Shwa

There could be no "evidence" if a homosexual man commits suicide over such a pamphlet since we could not enquiry as to the nature of his choice to commit suicide and there would be no opportunity for the defence to cross-examine in the case of a suicide note.

So degrees and diplomas, where there is a lack of interest and "not in demand" should not be subsidized. The problem with this, as a general statement, is that you would be removing subsidies for many degrees, especially in highly complex and technical fields - such as quantum physics, in favour of a general arts degree. You've been bitten by your own logic. Do you have some sort of source you are working from that shows that degrees in philosophy result "0 skills to become a productive member of society?" As opposed to how awesome MacDonald's makes their products out to be, as a lifestyle. Life's lessons. Hopefully those many people weren't wolfing down a larged sized Big Mac meal when they were telling you all this... A philosopher would likely say you are a Utilitarian. However, pure mathematics degrees are not in much demand so... no subsidies. Half of Waterloo closes, jobs are lost... And engineering students will also possess the skills to pour coffee for customers at Tim Hortons. No, more teachers is a better investment since it would reduce the class sizes and give more teacher-time to more students likely accerlerating the curriculum and allow students a wider view of their choices.

How so?

For the most part I agree. What I see is HRC's as in administrative tribunals to keep the weight of the number of complaints from clogging up the courts even more. Maybe it should be run by Justice's of the Peace or something...

If it was inevitable, then what murders of homosexuals were attributed to that flyer? Any? I agree that hate speech law has a place, but it already exists in the Criminal Code and ought to be deferred to the courts, not a Human Rights Commission.

And the guy was convicted for his crime proving that the police and the law were working as they ought. Get a clue Capricorn.

More gushing love for Canada. Even though you still don't understand our laws. But that's OK. We'll still take the love. Still playing with... er... your delusions I see.

Nope. It must be the "parliament" of your delusions. Again. That OCD thing with Canada. Most delusional people operate like that, for keeping up appearances.

Nope. For all the aforementioned reasons. The severely delusional are often like that. Their sky is already green.

Cheech to Chong: "Good thing we didn't step in it man..." I get it. Sort of like someone slipping some money into the cops pocket while he isn't looking. He finds it, exclaims his glee and spends it. Why, did Bettman swing some sweet tix while the PM was contemplating back to work legislation for NHL players? Sort of...?

Nope. There is no mention of "illegal drugs" anywhere in either the NDA nor QRO. As illustrated earlier, "any drug" can be consumed with the proper authorization. Urinalysis has nothing to do with it. You are the one that continually brings it up like some symptom of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. It appears your lot in life sucks even worse.

I was just down there on Saturday. I haven't been there for quite sometime and noticed all those wineries, like a little Niagra popping up. Very interesting.

Ah, the invocation of the starving children from a guy who incessantly whines about a few bloody noses in Caledonia. Simply perfect.

As SB clearly pointed out, the problem is not with the Statute of Westminster because, as we have seen, there are no prohibitive measures in the Statute that prevents it from being evolved into the stuff of a republic. What is prohibitive is the "tradition" of the system as it occupies the minds of it's adherents. You yourself often lament the lack of understanding of our government system by Canadians. Curiously, you also say that most people are apathetic, suggesting a linkage of some sort.

What "design standards?" They change so often, what standard are you currently working on? Here is what the GoC is working on: Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0 Economy of scale. Doing a bunch of separate and small projects can quickly balloon overall program costs especially when dealing with multi-billion dollar communincations infrastructure upgrades. Not to mention duplication of effort, projects off the beaten path, etc. (I have actually seen this phenomenon with the Active Directory designs, re-designs, re-issues, tweaks, etc. of several Federal departments. The costs of even one department's efforts would make you ill) The link to GoC 2.0 is up above. Check it out and let me know what you disagree with. That is still fairly recent in government's terms. There are plenty of Federal workstations using Windows XP, Lotus Notes, old IBM mainframes spewing out Cobol... I couldn't agree more. I think Shared Services Canada partially addresses that, by treating the entire GoC as one enterprise instead of dozens of little IT empires.

Nope. Again. No mention of drugs in NDA other than to defer to the CD&S Act. The QRO don't make drug use illegal, just prohibited under some conditions. The only thing you have done is heled educate me on your ignorance of our own country's military workplace policy.

I agree. I mean, having a Minister - who is directly involved in a labour dispute and will be directly involved in back-to-work legislation for workers - getting perks from an executive in the same company... nah, that's nothing. What's a little grift between friends, eh?

A very sensible editorial from the Star regarding a case before the Supreme Court. While I agree, in principle, with the idea of a Human Rights Commission, this editorial shines a light on a very big problem with them. I believe that this editorial represents the majority of opinion here, but feel free to disagree. Free speech must prevail A little more background on Bill Whatcott from Wikipedia.

These are some of the best lines ever in MLW. Sums it up perfectly. Thanks SB!

Oh so now you are using the appeal to authority fallacy, among others. Sure sign you have lost the argument. The QRO is written as is and permits drug use under certain conditions, regardless of a or b, which c is an exemption from. Duh. Yep, you are totally wrong and somewhat clueless since the National Defence Act doesn't mention illegal drugs and defers to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; the QRO's only "prohibit" unauthorised use of drugs and finally, you got nuthin' from the JAG. Canada's "Parliament" says nothing of the sort as I have repeatedly - and very easily - proven. So pat yourself on the back for the marvelous faceplant you have done on this issue.

And they can, but not according to your tastes. So who determines which 'taste' is more appropriate or preferred? I think web standards do, but God help us if they put it in wiki format. Some DM's make act like petty emperors, but in realith they are not. I would think that any "government" initiative like Open Gov would require a coordination of all departments heads and executives. Something the Federal Government hasn't - and doesn't - do very well. I suppose one or two DMs could strike out on their own - and risk the wrath of Treasury Board - but it wouldn't address the "government" part of Open Gov... Sure, but how unified is that model over the entirety of the US Government? Or how is any model currently in use in the world, comprehensively deployed in any government. You can cherry pick, but it doesn't address the real issue of the total meaning of the word "government." I am fairly certain that XML formatted data that can be published, is already published. But XML is a fairly recent format and doesn't address the data contained in diverse proprietary database formats, paper data, media data, etc. Heck, some departments are still throwing coal into the Cobol furnance at HQ. XML is the least of their worries...

But this refers to structure, not the actual availability of the information. Your preference is for a drill down. Others prefer a search engine; others still prefer a flat structure. But I would hazard a guess that, should you require the information - for work or study - that the present structure would be easy enough to learn. I think for the most part, that which can be on-line in a cost effective way, is. The Federal Government still uses a heck of a lot of paper and converting it costs money. This is why you pay for ATIP information. User fees. Come on now Michael, Open Gov policy is not like calling people into the office for a weekend. Open Government The information is accessible. (well for the most part, once they finish all the accessiblity modifications). All you are complaining about is method and, as I have said already, the infrastructure doesn't yet exist to put everything possible on-line. I don't foresee a significant change in this for at least 5-10 years. You will still have to access information through various formats and mediums.

Wrong. Now you are choosing to be idiotic. Wrong again. The National Defence Act only gives permission for the Canadian Forces workplace policy known as Queens Regulations and Orders. There is NO mention of illegal drugs in the Act anywhere. And only for those employed by, or associated through employment by, the Canadian Forces. Like any other workplace policy. QRO 20 only refers to the prohibition of unauthorised drugs. Nothing about illegal or illicit drugs at all. In fact, the only legalities referred to in the QRO defer to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is the ultimate authority. In fact, 20.04c actually permits the use of "any drug" if it is "in the course of military duties." And this includes marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. So the QRO has provisions to allow illegal drugs to be consumed. So not only are you wrong about the QRO being Canadian "law," you are wrong about the QRO specifying illegal drugs and you are also wrong about the entire scope of the passage you, yourself, refer to. In other words, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Not a single clue.

It needs a little more horny housewife dinosaur vampires. Kind of like this. Gawd. The internet has practically everything.

No, now you have us confused with Cobourg.