justcrowing

SSM has been dealt with and I for one who has been open minded about it am now sick and tired of it "in my face" every time something is debated. The rest of the country has moved on except the gays/lesbians - you got what you fought for and now move on and quit whinning about suppositions. There are other issues such as priorities in cleaning up government, justice reform, family tax deductions and improving our international trade relations and much more. Good grief, does the rest of the country not count for something and is it less important?

And the next you're all, like: So which is it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Liberals speak with forked tongue - both!! It depends which way the wind blows and where the smell is coming from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think from the imagination as no link was provided.

"Every time I went to Quebec, from 1992 to 2002, I was actually searching for something that went far beyond ways and means of improving my linguistic capacity. I was searching for a very special someone - LaFontaine!" - Preston Manning Could Dumont be what Preston Manning was looking for but never found ..... LaFontaine? Could you please translate that damn thing! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Translation with pleasure: "Mario Dumont boasts the speech « refreshing » of Stephen Harper. The boss of the democratic action of the Quebec will vote for the conservative Party, at the time of the federal ballot. But it is totally outside question that it becomes, a day, conservative candidate. " Here is the rest of the article translated from Le Soliel .... The leader adéquiste took advantage of a press conference to indicate that the comments of the conservative federal boss are the welcomes. In a speech to Quebec, this one were involved themselves to find solutions to the fiscal imbalance and to increase the role of the provinces on the international scene. « THIS IS nonetheless refreshing, commented on MR. Dumont. We were not flooded, the latter years to the Quebec, of messages in origin of federal parties where one has the impression that someone understands something of the Quebec. » The adéquiste profited from it to take it out on the liberal Party of the Canada of Paul Martin. On the place of the Quebec abroad, MR. Martin puts back in question this that the quebec governments practice since the years 1960, evoked MR. Dumont. More of details in the version paper of the newspaper The Wednesday Sun.

The Conservatives are a new party and have moved much to the middle and that is a positive move. They are entering on a clean slate and would need several terms in office in order to perfect corruption Liberal style. Because of the merger of two parties, each faction will keep checks and balances on the other and come up with an acceptable medium. They have come up with some very good policies. The other thing I like is Harper is an Accountant and not a lawyer nor is he wealthy. He is young, energetic and a far cry from the tired old men we have had in the several elections as P.M.'s. Liberals swayed from the middle line to the left in order to obtain support from the far left, NDP & draw away votes from them. They have not kept promises after they became elected. So they brought down the debt but at what expense? Gutting social programs, raising taxes, cutting benefits from the disabled, corruption, mismanagement and the list is tenfold. They are not for change and have proven that. They have driven a wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada as well as the U.S and I forgot to mention the West. Sure the U.S. has been less than honorable in their dealings however, a friendlier attitude on the part of our Prime Ministers may well have had disputes settled long time ago rather than it remain like a festering cancer. As for NDP, well if you want a Marxist government, there is a price to pay. What they did to Ontario and B.C. provincially, no way would I want that for Canada. Sure you may get to grow and smoke your marijuana, collect a big welfare check, be taxed to the max, but at what expense? When I see Layton and his Olivia, I see what is said in an ad on TV "hands in your pocket". Thanks but no thanks. I will give the Conservatives my vote and a chance to govern hopefully with a small majority [to keep them on their toes] in order to give them a chance to implement their policies. A term is not the end of the earth so given that, they have my vote as we need change.

I'd be careful what you'd say... Martin may have learned from Mulroney, when Mulroney was going to be investigated for the huge airbus scandal, he just sued the Canadain government for $50 Million for slander... and they shut up... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, Mulroney WON!! Shame on you Liberals, could you give us back our millions please? Or are you using them to fund this election cause you can't raise any funds now that BIG business can't contribute to your election? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nor did Mulroney keep the money he won in the settlement - he donated it to charity. I guess the Liberal way is "guilty until proven innocent and still guilty even if proven innocent" rather than " innocent until proven guilty". Do ya think they know the difference? I know Mulroney is guilty because he is a Conservative.

And that is why Svend won't marry Max. He's afraid young Max would bolt. Svend is a multi-milionaire, you know? At least that's what the papers say. I wonder how he came into all of that money. GO HEDY GO !!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Slim pickins - Hedy or Svend?? Ms. Fry got really specific about Prince George. She went on to inform a startled House and a horrified Prince George, that even as she was speaking, there were crosses burning on the lawns of Prince George. BC As for Svend & Max - hey Max can still do a clean out job on Svend and claim half. The same laws apply to common-law as they do to marriages. Since civil marriages are sanctioned, it stands to reason that common-law marriages do too. Luv it!!

Well let's all vote to fill the Liberal trough to overflowing portions, and fatten them all up but then that would not be right or they might end up with too much fat and heart attacks and it would be a strain on our medical system and they would have to revert to the dreaded private system that is supposedly non-existent. Hmm, let me see - we can spare the rod [punishment] and spoil the child [Liberals] that grows up [i think] to be arrogant and selfish. Oh dear, decisions, decisions - Dr. Phil where are you when we need you?

Quote: In a civil marriage the state takes the role of the church, when you get married by your church are you marrying your church? It is possible to get married and have no civil attachment. Ah, but people get their licence from the State and some take their vows in a Church. A contract from the State and vows of commitment from the church. Or it can be a State contract only, called a civil marriage. So if one gets married without civil attachment, then is it only church sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage that one engages in? Interesting point you brought up. Quote: Marriage in Canada has certain legal ramifications, a marriage licence is an acknowledgement of acceptance for that agreement. So admittedly the marriage licence with legal ramifications is set by government. In which case, government controls marriage. Quote: We have no fault divorce, you can get a divorce anytime you want the courts have nothing to say on the issue. True but legal papers still have to be signed which of course are drawn up by lawyers. These papers must be registered with government. If children are involved, or alimony then government steps in via the courts. Government, as I understand it, did set a schedule of child support on a scale of one's earnings and raises. Never having gone through a divorce & not likely to, is that not how it works? QUOTE * Legally nobody can choose your spouse regardless of your age. People of India basically follow the arranged marriage system, and they consider it as something great. Some Japanese and other Asians also arrange marriages. Although this practice is changing in Canada, it still does happen. * Quote: Uh..no. A civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. As such, the state has little business dictating the terms of said contract. Nor does it. But if the State does not dictate the terms of the contract, then who does? You do go to a licensing bureau to get permission from the state. No matter how one slices it - government is involved in the bedrooms of the nation in one way or another. There is one area where the government does not draw up a contract and that is a pre-nuptial agreement, however, the courts can over-ride the agreement.

The Canadian political problems are relatively trivial and are only a big deal to political junkies who post on boards like these. For the most part the economy works well, we get the services we want from gov't and people are more or less free to pursue their lives as they wish.That said there is always room for improvement - we could certainly do better than we are doing but suggesting the that the federation is an abusive relationship is rediculous. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So I take it then, you do not feel mismangement of tax dollars and patronage is not abuse of power? Oh well, to each his own!!

Actually that 2nd car could be a result of monies derived from high union wage demands to suit their lifestyles while the rest of us have to pay higher costs for goods to subsidize this lifestyle. Isn't that kinda like leaving the poor a tad more poor? Ah, ain't life sweet!!

Depends if you want a divorce badly enough or to stay in an abusive relationship?

Well we can look at this picture another way too. A vote for Liberal - if you love being fleeced; power hungry party promising anything to stay in control; a controlling party that does not want change; a P.M. who will not do business in Canada because of the high taxation, pollution regulations, but on the same token does not mind getting cheap loans from Canada. A vote for NDP - a population controlled by the government and unions - a mirror to communism]; investments fleeing out of the country; deficits; propping up the Liberals;cradle to grave welfare. A vote for Conservatives - change; social order; better laws; honesty. a clean slate to begin with. A vote for the Bloc - a vote for separation.

Uh..no. A civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. As such, the state has little business dictating the terms of said contract. Nor does it. Where do you live where the state has the power to unilaterally declare marriages null and void? Where I live, I can get get laid, get married or get divorced on my own volition and no individual or institution has the power to comple me otherwise. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> * True a civil marriage is a legal contract but who draws up that marriage contract - do you or does the State do that and why is it registered with the government? * Where do you get a marriage licence if not from government, if not from government, then where? If from government, then they set the terms or do you change them? * If you want a divorce, where do you have to apply to do so? Who decides upon your divorce if not the Courts??? Who sets up the Courts - Government??? * One area no one dictates to you is your choice of partner unless one belongs to specific ethnic groups whose parents choose the partner. * And yes, you can get laid, get married or get divorced onyour own volition if you sign that legal document. If you do not wish to sign that document then you can choose a common-law relationship which is of your own volition. Even so, government now looks at a common-law relationship as legal because of property and child custody issues, therefore, you still have to go through legal hoops and government involvement. Trudeau once stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the country but in effect, that is not true, government does dictate in many ways. Think about it. My post was to view marriage from another perspective for discussion purposes. We all go and get those licences and arrange for cermemonies, blah, blah, blah, but have any of us stopped to think how much government is involved on this issue? For example, and this is not intended to demean SSM but only for the sake of discussion - if marriage is not government controlled, then why did government get involved in SSM? No I am not speaking of equality only government involvement from a legal aspect. I think different opinions on this should prove very interesting.

Well let's try to look at marriage from a different angle. The state has claimed ownership of marriage (which pre-dates the state) as a monopoly intellectual property, the materialistic state has substituted itself for the church, people are required to perform the political-religious rituals of going to the county clerk's office and getting a license, the courthouse has become the new church, the clerk is the minister, the license is the blessing, and the state has become the religion that sanctions it. Politicians have desecrated the wedding ceremony by inserting the blasphemous phrase 'with the power vested in me by the state." When couples get married in a civil ceremony they are in effect marrying the state, as the state becomes their partner and the judge over their relationship terms and behavior. Marriage is just one type of relationship, there are good marriages and bad marriages, a license doesn't make it good or right, what makes a marriage real is what's in the hearts of the lovers, the morality of their behavior and their personal commitment based on trust. A license doesn't guarantee any of that. A marriage license means that the state claims ownership of your relationship, that you have to go to the political mob to get permission to wed, (and in some places to make love) to end the union and you have to accept their terms, which they can change at any time--how degrading. Why should adults have to go to a paternalistic political mob to get permission to make love and get permission from a judge you don't even know to end the relationship and allow that a judge who doesn't know you or your children to determine the future of your children? Licensing sexual acts is intolerably paternalistic, its licensing people like cattle for breeding purposes. The state coerces couples into signing a marriage license which signs over decision making power over the terms of your relationships, how it may be ended and who gets custody of the children after divorce. Its like the devil getting you to sign over your firstborn, only the devil usually offers you something in return to get your consent, the state offers you nothing. Do you think fighting for this is worth it?

Good post and telling it as it is!!

As a newly elected council member of a large strata corporation, we voted out a management company that was not efficient to be replaced by a new one. Naturally, the old company has suddenly been making promises and pulling up their sox [sounds like the Liberals in their campaign. So, Yep, and that is what needs to be done with federal politics - turf the Liberals. My vote goes to the Conservatives [one who was never polled] because I want change and willing to give them a chance. I believe Harper, although not charismic, is far more honest than Martin or Layton. Heaven help us if we elect or P.M. on the basis of how much he smiles or waves his arms in the air rather than intellect ....

Harper can't seem to get a break: if he sticks to his principals he is an out of touch ideologue. If he moderates his views he is a 'whore' seeking power.Seems to me that we live in a democracy which means politicians get elected by supporting policies that people want. A willingness to listen to what people want in different parts of the country is an essential requirement of the PM's job. I am heartened that Harper is willing and able to do that. In terms of Quebec, Harper will not likely get any votes from his annoucements but it is essential that Harper make it clear to Quebequers that not all federalists are Liberals. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see your perspective, but I don't agree that Harper has changed his stripes, one only need look at the current GOP south of the border to see that. Remeber, Bush was a uniter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bush will not be in power forever - his 2 terms are up. However, biting the hand that feeds Canada can also serve to starve Canada.

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commenta...19/1360413.html Gun control doesn't mean crime control, and no one knows that better than our police. Two cases in the past week hammered that home -- and should provide a grave lesson for all those on the election trail trying to make gun crime an issue. On Saturday night, a Toronto police officer who came to the rescue of a man who was robbed at gunpoint at a bank machine was shot at. The officer managed to make an arrest. The accused is Sirvon Edwards, 23, whose recent history is a sad testament to the way our laws deal with guns. In 2003, Edwards was charged with first-degree murder in a case where, court heard, he and a friend went with loaded guns to Canada's Wonderland -- and the friend shot a man dead. The second case is last Wednesday's shooting murder of Laval, Que. Const. Valerie Gignac, whose funeral is today. The accused is Francois Pepin, 40, who also has a troubling legal history. Pepin had twice been convicted of criminal harrassment (stalking), most recently of a female police officer -- for which he was fined $500. He had been banned from possessing firearms since 1999 but, incredibly, could still access guns for hunting. In both cases, the very people we depend on to enforce the law were put at risk by a weak justice system and government "gun control" that has failed and isn't likely to improve.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/martin_p...sinterests.html In January 2004, Ottawa said CSL had received $161 million in government contracts, grants and contributions since 1993. That figure was more than 1,000 times higher than the figure Don Boudria, then government House leader, gave in 2002 when Canadian Alliance MP James Rajotte asked about the government's dealings with the company. http://w3t.org/?u=fzp How passionate is Martin about Canada - well this flag of convenience says it all. After Paul Martin took Canada Steamship Lines international in the 1980s, the Canadian flags came down on three of its ships, replaced by the flag of the Bahamas – what's often known as a "flag of convenience" country. CSL International (a division of the CSL Group) now owns 18 ships that fly foreign flags. CSL ships have, over the years, flown the flags of Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and the tiny South Pacific nation of Vanuatu. CSL Group also owns 18 ships that fly the Canadian flag, pay Canadian taxes and employ Canadians. There can be several other reasons why ship owners will choose to fly a flag of convenience: 1. Ease of registration: Registering a ship in an FOC country typically involves much less paperwork than in countries with national registers. Sometimes the registration can be done in as little as a few hours – in Panama's case, by fax. 2. Looser environmental laws and regulations: Registering a ship makes it subject to the laws and the country of its flag state, regardless of the nationality of the ship's owner. In FOC states, those laws can be substantially weaker than those in Canada, the U.S. or Europe. The Bahamas, for instance, does not require oil tankers to have a double hull – a deficiency that became painfully evident after the single-hulled, Panamanian-flagged Prestige sank off Spain in 2002, fouling beaches. The Seafarers International Research Centre at the University of Cardiff points out that some FOC countries, like Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea, have virtually no regulations of any kind. FOC countries have registered about 23 per cent of the world's 88,000 seagoing vessels. But 58 per cent of the vessels lost at sea in 2001 flew flags of convenience. 3. Lower labour standards: The International Transport Workers' Federation has lobbied against FOC registration for half a century. Ships registered in FOC countries typically do not need to employ nationals from that country. Owners are free to hire the cheapest labour they can get. And they usually do. Popular sources of cheap labour include the Philippines, India, Indonesia, and Eastern Europe. In some FOC countries, working conditions aboard ships are seldom monitored and international maritime conventions are rarely enforced. The ITF has documented cases where workers on board some FOC-flagged ships haven't been paid for a year, or lived in substandard conditions aboard ship with no shore leave. When they complained, some seafarers were blacklisted. The ITF admits those horror stories come from a minority of owners. Typically, the benefit for the ship's owners from flying a foreign flag is simply in not having to pay the higher wages of the industrialized countries where the ships are owned. Seamen on some FOC ships are paid as little as $1.50 US an hour. CBC Disclosure documented last year how the Canadian crew aboard one Canada Steamship Lines vessel was replaced with a Filipino crew after the ship shed its Canadian flag and was reflagged in 1988. The Canadian crew earned $11.68 an hour. The Filipino workers earned $1.74 an hour. 4. Secrecy: Some FOC countries allow ship owners to effectively hide or muddy their true ownership in their registration documentation. Authorities have long complained that lax registration requirements make it more difficult to prosecute people smuggling, money laundering and drug trafficking.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2003/doc_30898.html Equality Rights (Section 15): This section includes the right to equal treatment before and under the law; and to equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability. The courts have also recognized other grounds of discrimination that are not specifically set out in the Charter such as sexual orientation and marital status. This section came into effect in 1985. The Charter contains a limiting clause that defines under what circumstances a Charter right or freedom can be limited: Limiting Clause (section 1): The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. This section provides that certain limits on rights and freedoms are acceptable if those limitations can be justified in a "free and democratic society".

If Stevie Cameron truly wants to keep an eye on corrupt politicians - she only has to look at the former & current administration and work on the 199 scandals. That would keep her blog going for a long time and maybe worthwhile reading.

Nawh - they have a long way to go to make 199 scandals.

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it.... The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be paid for it? By their employers you mean? Because the government is just giving them their money back to help them raise their children. Parents who have the luxury of affording to stay home with their children shouldn't be paid to do it.. just because they don't need to or want to put their children in daycare.... The daycare monies should be put into daycare for those who need it.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong - our daughter-in-law stayed at home when her children were little and they certainly did not have a high wage on one salary. She took in 3 kids to help pay the bills and we subsidized them financially a whole lot. Why should she not be subsidized by the government - is it only because one uses daycare where entitlement is granted? What about equality? To say that stay at home moms have luxury of staying home is incorrect but the children had the luxury of having mom at home. Many stay at home Moms do not have luxury other than that they are with their children and there for them in need and love and care.

It is Martin who is bringing the SSM topic into the election. Makes absolutely no sense, except in that Martin figures he can score a few brownie cookies - the laws are in place - game over and move on.