Reverend Blair

If criticising everything Bush does stinks of anti-Americanism, then doesn't criticising everything Chretien and Martin have done over the last decade stink of anti-Canadianism?

I'm voting for the NDP to keep the Conservatives and Martinites from turning us into Puerto Rico north.

Meaningful Senate reform without opening up the constitution is unlikely, August. In its present form it does not balance the concerns of the provinces against the actions of the House of Commons. Simply appointing people the electorate has chosen does not address that, merely drives up the cost. I don't favour abolishing the Senate, but that, combined with proportional representation in the House of Commons, would be preferable to what we have now or what we are likely to get if we start electing Senators into an only slightly changed system.

Which god are you referring to, Dac? There over the history and through the many cultures of mankind, been many gods. Why should we believe in your particular version? Why not Zues, or Gaia, Zimbo the Two-Headed Clown? The vast majority of cultures have come up with the same laws...don't kill, don't hurt others, don't steal, don't be a bad person. The first three are valid, the last one is really cultural. That's where commandments like, "You shall have no gods before me," show that out laws are no longer based on religious doctrine. The first three are really what all of our laws stem from too. If you look at our laws, they are really just extensions of that. The other laws, those based on Christian doctrine, have fallen by the wayside. I can have whatever gods I want or, in my case, none at all. I can, and do, work on Sunday. I could, if so inclined, commit adultery and would be breaking no law but my wife's. Religious belief has no place in politics. Right and wrong should be based on what is best for the community at large and individual rights in general.

I've worked with guys who had done time in Stoney Mountain and the Prince Albert pen, August. They weren't rapists and murderers, they were mixed up kids with drug problems. Two of them are quite involved with the native rights movement now and one has gone to school to become a lawyer so he could fight against wrongful imprisonment not because he wasn't guilty but because he met a couple of people who weren't. We tend to assume the worst about anybody who has gone to prison, but most are intelligent human beings who made some bad choices. They have valid concerns based on their experiences. They have seen more than a lot of people ever will. Excluding them from voting is doing them and out country an injustice. As for guys like Clifford Olsen...you could take all of the truly violent offenders in Canada, the special cases that people like to bring up to raise emotion, and put them them in a single riding and they could not elect a candidate. Most prisoners are not special cases. As a society we'd likely be better off

That it will, Caesar. What really bothers me is the vehemence from some that we not watch it. If Moore is so demonstrably wrong, then why don't they want us to see it? Wouldn't us watching it just prove their point?

I think that model would have to have more than 5 regions. Separate each province and either one for the territories or seperate the territories, depending on their take on it. Maybe Northwest Ontario deserves their own representation too. The thing is that the Senate should represent the provinces. I sure don't want Manitoba being lumped in with Alberta because some of our landscape is the same. They have a much higher population and tend to much further right than us. Being dominated by Alberta is no better than being dominated by Ontario from where I sit. My other concern is that it would give the boys in Ottawa an excuse not to give us proportonal representation in the House of Commons. The H of C is much more party-driven, so I see it as where proportional representation would do the most good.

That brings up a whole other issue. If somebody has been forced to choose jail because they could not pay a fine, why would they not be allowed to vote when, if they could have paid the fine, they would be allowed to vote? That is an especially big problem when it comes to Aboringials. They are already politically under-represented. They are already less likely to vote. Many live in poverty and go to jail because they lack the funds to pay fines. Now you are suggesting that they be kept from expressing a basic right because of a lack of money.

I saw the link at another page. I got Layton 100, Harper 0, so it was certainly accurate in my case. Others, those that lean to the right (in some cases a right so radical that they think Harper is too far left), got Harper as their number one choice. Interestingly enough those who got Harper or Martin as their first choice generally got Martin or Harper as their second. Those who got Layton or Duceppe first usually got Duceppe or Layton second.

The problem with the triple e Senate that Harper is proposing is that it will lead to deadlocks. We've seen that happen in the US...bills simply cannot be passed. Bills that do pass often have unrelated riders attached...government by stealth. That is not a working system, it is a failed system that people are finding ways around. I do think a house of sober second thought is important though. It brings the debate out into the public sphere more often. If the Senate opposes a bill it makes the news, people talk about it more. I have two problems with the Senate being elected...first of all it leads to the kind of electioneering we're seeing right now. Negative campaigns and pork-barreling are two things we already have plenty of, thanks. If the elected provincial government of the day wants to put forth candidates (however they choose them and if Alberta wants to run elections out of their provincial purse they can) they will put forth candidates that represent their views. Manitoba would, right now, put forth left-leaning candidates. Alberta would put forth right-leaning candidates. No matter which candidates were chosen by the H of C (the representatives of Canada) those biases would still be present. The governments and people of the provinces would be represented with a minimum of cost.

He's trying to hide a lot of things from the Canadian people, MS. His pro-war stance is just one of them. Most politicans tell positive lies to get elected, Harper has to lie about his past like a petty criminal on the lam. Farenheit 9-11 will do well in theatres and DVD rentals in the US and Canada. Europe too. The fact is that Moore does build a case for his point of view. He does the research. Have you noticed the drive to keep people from seeing the movie? The right isn't opposing it on fact, they are telling people not to watch it because Moore is overweight or makes money from his movies. This board is slightly better than most places, but I'm still not seeing any facts negating what Moore is saying.

Harper's in trouble. He never ran anything but a negative campaign and peaked too soon. People are asking a lot of questions and Harper has been unable to answer them. His whole campaign was based on the sponsorship scandal, and that's gotten old and tired over the last few weeks. At the same time his radical policies were being dragged out into the light. Homophobia, hatred of bilingualism, xenophobia, and privatisation might play well in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan, but they don't in the rest of the country. Harper has also done some things to damage his credibility with his core supporters. Before the election started it was his party that stood on the side of US meat packing corporations over Canadian ranchers and farmers. In Saskatoon he refused to talk about agricultural issues. He is extrememly reluctant to criticise the US for its policies on Canadian hogs and the Wheatboard. The NDP and Liberals need to pound him on those things in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

If it's accurate I'd say it was caused by a combination of Ralph Klein and the assertion that Paul Martin supports child porn. Harper and his neo-conservatives have been showing themselves to be scary people that the Liberals have been trying to paint them as.

Life is not a set of numbers, Hugo. Numbers only quantify, they are not capable of explaining why those quanitites exist. Those articles include links to the UN, Human Rights Watch and so on. The UN does not, as a habit, release opinion columns. You want to negate the impact of wars, famine, etc; but you don't want to look at the root causes of those wars and famines. Look at Iraq...who put Saddam in power and helped him gain such a strong hold on the power there? It was the US, seeking to protect their assets in the area. Look at the African HIV/AIDS pandemic. Who has fought hardest against the distribution of generic drugs there? The US because their pharmaceutical companies put profits before human life. Look at Sudan. They had relatively few problems before the oil companies showed up. Is there a direct causal link? Probably not, yet control of a potentially huge amount of wealth cannot be discounted as a motivating factor. Again though, you never read the stories, the links that support them, or the links within those links. It is not me who is not doing the research, Hugo. Even when it is put right in front of you, you ignore it.

They need us as badly as we need them, Stoker. If Canada were to cut off the energy supply, especially natural gas and electricity, we could bring American industry to its knees. I don't advocate doing that, but surely we could start nailing them with a hefty export tax to recoup losses from other industries due to their trade practices. In the case of softwood lumber we could, much like the British did with steel, target areas that use a lot of lumber (say the tornado and hurricane prone areas) to put pressure on the Bush administration. Their policies are costing Americans a lot of money but most don't realise it. We can make that clear by lobbying specific politicians and running specific ads in specific markets. Same when it comes to wheat. Canadian wheat is sought after because of its high quality. Millers and bakers like it because of the product it produces. If we were to enlist their help in fighting off the constant attacks on the Wheatboard we would become a serious player. Combine that with diversification of markets and countervailing duties on US products, and you'd find they'd be more than willing to deal with us.

Every province and territory needs to have an equal number of Senators. That is the only way to balance the population inequities between the provinces. I wouldn't want them directly elected though. What Harper is suggesting is basically a copy of the US system. It isn't working there, so why the heck would we expect it to work here? What I would suggest is that each provincial government put up several candidates for each Senate postion (however many that might be) and then let the House of Commons hold a free vote (maybe even a secret ballot) on who gets the appointment. Instead of doing it all at once, do it on a rotating basis...either some from each province or a few provinces at a time. That would ensure continuity while allowing provinces some say in who is representing them. Give the Senate the power to return, amend, and submit bills to the House of Commons but the House of Commons, as the elected body, gets final say. Limit the number of times a bill can go back and forth. Can that be done without opening the Constitution? Probably not. I doubt any real changes to the Senate can be accomplished without opening the Constitution though.

You read all of those articles and all of the supporting links in 11 minutes? Man, that's incredible. I'll bet you even read the supporting links within the links. You must have one fast computer there, Hugo. Your eyes must be aching too...all that speed reading. I'll bet you have a headache. Want a Tylenol? Just because you refuse to read something does not mean that it isn't valid, Hugo. In fact, it just points to you not wanting to see any evidence that contradicts your own mindset. There is a huge and growing body of evidence that what we are doing is not working. That isn't the fault of democracy, and I've never claimed that it is. It is the fault of those who would undermine democracy to feed their own greed while ignoring the very needs of others. Read the stories, all of them. Read the supporting links. Read similar stories. Read the supporting links to those. Don't glance at one part of an issue and decide that you agree because it might make you uncomfortable.

Why shouldn't prisoners be allowed to vote? They are Canadian citizens. They have issues and thoughts within and without their criminality. Given the number of cases of wrongful conviction that have come up recently there are some serious questions even in regard to their criminality. Since our prison system is allegedly based on reform instead of punishment, wouldn't encouraging them to become politically aware be a boon towards their reform? Many are in jail for minor offences...drugs, theft to support drug habits, etc... They could very well have a different, yet valid, perspective on a variety of issues. My only concern is the presence of such a large special interest group within one riding. I would suggest that they cast ballots in the riding of their last permanent address to avoid skewing the vote in a particular riding.

Some of us would very much like to see that changed, since it excludes us. It doesn't specify which god though. Are you suggesting that if somebody comes from a religious tradition that accepts same-sex marriage that they be allowed to marry but those from a different tradition not be allowed to marry? What if somebody changes traditions? How old does a religion have to be considered traditional? What about those of us who believe in no god and no organised religion? My wife and I were married by a JP. We specifically asked that no there be no mention of religion during the ceremony. Would we be free from the imposition of your traditions, since they are not our traditions? What if my wife was a husband instead? Would that make a difference? There is no room for religion in the governance of a democratic and multi-cultural society. More than that though, why do you even care? If a pair of gay men next door are married or living outside your definition of traditional marriage, how does that affect you? It doesn't. It does not change things one bit. Nobody is forcing your church to recognise their marriage, and that the government recognises it is really only a legal matter.

Will you read it? Will you care to try to understand it? Follow the links in these stories: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/index.php?topic...ic=blairscolumn Plenty more where those came from too.

So what's the traditional definition of marriage? I would say that it's two people who love each other enough to be willing to make a commitment. Notice how there's no mention of gender in there? That's because it doesn't matter. Any traditional definition based on religious values, which is what Harper's argument comes down to in the end, has no place in government or legislation. Various cultures, including traditional aboriginal cultures that predate Christian Europeans arriving in Canada, accept same-sex relationships for what they are...two people who love each other. How come we have to bow to Harper's narrow definition?

The US invasion of Iraq has NOT been shown to be legal. Experts in international law are still arguing the facts. An international tribunal actually tried Bush and his cronies for war crimes in Afghanistan and there will be another for their crimes in Iraq, including the right to invade. The fact remains that the US does not have the right to enforce UN resolutions without the support of the UN. That's why they refused to take the matter to the Security Council. As I said so clearly before, this thread is not strictly limited to US actions in Iraq though, especially something so narrow as whether a good lawyer could get Bush off on the charge of an illegal invasion. The fact is that Bush administration has behave in a manner that is criminal. If we support them, then we are aiding and abetting in that criminality. By refusing to acknowledge the wider scope of the crimes commited, by refusing to criticise the actions of the United States government, whether illegal or just detrimental to the world, we seriously risk becoming seen as nothing more than a satellite state of the US. http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

The evidence is everywhere, Hugo. From weapons sales, to privatised water in South America and Africa, to agricultural subsidies in the US and EU, to the war in Iraq, to pretty much every document to come out of PNAC since its founding, to the actions of the Bush government on softwood lumber and the Wheatboard. All you have to do is open your eyes. The current version of globalisation is making the poor poorer and more dependent on the wealthy. The wealthy are getting obscenely rich and exhibiting less and less willingness to have the poor depend on them, even while creating more dependence. There is plenty of evidence available, but thos from the far right who feel that unfettered capitalism and social darwinism are some sort of panacea will not listen anyway.

The only ideology I fear is their willingness to impose their regressive ideas on the rest of us. Harper has refused to state that he will not use the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. He has refused to rule out letting a private members bill on abortion go ahead. He has stated that he will ban same-sex mariage. What's next, public schools being forced to teach creationism in science class?

I don't think anybody questions that Saddam was a bad person, that isn't the question. The question is whether the US has the right to unilaterally decide who should lead countries by going in and invading. Since they had, and still have, no real evidence of Iraq's WMD or a working tie between Saddam and bin Laden, they have no such right. The US has a history of installing and propping up despots, Saddam being one of them. If they really wanted to get rid of him they could have rallied the world behind them when a way was being sought to replace the sanctions with something that worked. They chose not to do that. Toss in the various PNAC musings about how to take over the world, most dependent on Iraq, and that so many PNAC members are now pivotal in the Bush White House and alarm bells start to go off.