CANADIEN

Thanks for the clarification about the Union Jack. It is also flown when the Queen is in the country - to that I would say, she's the Queen of Canada, the Canadian flag should do. Speaking of the Red Enseign... not that it has anything to do with what our flag should be, but unlike the current flag (or the Union Jack for that matter), it was ugly Canada is no longer a Dominion. As for the world realm... if we have a Queen, let's call ourselves a Kingdom.

That's more or less my thinking on the topic.

"Incitement of hatred" is such a general term that it is impossible to define. That alone is sufficient reason why it should be stripped of the list of criminal offenses. Inciting people to commit acts of violence is a different story. Our criminal code rightly define "counselling someone to commit an indictable offense" as a crime in itself, even if the crime that is counselled is not committed. Surely, if a drug dealer can be arrested, tried and sentenced for telling to his cohorts "we should kill XYZ" even if XYZ is not harmed, someone can be arrested, tried and sentenced for telling to a gathering "let'''s kill the Jews".

We are not talking about the "discrimination" that consists in choosing the most qualified person. We are talking about the discrimnation that consists in employment and service practices based on hatred and prejudice. The "go find another job" argument and its cousin "go by your milk elsewhere" is flawed for a fundamental reason - the newspaper ad that says "Chinese need not apply" and the store clerk who says "No N**ger in here" are unlikely to be the only ones doing so. In fact, it's likely to be the norm, and those who do not do it are likely to pay the price in their business, and sometime even their physical security. When everyone does it, even the State does it. And it can go to laws that IMPOSE discrimination, even legislation governing who can marry whom (and I am talking about skin colour here, not gay marriage, polygamy or underage). Don't believe it? That's what they had in the US southern states before the 1960's. That's what we had here too, despite any claim we have that we were better. This violates a fundamental right even more precious than a business owner's right to run their business the way they see fit - the right of every human being to respect for their dignity as human being. Those who violate that right are stealing other people's dignity. We rightly punish thieves, and these people are no different.

Won't happen. The Queen is probably another 15 years to live, and I don't think she's gonna abdicate. Charles would be 75 years old by that time. Not a long reign, and if his health or Camilla's is not that good he might very well decide to renounce the throne. By that time, William would be about 40 years old.

Been on Toronto's streets lately? The last time some of the potholes were repaired were probably for the Maple Leafs' Stanley Cup parade. Heard about the perks school trustees in toronto has paid themselves? The sponsorship scandal? The Mulroney-Schreiber scandal? We are not talking about First Nation leaders here.

Right on. Either First nations community are to take responsibility, and decide themselves which of their leaders they can or cannot trust to look for their interests, or they are unable to make their own decisions and then how can they take responsibility. we cannot have it both ways.

The Union Jack is the British flag. Respecting and honoring our historical connection to Great Britain is one thing, adopting their national symbols instead of creating our own is a quite different. OUR flag tells the world we are Canadians, the Union Jack did not. As for having "tossed" Dominion Day... good. Dominion Day was fine when we were a British Colony. We now are our own country, thank you very much.

First Nations are the ones that should decide if reservations are to continue to exist or not. If they have to take responsibility, then they should be free to make their own decisions.

Our Human Rights Commissions have lost track of what their task should be. They should be concerned about attack on the dignity, life, liberty and security of members of society. That is: - discriminatory practices in employment and the provision of services - speech that promotes violence against identifiable groups

Is the right to vote derivated from ownership rights, ZY? How about freedom of expression, is it too? And what then of those who have no property - are they to be deprived of due process, freedom from persecution, and all the other basic rights? The preamble of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is clear that human dignity, not ownership, is the foundation of all himan rights. It places the right to life, liberty and security as the basis for all other rights, including ownership rights. Discrimination, that is refusal or employment or services for reasons that have nothing with the job or service is a violation of a person's dignity. In a democratic society, the government is not only justified to prevent it to happen, but it is its responsibility.

Reminds me of what a friend of mine told me about something he witnessed a few years back... It was at a conference, in Brazil I think. A North American woman saw fit to berate a worker with a Brazilian community organization, because of her six children. "You have too many children for the food and water you can give her, that's irresponsible". The response was straight to the point: "Your one child wastes more food and water than what I need for my children not to starve". The "they have too many children" misses two important points: there is enough food produced to provide at least the necessary minimum to all human beings. And having five or six children in an environment where disease, malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions are rampant is sometimes the only way to have a reasonable chance that one will survive.

White people have children. Red people breed. I get it. Many of the victims are still alive. Taking responsibility is not, and should not be about money. It is about making sure the errors of the past are not made again today and tomorrow. What i see from too many people is a repeat of the same fundamental mistake, treating First Nations like second-class people.

The meaning is clear Borg. When neo-conservatives stop whining about "it's the fault of the immigrants, gays and lesbians, First Nations, etc. etc. etc.", I'll take the call for "personal responsibility" seriously. Especially when it's addressed to people who were delibarately treated like they were not fit enough to make their own decisions. Letting First Nations take personal responsibility for their destiny was not that good of an idea when they were not deemed "civilized" enough to manage their own affairs, raise their children or vote.

First Nations must take ownership of the solution to their problems. But let's not be fooled by the neo-conservative "personal respnsibility" mantra. It's code word for "we will not take any responsibility for the injustice and oppression we did, soyou got to admit it's all your fault". Of course, they will be the first to find someone to blame when it suits them, usually people they don't feel are good enough.

The Queen is not a Canadian. And there might be a lot of problems with an hereditary as well as non-hereditary Head of State; the one advantage of non-hereditary Heads of State is that in a democracy they are not there for life, so if they don't do a good job they can be replaced. As for Charles, the biggest favour he could do to Great Britain, Canada and the Commonwealth is to step out from the line of succession and let his son become the next King. William may be still a bit young, and he has and will make mistakes, but he is unlikely to ever embarass his country the way Charles has done with his mess of a personal life.

The problem with white imperialism (and those who defend it blindly) is not that what it did was that much worse than what happened elsewhere but that it was a complete denial of those values of "enlightmment" and "civilization" the white imperialists were wrapping themselves into.

Indeed, the Monarchy is entrenched in our Constitution, and virtually impossible to remove. But it's not exactly like today's Monarchy has that much powers beyond the symbolic. So, while I'd prefer a Canadian and non-hereditary Head of State (remember people, we're getting CHARLES next, almost enough of a reason to be a republican ), there are a lot of far more pressing matters in this world. And I still say that our historic ties to Great Britain are reason enough to keep Victoria Day.

What they need first and foremost is the most important thing that was taken away from them... respect for their dignity as human beings. The rest will fall in place.

We could easily do without the monarchy; mind you, there are more important things to debate. As for Victoria Day... I for one like the idea of celebrating our historical tie with Great Britain.

We cannot have too many judges who believe that gays have right... As for experience... the last three judges appointed to the Court had spent the following number of years as judges before their appointment: Rothstein - 7 years, Louise Charron - 16 years, Rosalie Siberman Abella - 28 years. Even with excluding Abella, that gives us 13 year experience as judges... definitely less than 0 years.

MB... I spoke about the principle. Not about Vic Toews. Difference.

If he does not plan to leave politics, who cares if he would be qualified to be an astronaut? The issue is not his qualification or lack thereof for a job he doesn't want, nor it is the "we will be different" pledge by the Conservatives. It is whether or not it is a good idea to appoint people to be judges just fresh from the Cabinet.

First Nations should look at themselves for a solution to their problems. Not to deny the huge cost of racist government policies. Not to say that the treaty they signed in good faith should not be honoured. It is just that, as demonstrated by some of the postings here, there are too many people who will not even recognize their dignity as human beings.

One could argue that your posting insults animals otherwise I agree.