Shwa

According to what standard?

You said it was in Markham. There are plenty of 'resident' Muslims in Markham. I know of a local Baptist Church in the middle of a residential area and they have a huge ass parking lot as well. Heck, they had a circus in it! However, there is no way that neighbourhood has that many Baptists and, if it does, God help the non-Baptists. No, it should be placed where there is land, infrastructure and services and is somewhat central. But mostly the land part. Cheap land. And nothing says cheap more than "Markham."

So much for freedom. However, can every inch of ground be policed? Should it?

Open the Constitution in Word and use the search and replace. Sure the devil is in the details, but the details do not reveal any obstacles that can be overcome. Even the touchy question of Quebec. That is mere methodology, not some moral or legal imperative. That's Oz. We can learn from them and learn what not to do.

I qualified the statement though, hinging on a decisive referendum. I would imagine preceeded or followed-up by some sort of "royal" commission. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume there has been a referendum and something like 75% of respondents said that they would be willing to take a look at it. The legislature would be driven by the politics of the referendum. There isn't anything saying that the rights of the people and treaties and such, would automatically become invalidated. The repatriation of the Constitution has already proved this and the Charter of Rights has already moved us in a direction which is perfectly compatible with a parliamentarty republic. Like wyly pointed out, all you need is a replacement figure. President-in-Council or Govenor-General-in-Council. I see no link between a careful and relatively simple switchover which would mitigate any economic 'suffering' if there would be any at all. A change in management, a severing of formal ties to England, a republic that recognizes that the Monarchy truly has no play here anymore. What real benefits did the repatriation of our Constitution have? Did we economically "suffer" when the Constitution was reptriated? No. You see, other than 'its a big job' and some fear thrown in, I see no real legal or moral obstacles to morphing ourselves over to a parliamentary republic.

In my neighbourhood this little Pentecostal Church went through a huge change over the past 10 years to grow almost 5 times the size of the original building. Trouble is, there aren't very many Pentecosts in our neighbourhood, if any. Thank God for that! I agree. They shouldn't have built this church in our neighbourhood because it attracts all kinds of 'foreigners' to our neighbourhood. They should have built it near a WalMart where it would do more good. The Pentecosts are so huge and powerful now, the United Church near them sold out and moved away. People should keep an eye on them.

You keep saying this smallc, but you don't go any further to explain. So... please explain. For example, how will it cost us $billions? (I am presuming that you derive this figure from the costs of the repatriation of the Constitution in the 80's) I agree, there could be some legal roadblocks, but they could be overcome. I simply don't see a hell scenario for this one, especially if there is a decisive referendum to get it done.

I have to agree. Hudak, called "gutless" by other posters in another thread, appears to have stylized himself after Harper/CPC and is now reaping the benefits. There was a time when I easily voted PC (pre-2nd term Harris), but since the "progressive" has gone out of the party (and doesn't exist in the CPC) I am not into the cynical social agendas these types bring to the table. In this particular campaign, Hudak has allowed the attack ads drown out any alternative the PC's bring. No doubt there are plenty of true progressive conservatives who can see this. Whether they still have enough influence in the party remains to be seen.

What else would you call them? Here, this is from wikipedia: Grassroots Do you think that coalitions of unions are "traditional power structures?" I wouldn't. Once this election is over I doubt we'll be hearing much from them, suggesting an ad-hoc movement.

Why should we - because statistics on a foreign country say it works for them? What I am getting at is that there are significant cultural, political and environmental differences between Canada/US and Portugal. Who's to say that implementing programs like theirs is going to have any effect on our society at all? Or that it won't result in disaster? You can fit 10 Portugals in Ontario and Portugal has less people than the province. I am all for a movement towards decriminalization, but there is no requirement to do it like Portugal. Have you also examined the statistics for China, India and the Faroe Islands? It seems like you are cherry picking here.

Any information collected by the federal government falls within the parameters of the Access to Information and Privacy Act. If you are unsure, send in an ATIP request for the financial data for MADD (or any other charity) and see how it works. This has nothing to do with the sun news network unless they want to source out the union financials for their printers or camera operators, etc.

The silence isn't deafening, it's approving. A few posters have challenged the OP, this is a discussion board after all, so how about you take up the challenge? If it is a big pile of BS, then it should be easy enough to refute, except maybe for those "twisted" grains of truth. You have to watch those of course, because they might come back and provide the thin edge of the wedge. However, that really isn't the point. The point is the impression that America has in some parts of the world and the moral equivalency that goes along with it. That is a more interesting discussion because, even if the concepts are somewhat inflated, to refute them, one has to face and acknowledge those little grains of truth. And even that might be worthy for some people to become aware of.

A complete non-issue, really. If you are in a union - and the three big unions I have been involved with - just like several NFP & chartible organizations I have been associated with - you can get a look at the books if you are a member, but there is usually a fairly concise report completed by a reputable accounting company available at the annual general meetings. No problem. It isn't a widespread issue. The bill isn't to force unions to post their financial statements on the web, gawd, but I am sure there are locals that do that anyways. Most prefer the old school route of active participation at meetings. No it appears that some con was told to piss off by a union when he wanted to see their expenditures: Russ Heibert is from Surrey. Duh. Really, for all the anti-union folks here, it will likely not be any big deal for any local to comply with disclosure since they already do to their members. And if you think that Revenue Canada is going to hire another 1000 staff to devote time to auditing all those books, you are out of your minds. And I highly doubt that anyone here will be able to force any union or local to open their books to you or post them on the web. The bill is for Income Tax Act purposes, not for you.

No, Hudak didn't raise it because he would have the results of the Ipperwash Enquiry spit back in his face. Rather a few big mouths take a few lumps than someone being killed. Ipperwash inquiry spreads blame for George's death Of course, it might be convenient for you to forget Ipperwash, but not so much for Harr..., er, Hudak. I am sure Hudak hasn't slung any water quality comments towards the Liberals either.

I dunno, the Queensway worked fine back in the day and was well used. Gridlock now?

Magical citation please, showing that all of the studies were completed by advocates of the harm reduction approach. Yes we can, since they are making the claim scientifically. However, even a biased scientist can produce unbiased results. Or, you could follow the links, read the datasets yourself and then come to your own, unbiased opinion. When you do, publish your results here. We'll review them for you. Who's biased again?

Really? Does all that profit mostly go to pay taxes to support social programs?

One they have consumed it all, there is no charge available under the Criminal Code. When a person consumes drugs, and are high from them, they are still "using" the drug. i.e. the drugs are still acting on the system to produce the effect; the drugs are actually still in the process of being consumed. But that isn't against the law. Being high isn't against the law unless it is combined with another act that induces impairment to that act such as drive a car or fly a plane. Workplace policies are not Criminal Code offences, but have enforcement at the local level only. So an employer can, under certain and usually very specific circumstances, order a drug test on an employee they suspect is using drugs. However, even IF the employee is fired for using drugs, they cannot be charged under the Criminal Code unless it is combined with another act in a situation that is a chargeable offence.

Nevertheless you are quoting workplace policy and not law.

It seems to me that one will usually place faith in a scientific hypothesis, or the elements of a hypothesis, while they are working through it. Probability is another area that takes in a little faith. For example, I probably won't get a shock when I flip the light switch.

Correct. Note that the quote above, "...non-medical drug use is illegal in Canada..." is taken from an explanatory section of DND policy and is certainly not the authority on the legal interpretation as taken by the courts.

Now who's trying to be "cool" eh Mr. Godwins Law? Here is a link for you, since you seem to be remiss in a few areas. CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" When you launch your constitutional challenge to have that opening line changed, let us know will ya? It'll be good for a laugh.

The test of what people believe is based on their acts, such as flipping on a light switch, putting some groceries in the fridge or putting some gas in the car. Most people have a reasonable idea of how such things work, and an even better sense that should they not know, they can certainly find out to a very granular degree. Moreso nowadays, especially when they turn on the computer and go on the Internet. Papal bulls were the equivalent to laws. People had faith in them and still hold faith in the theological laws that are taught to them by their priests and ministers. But theological law no longer equates to civil law, let along philosophical law, if there is such a thing. I don't believe there is a non-self-reflective person in the world except for maybe the extremely mentally ill who lack insight into their illness. However, not all areas of enquiry are self-reflective, or self-reflective to any certain degree so there will always be followers. But in the end, unless they spend their days in a yurt in Algonquin Park, their life is unavoidably saturated in the stuff of reason and they usually proceed along those lines. I don't think you are a dogmatic type person, but more reasonable.

It's part of the unreported crime statistics.

Great Allah, you are touchy. That should be against the forum rules. If you can't follow the discussion, don't jump on other posters for your misgivings. Others should be made aware of your over-sensitivity. By way of a memo...