Shwa

Probably a good idea. Excuse the phrasing, but this is what I would call a 'weak-minded' approach. There is an underlying assumption that our "very existence" lacks the capacity to absorb and regulate those sorts of things which at first appear to be harmful to our existence when the very opposite has been proven true time and time again. Of course we don't and we have laws for that. However there are plenty of cultural laws that continue with all kinds of immigrant culture groups now and we don't apply the same test to them because they are currently not newsworthy. Everyday rape and murder in Canada and the US has done more damage to "our existence" than any Sharia teachings or learning about what those teachings mean to a particular culture group. You want to protect "our existence?" Do something about all the rape and murder in North America. Let me know when you feel powerless do anything about it.

So let me get this straight smallc, just so everyone is clear on what you are advocating and have provided a "facts and figures" link. Because if this is your position - you know -providing data from CIC - then I think we need to be sure of your position on this: According to the data supplied by CIC, using the column for 2009 it says that of the 252,179 immigrants, 65,200 (roughly 25%) were "family class" type immigrants while the remaining (roughly 75%) were "economic immigrants" (153,498) "refugees" (22,846) or "other" (10,634). So are you saying that only 25% are actually family sponsor type immigrants like the tables from CIC suggest? Because from what I read from Wild Bill and mikedavid00 they are stating that 70% are family sponsor type immigrants that don't build houses and so on. It seems there is quite the disparity between the figures you supplied, from CIC statistical data, and what is actually observed by the other two gents in their daily routines within the GTA.

Not quite: "...a close-in-age exception which permits 14- and 15-year old youths to engage in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older." Otherwise the age of consent is 16. No we don't. It might be true that some services treat a 14 year old parent as an adult for the purpose of accessing those services, but 14 year olds can't legally drink, smoke cigarettes, etc. Being a 14 year old parent doesn't change your age. I hardly think so. Are you advocating that an immature decision immediately leads to maturity? What does stealing a loaf of bread have to do with the age of consent or kids having kids? Oh, I get it now. Just because a 14 year could become a parent makes them and adult and thus should be exposed to the provisions of law that all adults are. This is utterly ridiculous, absurd and, if you dont mind me saying so, a little twisted. There are limited and specific provisions already: Youth Criminal Justice Act - Protection of Privacy of Young Persons Notwithstanding your brutal attempt to appeal to emotion through the use of the phrase "child molesters" you haven't shown how "society" will be protected by exposing the identies of all 14+ violent young offenders. And why 14? Why not 12 year olds?

I agree fully. But even if there were a convinction of treason it would be challenged against the Charter, no doubt. Even the pre-charter FLQ weren't charged or convicted of treason though CC 46(2)a is clear that they should have. The problem with the laws on the books is that they refer to a state or a state of war. The new order 'war on terror' appears to bypass that. But what if - I think as Bisset's comments suggest - a person was charged with treason for one thing or another that fit the CC? What would the reaction be in that person's community. Bisset seems to think there would be this PC outrage backlash in that community and at large and I just don't think so. However that is all redundant now since we have the terrorism laws which, one would think, cover the bases that treason can't.

Can you cite that rule please? Many fighters who have the ability to "defend himself" are often knocked out in mma and boxing. So it is a basically meaningless statement unless you have something specific to add which provides clear boundaries for punching a grounded opponent. And sitting on someone pounding their defended head is going to cause damage regardless not to mention being totally gutless.

"Just watch me." Pierre Elliot Trudeau, October 13th, 1970 I think for high treason or treason convictions against any "home grown terrorist," the Crown would have to prove direct links between intention, act and result (or intended result). That might be difficult: "No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused." (CC, 47(3) Corroboration) One of the chief difficulties I see is the word 'war.' You would have to prove that the person charged is involved with an enemy engaged in war against Canada. If you can't, then off to the rest of the CC you go to find something suitable that will stick. Here is an interesting viewpoint from James Bisset, whatever you may think of his personal politics (or that of C2C), he does present one side of the argument: The Rise of Treason and the Decline of Canadian-Based Terror Threats Essentially he is saying that an incessant politically correct interpretation of the Charter is to blame for our hands being tied when it comes to treason charges. Familiar refrain yes? But it being a familiar refrain should not deter us from having a good, honest look at this aspect nonetheless. So rather than only ask if we can charge "home grown terrorists" with treason, it might also be useful to ask what would happen in their "home grown" community if we did?

I've heard this before, this sort of sentiment. But where? Oh yeah, didn't Hitler say that a few moments before he signed off on Operation Barbarossa and began the second front by invading the Soviet Union in 1941? Meh, your response is not required. You given enough to keep the amusement going for a very long time.

Like I said, "no clue." Which you just proved. Thank you.

Should we be worried? From the Star: Quebec’s ‘Tea Party’ is born Can't control your members? Worry about immigrant's culture? Left-wing dominated media? Yep, sounds like 'tea-party' to me.

You got all that from a response to someone who doesn't have a clue about Canadian privacy legislation? Whoa.

beer-(hall putsch)-googles at that!

No they don't. The privacy acts are there to protect the personal information collected by the government including taxation information, employment insurance or immigration information and any information collected through the course of an investigation. Period. There are limits on which information is exempted from disclosure and disputes of those limits are governed by several levels of public advocacy, including the ability to take the government to court.

You misunderstood. "Conservative" in the sense of moderation, caution, preservation and slow, incremental change. The word "conservative" does have meaning outside of the purely political as does the word 'liberal.'

Sober? I thought one had to be quite drunk to examine such sources. You know, the beer-google effect.

Yeah, but what is a "liberal definition" of liberty? Is that what "unconstrained freedom" means? Heck, even the dictionary definition has limits.

Hmmmm, this is a very good article - thanks for the link! We won't linger on the practical application of the dictionary definition of the word 'liberty' compared to the practical application of it's definition in a Constitution, but the article seems to boil down to this: I tend to agree with this sentiment IF it only means a change in attitude towards how Charter questions are weighed and does not mean tossing the criminal code out on its arse. The tricky part is that eventually precedence will start to kick in and could have unexpected results, even in the short term. Do we want to do down that road? I mean, is it a violation of liberty to maintain a conservative defintion of liberty within the practical application of constitutional questions? Or even still, would you want a lawyer answering such questions? {shudder!}

The bureaucracy has a duty to protect any information it collects and release it with the consideration of all parties involved with that information. For a child advocate lawyer to say something like the "...the information belongs to the public." Well that is idiotic and even the most half-baked lawyer is aware of privacy laws. I presume that the seal is to protect potentially innocent people from accusations and lawsuits from others that are acting on partial or incomplete information. I believe that once the investigation is completed, the information will be released for public scrutiny.

Yeah, sure it is. Just like schizos represent religion and depressives represent the dark. That's "how they think."

I am of the same opinion and prefer boxing. I find any sport that allows someone to beat on someone else while they are down is somewhat cowardly and definitely unmanly. I've heard all the MMA apologist rhetoric, but it still comes down to that. Pretty soon they will allow kicking to the head while someone is down and then, eventually, the complexity of knives. Bread and circuses. Where are those confounded lions anyways?

Damn good thing he wasn't a schizophrenic spurred on by the likes of God and the Devil. Then we would really have a problem wouldn't we?

There is a utility in looking back and evaluating past events with a modern perspective, of course. For instance, a good question along those lines might be, 'did we learn anything?' The problem with trying to gain a foothold on understanding the contemporary thought of past times, is what do you based it on or what sort of construct do you use to frame your references? I believe you will eventually succumb to the same selectiveness that has plagued historical narratives since folks decided the past was simply more than a ledger or chronicle. And that means your selections of important events or ideas will be based on your particular and current beliefs, politics, ideology and so on. That is, your 'standards of today' will inform your 'writing about people in other eras.' (or even what you select to read) Case in point: And a couple of years ago I would have completely disagreed with you. However, Hayden White makes a pretty good case for historical fiction as a way of investigating historical ideas and events unencumumbered by the political requirement to express the modern accepted ethic used for selecting 'important' historical events. Buyer beware of course, but even if historical fiction gets people imagining what it must have been like, that has some value towards gaining some frame of reference for historical views and using those ideas to see what is presently going on. I have stacks of books on the Civil War and by far the Shelby Foote trilogy is way out in front of all of them, no contest. Not only an engaging narrative about the lives and times of the participants, the battles and larger outcomes, but a compelling story of a familiar subject that builds to the supreme drama of an inevitable end. Of all the Civil War books I have, Foote's are the ones that comes closest to expressing the idea of 'brother against brother.' Also well worth the money.

I fully concur with this insightful assessment. There is nothing more to be added.

Your moral standard is being invoked here, the news article makes it plain upon whose moral standard they are devising the story for - and that is the local public from whom this person was selected to assume a position that the same local public deems worthy of a higher standard of private and public conduct. Now whether you feel any outrage or indignation at the details or the way they are presented is not in question here, unless you would like it to be. The facts are that the news organization believes this sort of story is "lurid" enough to generate revenue. And by 'lurid enough,' we are considering the very subjective observations of editors towards what such standards might mean to a particular 'local public.' Know your market. I highly doubt a detailed description of the mundane sex lives of typical lawyers in Winnipeg would phase too many people and some might find it rather invasive that such details were made public. But sex websites with Judge Blowjob photos and gang bangs by young black studs? Now THAT is a story! And THAT is the "morality" of a group of editors that know how to play the game in their neck of the woods. (Or praire as the case may be.) We can examine the minutae of personal opinion all day on this one, but it boils down to a common sense view that if you choose to lead a public life then you have chosen a different "standard" by which you are viewed. And if you don't like what the public does to you, oh well, too bad, so sad. Judges, politicians, sports and movie stars, they make the choice and it is incumbent on them to ensure that their background is mundane enough to pass muster when it comes to public scrutiny. Because, you know, we all love a good story. And the news corps are more than happy to oblige. Slap down your two-bits and read all about it.

But your private sector example completely sidesteps the fact that citizens have a right to served in one of the two official languages and, with the federal government, that includes supervisions and evaluations for French employees. So you didn't answer the question. Most people would have a problem with that I think. If it could somehow be proven that bilingualism renders leadership, intelligence, teamwork and education skills to a secondary status, especially in the modern bureaucracy where potentiality is factored in on most hires where those skills are required. You see? This is the sort of thing I like to read, a solution that can be looked at instead of grumpy grumbling. Now, my solution would be to move as many public service jobs out of Ottawa as possible, especially so nowadays with all the electronic and computing ability. Virtual government. Distribute the wealth yes? Spread out all those offices and call-centres, research facilities and department to the rest of the country, including Quebec. Make "HQ" really, really small. One of the side benefits to doing this would be to leverage all of the "leadership, intelligence, teamwork and education skills" that exist in the rest of the country compared to the mediocre management talent pool that currently exists in Ottawa. In other words, devolve and decentralize.

Naw, you have no idea what I would do, which would include not getting into a situation where the entire world would want me dead. For one. For two, you make a big mistake in logic by assigning your cowardice to me and then claiming it as a general condition. It may work as a cheap device for some low brow Nazi apologist, but it dun work on me son.