Shwa

Jaffer had his day and the Toronto Star had their morning after: Ex-MP Jaffer's firm sought $100M in grants from Ottawa But seriously, asking a politician to tell the truth. I didn't watch the proceedings, just news clips, but did Jaffer asked to be excused to go the bathroom just after he denied ever using cocaine?

Good point. Poor point. One never really knows WHO is walking toward one in a crowded street; it could be someone out to do you harm. I would hardly equate a veil with a ski mask or clown mask and it seems many criminals dispense with the face covering nowadays and go with a baseball cap instead. Confused point. What is the difference between the 'public' in 'public beach' and 'public building?' I think people can go into public builings in swimsuits can they not? And if service is refused because of some sort of rule of attire, those rules have to be posted in a visible place near the entrance to mark that place as having special considerations.

Cons: - the far right would freak right out man! Hashshashin - the gateway drug theory - cannabis might not be addictive, but it could be habit-forming and mimic the downside of addiction - despite the study by the U of Sask, potheads continue to use the words, burn, burnt, cooked, wasted and wrecked. There is a reason for this. While a synthetic substance like something found in pot may stimulate cell growth, it is the other billion or so cells being burnt out that is the problem - munchie attacks can lead to obesity and heart problems. Especially delicious, juicy double cheese burgers from Wendys at 2 AM Pros: - the sales for the snack industry would go through the roof - Tangerine Dream would make a comeback - the psychiatric industry would benefit due to the increased caseload of paranoia -

Hopefully their PR division will invite some high level Orangemen to their next parade and the LOL's will reciprocate.

Brutal!

See? Now you are getting at something worth while by being specific and I would agree that violence against women in Pakistan is out of control. But there is a huge difference between Pakistan and Islamic "culture" or Islamic countries and so on. As for domestic violence, here is an interesting link. But be careful the data was likely compiled by "womens rights activists" and according to Argus, it is unreliable and "pretty heavily exaggerated." Violence Facts - Canadian Women's Foundation Some interesting facts: Half of Canadian women (51%) have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. Every minute of every day, a Canadian woman or child is being sexually assaulted. One to two women are murdered by a current or former partner each week in Canada. Spousal violence makes up the single largest category of convictions involving violent offences in non-specialized adult courts in Canada over the five-year period 1997/98 to 2001/02. Over 90% of offenders were male. Thirty-six percent of female victims of spousal violence and less than 10% of victims of sexual assault reported these crimes to the police in 2004. Physical and sexual abuse costs Canada over $4 billion each year (factoring into account ocial services, criminal justice, lost employment days and health care interventions). But I wouldn't bother with any of this because it is much worse in Pakistan and some other Muslim countries. They aren't "up" to our "standards" yet.

Maximizing and minimizing. Point out in Sharia law where beating one's wife is acceptable, where her reporting abuse is unacceptable, unvalued or ignored. Please provide a link in English. Come on Argus, even for someone you making a statement like this is rather gutless. See M Dancer below for his use of "womans rights activists" data to compile a pretty ugly picture of domestic violence in Pakistan. Which is it? Do you accept the statistics or do you have some of your own that can back up your opinion?

Have a little glance and tell me if you still hold the same opinion. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16197&view=findpost&p=531122 Be specific. What government or governments are you talking about? Right. Let's talk about "basic rights to women" and use the phrase "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) Argus, I know what you are saying and I am just as grossed out and appalled at some of the treatment of some women in some Islamic ruled countries by some crazies claiming the right through some little clause in their religion. But the sheer level of violence towards women on this continent after a few decades of the recent "womens rights movement" still leaves plenty to be desired - especially by the women and children who face the brunt of the nasty side of our societal character. We are not talking about a little bit of a difference between 'us and them,' we are talking a significant difference. And while, in some Islamic countries, some levels of violence or violation may be condoned by the present government, some women on this continent cannot enjoy the lofty rights bestowed on them by the mighty words of our declarations because they are too busy recovering from the latest beating, the latest sexual assault or rape, the latest death threat or death threat to their children, etc. ad nauseum. Oh, well, freedom has a cost now doesn't it? But hypocrisy is always free.

Does that include their political affiliations or leanings in their careers up to that point? Depending on which government is sitting, you may have different versions of "legal competence."

And let's not forget this tyrannical government is operating as a minority at present. Seems to me that IF the opposition were so high and mighty on principle as they struggle to be in the media, they would have actually done something about this by now. But they haven't done a thing in the foreground other than a lot of hot air and politicking. Free press takes on a whole new meaning.

Do they give tests to candidates for the Supreme Court to determine "legal competence?"

Do you have some statistics, memo or other documentation to back this up or are you going anecdotal on this? It is true that a slew of mid-managerial jobs in the NCR require do require a measure of bilingualism, but not necessarily in the regions unless those jobs require supervision of staff of a different language.

Yet in a previous thread you mention something about the Opposition willing to negotiate how the documents will be released. Offering to negotiate with an entity to already be in contempt of Parliament and breaking constitutional law, doesn't sound as principled as your stand is. That is like negotiating the fine with someone who is in the act of speeding. Oh I see what you are saying, and to a point I agree, but there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve a win-win situation in grave circumstances. That would be the committee getting their uncensored documents and no lives are lost. If that means the committee members have to sit on their hands a few weeks, even a few months, OK, then we resort to the details of what constitutes parliamentary debate. However, what does one do when one receives said documents and discovers that the entire process has been a face-saving political ruse? Can the government successfully get themselves out of something like that?

And what "culture" would that be that you are referring to?

Then quit comparing them. Rapes per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita Numbers of rapes: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes Murders per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per- Numbers of murders: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders Executions per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe_percap-crime-executions-per-capita Numbers of executions: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions Females prosecuted: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_fem_pro-crime-females-prosecuted Percentage of assault victims: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

Bloodyminded's response is better than yours.

They are not quite in violation yet. Give them time to respond to your concerns as to why your opinion does not constitute a violation, but simply a disagreement in a debate, which is understandable. You will reply. They will then need to take some time to respond to your reply - you know, research, take a holiday, prorogue Parliament for a bit, come back, research some more, go to a luncheon. Then once you respond to this new reply, and in keeping with the spirit of debate with your disagreement, they will have to once again formulate another reply to your reply. Whoa, do you mean simply bad PR, or are you talking about the loss of life with our troops and allies?

Surely they see all matter of senstive material during in-camera sessions, but do they surely see all or any type of sensitive material relating to national security questions or material that is privledged as evidence in a domestic terror case? The government is not depriving, they are merely delaying the release. As it stands right now, there is no breach of constitutional law. There could be, but someone in Oppostition has to have the nads to pull the trigger and there doesn't seem to be anyone at this point.

LOL! I know some security folks in a well known federal department in a well known urban area of Canada. Did you know that there are lists of Canadian citizens who are considered to be 'terror threats' and that should their names pop up under sensitive alert type conditions within any federal department the authorised response is to be immediate and with full force? I have also had the pleasure to witness such a response, albeit a false alarm. One minute a nice spring day, the next minute a parking lot full of SWAT and uzis. This was enlightening to me. Here I figured all the while that we were moving along, business as usual, as our peaceful little selves, minding our true north strong and free. I guess there is a price for that.

But on a question of national security. Disregard for a moment national security being used as a political ruse, would you agree that sensitive national security issues should be brought out into public, even if that meant that the information in question was being gathered as evidence in a terrorist plot?

Good post and thanks! At least the governments position is understandable. It might not be right, but it is understandable.

I think this is very possible. It could be that there are sensitive security concerns with allies or within the government that might require some negotiation that is being worked out in the background. As cynical as I can get over the government, there could be more than just domestic political concerns here. I mean, it is a highly risky venture to prolong the process for no good reason, however I sense that there is some complicity with the Opposition, even direct support behind the scenes while the public version is carefully played out in the media.

It proves that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Does it need to be? I must have missed the "wasn't adultery" part. Oh, there it is, it says,"facing." http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm But that isn't really the point is it? I wonder how many women in Canada and the US were murdered, beated or abused by their spouses on the suspicion of adultery. But that is the point entirely. How many serial killers have been caught in the past 20 years? How many serial rapists? How many "criminals" have been caught that slaughtered innocent women and children? Ah, but it is all OK because, you know, we caught them and tried them as criminals. Eventually. Well, most of them. We hope. Thanks for coming out of the closet.