Scotty

Vic Toews said today that policing costs were unsustainable. I haven't done a study of everywhere around the world, but I was recently looking around at salaries in Europe and the US, and specifically at the United Kingdom. By way of comparison, their public servants earn considerably less than Canadians do at almost all levels. For example, a British constable earns approximately $58,000. A Canadian 1st Class constable earns between $80,000-$90,000. In the US, the average police salary is $50,000 (for those who might argue Cdn cops carry guns and face greater danger) Even Canadian parking enforcement officers earn a lot more, on avg $60,000 vs about $30,000 for traffic wardens in the UK. TTC ticket enforcement officers, some of whom weren't even showing up for work, earn between $60,000-$70,000. This is in line with other government professions. A Canadian teacher earns about $75-$80,000 while a British teacher earns, on average, closer to $53,000. A Canadian firefighter earns about $80,000 vs about $44,000 for a British firefighter. A mid range corporal (the main enlisted rank) in the CAF earns $68,000. A lance corporal in the UK earns $35,000 A public transit bus driver in Canada earns $70,000 - $80,000. In the UK it's $44,000 And in case you're wondering, the cost of living in the UK is 3.5% higher than in Canada. Also, all of the salaries above can be increased through overtime and various other bonuses, but adding that in made it too difficult to make comparisons. I don't want to suggest all our problems are due to high priced public services, but it is true that we haven't enough police, enough doctors and nurses (they also get paid less in the UK but then we have to worry more about the US next door), that bus routes have to be cut back constantly due to the huge costs, that we don't have enough soldiers, etc. etc. Is it proper for ordinary public servants, ie, those who don't require university degrees to be making salaries which are far higher than most taxpayers, even the ones WITH university, and higher than most of our OECD partners?

Calling people racist is just insulting them. Of course people get insulted then. If you called them other names they would likely get upset too. But you're turning things on end. Isn't it the people who shout 'racist' who are the ones getting angry and intolerant of views, and not the ones who don't want to be called names?

But why do they have strict laws with harsh punishment? Because almost no one dares call for their end? Note what happened to the few who dared call for an end to the blaspheme laws in Pakistan. Note what happens to anyone seen as attacking Islam, or insulting Islam or the prophet. Mobs attack and kill them without need of law. The riots in Islamic countries because of cartoons, or more recently because of such things as facebook postings and Utube videos indicate a populace that is so shocked by an insult that they become enraged to the point of violence. Let me put it another way. If you found yourself naked at the office, you would be horrified, humiliated, appalled. But if you were forced to work all day naked, well, by the end of the day you'd probably have gotten used to it and would no longer be all that affected. So if there were cartoons about the prophet published every other day all around the world, it would be kind of hard for people to work up a murderous rage about any particular one. I think, in that way, it's good for us to be exposed to views which we dislike, which insult our world-view, or even insult us, so that we get used to contrary views and how to deal with them, and so we get exposed to challenging views we need to think about.

I think it is an strong emotional commitment to a belief. A person believes so strongly in it they are outraged when someone says something which contradicts them. It is so strong an emotional commitment that they are absolutely certain of the belief, and it has a moral side to it so that they believe people who disagree are somehow not just wrong but stupidly wrong and likely immoral in some way. I have seen this on abortion, and I think most of us have seen it on immigration and bilingualism.

There is a certain child-like entertainment to be had in simply offending people, just to giggle at how upset they get. But that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about speaking about issues, or taking positions on issues, which offend others. I'm talking about speaking your mind, your true mind, without regard to whether others are offended by it. I think we as a society have been moving towards the position that we should never give offense to others. We've even incorporated it into law to some degree. Most workplaces have any number of rules about behavior designed to not have one party offending another party. Web sites like this have rules banning statements or opinions which might give offense. Schools certainly have such rules, especially universities. In all cases, those who offend risk being banished Now I'm not talking about offending simply to offend. I'm not speaking about trolling, either online or in real life. There was once a triumvirate of popular topics which the three main parties NEVER discussed, because, however many Canadians were unhappy with them, the three main parties (Libs, NDP, PCs) moved in lockstep. These were bilingualism, immigration, and abortion. Any politicians who was not fully in support in all three was labelled a dinosaur by the popular media, and had both their intelligence and value widely dismissed and derided. Such topics are also judged harshly in private life, as are innumerable others. The problem is as we move towards a society which protects delicate sensibilities from offensive words and subjects, do we not get even more delicate? The Muslim world, for example, gets violently outraged over relatively minor insults to itself. I wonder if that is, in part, simply because they have so insulated themselves from insults over the years. If they were not so protected, would they not get used to it, much as Christians have, and shrug off such things as cartoons? And is there not value in questioning popular assumptions and forcing people to defend them? Once again, I'm not talking about being a spiteful troublemaker, but someone who has genuine, earnest beliefs and yet cannot present them in public without fear of ridicule, abuse, anger or banishment (from friends, websites, schools or work). And where is the value in society in protecting people from merely being offended? Does this not leave any number of people in ignorance because no one is challenging their hidden and unexpressed views? Contrarily, does it not leave many people in ignorance because no one is challenging their assumptions?

There was a story in the Globe on the weekend about the numbers of Canadians living alone having skyrocketed. Census figures released last fall revealed that 27.6 per cent of Canadian homes have just one occupant, a vast shift from decades past. Single dwellers accounted for only 7.4 per cent of homes in 1951 and 13.4 per cent in 1971. The article puts a kind of a rosy face on this, largely suggesting it is a matter of choice and freedom, but I don't see it that way. The headline was more honest, though the writer failed to explore the second part of it. The headline was Living alone: a testament to freedom or an erosion of society? Is see it as more of an erosion of society than a statement of freedom. I don't think most people who are living alone actually chose to live alone. I think it just worked out that way, and almost everyone living alone would be delighted to find others to live with, but haven't, for a variety of reasons largely involving our isolation, been able to. We are all far more isolated today than we were in the past, islands unto ourselves. In the past, going back however far you choose, people tended to work together a lot. Men hunted, farmed, and laboured together, and women, even while staying home with the children, spent a lot of time and got to know all the other women on their streets or in their villages. Society wasn't designed for that, it just worked out that way. Now, most of us work in isolated cubicles staring at computers, and have few opportunities to get to know others. Most of us go home and watch TV and then get on computers. Again, it wasn't designed that way. It just worked out that way. So are we destined to be a society of loners playing video games and reading books (aside from the athletically inclined)? And how would we go about making our society a more inclusive place which incorporated elements of real socialization (not the political kind). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/living-alone-a-testament-to-freedom-or-an-erosion-of-society/article7264858/

The Liberal Party has been more about style than substance for some years now. I suppose Trudeau the younger fits in quite well there.

I think some of the social democratic parties in Europe have performed admirably and have strong Socialist elements, but they've managed to avoid the silly trappings of rigid anti-capitalism.

There is no indication that the 'strikers' have the support of more than a small group of leftists, separatists and anti-Charest people. In other words, the demand these people are making goes against the beliefs of something over 80% of the population. Which makes the protestors anti-democratic.

Your whole position is based on assumptions.

Household income over over $90 K just means two working parents making about $46k apiece. You think that is rich? Good luck with that! What you're calling 'rich' are simply 'taxpayers', which is what the poorer people are NOT. And it is these people who fund all the services that people who earn less consume, even while they pay nothing themselves. I think we need to amend the income tax system so that everyone has to pay at least something. Otherwise, if you contribute nothing, then you should not be considered a full citizen, and should not be allowed to vote.

What you meant to say was 'unfortunately, that gave rise to the Baby Boomers, the most entitled, greedy, selfish generation in the history of the human race. And they grandly expanded the welfare state while refusing to actually fund that expansion, leaving the vast debt this created for their descendants to have to pay off.

Maybe we should just take the kids away from those parents who are not capable of looking after them, hmm?

The only sane ways to award citizenship is based on blood or residency. If your mom or dad is Canadian then you're Canadian. If move here legally and stay here then you become a Canadian. You shouldn't become a Canadian because your mother's plane had a stopover in Gander on its journey between two other countries. That's just stupid.

There are a lot of really crummy parents out there. They not only don't provide adequate nutrition to their children but they have no clue how to raise children, and since they refuse to take responsibility for anything, so too does their child. Under those circumstances, teachers are almost required to try to civilize the little monsters at least to the extent they can live in society. By the way. Did you ever attend school? Clearly you don't read very well. He was not made to eat the banana. If you are a parent, you are a bad parent. Not only can't you read, but you don't seem able to think very well either. Certainly you know nothing about children.

This guy isn't into debate. All he's doing is going to different web sites and posting political propaganda. I'm assuming he's a liberal or ndp worker type.

You can't compare eastside Vancouver to Canada. It's a special little zoo maintained by the bleeding heart liberals of BC (who never EVER go near the place) filled with drug addicts and the homeless. If conservatives had their way the place would be fumigated.

Observations of those punks in Quebec roaming the streets, many with masks and bandanas over their faces - every single one should have been arrested, expelled from school, put on a bus, and driven out to pick apples or wees in the country for a few weeks. There is no reason to cover your face in this country unless it's forty below and you're riding a snowmobile. The only reason to be wearing a mask is if you're going to be doing something shameful or illegal so you can't be identified. I think that's reason enough to arrest you then and there. As to the side issue of police. I see no reason why 'riot police' ought to be covering their faces. I don't think they need those helmets and masks unless things get violent which they never did during the G20, and rarely do at any other time. If gangs of people are throwing things at police, okay. Otherwise, take the freaking helmet off. And in either event there needs to be a great big number painted on front and back of their outfit everyone can easily identify.

If a cat gives birth on the stove does that mean she birthed cookies? Foreigners who are not permanent residents of this country should not have the ability to give citizenship to their children that they do not themselves possess. The idea that you gain the citizenship of the country you are born in is antiquated and comes from a time where travel was far more difficult. It was simply assumed that if you were born somewhere you were a citizen there. That's simply not the case now and this assumption has led to a lot of abuse.

Interpol has denied having anything to do with it. It was the Malaysian government - Muslim, of course - which picked him up and sent him back, even though they don't have any kind of an extradition treaty. And as bad as Saudi Arabia is, it's spent billions promoting its version of extreme Islam, funding "schools" around the world, to "teach" young children about Islam. Saudi Arabia is responsible for much of the religious violence in Pakistan today through its funding of extremist "schools" there. And it also funds mosques, schools and "cultural centres" in Europe, the United States, and Canada provided they preach Wahabi Islam.

Apologists? I will explain away certain things to those too dumb to figure it out themselves when it's merited. But I don't support this bill. On the other hand, I can't help note the irony of all the left wingers mocking Toews for taking the very same attitude the Left wingers here took when I argued last week that the current overhyped fear of child porn was unjustifed and the current laws were overbroad. I was accused of being sympathetic to child pornographers and being a reader or viewer of child porn myself.

Says one who doubtless uses them so much to make up for a lack of communication skills. Maybe if you'd learn how to better express your opinion in writing you wouldn't need smilies to show your disdain for other people's opinions.

Is it really so difficult to understand he is talking about the descendents of centuries old slaves now living in America? Is literacy an issue with you?

When someone mocks your opinion and adds lots of to it there is not the slightest doubt what the smiley is intended to convey. And the people who use them the most often are the ones who insult people the most often. Hardly a coincidence.