CANADIEN

Are we talking about opponents that would make that type of statewments, or all opponents period. As an opponent myself, I,d like to know.

Having the right to say stupid incredibly wrong, and inflammatory, and stupid, and bigoted doesn't make it the right thing to say.

Next time you want to talk about restrain, do yourself a favour and avoid inflammatory, inaccurate and bigoted statements like that one. You have no basis other than bigotry and ignorance to claim the Cordoba projext s a celebration of 9-11. And don't even bother to make a fool of yourself by arguing that I somehow fail to see the symbolism, yada, yadda, yadda. I am well aware of the symbolism, and of the backlash that will result if the project goes ahead.

I forgot. There is no advantage whatsoever in having statistical data on where Canadians live, where they come from, how mobile they are, what level of education they have Government decisions should be based on ideology rather than facts, and Canadians do not need tohave data they can look at to see the effects of government decisions. Ignorance is bliss. But well, if you shop for motgages, a car, a house the way you expect the government to formulate policy, without the numbers, I will be happy to do business with you any time.

Actually, there is a certain right toi privacy. That right is not so absolute that it preclude the gathering of information when it is justified. The benefit arising from gathering data useful to inform public policy making and hold our government acountable far outweights any alleged ill effect from the exercise.

Boohoohoo...the big bad State is violating my rights by asking me to fill a census form. Never mind that the advantage (to society in whole and each citisen in particular) that arises from this data gathering esercise far outweights any disadvantage or inconvenience resulting from it.

I think it is far-fetched to talk about secularism to described what the Founding Fathers had in mind. That being said, they most likely didn't have the type of hate-mongering fear-mongering rambling of the likes of Glenn Beck in mind either.

Except for one thing.... Despite the hysteria from some of the right, nobody's right is being violated by the requirement to fill a census form.

Gotta laugh when people whose main line of argument consists of demonizing anyone to the left of Genghis Khan howl "unfair" when people say that Glenn Beck is a bigoted hate-mongerer, which he and Al Sharpton happen to be in equal measures. Gotta laugh too when Beck tell Americans they should honour Martin Luther King's vision by supporting the military. did the idot even bother to read what MLK said and wrote'

How dare you Bubber? Don't you realize that you have just committed the capital sin of denying the freedom of expression of right wing haters? (not to say of course, that right-wingers are haters, but some surely are). How could you forget that their freedom of expression is so fragile that even telling them how wrong they are constitute a threat to it. Never mind that they will be the first to clamnour for curtailment of civil rights (like the Patriot Act) or applaud the likes of Ann "I hate the First Amendment" Coulter.

Why is it that everytime I adopt an opinion that is on the right side of the spectrum (such as being againstthe Cordoba project), the most compelling arguments against that position come from those who share it? *sigh* Let's start with the empathy argument. sound innocuous. Until it is accompanied by phases like "they're building a mosque on the site of a Muslim attack". Then, wheter those saying those things admit it or not, or even realize it or not, they stepping right into collective guilt territory. Well, like or not, Muslims who did not take part in the 9-11 attack and are opposed terrorism do not have to apologize, or feel guilty, or to accept to be held responsible for what happened. As for empathy, how about directing some the families of victims who SUPPORT the project? Don't their view counts too, or are they to be villified like those who insisted on the Government accounting for its intelligence failures? Next, for the "a mosque will be built on the site of an attack by Muslims" argument. If that's not guilt by association, then what is. Either the proponent of the project share the motivations and goals of the terrorists, or they don't. As it is fairly clear that they don't, the argument is without value. ESPECIALLY when considering that a place of Muslim worship, namely a room used for that purpose, was destroyed by the terrorists.

Why bother? shady will not acknowledge the reality of the large numer of Muslims who oppose Al-quaeda'a methods and attacks on civilians. After all, it makes hatred more difficult. Of course, I now fully expect him and others of his ilk to make fools of themselves by arguing against all logic that I am an appeaser, or a fan of terrorists.

considering your habit of treating Muslims as terrorist suspects until proven otherwise and even after proven otherwise, I must acknowledge that you are an expert when it comes to recognize McCarthy imitators. Yet,whenever somebody or something points out to the fact that there are Muslims, many Muslims out there who want piece and dialogue, you want to hear nothing about it On the contrary. Besides those people, mostly families of some of the victims, to whom the presence of a muslim centre and prayer place (technically not a mosque- here's for reality) will bring painful memories, a lot of the opposition is fuelled by ignorance, prejudicie, or even hatred of Muslims. what are we supposed to think this is about, zoning? Including the fact that there are Muslims with their hearts and minds full of hate, and Muslims whi want to build bridges to peace and dialogue (even when the bridge is in the wrong place). And including the fact that there are Westerners who don't even want to hear about that. PS: Not that it will prevent you from making a fool of yourself by arguing otherwise, I think the the location of that project is a poor choice, given the symbolosim many will associate with it.

As fun as it would be to point out the obvious fact that Nazi and intelligent are two mutually exclusive terms, jbg is right. The thread should indeed go back to the issue of the Ottawa arrests. There is no doubt that radical islamism is alive and well, and must be detected, confronted, and rooted out. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that hate-mongering imbeciles who equate terrorism with Islam (only to run like scared chickens when confronted while yelping `but I don't mean ALL Muslims are terrorists) are part of the problem, not the solution.

Section 14 of the Charter applies to the parties (i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant) in a trial, not to a judge. In fact, it does not even applies to the lawyers for the two parties, as stated in New Brunswick court decision (http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/1986/1986canlii92/1986canlii92.html). As for the argument that the law is discriminatory, it falls flat on its face. The same requirement applies to ALL posible candidates, and rests on what skills (linguistic in this case)are needed for the job. That theskills are not absolutely necessary does not make the requirement discriminatory.

As he should. This prove that poor misunderstood Adolf was not a genocifal maniac responsible for the death of milion of Jews, not counting Romas and others

As I said last time this topic was brought in, there is no need for all nine judges of the Supreme Court to be bilingual for it to operate in English and French, and on that account alone I oppose that waste of a law. That being said, let's get the FACTS straight. Contrary to what the misleading title of the OP states, there is NOTHING in the law in question that prevents somebody from outside Quebec to sit on the Supreme Court (unless someone is to believe the absurdist notion that there are no Francophones or people able to learn French outside Quebec). There is also NOTHING that states that one has to be a Francophone to sit on the Court. But well, why just state the law is uneccessary when it is a lot simplier to make up facts out of ignorance and prejudice.

^Indeed, it is a rant. And as if often the case with rants, it is based on non-sense. The data is collected and published by OUR government to inform public policy and to provide US with a source of information about who we are. This information belongs to each and every one of us. How some of us decide to use this information is their business, and their business alone. As for the facts some ¨special interests groups¨use that information to further their agenda, so what? This information belongs to them to. I wonder if the real issue is not the fact that the data might prove them right.

Authors, businesses, church groups can view census data for free, the same as any of... big deal. If the data is put on a public web site that anyone can access, there is no logical reason why anyone or any group should be barred from accessing just because they may benefit (financially or otherwise) from their use of it. Anyway, how would you prevent a church group or a bank, for example, from accessing publicly available information? Now, advanced analysis done by StatsCan is available for a fee. If a Church group wants to buy it, they should be able to do it like anyone else. This is not breaking the separation of State and church, it`s just treating Church groups like anyone else. Also, collecting statistical data is not the same as establishing policies. Your contention that the separation of State and church is violated because church groups uses census data is so illogical that it boggles the mind. try something else.

That`s English or French Canadian?

if the only or main aim of the census was to allow data collection for non-gvoernment businesses and organizations, then the point about getting their own data would be valid. But the number one aim of the census is to provide statistical data useful to inform public policy making and tand for us, the population, to measure the effects of government decisions. As for the suggestion that the separation f Church and state is being violated because religious orgnization has access to statistical data from the census, it is non-sense. Basic data from the census is available for ANYONE to see and use. Use of census data by church groups is no more a violation of the separation of Chruch and State than their use of the roads.

Indeed. We are in a democracy. To a large extent, we get the government we choose, and if we do not like it, we can vote another one here. Granted, bureaucracy is... bureaucracy, and will have a tendency to expend if we let it to its own devices. And government should not be larger (or smaller) than what we want or need it to be. But there is a difference between wanting a smaller government and the howls of terror we hear from some every time they hear governments propose about anything.

I have never hidden the fact that I am the king of typos, in particular around midnight. But I seriously question the reading abilities of anyone who claims I am defending people when I am calling them morons and idiots.

Nope. But you are obviously the one who needs to learn English, if that`s what you falsely accusing me if doing:P

And it may indeed be something useful to have stats on to inform government-decision making and study the results of those decisions. One example of why I think the idea of large consultation on the contents of the long form census is a good one. Too bad the Conervatives did not have the brains to think about that.