Shwa

Nope. They admitted and repented. Then took over the Church. So... no hating on the Romans!

But who determines whether you are hurting anyone or damaging property or not? Are you also judge and jury? You may think a law is unjust and go ahead and break it at your leisure. But no man is an island, so the rest of your society will determine whether the law is just or not and they'll do that through their institutions. One of the big problems is the sheer power of the justice institution. It seems the less people are directly involved in justice, the larger and more powerful the justice institution becomes. But there is (or can be) a difference between the social norms of a small town and a large urban centre. And the smaller the town, the smaller the compromise of what you consider to be "just laws" right? In theory, helmet laws should apply equally to urban and rural folk. But the application of those laws is dependent on being caught and there is likely less of a chance of that the more rural you go. But if laws are being broken with impunity in, say, rural settings, how is justice happening? It doesn't have to be rural either. Laws could be broken within close knit cultural urban communities. Keeping quiet about domestic abuse for example, because a particular culture tolerates domestic abuse. How is "one another" being protected here? How is justice being served in this situation? For an advocate of less government, are you now going to advocate for more police who, arguably, are agents of the government? One could argue that people are slowly giving up their liberty by choice through the refusal or reluctance to become involved in justice or health or whatever other institutions we happen to be complaining about at the time. They are taking over because we are giving up. Is this an aspect of socialism? I don't know. Certainly the old refrain "power to the people" comes to mind and that is a fairly socialist sentiment. I don't necessarily equate socialism with large, monolithic institutional government. I think there are other ways to socially manage justice or health, etc. Much more granular and community based ways. Authoritarian socialism depends on what? It depends on people accepting the centralization of authority and services into large monolithic institutions that rule all. If people are reluctant to getting involved, in "helping one another" then we have a problem don't we? Have you ever read 'Future Shock' by Alvin Tofler? (just askin') I'm not so convinced that private insurance would do that. But, I suppose, fines ought to. Why should I pay for roads and bridges that I will never use, or only use once or twice? One way or another, we are going to pay for it - for stuff we won't use, etc. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the sheer weight of apathy towards the quickening institutionalism that is creeping into our lives. But then again, we have WalMart and McDonald's now, so why should I worry. Cheap goods and cheap food.

Nothing new. The Clash even had a song about it-ish.... Guns of Brixton

Taking a leak outdoors has different consequences depending on your location right? Well, if you are in a situation where you can operate under the condition of "less laws" and get away with it, would you? It seems to me that where there are more people, there is more chance of laws being applied. Is there a corollary there you think? Yes but, protect it from whom? No man is an island. There isn't a single thing on your list that doesn't involve other people in one way or another, including taxpayers. I tend to agree and on your poll I chose option #3. My view, other than #3, is that where it will save the public money and/or improve efficiencies, why not regulate? So, for example, why should I have to pay for someone else's stupidity (medical bills)when they crash their bike without a helmet?

Well the guy in the OP wasn't "singled" out. But likely the only volunteer they could find. These guys, part of the ton, were singled out. And for good reason. If there were simply articles about white supremacy in Canada questioning their strength and belief asking the question - could it happen here? - it would be very understandable. Nothing odd about that. Ton of those over the years too. (do your own Googling if you don't believe me) There is nothing odd about a newspaper trying sell more newspapers. OK, you say he was "singled out." Cite please.

Well to be honest, I never expected them to be 5-1, so with the second best offence and second best defence, I'm good.

Judges. .So long as it doesn't exist on the level of a public forum in a wilful way, there is no problem hating on whitey... or darkie, or chickie or ... {fill in the blank}

Not if it sold newspapers though, right? And I highly doubt that they are singling him out, seems like he is a willing participant in the piece. Tons. Do your own Googling. No. Not because it is or isn't hate, but because you don't understand the hate laws in the Criminal Code of Canada. Jean Luc Picard's response.

Gawd, you do go on. If you have a problem with oversensitivity, go see a shrink.

Seems like the dude (from the Shwa no less!) is the National Post's poster boy for a could-it-happen-here feature, not much more.

Yep. At the beginning of the Eski-Argo (?) game, one of the commentators made the same observation about depth. Now... if their second stringers can take advantage of the opportunity like the first stringers did this year...

No it wouldn't. Well it wouldn't fall under section 318, genocide, but it could be considered under section 319:

Let's review: Zing: to criticize in a pointed or witty manner Don't get your knickers in a knot over it dude.

No, but there are competing modes of transportation, mainly cars. Cut the provincial subsidies to the TTC and see how loudly the commuters howl.

Curious case of the Tamil refugee...So the guy is frank; his wife was, apparently, but recanted. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks likes a duck, chances are, it's a duck. Right? Stay or go? Tamil migrant in Canada says he unknowingly took part in bombing I would be interested to know what "possession" of this guy was sold to a Tamil Tiger and then used in a "suicide bombing." I suppose that if they let it get out that the guy sold his car, it might just spark some public concern about the reasoning behind the decision to let the guy stay. No shit Sherlock. The guy has "Tiger propaganda" on his website and he had no idea!??

Because yours was the last post in the thread before I replied. Because publicly communicating or expressing a hatred for everyone, and wishing everyone would die, does not constitute "genocide" nor "hatred against an identifiable group." Somehow I don't think you can know that. The law reads as it is and it includes "white hetero men" no matter what you think. In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. So basic English comprehension is a problem for you is it? Please note the use of commas in the definition of "identifiable group."

:angry:

They're not excluded and why you would believe they are is beyond me. Criminal Code of Canada - Hate Propaganda

:Nope, you're wrong. And since I know you are wholly incapable of being anything near credible and keep posting the same garbage over and over, without any sort of incentive to 'discuss,' luckily the forum has formatting features to help one respond in kind. There. I fixed it.

Quit being a big sucky baby. The guy zinged you and zinged you good. Take it like an adult and try to find some humour in it instead of boo-hoo'ing...

No, it's because he is a lictard. And anti-fuscian!

And you are neither, likely based on ignorance of history, or so it seems. Or at least the simplistic type of history taught in the backwoods between shootin' practice. But they lost. Get over it.

No one is asking you to produce a degree, just some relevant data. Nice attempt at a dodge though. Then be make at least an honest attempt to be relevant. Dodge. No, you are NOT "comparing Canada and America in values" because you provide no comparative data. You are equating Canada and the US in values and I am telling you, that unless you can provide some Canadian data, your beliefs are completely unfounded and no better than pulling something outta yer arse. I understand you have an opinion, good for you, but it doesn't sound like an informed opinion that is relevant to Canada. Let me give you an example: Why on earth would you equate divorce rates with "fatherlessness" rates?

So you can make comparisons between alcohol and crack abuse. Boges would question whether you are a troll or not. As for the social damage caused by either or, which form of social damage would you prefer to subject your kids to? I rest my case. If we ban alcohol - make it illegal and throw all persistent drinkers in jail - then we can focus more resources on the lesser problem of crack use.