CANADIEN

Obviously, I will not convince you that the Queen is not Canadian, nor will you convince me she is. So I consider it an unconcluded matter and retire for the battlefield. :-)

This is an issue of law. Through the Constitutional Act of 1982, the elected representative have stated clearly that certain rights were protected. In particular, they clearly protected equality before the law without discrimination by governments, and, while identfying certain grounds for prohibited discrimination, they kept the field of grounds that would qualify wide open with the world "in particular". In the absence of a clearly closed list of prohibited grounds for discrimination by the governments, what the field includes becomes a matter of interpretation. Interpreting what the law mwans is the role of the judiciary, not the Parliament. Same with whether or not an opposite-sex-only legal definition of marriage constitutes discrimination or not. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And in a country ruled by the rule of law, interpreting what the Constitution means is the role of the judiciary. On another note, it should be noted that, ironically, the definition of marriage that existed in Canadian law came from... a decision by a British JUDGE (Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, 1866, an ex-Mormon wanted to divorce (on adultary grounds) his wife who had the Mormon church disolve the mariage and had remarried someone else. The judge said in essence: "a marriage is understood in Christiandom as being between one man and one woman, and since the Mormons ractice polygamy, their marriages are not valid under English law. You Sir contracted a Mormon marriage, it is not valid here, and therefore you are not legally married. Petition for divorce rejected )

The fact that the Queen is not a citizen is a secondary issue, that has nothing to do with the question of whether the Queen is Canadian or not. If there was no British monarchy today, there would likely not be a Queen of Canada; there could be a British moarchy even if the Queen was not also Queen of Canada, The link between the British monarchy and Canada exists first and above all because of its link with Great Britain, and would not exist without it. If the monarchy was abolished in Great Britain. I doubt very much it would survive long in most of her other kingdoms, while she had remained Queen of Great Britain (and her other kingdoms) even though some of the countries she had reigned over are now republics. Incidently, I haven't passed comments on the Queen's personal feelings, or on the way she is performing her duties. Indeed, if there was a conflict between her duties as Queen of Great Britain and Queen of any of her other kingdoms, she would be duty bound to either stay neutral (which would be in opposition with her role as Queen of either country) or have her obligations as Queen of Great Britain take precedence. As for the comparison with George II... There is one essential difference between him and Elizabeth II. Although he was both King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, being King did not make him Elector, and being Elector did not make him King.

You put it a lot better than I did. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

The relationship between rule of law, that is the notion that noone, not even the State, is above the law, and mass starvation is an interesting notion. Disregard for that fundamental principle, as much as natural conditions or war, can result in mass starvation. But the notion of property rights or contract law as a remedy to mass starvation or poverty fails to recognize two things. First, that the common law notion of property rights and contract law is far from being the only one - both these notions appeared in islamic law about four centuries before corresponding notions in common law, and put the emphasis on mutual obligations and fairness. Second, property law and contract law of a given society is only as good in preventing poverty as the justice found in its principles and application. One prime example is 19th-century Ireland - it had very strong property law and contract law.

Breaking the law is breaking the law, especially if there is a potential for violence. That being said, fact is that waiting for good faith or a legal (court) resolution to land claim issues is not something that has worked that well in the past for First Nations.

Reminds me of a country where men throw stones at women of the same faith, attacks merchants who open their stores or people who drive on their hoy day. The country is called Israel. Yet, only misguided people or anti-Semites argue it should not exist. And in case you are tempted to try that one... no I am not one of these people, and no I do not think Jews and Isrealis are bad uncivilized people by definition.

I think he would say the same thing... Indeed First nations should be left alone - not cut from any contact, but free from unwanted intrusions into their own business from people who claim they know what they need better than they do themselves.

Discussion of, and reflection on, the role prayer plays in the lives of our elected representatives is a VERY good thing. Granted, like with anything involving politicians, there is the risk of events such as this being co-opted by political agendas, but from that article I doubt it had happened here. As for including non-Christians as well... Absolutely.

The issue in 1867 was not only if a protestant could legally marry a Catholic, but also if divorced persons could re-marry. They were concerns (legitimate in those days) that Quebec would be able to prohibit marriages performed in a Protestant church between a Protestant and a Catholic, or involving pne or two divorced persons if it was permitted by that Church. So, the definition of what a marriage is, that is who can marry who, was included in the list of areas of federal jurisdiction. Same with divorce, for the same reasons. The issue of solemnization of marriage is different, it is about who can perform the ceremony, and how it is to be recorded. True, it gave provinces the power to authorize - or not - civil marriage, and people performing civil marriages and registering marriages were able to not recognize a same-sex marriage, but the refusal was based on the definition included in federal legislation. Provincial authorities cannot use their solemnization powers to refuse to recognize a marriage otherwise permitted in law. as the Alberta government found when it considered legislation to prevent same-sex civil marriage in the Province. Same-sex marriage is clearly a marriage definition, not a marriage solemnization matter, and therefore in Canada it is clearly a federal matter, not a provincial one. It was not a provincial issue to start with.

Hugh Segal wrote a compelling text about the importance of Victoria Day. I don't agree 100% with him (not on the need to keep the Monarchy, anyway, and he overstates his case a few times), but he clearly states why this is an important day to celebrate. Some of what he said is particularly worth repeating, and often: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....f=3&t=11316

A person is either competent to hold a job, or he/she is not. Where they were born has nothing to do with it. People not born as Canadian citizens should be expected to take citizenship before they become cops, as they are enforcing Canadian laws. Otherwise, where they were born is irrelevant. Any person who thinks otherwise is welcome to try to demonstrate how it is relevant.

BTW. HAPPY VICTORIA DAY to all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the State gives a legal status to marriage (or civil union, or common-law couples for that matter), grants it any benefit fiscal or otherwise, and puts into law the mutual legal responsibilities of those who enter it, then it HAS to define what a marriage is from a legal point o view. If the State has to provide no legal definition of marriage, then there should be no recognition or reference to marriages in law, no fiscal or other advantages given to it in law, and no imposition of any mutual legal responsibilities in law. What the legal definition is, how fair or unfair and how right or wrong it is, that's another matter.

There is a difference between the two countries. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the States and the People. In Canada, article 91 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 lists marriage and divorce as areas of federal jurisdiction, yet article 92 lists the solemnization of marriage as a provincial are of responsibility (go figure )

Apart from the fact criminal acts are criminal acts, no matter the justification, I am with you on that one.

Sorry if it looks like a contradiction or a double standard. I am not the one, after all, who tossed "she has no citizenship" argument in the ring (and yes, I know it was not you). Blame my poor writing skills for giving the impression that I believe citizenship is in and by itself what makes Canadian. I don't. But the fact is that the only link between her and Canada is her function. If tomorrow, for a reason or another, she had to choose between her duties as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada (or of the Bahamas, or Tuvalu for that matter), her duties as Queen of the United Kingdom would come first. I don't blame her for it, indee I'd expect it, but that's a fact. And that's why I consider her British and not Canadian. I am ready to concede that the Crown is a Canadian institution, since our Government freely accepted and it is part of the Constitution. That does not make the person who sits on the throne a Canadian.

These two treaties are prime examples of how to approach the issue. The two parties sat and negociated equal to equal. These two First Nations decided the reserve model would not work for them... Other may decide otherwise, but the important part is that no model be imposed on them. If we believe they must take responsibility, let's treat them like people who can take it.

One cannot forget that the governance structures that makes corruption more likely on reserves were imposed by the government uupon First Nations. Indeed, finding people that would easily be corrupted and imposing them as leaders was a very efficeint method of exercising control. It had been said that the government should not help finance self-governing First Nation institutions. Those institutions are in fact structures imposed on First nations. They held their own forms of government before.

I usually have problems with policies targetting specific parts of the population for hiring. In the case of law enforcement, the courts, and the education system, it is important that citizens dealing with these institutions be able to see themselves reflected. I am not talking about quotas or discrimination, but it is in the public interest that these institution at the very least engage in campaigns encouraging more applications from minority groups.

The Queen may technically have no citizenship, but she is British. She is Canada's head of State, but if she was just a plain ordinary person she would have to apply for citizenship to become a Canadian, as she was not born a British subject, not a Canadian citizen.

As I said, gibberish for the sake of gibberish. End of story indeed.

There should be a minimum wage, and it should be high enough that a person who works 40 to 50 hours a week has enough money left after taxes to pay for an appartment that meets basic living standards and put food on the table. In Toronto, there is a growing number of people who are working 70-80 hours a week and then line up at the Food Bank. And this is not the only place where it happens. Clearly not acceptable.

You said it... the role of the RCMP is to provide law enforcement. I would ask you to prove that wearing a turban of having a black skin has something to do with the capacity to do that job, but like most people on these threads I do not expect you to post anything but gibberish for the sake of posting gibberish.

Reversed discrimination is discrimination. The fact that it has a different motivation (a wrong sense of what diversity means as opposed to prejudice) does not change the fact. There may be a narrow - and I mean very narrow - set of circumstances where hiring a person or refusing employment on the basis of a person's skin colour, ethnic origin etc. can be justified. It would up to the employer, though to justify it. If the government thinks that there is justification for seeking police recruits from specific ethnic backgrounds, it should be able to provide it. BTW, I work three blocks from the Toronto main police station, and when I pass by it I don't get the impression there's a shortage of white policemen.