williat

I agree, I think it would need to be incorporated into a new Canadian legal system, not stolen from the British. I believe it, people weren't thrown in jail for having drug issues they were given help. Makes sense really. Although what would this cost the taxpayers in support those treatment programs. I too feel numbers speak louder than words. Look at the Netherlands, not much of an issue there, at least it provides an example that drugs can become legalized successfully, and their model shows that prostitution can also be regulated effectively. When you give an example like legalizing murder it sounds like your are laughing at the thought, but remember what legalizing drugs eliminates...legalizing murder wouldn't alleviate the "shady" side of murder, it would still be murder. Legalizing drugs & regulating drugs & taxing drugs, while also taking the "shady" side of the drug world out of the fold (i.e. Cartels). You provide people with a safe product at an affordable price that people get the choice to spend their money on. I mean we do it with alcohol and tobacco, it's common knowledge cigarretts cause lung cancer, which kills people, but its still legal, shit the only requirement is you have to be 18 or 19 in some places. Education is vital. I agree with what you are saying in principle, however, if someone stole a TV because they were high I would still toss them in jail for their stupidity, but not because they were stoned. I sort of see what you're saying here. The rest of your post mostly just sounded like conspiracy theory. HAHA.... It's sad to say but I think most people would agree with this.

I haven't heard them use new world order yet...

Lol sorry maybe it was too soon.

Thank god you said. Alberta has money currently, but when the oil dries up, which will eventually happen be it 80 years from now or whatever will these "victims" change their argument. Look I'm from Newfoundland, as any Albertan would be quick to point out we have been a drain on Canada for some time, in the whole E.I. scheme of things. I mean you can't make fun of Quebec for having a shitty attitude, then constantly complain that life "isn't fair", LIFE ISN'T FAIR its obvious. My question to these Albertans would then become, are you Albertan or Canadian first? I urge all of you to make a wise decision when tackling this question... Say in 80 years the oil is gone, will Alberta change their argument? Or start saying "Well we helped Canada out for so long, we deserve some help" and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Call is socialism if you must but I truly believe that it is our duty as a Canadian to ensure that all provinces are treated equally, if one is doing better at the current time then another thats all well and good, but share the wealth and maybe 100 years down the line we'll return the favor. If not then you can always live knowing that you were one of the good guys, that helped others out when they needed it. We're Canadian, we're suppose to be those nice people that are always willing to lend a hand, not put one out then pull it away because we might not gain from it...

I feel that it is time that I interject to make sure we are still on the right path. Just so everyone knows, this has really helped me look at the argument from both perspectives for my research paper, so THANKS GUYS The one problem I seem to come across however in the arugments laid out by both sides seem to return to the same points over and over again. Primarily it becomes a question of ethics. For instance the opponents argue that there is no real reason for this hunt, well on the contrary, I have researched the topic quite extensively and if you care to read my report (ask and you shall receive) then it becomes clear that although the population numbers of seals is greatly debated (namely falling within the range of 5.2 to 5.9 million harp seals). Well lets take the low end for example and say that the population stands at 5.2 million, the same number DFO estimated in 2000 (Harp Seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modeling populations with uncertainty, by Stephen Harris, Carl D Soulsbury & Graziella Iossa). Ok so we've determined that the population stands around 5.2 million, now consider that the quota's have been increasing over the years, therefore the argument that we are "overhunting" or the hunt is useless would be contradicting hard facts (removing the dispute portion of the argument), therefore we are solely managing the population. What would happen if the hunt didn't occur, well the seal population would obviously expand (as simple math can predict). From there we must focus our attention to fish stocks in the region seals are hunted, well we can chalk up the poor quality of fish stocks off Atlantic Canada then to a combination of 3 factors. Namely European overfishing, Canadian overfishing and seals consuming the fish (obviously their main diet). Research has already shown the seals consume more fish, "The annual prey consumption by Harp Seals (one of three types of seals hunted) increased from 3.6 million to 6.9 million tons between 1981 and 1994; this represents an increase of 57% over a 13 year period." (Predation by Harp Seals in Atlantic Canada: Preliminary Consumption Estimates for Arctic Cod, Capelin and Atlantic Cod. by G.B Stenson, M.O. Hammill & J.W. Lawson). Therefore it becomes clear that the 3 events combined have resulted in depletion of fish stocks, I would then suggest to everyone...well do we stop eating fish so that the levels can begin to regain strength? Also the EU added to the problem by overfishing our waters for decades if not centuries, should they not be held somewhat accountable, therefore is it right for them to ban this product? What do we do if we stop the hunt all together, then the seals will just consume more and more fish until the balance is too out of wack and they begin to starve to death. These are the type of questions that we need to dicuss, get away from the ethics of the whole thing, we're never going to find a common ground there that everyone can agree to, so lets look at it from an analytical standpoint and say well what would happen if we did this..."its a cruel practice" is by no means a relevant addition to the argument, Jacques Cousteau even famously said to "take the emotion out of it", I mean shit some people still shoot their dogs out behind the shed because they are too cheap to take them to the vet, do we plan on taking up a fight against it, not a chance. We can debate the question of ethics up and down, but we must realize that a combination of law, numbers and ethics should be the basis of our decision. It would be wrong to sit here and argue "We shouldn't hunt the seals" or "The seal hunt is a good thing" without looking at all the information, I understand obviously that not everyone has taken the time to research the topic, but as a suggestion to both opponents and proponents is to look into the issue in detail before making a decision, and please god don't take everything you read as truth. For instance WIP has pointed out that yes skinning a seal alive can occur, but with only 200 charges laid and a quota of roughly 330,000 harp seals for 2010, this would only represent a 6.09x10^-4 chance of occuring, which we can both agree is extremely miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Do I agree that it can happen, obviously, I mean I don't know much about slaughterhouses but I'm willing to bet animals are somehow being killed inhumanely. Secondly I think it depends on who you are asking concerning the amount of seals skinned alive "a 2002 report by the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that 98% of hunted seals examined had been killed properly" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html), I mean 98% in any other industry is considered pretty damn good wouldn't you agree? Finally I must raise the question to all of you that the WTO makes no provision for human rights, so why therefore must it make provisions for animal rights? The WTO made it very clear in their ruling on the US Sea Turtle case stating "Although the legislation could have been legitimate under certain GATT articles, the WTO doesn’t necessarily need to allow countries to take measures to protect the environment. " (Domain of WTO dispute resolution, Joel P. Trachtman), it brings up the discussion of trade & environmental values. Could we also not argue that this ban is discrimination and would violate the Most-Favored-Nation clause, “the committee was in favour of a proposed derogation for the Inuit and other aboriginal communities. This would apply to products derived from traditional subsistence hunting that could be traded for cultural, educational, and/or ceremonial purposes, but subject to a number of conditions.” (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/054-50624-061-03-10-909-20090302IPR50623-02-03-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm), in Canada the Inuit are deemed to be a "distinct" group under our Charter of rights, therefore would this not constitute a clear violation, favoring one "nation" or people over another? Things to think about people, do not be so naive to only look at one side, be it For or Against.

Very valid points. Clearly depending on what side of the argument you are on changes things drastically, the victim in this case could be the buyer or the seller, but clearly not the government. Topaz does raise some interesting points to build from however, I'm a Canadian who spends a large deal of time in Europe, they hardly use the 1 euro cent, I think I've only ever seen it in my pocket of change on 2 occassions. Clearly to circumvent the issue the seller would just have to round his pricing methods so that they reaced the nearest 5. But as August pointed out as well, whats to make the seller stop, I mean hell he could just raise the price enough infinitely, but this won't happen (namely due to competition models, demand vs supply, alternative products). August also raises the idea of embedding tax in the price, again this seems to work in Europe (not that argument carries much weight anymore), and we already do this at government liquor stores. So why not just add the tax into the price, I mean I hate getting to the counter attempting to figure out if I have enough cash on my debit card to purchase everything I wanted to buy, then I have to think about tax, make life easier add it all together. If you honestly believe that it would be an "invitation for governments to raise the tax at will. Who would know except those who read the fine print." then thats for you to decide, but I would like to think that some Canadians would not be so ignorant that we could easily be trumped by this...I mean other countries might think we're those nice yet dumb Canadians, but you shouldn't also be saying it because if we start saying it, doesn't that make it true? I very much like August's suggestion however to pay your taxes after 4 years on the day you vote. Very interesting idea really, but would it work. I would most certainly say that this would result it two problems, first people who want to avoid paying their taxes just wouldn't vote thus in a way rendering the vote undemocratic because well many people may not vote, secondly do we honestly believe that most Canadians would have enough disposible income after 4 years to pay taxes on the day they vote...I would be almost willing to guarantee that this wouldn't work, people struggle to pay rent each month and we want them to save for 4 years to pay taxes. What would happen then to tax returns? Would these be dealt with prior to the election, so that you know exactly how much (discounted) to pay on the day you arrive. Would the government then try to hedge for inflation claiming that the future value of the tax money (after 4 years) would be higher, therefore we should pay more? Like I said its a very interesting idea that I would like to hear more about, although I am skeptical that it would ever work.

What the hell do you mean, I know exactly how i'd respond...and it wouldn't be by calling in an air strike. So our argument is solely a difference of opinion, telling me I don't know how to respond clearly demonstrates that you're argument is on a weak leg. What i'm trying to say is "WE DON'T KNOW" what we would do as you have pointed out over and over and I agreed with you and that is now how I'm looking at it, I still stand beside the fact that I feel air strikes are an escalation that causes more worse than good. I am also forgoing the argument that Israel continues to build settlements because it is relatively irrelevant to our topic, but take everything into consideration (i.e. people have also mentioned water). I feel you are taking a close minded view and are solely focused on discrediting other people's opinions, I'm not saying that your wrong I'm just saying it appears we have come to a place where we disagree...doesn't mean either one of us is wrong just a difference of opinion This is sort of the problem with politics today, these so called "Parties of Canada" sit around and argue most of the time, if we don't agree thats fine, I didn't expect everyone would agree with what I was saying, surely as you didn't believe everyone would agree with what you think. But the real question then becomes what can we do? Clearly we have both offered up our opinion but can we find a solution. Do I think peace talks can work? Well that depends, both sides are going to have to smarten up to say the least, Israel has to stop building, Palestine has to deal with their governmental issues and stop the violence. What I also find very foolish is that the US & other Arab (namely Egypt) countries are the ones aiding the peace talks, but should this really be the case, its obvious the US backs Israel and the other Arab nations clearly support Palestine. Personally I'm not sure we're ever going to see peace in that area, essentially the geopolitics/religious views of the area would never allow it.

Well this is just boring now, if we're not going to add anything really relevant. My only response to this must then be; Well my opinion is that your opinion is unfounded as well because you have never lived under the conditions either. I do wonder though what would happen if Caledonia starting firing rockets at Hamilton?

Woops, sorry probably should have taken a better look. Read it on the news and it caught my eye as another stupid political decision that I figured people who know about...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/05/28/ufo-newfoundland-dnd.html Honestly how can the Government not be willing to publish the entire report, I mean it clearly says that NORAD new nothing of this (surprise, surprise) and the RCMP seem to be stumped. If no one can explain what the hell it is, shouldn't be we releasing the full disclosure report, seems like a very odd story to me. "The government has blocked nine pages and a several paragraphs of the UFO documents from public release", seems like a lot to block out if you ask me, I understand they can't give away vital military secrets (if we even have any) but seriously... "The object is not a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile in boost phase nor a cruise missile in-flight phase. It is also not a licensed model rocket launcher." So says DND, but this really doesn't help explain anything, I mean we could sit here and play the whole It's Not This game all day. Although they claim it isn't a missle who the hell knows, is it just by pure luck that France tested new M51 ballistic missles around the same time, personally the story kind of discredits itself when the experts say "its not a ballistic missile" but then it goes on to say "they tested a new M51 on Jan 27th not 25th", like that sounds real believable. All I'm saying is if they know what the hell it is they should tell us so we know whats going, they are just leaving the door open for someone to start saying it's North Korea, no wait Iran.

Well said.

You're right I haven't been living with years of rocket attacks, but as an outsider looking at the situation you can understand how it may be difficult to justify such force as retaliation. Have you lived in the years of rocket attacks? If so then your opinion is more valued then mine, if not then I do believe I am entitled to say what I think...don't call it a sermon because you don't like my opinion. That's cool I didn't plan on pleasing everyone with it anyway.

It makes your goods more attractive on the market, others can purchase more for less. If country A devalues their currency, country B's currency rate doesn't move up or down, it solely means that less of B's currency needs to be used to purchase 1 unit of A's currency. Of course not but I don't believe this has anything to do with importance. Domestic stability is vital, think of it in terns of a risk perspective. Agreed.

Maybe if you factored in the cost of everything, I mean high security means public transit and regular traffic probably can't run to some areas for security reasons, maybe they will shut down the skies over Toronto that day. But without a doubt a billion dollars sounds a little far fetched, sort of seems like we're just pissing money into the wind.

I was unaware that I mistakenly stated that you weren't entitled to your opinion, oh wait, I did no such thing. I merely suggested that instead of arguing over foolish responses, such as looking for stats when it was clear that a point was attempting to be made, was only going to result in a waste of time. Maybe it is time you show yourself in the direction you so cleverly thought of...

But you cannot readily admit that constructing new settlements on land that is under dispute and essentially one of the main principles behind the argument as nothing more then a kick in the nuts. I have no ties to either Israel or Arab countries, but how can the Palestinian leaders turn around and not condone violent behavior when their requests are being so blatantly ignored. Now I will admit that the Palestinian territory, with Hamas or Fatah or whoever is in charge now adays, is in shambles currently but change cannot occur if they are just trying to kill each other.

You should avoid wyly's comments as it appears the sole purpose of the post was to start a spitting match, this is your opinion and your entitled to it. But considering I took the time to read yours, do me the favor of reading mine. Now I will immediately tell you that I am a habitual pot smoker, I reserve it to the end of my day once my work is complete, although it is a daily occurrence. I do agree with you that the legalization of pot is an extremely touchy subject, although I believe this to be for a completely different reason, namely revolving around the US war on drugs. I honestly don't think we can make a case where we can agree that pot shouldn't be legalized, for instance alcohol as you stated has resulted in many drunk driving incidents and we can also agree that it is common knowledge today that cigarretts cause lung cancer. I don't think you should tell me that I have to go some guy who "might" be selling me what he believes to be good stuff, when others can purchase alcohol and tobacco between certain hours of the day. We've even facilitated alcohol consumption to beer drive-throughs and selling beer in corner stores, and you want to say "well we shouldn't add pot to the list because you act like a goof and probably shouldn't drive", I can't say that I disagree with your statement of living life with a clear mind, and that may be fine for you but me, I enjoy smoking a little herb. I'm not saying I think you should drive stoned, just like you shouldn't drive drunk but just because it can happen doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. If we regulate it and make it safe, tax dollars can potentially even be earned through the sale of pot...that's all Mr.Emery was attempting to prove, do I think it was bright to go up against the US government, not really. But you've got to give it to the guy for trying, I'd say he's craving a little ganja himself as we speak

But we more relatively more successful then most countries then, even that sounds pretty good.

So are you saying that you deem this to be a rational use of force? Bombing a city seems like a bit of a step up the scale compared to a rocket attack, last time I checked international law it was pretty clear that upon being attacked a state may defend itself with force "within reason", I hardly believe this qualifies. Maybe we should go by your logic the next time they decide to block a highway or railway near Caledonia and just call in the F-18s to level the reserve.

I can't say that I believe Israel would be treated differently if Jesus wasn't a Jew, because there would be too many factors to consider. But overall I would say when someone says Israel I would think of religion. Right because standing on the sideline while they kill each other is right decision. Depends on who you're asking. Are you serious? Israel scoffs at the UN just as much as North Korea or Iran, I mean you can't say "I don't think anyone around me should have WMD, but I will neither confirm or deny that I am in position of WMD." At some point there has to be a give and take, sure grouping them with North Korea and Iran sounds terrible but in reality are they that much different. Dropping precision weapons from fighter jets onto a country is way different then launching a couple a rockets that may hit something. I understand Israel cannot accept being subject of constant attack but common.

I cannot even fathom why anyone would see this as a bad thing, growth in the economy benefits everyone, sure maybe we all start spending more but that’s because there is more disposable capital around. Whether we like to admit it or not we got by relatively unscathed in the entire economic crisis, we seem to have the proper system in place to do even better. This is not to say that improvements cannot be made, namely making university more affordable, upgrading our health care system (wait times & doctor shortages), infrastructure and reducing debt…it may sound like a lot but that’s what we elect these people to figure out, how to make it all happen according to plan. And it appears they have set us on a decent path, now let’s pray it continues.

No one can honestly say they would support graffiti on their front door for instance, so why should some people have to be effected. Make the laws tougher and make the fines bigger. These guys get away with a slap on the wrist, I will concede that some is very good art, but there is a place for such a thing not on the private property of others. Enacting a law on the paint industry would be foolish and would guarantee nothing but angry consumers.

Thank you for finally pointing this out. Do I agree with spending $75,000 of tax payers funds to "monitor" forums, obviously not. The fact that it somehow went from $75,0000 to bureaucrats making six-figure salaries sort of shows a hole in the argument. Screw em', they want to read what people are saying thats fine. Are any of us really going to pay attention when a "correction" is made, most likely not. Waste of time and money is all it is, some people are going to hate the government regardless, get over it and move on.

Alright now this is something I can agree with. This has been pointed out so many times now but it appears certain readers just avoid the idea, leftist/anarchist are completely different political spheres, first we need to point out again that only the article called these hooligans "anarchists". Remember we've all been told before "Don't believe everything you hear", it could be applied here, obviously it was just an incorrect use of the word anarchist. Personally I think this is just a bunch of morons trying to have a laugh, but thats just my two cents.

Historically this is very true and cannot be overlooked. I believe this may be the case of painting everyone with the same brush don't you think, are you therefore saying that anyone who leads any form of uprising, or stands up to say "No this isn't right" is therefore a terrorist. If the Iraqi people had stood up to Saddam instead of the US invading that they would have been terrorists, this again will no doubt begin the debate of the over use of the word "terrorist".