Shwa

Since there is no timeframe prescribed, then the government is within its right to take its time to prepare themselves or the documents or whatnot. Since a Contempt of Parliament motion has not been passed in Parliament, it would seem that there is no "breaking of constitutional law" going on. It would seem that the Members more or less agree. I am not saying that it can't or won't happen, I am saying that it hasn't. That is, it is a little too soon to proclaim a tyranny. Should the Executive be able to conceal its actions from the Legislative? No, of course not. But I think there has to be some reasonable timeframes for the release of information or documents to Parliamentary Committees. What is reasonable is something the Opposition is going to have to consider carefully...

Yes, that is correct. I thought that was pretty clear, but for some, I guess not.

Right. Moral equivalency. Adultery - Wisconsin Scott Schmidt - preventing his wife from committing adulteryso he murdered her. Charged with Adultery - faces court-martial Hire a US Military Lawyer 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.

The British North America Act? I thought we had changed those to the Constitution Acts in 1982? (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html) I can't see Section 18 in the Constitutional Acts as having any bearing. Are you referring to the Parliament Act? (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-1/index.html) I can't seen to find anything that would define this as "breaking constitutional law" as per the OP. At worse it is an abuse of privledge (http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentaryprivilege-e.htm) but either way, that is for the courts to decide, not parliament.

The problem is that you mistake specific and sensational instances of different culture groups for a general condition of Islamic "society" rendering what you have to say as utter nonsense. Of every instance you cite above, one can easily draw a similar general conclusion about our own society. And I bet you are completely unaware of how your argument drops credibility aren't you? Brutal.

Hmmmm. A little problematic. First of all, most of the population - aka "the masses" in Canada live in "chosen major urban utopia." So are you saying that most of the urban population agree with your views? Secondly, Halton Hills is hardly "rural" with most of the peeps living in Georgetown and Acton. Plus, with the close proxmity to the Big Smoke, any rural areas of Halton Hills are being overrun with liberal, socialist, hippie IT types who have a bit of coin for the cute little hobby farm. Listowel is rural; Halton Hills is no more "rural" than Clarington is. So what "masses" are you purporting believe as you do? And don't get me started on Michael Chong, another 'compromise' CPC. Another pink conservative is he not?

You argument flows from this premise or assumption. Could you explain what those documents are and how witholding them breaks constitutional law please? I have supplied the following link to allow you to test your premise against current information law: Access to Information and Privacy Acts

A better test for Hollywood "courage" (or Toronto or Montreal) perhaps should be making a movie about how women are treated in North America: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes Interesting to note that Canada, with 1/10 the population of the US, has 1/4th as many rapes as the US. How about a movie about all the battered women in Canada or the US? http://www42.statcan.gc.ca/smr08/smr08_012-eng.htm http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html Wait, I forget: the simulation of women being raped, beated or murdered is on TV every single day on multiple channels. That's entertainment for you. So sure, go ahead and insult Islam. Bring some TV cameras along with you. Should make for some compelling "reality" TV drama.

Funny that this author should be so 'politically incorrect.' A ready made excuse to slough off any criticism of the article or his opinion. However, it would have been more interesting had the author demonstrated a little - and I mean a little - Canadian history, especially that surrounding Canadian immigration history and realize that his views are old hat. He isn't saying that South Asian immigration is bad, just that they are not the 'right kind' of South Asians. At first, there was criticism that the 'wrong kind' of British subjects were being allowed in - you all remember the Irish don't you? Those drunken, lazy, criminal Irishmen? Then, when immigration was targeted toward Europe in general, we were allowing the 'wrong kind' of caucasian - you know, those drunken, lazy, criminal Slavs? How about those weird Doukhobors? And God forbid, be careful about those Jews - they don't even believe in baby Jesus! All the wrong types that we allowed in all the while the successful US only imported only the best. Well sort of. Because knowing a little - and I mean a little - US immigration history will show you the exact same thing happened in a United States of America. Not the 'right kinds' of this group or that group. Irish, Slavs, Chinese and, God forbid, those Jews. So while some may see some sort of justification in this article because it was written by 'one of their own' I see the problem being, not racism, but ignorance. I suppose that if one does not learn the lessons of history, one is condemned to repeat it and, in this case, this author certainly does not know his Canadian history. That, to me, says far more about where he is coming from than the subjects of his criticism.

I think the CBC uses very interesting language in that story: If the swastika drawing was the straw that broke the camels back, then I think that devalues drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, criminal behavior and mental health issues as reasons for the concern of protecting children. As if to say that, you know, drugs and booze, violence, crime and craziness are OK, but drawing a swastika has gone too far. The rest of the problems seem to be an afterthought, a backup just in case their swastika investigation went south on them.

Argus says: The Toronto Star didn't censor themselves here, even though they did not portray the colour of the victims. Here the Star Phoenix has no problems identifying the suspects as "aboriginal." And CP24 has no compunction about identifying this "South Asian" man. They even have a picture showing his skin colour. All of these stories do not portray the suspects in anything other than "poor light."

Human Rights abuse or not? The issue of shoddy parenting is indeed a complex one including who decides what "shoddy parenting" actually means. Well I am sure there is a standard government checklist about that, but each case worker has their own interpretation based upon their own experience. However, according to the story, the flag was raised only after the child came to school with "hate related drawings on her body." Is that reason enough to remove a child from the home?

Good points, xul. So let's try and get this back on the rails. Firstly, human rights conditions in China have absolutely nothing to do with this thread, other than to put down and attack when real argument fails. Secondly, there is a need for child protection laws in Canada, absolutely, and there is much good work done by the CAS no doubt. But I know people that have tangled with the CAS and their legal machine and the CAS is not as altruistic as they portray themselves to be. They are a child protection agency, for sure, but they are also a bureaucracy. So let's talk about the 2008 case of the Manitoba woman whose child was removed from the home due to a swastika that was drawn on her arm. Human Rights abuse or not?

As opposed to the boogeymen that the Right Wing Populist's latch themselves onto?

Because it doesn't matter. I use the quote feature as I see fit and sometimes that includes a focus on the idea, not the poster. If you need to see who the originating poster is or gain some sort of context, then read the thread and figure it out for yourself. If you're too lazy to do that, don't blame others because you can't be bothered or are unable to catch up or follow along.

And who says that Canada does not have any culture?

Yes, Mr. Canada you sure do and I, for one, appreciate it. At least you are honest. Although you do demonstrate the remove-all-doubt principle when you do speak up. And I am fine with that too.

Harper and Clinton were talking birth control??

Yes, Mr. Canada, I am happy. But not necessarily because the students of the First Nations University will be able to complete their year, get their credits and move to a more reputable school. No, that is just fair and reasonable. I am happy because I know that this sort of fair and reasonable type of action gets under your skin and irritates you. Cost of finishing the year for students at the First Nations University: 3 million. Cost of Mr. Canada getting irritated: priceless.

Good point Peter F., but the issue is what choices can be made within the context of what is considered normal society including 'eveyone else.' We wouldn't allow a Muslim woman to smoke in a designated smoke-free restaurant because they lacked "free choice" in their previous homeland.

This is a very good point even though there is a confusion of cause and effect. One could easily ask, does America have another "Sarah Palin" or "Noam Chomsky" or "Barack Obama" to which she can refer? I highly doubt that the unique circumstances of these persons have given rise to such shining examples that are national enough to gain a wide view. Canada - like NY, California, Florida, etc. have regional examples that could likely be cited, but this is a public forum, not a research paper. I mean, Helena Guergis has been discussed here. I am sure Marcel Danesi will come up one day. And, of course, we have been electing minorties to Prime Minister for well over a century now. So I doubt that using a current and high profile examples to illustrate a common notion that exists in both countries, vilifies any culture - American or Canadian - as lacking nor does it indicate a general condition of that culture anymore than the national Belgian conciousness is influenced by national French or Dutch TV/popular press. There is an exchange of ideas, for sure, but nothing that indicates a lacking.

Hardly. I doubt you would have drawn such a wide generalization based on a single, meagre case. I have read your stuff, you are not that dumb. At least we know one thing with Coulter, she has no balls, so that dispels the Man Coulter myth.

Are you talking about Coulter or Parliament? Was anyone in the mob charged? If not, then they did not "rule." Groups of people can assemble and they can shout at each other as long as they want so long as it is peaceful. In Coulter's case, they were protesting as they had every right to. So they were exercising their rights on many fronts. Call it what you want, but they were exercising their rights. Are you talking Coulter here or Tea Party? Coulter's group pulled out because of fear, not because she couldn't speak - or didn't have the loudest amps to do so. Peaceable debate - is that what Ann Coulter's visits are all about? Peaceable debate? Come on now... Sadly, idealism often times falls short in the face of reality. Besides, if Coulter's cadre had any sort of 'courage of conviction' then they wouldn't have pulled out because they were afraid would they? No courage there, just a tail tuck and flight to friendlier Calgary...

I would agree that "Canadian Imperialism" is a bit of a stretch. Do you have a link to the original article?

No respect for the concept? They were exercising it! In addition to exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and association. Two other important liberties in our society that I am sure you are aware of. It was Coulter's cadre that decided to pull out because they couldn't stand the heat. It wasn't the police so there is no imposition on her "freedom of speech." She had been admitted to the country, she had spoken the night before. Sure they gave her press, but so what? The thread is called 'Free Speech in Canada, a myth?' Using any reference to Ann Coulter and her cancellation at the UofO to illustrate some connection with the lack of freedoms in Canada is weak.