The Terrible Sweal

Marriage has a number of 'specific meanings'. In it's specifically civil/legal/governmental context it means whatever the appropriate civil/legal/governmental authority says it means.

Nothing stops the identification of additional heads of discrimination. It was written to allow for that quite deliberately. But that doesn't mean that our society will or must indulge claims which are frivolous or inappropriate.

My Canada includes Saskatchewan.

No, I don't agree at all. He promised to defend Canadian values of civil rights, and he promised more democracy for MPs. So far, at least up to the point of the vote going against the legislation, he's delivering both.

You make an extensive series of allusions to having an argument there, but you don't actually go so far as to making any. Fascinating.

No, you have this completely wrong. Religious freedom does not extend to religions writing (or demanding retention of) their chosen definitions into the state's laws.

I don't care about his motives. The point is he promised more free votes and here is an example of delivering it. He's doing what he said he'd do. Perhaps as a Conservative you simply don't recognize that when you see it.

Kimmy wrote: I suspect you're correct. I invite you both to re read my comments to achieve a better understanding of them. I have indicated I don't understand what basis there is for taking special pride in Alberta particularly as distinct from the entirety of Canada.

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election. I disagree. While Martin (after assuming office) did make some talk of more free votes and more active backbenchers in his "Addressing the Democratic Deficit" action plan, those where not campaign issues of any note. -kimmy Interesting twist, kimmy, but your original point is belied by the facts. See? "democratic deficit" was a clear Martin policy. Whether it was an "issue" is not the issue. Do you get a paycheck from the Rightista party?

??? "Going back to confederation", the west wasn't even part of Canada. It was an almost empty wilderness.

You view Canada as a single liver (with Quebec apparently associated as a spleen, or something...) while I view Canada as more like different organs comprising a single body. Maybe that's a difference of opinion we just won't be able to get past. Still hoping you'll expand upon what you see as the key distinction that makes Quebec a spleen rather than another lobe; -kimmy Cop out. What is YOUR basis for seeing Alberta as a spleen rather than as a lobe? As for Quebec, it predates the Canadian liver as a distinct entity.

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election.

Let's stick with the liver. Say the cells in the left lobe start proclaiming their pride in being 'left-lobers'. When asked they explain that they are proud to be left-lobers because: "We clean the blood!" Doesn't it seem reasonable to wonder what they think the right-lobers are doing? They clean the blood too, don't they? What's with the left-lobe/right-lobe stuff?

And you believe the state is doing this?

RB, you continue to talk utter nonsense. Men are 'allowed' to 'judge' women because we have freedom of thought. Women 'judge' men too, and men 'judge' other men, and women 'judge' other women. It's called an opinion, and no-one is answerable to anyone else for holding one. Your persisting whinge about beauty standards is nothing more, so far as I can tell, than an objection to the fact that people have opinions and other people decide to take those opinions into account.

Once in a while one hears people suggest the notion of 'family rights', or 'rights of the family'. Here is an interesting example: FamCharter I see a lot of specifically questionable things in there, but on a more general level, I cannot understand how it is conceived that 'rights' can be held by a 'family' as something distinct from the individuals comprising the family.

Hope you feell better soon, Kimmy. As to your questions: You don't need to be part of something to feel pride in/for it. If you're part of it you have pride in it, outside, you have pride for it. My point is not about who shoud have pride, it is about what it makes sense to take be proud of. Let me make an analogy: take your liver. If you say to me "I'm pleased with the left lobe of my liver, but not the rest of it." and your explanation for that preference shows no basis for prefering the left lobe over the rest of it, would that not be a peculiarity worth wondering about?

Again ... what do you mean by "equal representation"??

You already posted that, but you have misunderstood it. All it says is that crown land previously held by the crown of Canada is thereafter held as crown land by the province. Obviously the province owns the land it owns. This transfer is not related to the question of residual title, nor to jurisdiction over resources generally. If you really care about the facts, I urge you to inform yourself about them. There are numerous texts on constitutional law available.

Handled correctly, it's also got high liquidity.

You need to be lord high in ordre to have your unreasonable, self-righteous opinions made into oppressive legislation. What grief? Trudeau was right. Tell me, what business does the state have in the bedrooms of the nation? On what basis? Now there's an incomprehensible statement if ever there was. I've never seen a bedroom in a school!

That is precisely what the Charter does. It applies only to government action. Well, it's more precise to say that gov. is the institution society invests with the sole legitimate coercive authority. "Can" and "may" are different things. The Charter is our society's way of delineating this distinction. And indeed, it does not. What do you mean here? That the courts should not give content to their rulings that address the facts before them?

Just because you say so, I suppose? And when were you appointed Lord High Guy, may I ask?

No, friend you are wrong. The reference you supplied clearly applies to "crown lands". All it means is that the province of Alberta owns resources on the lands it owns directly, just like other provinces before it. That is to say, it empowers the provincial crown to hold land distinct from the pre-existing federal crown. It does not grant the province any rights over land or resources it does not own outright in a normal fashion. But look, this is a simple, well known set of facts. Seriously, instead of arguing with me from a basis of ignorance, go read about it. I'm not making this up; I am simply reporting the constitutional facts to you.

I love religious debate! What could be more enlightening and productive than an argument revolving around highly subjective, totally unverifiable interpretations of archaic writings? Dig in!