dizzy

Ontario has had these for years. The proceeds from Support Our Troops plates goes to support military families and injured and ill soldiers, sailors, airmen/airwomen (including those with operational stress injuries). Treasury Board puts restrictions on how public dollars can be used to support CF Members and their families. Funds like Support Our Troops and Soldier On are just a way to provide more flexibility in how (and how quickly) military members and their families can be helped out. If nothing else, it's a relatively benign way of expressing your alliegance to the troops, no more dangerous to the public discourse than a licence plate with a Toronto Maple Leafs graphic on it.

It's certainly possible, but it would be an incomplete narrative.

Religion is one component, a good lens into the cultural attitudes that govern and influence society, a good frame within which to discuss questions related to ethics and the evolution of morality. My son has been taking these courses since they began. He's currently in his first year of high school, more than halfway through the year, and religion hasn't come up in this class once. They're currently studying ethics in marketing.

What evidence do you have of a particularly foul odour hanging over this course vs any other? The course's driving focus is on teaching kids to explore ethics and the philosophical underpinnings of rational thought. Religion is but one part of the overall course load. Unlike the world religions or modern western civilizations classes I took, this course is taught over a period of 10 yrs, giving students an opportunity to actually develop a competence in the subject matter.

All public school social studies courses do... unless you can show me one that 'fairly' represents the historical perspectives and contributions of all peoples.

It's never been a secret that the curriculum would not equally represent all faiths in terms of time allocated. The course is designed to reflect both the contemporary and historical culture of quebec.

This is not a religious course in that it does not teach dogma. Rather, it's part social studies, part philosophy. Kids are taught about religions from a cultural perspective, alongside discussions on contemporary issues and larger ethical questions. Most of the classwork focuses on discussion and debate, with the goal of encouraging the kids to form defensible opinions. If anything, religion is just a vehicle, the real content of this course focuses on teaching students to reason. Here's info on the course objectives and outcomes, from the MELS website: Reflects on ethical questions http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/progression/ethiqueCultureReligieuse/index_en.asp?page=competence_01 Demonstrates an understanding of the phenomenon of religion http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/progression/ethiqueCultureReligieuse/index_en.asp?page=competence_02 Engages in dialogue http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/progression/ethiqueCultureReligieuse/index_en.asp?page=competence_03 WRT the SCOC, the court stated that there was no charter basis on which to rule against the curriculum. How is anyone confusing this with judicial activism or federal intrusion on provincial jurisdiction???

Hitler? Wow, Godwin's law applied in less than 4 posts!

I don't think you have a sense of the shear weight of the assets we held in kandahar, at various locations, and the kind of labour required to remove them. Yes, we left kandahar, but people have to get our shit back, unless you'd rather leave it for another country to enjoy? If you really want to get technical, we haven't left a combat role because the 500ish soldiers now in kabul training the ANA will, in moments, face conflict. But, as for our men and women in KAF and the region's FOBs, we're done.

Quebec separatists are a blend of young urbanites with grand optimism (based on the new cultural paradigm and economy emerging in Montreal), the old ethnic chauvinist elite (the socialists) and a bunch of people in places like Saguenay, who are just believing what they're told. There is also a latent right wing constituency that has parked their vote with the PQ/BQ in the past, only because there were no other stable pro-sovereignty options. A sovereign quebec would not be a socialist paradise, as there are too many skilled and imaginative people here that want better.

Umm, nope. http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/4/7/7/pages104773/p104773-6.php

And I'm sure that you've also met christians who would like to turn our secularist nation into a theocracy. I will fight alongside you against those who want to challenge any of the notions supporting our democracy. But you need focus, padawan. Extremism is the enemy, not islam.

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1080036016/no_irish_no_blacks_no_dogs_bigger.jpg

The article mentions a prayer service on Fridays. Friday is Jumu'ah.

That wouldn't likely be an issue, as christians get the day off from school on their holy day.

Yes, the ghetto act of 1774 ensured a unique experience in Québec relative to the ROC. Please feel free to initiate another referendum on sovereignty. I'll be sure to vote no along with the majority, not because I don't think quebecers aren't unique but because I don't think them mature enough to govern themselves as a nation and because I think ethnic nationalism is a tired old idea in 2011.

This is being blown way out of proportion. The NDP had no presence or power in quebec before the last election. Many left-minded federalists voted BQ, PQ or QS because of their platform on a host of matters other than separation. I've voted BQ more than once.

You're making the point that the hyper-politicized tone actually has to do with people's attitudes surrounding the more controversial matters, such as our involvement in afghanistan. Also, some people are uncomfortable with the very notion of an armed force. Those are both fair positions and the former may have been partially the fault of Gen Hillier, who used the movement politically, to fight for improvements in equipment and other operational fronts. For those confused about supporting the troops v. supporting their actions in specific operations, consider their contributions outside of Afghanistan, such as in Haiti, and the many domestic operations in response to natural disasters and for events such as the Olympics. Or consider the chapter 6 peacekeeping operations. I don't have data on the work of our SAR techs, but I imagine more than a few lives have been saved from wilderness environments or the open sea. Do we forego acknowledgement of the risks taken and the time away from family for these operations because Afghanistan is still on the radar? That said, supporting the troops is just an attempt to funnel a collective appreciation for all of the unique challenges CF Members and their families make, which has the side effect (through funds raised) of improving the programs and services developed to alleviate some of those issues.

I don't know where to start. Your fingers are aimed southward in a discussion that has no reference point in the US. It's important that you understand representative democracy before you read the following. 1. If you believe your government is following along an unethical trajectory, it is your responsibility to organize and speak out to correct the path. One notable option is by exercising your right to vote. 2. Soldiers act on the orders given to them, triggered through the democratic mechanism and based on an assumption that its governance framework is well-functioning. If it is not, you are responsible for correcting the problem. See where I'm pointing the finger? Not at the US, not soldiers. I'm pointing at you. With that cleared away, let's get back to the OP. Do you have any issues with yellow ribbon magnets designed to raise funds and demonstrate support for the people you have placed in harm's way?

There's a disconnect here. Where and why we engage in conflict is a foreign policy matter. Soldiers are simply servants of the state (voluntary ones, in the case of canada), charged with the obligation of carrying out duties prescribed to them. If you're against a particular war, then your beef is with the political party in power and its foreign affairs mechanism. At this level of consideration, it has nothing to do with the Canadian Forces or its members.

Part of the reason why sovereignty is losing ground is because Quebec has undergone a second quiet revolution, away from ethnic nationalism and toward pragmatism. The economy here is diverse and sophisticated - biotech, aerospace, a self-sustaining cultural-sector, hydro-electricity, etc. Certainly, anglophones and allophones are treated with increasing respect and have a more substantial position in the collective psyche than even a decade ago. Also, concessions from the feds have essentially already seated quebec with quasi-nation status. Most people are happy with the new status quo. The old timers with their foot-stomping jig music are lost in nostalgia, but they do have a following amongst the youth, I suspect because quebec nationalism is a cocktail of pride and rebellion. Kids love that shit.

Cool video. I have no strong opinion whether quebec should or should not separate. What interests me about this province is how beholden the young are to the ideas of the old, established elite. The real liberation of quebec would be for the new generation to set their own course and think original thoughts.

100% of the revenue from Support Our Troops merchandise purchased through CANEX goes to, well, supporting the troops through community, recreational and family programs. Whether or not you are for or against our participation in any particular conflict, you should recognize that the very real sacrifices made by military members and their families are done so in your name.

your paranoia, your bill.

hahaha! I just had to quote this one for posterity... "In areas where planes can be shot at...." what exactly do you think the canadian forces do? Also, do you think you can run supplies and move people from germany and cyprus more efficiently by land convoy than by air?