your skills at sophistry are truly piss-poor. Or did you completely miss the parts where several posters believed that treating cimes in Canada according to Canadian law was the way to go?

It's really quite simple Bonam, since your 'solutions' more or less presuppose the fact that those people are already on Canadian soil. Therefore, once they are here, those rights apply to them. There is already a 'cultural mosaic' here - so you admit - how to you propose to remove that mosaic and all the enclaves it has caused and then assure that people assemble according to immigration policy? Or were you thinking of assimilating them while they were still in their own country?

Interesting. If we lived in the idealized 1950's. Some posters prefer we apply "...the full extent of the law..." to them, but your solution presupposes the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a pretty radical solution for a problem that simply does not exist to any great degree here in Canada. So other than the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter and a little mind-melding magic, how is your solution supposed to work?

This is because Stephen Harper is actually a lefty and this photo proves it.

Yes, our points are agreeable in that they are equating the attributes of one instance with its metaphorical referrant. And it seems this is often a one-to-one swap of attributes. In other words: "As IF genocidal actions retain the same form in all regions of the world through all of history." Replace the struck through words with "leftist opinion" "social conciousness" or any other descriptive category that fits your view or view that you support on a particular topic. There appears to be no granularity or range to their view. Therefore how could they not equate your "leftist" opinion with support for the Hamas? See what I mean? So when we talk about the debating methodology, I would revise this: "So it would appear that they all agree precisely with Lictor on every point." To this: "So it would appear that they all FAIL precisely LIKE Lictor on every point." The difference here is that Lictor is only one point on the scale, a low point mind you, but a scale nonetheless.