kimmy

You can't beat up your kids, you can't decide your kids aren't going to get an education, you can't raise your kids on booze and drugs. Your right to raise your children as you wish is not absolute. If the government can take away someone's children for irresponsible parenting, then surely the government can take away someone's children to prevent the infliction of grievous medical harm. I don't even think it's a question. And if you're attempting to equate male circumcision with FGM, I think you're horribly mistaken. My personal research on the subject indicates that circumcised men have no difficulty achieving orgasm and enjoy sex immensely. (For those favoring a more scholarly approach, I recall reading that the effect of circumcision on male enjoyment of sex is a very minor loss of sensitivity due to the thickening of skin on the head of the penis that occurs due to the loss of the protection of the foreskin.) If you can find me some religion or cult or tribe whose practice is to amputate the whole head of the penis, I'd view that as a reasonable analog to FGM (and I'd be all for banning it, btw.) -k

Hey, if you don't have the right permit, or if you build over the property line, or if you violate the zoning, it could happen to you too. -k {"this land is zoned for Jiiiiihaaaaad!!"}

StatsCan is clearly claiming that an organized effort to provide misleading answers to the census resulted in an inaccurate result. Whether they use the word "conspiracy" to describe this is completely irrelevant. And the specifics of Ontario's legal definition of a francophone are completely irrelevant as well. Francophones thought they could protect french-language services by lying on their census forms. Whether they were right or wrong doesn't matter in the least. -k

Someone's right to rear their children as they wish does not grant the right to cause permanent injury or disability to their offspring. -k

If a procedure designed to cripple a person's ability to enjoy sexual intercourse isn't a "serious health risk/issue", then what meets the criteria, in your opinion? -k

It appears to be a historical fact that such a conspiracy occurred. The only question is how successful it was. Whether it would have achieved the results intended does not in the least disprove that it was attempted. Also, the article disputes your claim: The rationale for pretending to not speak english was to dupe the government into believing that thousands of francophones outside Quebec would face hardship if funding was reduced for french language services outside Quebec. As the article says of the email that was circulated: "It said doing so would ensure the federal government would not cut services to francophones." That the email may have contained disinformation isn't relevant. The number of people who received the email is pure supposition by you, as is whether people read it or ignored it. Sure. All they say is that there was a coordinated attempt to provide inaccurate information. Actually they're very specific about why they believe the results are different: -k

Because in this instance an organized movement to deceive the census actually occurred, and there's reason to believe it influenced the results. -k

I'm surprised that this thread is nearly 10 posts old and nobody has mentioned The Joker yet. -k

Not very surprising. Canada's francophones have to be the most privileged "oppressed minority" in the history of the world, and pretending that they're hard-done-by is crucial to the whole deal. -k

I wrote about Tracy Flick last year. She's either a terrific movie villain, or not a villain at all, depending on your point of view. -k

All those guys have better resumes than Lesnar, but pay-per-view buy-rates say Lesnar is the UFC's biggest draw, hands down. To put it in perspective: the GSP vs BJ Penn event was one of UFC's most successful ever, with nearly 1 million buys. How many buys did Lesnar's rematch with Frank Mir do? Over 1.6 million. GSP and Penn are two of the best ever and two of the biggest stars in MMA, and Lesnar vs Mir II outsold that fight by over 600,000 buys! By contrast, some of the injury-plagued cards UFC has put together this year have only drawn 400,000 buys. If you read the message you replied to, you know I was assessing a claim made by some moron at the Toronto Star. The claim was, basically, that Lesnar's illness and the "blame Canada" angle were a big hoax intended to turn Lesnar into a bad-guy who would sell tickets when UFC came to Vancouver and Montreal. Does that claim stand up to reason? The figures say that Lesnar being on a card adds several hundred thousand buys. At $50 a buy, that could work out to anywhere from $20 million to $40 million per event that Lesnar misses. Lesnar's last fight was July 2009, his next fight is July of this year... he could have had 2 fights in between. Lesnar's illness could well have cost the UFC between 40 to 80 million dollars. Would the UFC spend 40 to 80 million dollars on the theory that a "Brock hates Canadian healthcare" feud would sell tickets in Canada? -when the UFC is already wildly popular in Canada? -when both the Vancouver and Montreal events sold out within minutes? -when Lesnar was never scheduled to appear at either the Vancouver or the Montreal events anyway? Clearly not. It's an idiotic idea. The reason nobody's hit Lesnar is that it's very hard to throw punches when you're on your back hanging on for dear life. Carwin will be a big challenge, because his own wrestling background might let him stay on his feet long enough to throw his sledgehammer fists a few times, and who knows what could happen if he connects. And Fedor is completely insane! Well, it seemed like a pretty underhanded way of dismissing the guy. Something along the lines of saying "yeah, well, California Snow kills a lot of brain-cells" next time some actor speaks out on some cause, without even actually checking if the actor has a history of drug abuse. I'm not sure if those who've hurled venom and vitriol at Lesnar for speaking his mind on this are as as critical when Hollywood-types speaking out about their favorite causes. Then again, I'm not sure if those hailing Lesnar's opinion are as enthusiastic when Hollywood-types cheerlead for their lefty-type causes, either. Seems like peoples' appreciation for celebrities advocating for their favorite causes tends to be proportionate to how much they agree with the celebrity in question. Who'd-a-thunkit? -k

I've seen all of his professional fights, and I can't recall him taking any blows to the head. You might be thinking of his time as a "pro wrestler" (psst, those punches aren't real! ) Dislike his politics if you wish, but he's a bright and articulate guy who clearly has an ideological view on this issue. I don't see how it makes him any different from any number of celebrities who use their fame as a platform to sound off on issues they don't actually know much about. At least Lesnar had a personal experience to talk about, unlike a lot of celebrities talking about causes they are utterly disconnected from. -k

He was under no obligation to keep her on, either. A party can choose who they wish to be their candidate in any riding. While it's usually decided by voters in the riding association, those choices have been overridden by the party many times in the past. An MP doesn't have a "right" to be in a particular party. Recall that Carolyn Parrish was removed from the Liberal party for verbally challenging Paul Martin's authority. If I recall, an MP was once kicked out of a national party's caucus for expressing pro-life views. Bringing disrepute to the party is all the justification they need to remove someone from the party. -k

Well I don't recall posting anything like that, and I couldn't find it using the search function. Maybe it's in the same thread where you said the Holocaust was a hoax. Do I support racial profiling in airports? I think racial profiling in airports is a non-issue. Everybody who submits themselves to airport security does so voluntarily, and airport security is required to search everybody who goes through, so *what* racial profiling at airports? Asking if I support racial profiling at airports is about like asking if I support Canada's military assault on the Turks and Caicos. I can't imagine why you're hung up on the idea that at some point I supported racial profiling of Muslims at airports, but now I'm against racial profiling. First off, as noted, I don't think I've ever supported racial profiling at airports. Secondly, even if at some point in the past I might have said I supported racial profiling at airports, I don't see what that actually proves. It wouldn't contradict anything I've written here. My position on this issue has nothing to do with racial profiling. The only mention I've made of racial profiling is as an illustration of the fact that police can invent cause to stop someone for specious reasons. Thirdly, if my attitude about some issue has changed in the course of my years on this forum, so what? I've changed a lot over the 6 years I've been here. Particularly in regard to my trust in law enforcement officers. And finally, I think it's telling that you're now attempting to attack my position based on something I allegedly said on some unrelated topic, rather than making your case on its own merits. As has been pointed out a number of times, the police can find legal cause to stop someone with little difficulty, so the language in this bill does not provide a great deal of assurance. When you get on a plane you are voluntarily submitting yourself to the scrutiny of law enforcement officials. The search of your person and property has occurred at your own request. -k

The question is not whether he should ignore the big bag of coke on my seat, but whether he's allowed to go looking for the big bag of coke in my glove compartment. If he hears thumping coming from the trunk then absolutely he's got reason to open up my trunk. But he doesn't get to pop open my trunk on the premise that I might have a tightly bound and sedated victim stashed back there. Then again, if someone has told him that somebody who looks like me is driving around with a car full of coke and a kidnapped person in the trunk, maybe he does get to pop open my trunk. And this is where the debate regarding this law gets complicated, because in practice it's hard to say what will give an officer sufficient cause to suspect someone may be in the country illegally, or what the courts will deem sufficient cause. There are differing opinions at this point, and I doubt any of us have the legal background to say which set of experts is right and which is wrong. -k

They could try this, but they'd get their asses kicked in court if they did. I expect the government's lawyers would advise them to not bother wasting their time or the public's money by even trying. The convenience of the demand is not the legal issue. The legal issue is whether the officer has any reasonable grounds to suspect that I might be carrying illegal media in the first place. No, they're not. Recall the Rahim Jaffer cocaine charges. There were rumors that the cocaine charges were dropped because the cocaine was in his vehicle, not on his person, which would have made the search illegal. The police vehemently denied that the cocaine was found in the vehicle and insisted it was on his person when he was arrested. If the police are in your home on a noise disturbance call and they notice a big bag of weed on your table, they can bust you for it. If they notice the big bag of weed in a box in your bedroom closet, they can't bust you for it, because they had absolutely no business being in your bedroom closet in the first place. If they're in your house on a noise disturbance call and they happen to smell your grow-op, that probably gives them adequate legal cause to investigate the source of the smell. -k

You're certainly more familiar than I am with the reasons why this is a big political issue right now. However, I think a reason why discussions of racial profiling or police harassment of the homeless don't generate widespread discussion is that it's easy for people to say "well, it's just one mean cop". This, on the other hand, isn't one mean cop, it's a law signed by the governor. I also kind of agree with Shady on the premise that most of the outrage around this law is not well-informed and has been whipped up by using hot-button language like "racial profiling". It's not always easy to reconcile the way things would work in an ideal world, and the realities of law enforcement. Drunk driving "checkstops", for example. In principle, I object to "checkstops". That the police can stop everybody on the road without probable cause is, to me, contrary to the whole premise of due process, and I don't know how it managed to withstand legal challenge, or if it has been challenged at all. Then again, why would anybody actually challenge checkstops? In theory I find checkstops objectionable, but in practice I recognize that they probably save lives and deter drunk driving. -k

When Helena Guergis was accused of shouting at airport staffers, people wanted to see her disciplined and howled that Harper was protecting her. But now that she's accused of giving a lobbyist inappropriate access to government resources, she's Nicole Simpson and Harper is a woman-hating scumbag for not defending her. You guys are funny. -k

You seemed to be suggesting that nobody cared about any of this until the Arizona law came along, and that's not the case. And "reason to suspect" is in practice probably stretched to the limits of credibility. There's little reason to think the immigration law will work out any different, despite the claims of supporters that the law's language prevents it from being abused. -k

We're not going to stop software and movie piracy if we don't look for them either. Would you support a bill that allows a police officer to search your cell-phone, media-player, or computer for stolen media as part of routine stops? It's illegal so they ought to be investigating it at every chance, right? If picking you up for jaywalking is their only chance to see if you've got pirated movies, they ought to make the most of it, shouldn't they? People who aren't carrying stolen media would have nothing to fear! -k

There's been lots of tears shed for the homeless people and non-white folks who are subjected to undue scrutiny from police. Lots of news articles, lots of politicians, lots of threads right here at this forum. The fact that police are able to find ways to harass minorities if they wish to illustrates the point, but it's not the point in itself. The point is that when police interact with you in an official capacity, the scope of their actions should be limited to what they've stopped you for. If a policeman stops me for speeding, he's entitled to find out everything he needs to know regarding my status as an operator of that vehicle (my identity, my ownership of the vehicle, the status of my license, my insurance, etc.) But he has no business asking me to open up my laptop because he wants to search it for pirated software. A police officer shouldn't be able to stop someone for jaywalking or loitering and use that as a means of investigating that person for anything other than jaywalking or loitering. I don't like the idea that a stop for speeding or jaywalking could be used by a police officer as an excuse to do a body search or gain access to someone's home or car. I realize that in practice a police officer may be able to invent excuses to do all of these things, maybe even excuses that would stand up in a court of law, but philosophically it does not sit well with me. The idea that police officers should check citizenship in addition to investigating the incident they've stopped the person for is at odds with what I think is appropriate scope of investigation when a policeman stops someone. -k

I don't recall ever having said that, and I've searched for it using the forum search engine and had no luck either. I think you're mistaken. Au contraire! I am deeply concerned about the United States and all of my American friends. And again, my concern here is not the issue of racial profiling. Yes, walking or driving about town and going about your business is very different from voluntarily presenting yourself to security personnel. Coming from you, "grow up" is pretty funny. You might be a grandmother, but you're still the biggest infant on this forum. -k

That's amazing! I don't know whether it's amazing because it demonstrates how much you can do with objects and physics in Oblivion, or if it's amazing because some doorknob spent all the time to actually make that. -k

ha ha, sure. Monday the law against racial profiling was supposed to be some sort of protection for Hispanics in Arizona, but Wednesday it just goes on all the time. They don't have to know for a fact that the person is doing something illegal to "stop" them, they just have to have a reasonable belief that the person is doing something illegal. That's a point that in practice can be stretched thin. Particularly if this law includes, as your article indicates, that civic bylaws are included in the reasons a law officer may demand proof of citizenship. There are plenty of experts who don't share your rosy view of it. And by the way, your attempt to dismiss Naomi's article because it was published 4 days before the law was signed is ridiculous. Are you under the impression that the law was a secret before April 30 and nobody got to look at it prior to it being signed? First off, airport security is a lot different from the situation we're talking about, so you're making a painful stretch in trying to compare the two. Secondly, my concern here is not racial profiling, it is the potential for police to demand documentation under flimsy legal pretext that I find upsetting. That in this instance the victims are likely to be brown is not my issue with this, it is the potential of abuse of authority. Thirdly, is there a thread you'd like to direct my attention to? Have you found prior comments of mine that you believe contradict what I'm saying here? Or are you just questioning my integrity because it makes you feel smart? -k

I'm utterly floored by this figure, and we simply need to see some official explanation of how this money is going to be spent. If the $930 million went entirely to salaries, and the average salary of the RCMP and military personnel were $40/hr, that would be 23 million man-hours. Supposing 5 days of security operations, 24 hours per day, at each of the 2-day events, that would be 240 hours of security... so 23 million man-hours over 240 hours of security would work out to about 96,000 men. Is that credible? No, it is not. The article says that up to 10,000 people may be involved in security. What else is the money being spent on? The article suggests: "The estimates said the extra funding will be used to "design, plan, co-ordinate and implement security operations," provide accommodations for the RCMP and its security partners, ensure the safety of all "Internationally Protected Persons" and procure information technology and portable communications." Accomodations are obviously a big item. I'm sure that transportation is also a big item. What else? "Information technology" and "portable communications"? Seriously? This is ridiculous, and sounds like a heist to me. I hope Sheila Fraser is on this. -k