Scotty

I don't think anyone is saying we ought to 'persecute' Muslims. I'm not even sure if the problem is Islam, so to speak, as opposed to the new orthodox Islam, or the Wahabi Islam, or whatever. But I see the problem as more than just the few nutbars who are out there trying to behead prime ministers. I don't like the arch-conservative culture Muslims, as a people, evidence. Granted, part of this is because almost all of them are immigrants from extremely rigid, conservative patriarchal cultures. Islam in those countries has become rigid, intolerant and even violent, and it is a part of who they are now. They must be weaned off that level of intolerance in much the way much of the American deep south was (though to be honest the American deep south is still too conservative and religious for my taste or comfort). I do not like what these cultures think of outsiders or what they are teaching their children. I grant you that in previous, less tolerant times, people also were suspicious of other immigrant groups. And I'll even admit there's some of that "suspicion of outsiders' being shown here, too. But we are not our grandparents, and we are a far more open and tolerant society. We do not see the same level of suspicion and distrust towards other large immigrant groups right now, though there are a myriad of them.

I would nominate August, Kimmy,Moonbox, and Bonam, JBG and Moonlight Graham though I would also volunteer were it not for the 1000 post requirement. I've certainly sent enough reports to Charles over the last little while. :-P Maybe I've created so much work he needs help!

The GST was not a tax increase, as such. It replaced the manufacturers tax, which was hidden.

I agree about the rising militarism. For example, why do SWAT guys need to wear masks? I disagree about crime having fallen significantly. As to the cost, the cost of policing is largely due to the criminal element. If there were no criminals we wouldn't need to spend so much on cops, or courts, or lawyers, or parole boards or prisons or the whole damn thing. Not to mention all the costs to society from fear of criminals, locks, alarm systems, security guards, etc.

I don't think the cabinet generally gets any protection. I don't know about lieutenant governors general, but aren't they a provincial responsibility? Don't know about an other VIPs. Who do we have? I would think that Harper is the obvious target. No one has threatened the GG as far as I know. He seems like a nice old guy and is completely non-controversial.

I think it could. It's her document. She can change anything on it she wants before signing it. Now if it was signed by some other party as a contract, for example, and then she altered it before signing then it would have to go back to that other party to initial the change. I think we're all just not used to hand-written alterations to documents or letters, but on the face of it, there's nothing illegal or improper about it. A cheque written on toilet paper is still legal, right?

Obviously, we can all see the dangers in this, but in a free society those dangers ought to be minimal. Criminals and the criminally minded cost taxpayers a fortune every year. It would be nice if we could find a way to, if not profit from them, at least have them do such work that the prisons are revenue neutral.

It appears my future career as a mathematician is in serious doubt. But you get the idea. So that's $8 million just to protect 24 Sussex. That does not count all those squads of mounties at the Langevin Building or at Parliament Hill, or accompanying him all over the country and all over the world, or the threat analysis or investigations of all the people at the various locales where he would be traveling. I don't know this to be the case, for example, but I would assume that if the prime minister was going to be eating somewhere the RCMP would probably look into who was working in the kitchen, just as a for instance. In any building where he was going to make a speech they'd probably be checking all the employees and possible entries, probably use bomb sniffing dogs beforehand, set up communications, guard posts, metal detectors, etc. etc. Given how many times the PM moves around that would come to an awful lot of money.

Canada was a different place in Trudeau's time. Until the FLQ came along, anyway, it was assumed that the PM could pretty much walk down the street with maybe one bodyguard and he'd be fine. Violence and terrorism have significantly grown since then, and the last time I recall reading about a head of government walking alone down a street was in Sweden in 1986.

There is something to be said for keeping a wary eye on the future. After all, if even a portion of the fears come true, it will be too late at that point to do much about it. Enoch Powell spoke candidly of his fears for the future of Britain with mass immigration from third world countries more than forty years ago. Most people at that time laughed it off as madness. Yet if those people in 1968 were to be suddenly confronted with the Britain of today they would probably not be laughing. No, there hasn't yet been 'rivers of blood' but the way Britain has imported populations with cultural values which are hostile to their own, and then encouraged their growth has led to repeated friction and violence, race riots, and of course, bombings and the threat of more bombings. It is not hard to imagine now, with the continued growth of the Muslim population there, if there isn't more of a 'melting pop' instituted over there, that the violence can only grow worse. So the time to deal with the possibility of such things is now, rather than in twenty or thirty years.

I don't remember ever reading of a group of Chinese, Japanese or Irish practicing to attack parliament and behead the prime minister..

Immigration precedes Multiculturalism. If we're having a problem it's because of the people we are bringing in. Therefore, ultimately, Immigration IS the problem. I note that, so far as I know, every single Muslim religious leader is an immigrant. If they are preaching nasty messages in the mosques, as there appears to be some evidence to suggest, that too is the fault of immigration.

There comes a time when bribery and corruption are so endemic, so a part of a country and culture's infrastructure and day to day living that corrupt people take pride in how much money their activities can make, and see no need to hide what they are. Putin might not be amused by their open bragging about their corruption, but it's more a case of 'do it but don't talk about it' than any real concern with corruption. He is probably the richest man in the world, according to some reports, all of his money earned through corruption and bribery.

I find this claim extraordinarily unlikely. This is absurd rationalization. If the money is going ultimately to pay for services and supplies for natives, and being paid to native governments and contractors then to deny it is being spend on natives is silly.

Crimes are seldom done accidentally. You don't just accidentally fall into a bank and accidentally point your accidental gun at the teller. It's a deliberate act. Suppose you have a young pre-teen daughter. Would you have any problem letting a man babysit her who had a string of sexual offenses in his record against pre-teen girls on the basis that he hadn't been caught committing one in over two years? The bottom line is that the actual real number of people who reoffend is far higher when other crimes are taken into consideration. And those are just the ones who are caught and convicted. It would be pretty safe to assume others also reoffend but didn't get caught.

The Governor General is a figurehead. I don't think she even has a motorcade routinely. Further, how much bigger is Harper's motorcade than Chretien's was? Do you even know?

100k is the salary. You can usually add another 50% for benefits. Then there are the costs of equipping them. They need alarm systems to monitor, guns, cameras and monitors, cars and radios and other equipment. There are forms to fill out, so computers to be used, etc. etc, plus the internal services needing to be provided for them, payroll clerks, supervisors, etc. You can probably figure 200k is more like the total cost per man. Let's say there are what, ten cops guarding 24 Sussex Drive and the grounds? I really don't know but it's a nice round figure. To have ten cops there you need three shifts, plus cops to work on holidays, when others are sick, etc. So you're talking at least 40 cops to cover the duty there. At 200k each. That' 80 million right there. Now obviously since the figures given were lower than this I guess there are fewer cops guarding Sussex drive, or they're paid less money. But you get the picture. It doesn't take long for the money to go. And we haven't even brought in the motorcade, the cops at work, the travels abroad, etc.

The number of repeat offenders in Canada is nearly four times as high as the official figure issued by the federal government, a Vancouver Sun investigation reveals. Recividism rates he most recent data from the last three months of 2007 shows 75% of adult inmates released from provincial jails were charged with another offence within two years of completing their sentence. Mannitoba Recividism In a recent study, the general recidivism rate for federal offenders (i.e., offenders serving custodial sentences of two years or more) was reported at approximately 44% within two years of their release (Bonta et al. 2003). Langevin et al. (2004) recently published a study of 320 sexual offenders who were seen for psychiatric assessment between 1966 and 1974, using a 25-year follow-up period. The authors reported that 88% of the offenders had sexually re-offended within the follow-up period. Statistics Canada Research on Recividism

I am completely in favour of parole for good behavior. The problem, as I see it, was that parole became somewhat automatic. I remember reading a description of it some years ago. It went something like, if you were to be caught fighting on Monday, and then caught dealing drugs on Wednesday, you'd still get five days of that week credited towards your early parole. So really, it was far too easy to get parole, regardless of what effort you put in. And that just meant you got out earlier, committed crimes, and had to go back in again. Easier and cheaper to leave you in longer. If the system had just done its job in properly differentiating between those who deserved parole, that is, those who honestly wanted to rehabilitate themselves, and those who really had no interest in anything but continuing their lifestyle these sorts of changes would not be as popular as they are.

Can you please give me the name of a federal, provincial or municipal politician over the past thirty or forty years one could not accurately call 'liar'?

I'm pointing out that in a country at war circumstances and conditions lend themselves to individual and group actions which would not happen or are far less likely to happen in a nation at peace. Well, there are war crimes and then there are war crimes. Of course. It's quite the popular target. One wonders why they spend so much less effort on the human rights abuses in surrounding nations. I've seen no evidence to support that opinion. I quite disagree.

It might be, depending on circumstances. For example, if they say a purse snatching should get a minimum of 90 days in jail on a first offense. I would consider it to be justice if a first time offender who snatches a woman's purse gets about that much time in jail. Now if they say he should get twenty years minimum I would consider that injustice. That is the weakness of mandatory minimums, no question. The strength is that if society in general as represented by their lawmakers decides that a certain crime should get, at minimum, a certain sentence, regardless of circumstances, then that wish is carried out. And society in general seldom wishes for massive injustice. .Well, I'm not sure why you would come up with this sort of example since we don't charge people with murder for drunken driving. In fact, the charge is, the aptly named, Impaired Driving Causing Death. in fact, Impaired Driving does have minimum punishments as set out in the criminal code. 255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, (a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely, (i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars, (ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and (iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days; And, of course, the maximums are raised for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death though the minimums are not.

Well according to Statistics Canada, the crime rates remain unchanged. Yet the police say that crime reported to them is less. That would seem to imply then, that reporting rates are falling. For example, according to Stats Canada, reported rates of robbery, including attempted robbery, have risen by 44% in the last ten years. Those numbers are not reflected in police reporting, so that again suggests rates of reporting are going down. Statitics Canada Criminal Victimization Survey

No, it never occurred to me. There are Native gangs because their cultures are often falling apart, with too many of them located in areas without economic opportunities and many of them thus rotting away with alcoholism and drug addiction. People without a purpose in life often find things to do society might not like.

Mandatory minimums are popular when a population believes judges are not exercising their discretion with sufficient severity. Ie, when they believe judges are too slack and limp-wristed in their sentencing. That's not logical. There might be cases of injustice due to mandatory minimums, but then there might be cases of injustice without. Presumably lawmakers consider the damage done by a crime when deciding what the mandatory minimum punishment ought to be, so there is no certainty of injustice at all.