NA Carter

I agree that the Liberals need to get to work. Bob Rae as interim leader is the right choice for this task. There's no election anytime soon, so who cares what electoral baggage he has. Right now the party needs an organizer and motivator. The next step is a major overhaul of the party brass. The Old Boys Network isn't going to fly anymore, and the policy department was an absolute disaster in the last election; abosolutely nothing was produced that could even be mistaken for a coherent platform. They have almost five years to get their act together - plenty of time to at least get competitive. It's time to stop trying to be NDP Lite, and go and fill the hole left by the demise of the PC party.

'Is our fiscal house in order?' is always a relevant question, and I don't mind that Ford is asking the question. I do tend to have issues with what he sees a city doing, but that's besides the point. I don't think you have to be especially right wing to see the problems with the proposed waterfront arena complex. Poorly funded to begin with, I'd like to know how the city plans on raising the remaining money. If there is such demand for arenas in Toronto, why has nobody from the private sector stepped up? This project just begs for a PPP. It should also be part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the waterfront/portlands, and this seems like a one-off. Does anybody really want to use an arena complex surrounded by what is for all intents and purposes an industrial graveyard? As a taxpayer, I do want to know: Who's funding the project, and in what proportion? What are the terms and conditions of the funding? How does this project fit within the city's planning model? What alternatives were looked at and why are they not appropriate? If these basic questions can't be answered (and publicly), the taxpayer shouldn't be footing the bill

I'm pretty indifferent as to who won last night. I'm not a fan of either Ford or Smitherman. That said, Torontonians, you've got your tax cuts - enjoy them. However; don't start whining when your road doesn't get plowed in a reasonable amount of time, or your local pool doesn't have a lifeguard, or you get nickle and dimed on every bag of garbage by the future private garbage collector. That's what you voted for - Ford made that very clear from day 1. You can't have tax cuts without significant service cuts. I'm actually hoping that Ford can get council to back some of his pet projects. That way come the next election, Torontonians have some means of properly evaluating Ford's performance. If his approach works - great, if not - turf the fat bastard.

I love the gung ho types in the media who are demanding the Williams lose his military pension. These people just can't think through their argument. Not only would this punish Williams, but also his wife. Last I checked, she isn't guilty of any crime. The only logic to this argument is that "she had to know what he was up to". Considering the seperate nature of their living arrangement and his controlling nature, it is HIGHLY unlikely she had a clue until he was cuffed. This isn't Israel, we don't punish relatives for the crimes of their kin. I also have to agree that this is being oversensationalized. Cross dressing and lingerie fetishes aren't that uncommon. Psychologically, such a fetish would only fall outside of normal if there was significant impairment to day-to-day functioning. Sorry folks, but your average crossdresser is not toing to become a homicidal lunatic. And to the Star, Sun, et al. I DON'T NEED TO SEE WILLIAMS JUNK AT 5:30AM WHILE I'M EATING MY WHEATIES! Russell Williams: Good officer - bad Craigslist date

By that same logic, then prohibiting all fast food will lead to significant decreases in obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc. etc etc. Does that mean it should be illegal? Good luck on that one! We do have an example of what happens when we take a being and eliminate all risk, all dangers, and confine it to a life of nothing but safety and security. You get an indoor cat. We make it stay inside so that it can't find trouble, we cut its balls off so that it can't act on its natural urges, We feed it dull food day after day, that while supposedly nutritious, is hardly stimulating. Try doing that to a human and see what problems you create. I think it will look something like the average federal prison.

tongue in cheek aside, I think this shows that the Conservatives appealing the Ontario Superior Court ruling is mostly for show. They know that the case is not likely to be overturned, so they're looking at more pragmatic options. The social conservative base must be absolutely furious at this

troll only gets 2/10

The example of a 17 and a 24 year old is poor, considering that this situation exists regularly at universities all across this country. When I was a TA for a first year criminology course, nearly a third of the girls were 17. I also need to agree with Argus' point that a 24 year old having sex with a 17 year old does not necessarily mean that she's being exploited by the 24 year old. Young women pursue older men all the time and in a university environment, all students are effectively part of your 'peer group', whether they're 17 or 18 or 30. What I would be concerned with is what offences should apply for listing on the registry. Some are obvious, eg. Aggravated Sexual Assault. Some are not. Should 15 year old Jenny be added to the sex offender registry because she 'sexted' nude photos of herself to her boyfriend? This is technically production of child porn, and is no longer a rare occurrence. Urinating in public is another example that was given earlier. Depending on how pissed off the cop is, it can easily be written up as indecent exposure - a sexual offence.

My doctorate is in Criminal Psychology with a specialty in Sex Offender Psychpathology, so I can comment on this without talking out of my ass. Yes, it is correct that sex offenders (all offence types) have a lower recidivism rate than non-sexual offenders. The rates differ depending on the specific offence and the profile of the victim, but this is generally true. Is pedophilia incurable? Depends what is meant by this. Cured could mean "no longer having a sexual attraction to children", or could mean "no longer acting on this sexual attraction". From a clinical perspective, very few mental illnesses are truly curable. Depression is easily treated; however, the underlying chemical imbalance usually remains. Yet, the general public consider a person who is not expressing depressed behaviour as "cured". The same standard is required for pedophilia. Incarcerated patients who undergo an intensive therapeutic program have an 85-90% success rate in terms of not repeating the offence. The caveat that I will place on this is that it refers to recidivism concerning sexual offences. A successfully treated patient may rob a bank or commit a simple assault, but this has no bearing on the previous sexual pathology. Most repeat offenders are those who have not received treatment during incarceration and the deviant behaviours tend to escalate as the fantasy cycle begins to spiral out of control. The public policy implications should be obvious. Should the offender registry be public? Absolutely NOT! While there are not rampaging lynch mobs scooping up sex offenders in the US, assaults against them are very common. The media doesn't report on an ordinary bar assault, do they? Why would they report on a sex offender being assaulted? By publishing sex offender information, you prevent released offenders from obtaining a job, developing normal social connections, putting food on the table, paying bills and becoming productive members of society - supposedly the point of releasing anyone from prison. What choice do you give an offender? At least prison means three square meals a day and a roof over their head. Reoffenders tend to commit the crimes that they know. A sex offender is not likely to turn to welfare fraud in order to get sent back to prison, they commit a sexual offence. The public lynch mob mentality is as responsible for the offence as the actual perpetrator. A quick example. Those in Toronto will remember the Holly Jones murder from a couple of years ago. At the time, the Toronto Sun made a big deal about how there were 200 convicted sex offenders living in the neighbourhood and nobody knew about it. You know why? They weren't offending! Of course the Sun didn't make an equally big deal about how the murderer once caught wasn't a previous sex offender. There's a time and place for Mr. Canada's "Law and Order", I just hope he understands that he may be creating the very offences that he seeks to eliminate.

As much as I can't stand Harper, and wouldn't mind a coalition; I can't see how the Liberals plan to get there. They have no ideas, no alternatives to the Harper agenda. You can only go so far in a campaign with a "but at least we're not Harper" platform. That seems to be all Iggy is running on right now. As much as liberals and leftists want to jump all over the census and VA ombudsman issues, the reality is that they really aren't that salient with the ordinary voter. Regular voters care about taxes, health care and jobs. The Liberals aren't offering any alternatives on these fronts, and their potential gains are pretty limited. Either way, Canada is headed toward another minority gov't.

I'm always a little wary of any book, when the reviewer is breaking out the race card before even talking about the content of the book. I do agree that there are more intellectual wannabes than there used to be. Unfortunately, that's what happens when 'consulting', especially for the government becomes so lucrative. Let's keep in mind that it doesn't take long for the cream to rise at the expense of the pretenders. I've always wondered about the distrust Conservative supporters have for intellectuals and elites. Last I checked, being 'elite' at something meant that you were among the best at that particular endeavour. Do Conservatives not want the best people to help run the country? An intellectual (a real one that is), is somebody who has specialized education and experience in a particular field. We all know the Conservatives distaste for criminologists (you know those people who actually study crime and the people who do it). Who do they want studying crime in this country? Fred the Barber down the street? A little insight from Conservative supports might be enlightening.

The problem with your point here Shady, is that it does not take historical marriage into account. From a biblical perspective, polygamy was common, polyamory less so, and concubinage, especially amongst the wealthy, was the norm. Christian churches were not involved with marriage in any fashion prior to the 1600s. For the next 100 years, it was merely to give a blessing to the newlyweds and their family. In reality, there is no set definition of 'marriage', and there never was. Like any other social institution, marriage changes and evolves as societal views change and evolve. Most of the taboos regarding marriage that many have grown up with in the last century, have nothing to do with faith, but with ancient tribal economics. 'Cheating' isn't immoral because the church said so. It was immoral because it was stealing a possession that belonged to your neighbour. In an age where women are no longer considered property (at least by the vast majority of our society), does this justification hold? At the very least these viewpoints need to be re-evaluated and re-formulated to fit the circumstances that our society lives within.

I don't think this ruling suprised anybody on either side of the debate. The case really came down to two points: "can a human rights issue be determined by ballot initiative?" and "How does same-sex marriage impact the marriages of straight people?". The Christian Right are going to have problems finding ANY judge (liberal or conservative) who will agree with the first point. As for the second, the Christian Right has NEVER had a cogent answer to this question. Their entire argument is that although same-sex marriage has zero impact on individual marriages, it will bring down the entire social institution. Sorry, what? Correct me if my math is wrong, but isn't anything multiplied by ZERO still ZERO - no matter how many times you try and multiply it? They trot out the old pearl that marriage is an institution for the bearing of children, and that children born outside of this institution are at a distinct social disadvantage. Frankly, this is a moot point. We already allow those who are either unable, or have no intention of bearing children to wed, with the full range of entitlements that other married couples have. My wife and I have no children (as of yet), yet nobody would say that our marriage is any less valid without kids. Even with the number of SOCUS conservative judges, from a legal standpoint, the Christian Right has very little to stand on. Full marital rights for same-sex couples is now a matter of when, and not if.

I don't think this ruling suprised anybody on either side of the debate. The case really came down to two points: "can a human rights issue be determined by ballot initiative?" and "How does same-sex marriage impact the marriages of straight people?". The Christian Right are going to have problems finding ANY judge (liberal or conservative) who will agree with the first point. As for the second, the Christian Right has NEVER had a cogent answer to this question. Their entire argument is that although same-sex marriage has zero impact on individual marriages, it will bring down the entire social institution. Sorry, what? Correct me if my math is wrong, but isn't anything multiplied by ZERO still ZERO - no matter how many times you try and multiply it? They trot out the old pearl that marriage is an institution for the bearing of children, and that children born outside of this institution are at a distinct social disadvantage. Frankly, this is a moot point. We already allow those who are either unable, or have no intention of bearing children to wed, with the full range of entitlements that other married couples have. My wife and I have no children (as of yet), yet nobody would say that our marriage is any less valid without kids. Even with the number of SOCUS conservative judges, from a legal standpoint, the Christian Right has very little to stand on. Full marital rights for same-sex couples is now a matter of when, and not if.

Marketing Canada is a key government function. Was the Olympics vital to the survival of rank and file Canadians? No; however, marketing this country does have a wider impact than providing a venue for athletes to shine. The Olympics was as affective as the South Asian trade junkets that Chretien used to drum up trade deals. It's an opportunity for job creation, not only through tourism and Olympic support occupations, but for future business development as well. If we look at government spending on strictly economic terms, there are many programs that could be questioned on a dollars and cents basis. Should we spend the money on the Canadian flags that we give to retiring Canadian Forces members? It doesn't produce anything for the vast majority of Canadians, but it is a morale booster for our soldiers, and it helps instill pride in our country. Do the vast majority of Canadians need a First Nations community centre in downtown Toronto? Of course not, but for the users of this facility, it's a vital link to their culture and an employment support network. Economically, I could argue that pumping more money into post-secondary education is counterproductive. By making university more accessable, we increase the number of students, graduates and entrants into a competitive job market. Some occupations that ten years ago offered $35-40K a year to start, now start at $26-30K because the labour pool is so much more competitive. Graduates will take less for the same work in order to secure any work at all. The value of a university education is degraded, and the EI and welfare rolls become more educated.