grainfedprairieboy

My link The SOBs were blackmailing us in order that UAE airlines could ooze through the back door and bump a share of Air Canada flights to Europe. What a bunch of ingrates after the blood we spilled in keeping the Talibannies from rocketing their towers and indoor ski hills. The Liberals should be ashamed to rush to the side of the government of Dubai in support of it's anti Canada position. Sometimes I wonder if the Liberals see Canada as the little Satan too?

Canada has a long history in introducing new legislation that effectively makes a product against the law but does not make the use or ownership of the product illegal, only the sale or transferability. For example, firearms recently deemed restricted but owned by families for generations must be turned over to the government upon the death of the owner or a jail sentence ensues. Conversely, wiring or plumbing in an older home that is not to modern code can remain so as long as it conforms to the standard of practice of the day it was installed and no new permit is drawn where at that point it will not be passed and insurance and resale will be disallowed until compliance is achieved. Furthermore, septic systems that are dysfunctional can continue to operate legally but must meet tough new standards if any upgrade is done. Seatbelt use is not required in cars that were originally constructed without them but fines and demerits are the result of noncompliance in a modern automobile. So the fact that grandfathering is well established from consumer goods to building codes to even weaponry, is it politically possible to draft tobacco legilsation that forbids the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000 regardless of how old they may be and even after they are well beyond the age of majority? Perhaps it should be extended to a moratorium on all products that are purposefully designed for inhalation that are not specifically endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association as safe, such as pipes, rolling papers, electronic inhalers, etc. Assuredly some might presume that there would be some criminal element that may profit from such a prohibition and that government might as well benefit through sin taxes but as witnessed with gambling and alcohol, when you increase the availability of the product you inadvertently and correspondingly increase consumption. If we look at the history of gambling, perhaps a small market of criminals catering to a small market of users is better then the mass of casinos, lotteries, VLTs and the increased social ills associated with their mass presence. Even the most radical proponent of unrestricted marijuana use will admit that consumption will increase if the product is legal, cheaper and widely available and marketed (they just claim it has no negative health impacts). An even greater argument can be made for reserves that have banned alcohol and while they haven't eradicated the consumption, considerable harm reduction within the communities has been achieved. There are sound Libertarian points that government has absolutely no business in regulating the consumption of any product and that recreational drugs to food stuffs should be available free of government restrictions but this is likely a minority opinion. There are also points to be made that government may not be interested in weaning itself from the tax revenue associated with such a highly marked up product but if government is to assume the responsibility and expense for our healthcare, and have already interfered with lifestyle choices far more mundane from seatbelt use to bicycle helmets to the issue surrounding the young Quebec women arrested for refusing to hold a handrail on an escalator as the sign advised, clearly a product as destructive and harmful as tobacco should be eliminated. Your thoughts?

Somehow the concept that Canada should have known better then to sign any agreement that may be conceived as support of an enemy of Islam and most of the world's theocracies prior to them voting sanitises the insanity that is the Middle East and certainly makes a mockery of the military deaths, hundreds of millions of man hours and billions of dollars committed and volunteered by Canada in the founding and pursuit of global peace and security. I prefer my governments don't sneak around or kowtow to despots or pander to public perceptions of foreigners. The Canadian government has one role in regards to foreign affairs and that is to advance the interests of the Canadian people at the expense of those of other nations. If I want the interests of foreigners outside of Canada to supersede the desire of Canadians, say regarding the environment or hundreds of bogus UN edicts then by gum, I'll start voting NDP. I strongly support Canada reducing it's involvement with the UN until such time as it is at least as undemocractic, ineffective, demographically lopsided and corrupt as say; the Canadian Senate.

Then clearly you missed the results of recent NDP governments in Ontario and BC whose platforms essentially mirrored their federal brethren and whose actions personified your statement. Additionally, investigate the real voting record of the ADQ and convince me they are anything other then left wing....at least by my centrist Western standards:)

And somehow this skulduggery magically disappears when judges and bureaucrats are afforded the ability to establish their own penalties based on their personal outrage? Give your head a shake. Then I suggest you take a hard look at what sort of urban environment you desire. If all taxpayers in Ontario did not subsidise the production of electricity and water and users ultimately payed the actual rate consumption would be reduced dramatically. If immigration was curtailed where individual global carbon footprints from Africa are transferred to Toronto at rate of a 600X increase per new arrival then perhaps the strain of development wouldn't be such a problem. More-so, perhaps making Toronto itself an adult only community for well heeled 20-55 year old DINKS such as Vancouver or Whistler, and relegating the drones and breeders to distant suburbs only to transit to your community to fix your roads, cook your food or collect your garbage is a more acceptable solution............again, based on the Van/Whistler model. We officially prefer the 3S's: "shoot, shovel, shut up".

Freedom of Speech in Canada without exaggeration is an oxymoron and the universities that were once the Bastion of critical thinking have reverted into quasi religious institutions desperately guarding against heresy while demanding government act as defender of their established faith. Freedom of Speech can only mean that YOU can advance an idea, belief or statement that I may vehemently object to yet have no authority or ability to invoke censor. Anything else, any other corrupted belief, any proviso that speech can be legitimately suppressed or censored because: the interpreted intent of the author or speaker is to actually inflict harm; the sensitivity of the topic may cause discomfort to some; the legitimacy of the actual point is questionable; the discussion itself is a threat to security; that graphics or imagery are a threat to someones sensibilities; that God must not be exposed to the transgressions of man; that youth or the simple minded may be inappropriately influenced; that the right could beabused such as advocating people to violence or yelling "fire" in a theatre; makes a mockery of the very concept of advancing reflective judgment. It is unfathomably to me how anyone can earnestly believe they advocate freedom of speech or expression with the exception of - *fill in their pet peeve(s) here*.

Yup, that's the way the law should work. Established fines, sentences and penalties should exist only for those who don't break the law willingly or who may be innocent but for those who willingly and knowingly commit an offence, well by golly to Hell with Canadian jurisprudence and 800 years of British Common Law and legal tradition, we'll all just invent illegitimate penalties that reflect our manufactured outrage like some provincial Human Rights Commission would. While the actions of the company may be deemed inappropriate, they operated within the boundary of the law accepting that the penalty for early excavation was less then the penalty imposed by the delay inherent in bureaucratic red tape. The natural Canadian response of course, is to increase the pain of penalties to exceed the red tape when what we should be endeavouring is to minimise red tape with clear and concise development criteria prior to any application for a development permit.

The ADQ, or what is 'left' of it (no pun intended); is about as rightwing as Jack Layton. The only thing that would be unique to Quebec politics is a party whose raison d'etre didn't revolve around the lunacy of attempting to hold Ottawa accountable for virtually every provincial issue with an expectation that Albertans must suave national transgressions through transfer payments. How much one blames Ottawa and expects Alberta to pay for it is the barometer for determining right from left in Quebec. Time will tell I suppose.