Scotty

Yes, Canadians are fairly well known for wanting all the best possible social benefits while paying low taxes. That's how we got our debt in the first place. No doubt you could have taken this poll in Greece or Portugal or Italy twenty years ago and gotten the exact same response.

You're correct. I read too quickly. Though I'm not sure I'd consider a sixteen year old a 'man'. Three sixteen year olds were among the arrested, and note in a TV story they mentioned the police had located six teenage 'victims' which would again suggest this might not be so much 'child' porn as 'teenage' porn. To be specific, this was a gay site focused on teenage boys.

I'm sure that might happen on occasion. But my understanding is the vast, vast majority is not created to satisfy anyone but the person who did the molester. And that, of course, includes the masses of 'child pornography' created every year by teenagers videotaping themselves.

Wasn't a word about what exactly they were looking at. But I did not this: 16-year-old from Niagara Falls faces one count of making child pornography and an additional count of possessing child pornography. Hang her! She texted a naked picture of herself! Shoot here, right granny!!? Oh, and another quote from your cite: "It's socially unacceptable and these people know it's socially unacceptable. It's their deepest, darkest secret so they should be expecting a knock on the door." Socially unacceptable. Uh huh. So we put you in jail for doing something socially unacceptable? What a weird statement to make! I will reserve further judgement till I see exactly what 'child porn' they accessed, but as I've pointed out, this law can put people in prison for looking at pictures of a naked 17 year old.

It's like porn and art. I know it when I see it.

When an entire extended family can get together to hang a girl from a tree because she was raped, and tribal and village people shrug it off, and police have no interest in investigating, I can't dismiss it as merely an oddity involving only those who actually put the rope around her neck. There is a certain amount of collusion and acceptance of such behavior in Afghan, Pakistani and other cultures or it wouldn't happen. As evidence, it doesn't happen here - ever.

I don't accept that it's decreased. I believe, as Stats Can figures attest, that fewer crimes are being reported to police, which of course, mans police figures will be dropping whether crime actually is or isn't. Even if one says the rate might be falling, I don't see how you can dismiss the affects on those statistics of fewer people making police reports. Which would mean it's not dropping as much as it seems to be. In addition, of course, there's the fundamental view that justice must be done for a given act regardless of how often that act is committed by others. Ie, if murder is a rarity does that mean we should not punish murderers severely? If the guy sitting at the desk next to you punched you in the face, would you feel satisfied if your supervisor shrugged and said. "Well, that doesn't happen as much any more, so we'll go easy on him and just tell him to please not do that again."

No, it's not. And the Mafia doesn't do 'honor' killing. It kills people to cover up its crimes or to persuade them to hand over cash. How many in the Italian community would willingly cheer on the Mafia? How many supporters would sympathize with their goals? Can the Mafia fairly easily recruit young men to give their lives blowing up their enemies?

Who says that is reliable? I read one womens rights activist in Pakistan dismiss that figure as ludicrously conservative. She said there are probably more than that in Pakistan alone. But that the crime is heavily under-reported since it's only family who would generally report it, and since corrupt or 'understanding' police will generally look the other way and call the death an accident or natural causes.

And others applauded, or said they'd have done themselves. Recall his brother's testimony for example about what he'd do to his daughters if they dared to dishonor him --said in front of his daughters, btw.

Well, it's Muslim families which overwhelmingly commit honour killings. So such an assertion seems well-deserved.

Seems to me we've seen plenty of evidence of the violence and lack of respect directed towards Afghan women. More than enough to asses how that culture feels about women anyway. And in today's paper I read where the local afghan community has ostracized the members who testified against these three at their trial. That bespeaks a common sentiment and is another indication of their twisted, backwards culture.

If you don't think the culture of Afghanistan or Pakistan is inferior to ours then you have simply made a very conscious derision to abstain from all judgement. That's very politically correct but also quite intellectually bankrupt.

Not part of Afghan culture!? Have you read anything about Afghan culture and how women are treated there?! This is entirely in keeping with Afghan culture, a place where a woman who reports being raped can and is sent to prison.

I would suggest a similar assertion with regard to the Muslim world community in general has considerably more evidence to back it up.

So does that mean anyone who is unduly sympathetic to criminals or who wants lower sentences and extend more forgiveness should likewise be prevented from representing those views in any sort of official capacity?

How extreme? I bet you could easily find millions of Canadians to agree with his sentiment.

Regardless of whether it's sustainable, and regardless of whether we call the deductions something other than taxes, it's still something the working people and corporations have to fund, something we as a people have to pay. And if OAS is 3% I bet you can triple or quadruple that by adding in CPP. Which makes us not so far behind Italy as all that...

Nobody I know. Most of the people I know take it because they can. It appears the government has decided it would be a good idea to discourage early retirement, perhaps given the demographic trend which shows that in 20 years or so there'll only be 2 workers for every 1 retired person. Instead of imputing immorality to that why not simply accept that they are doing what they think is best for the country's well-being, whether correct or not?

So explain how that works. Province A and B both have the same income, but A chooses to add in, say, an expensive child care program, and a bunch of other programs, and runs everything extremely inefficiently compared to province B. Thus they can't afford to pay as much into health care. That means the government has to give them more money than province B to make up for their own inefficiency and overly generous programs?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Milligan find that the OAS itself would go to 3.1%? OAS is only a part of our pensions. What percentage is CPP? GIS? We're supposed to ignore those?

Because they wouldn't give him credentials. And why do you need credentials when the hearing is open to the public, and on camera anyway? Anyone can walk in, as I've read, and take pictures with a camera phone too as long as they're not disruptive. In addition, again, so I've read, no other committee has ever ordered someone out for not being properly accredited, much less arrested them. So why not? What is it the employees of the gas industry - ie, the Republicans - are trying to hide?

Don't be silly. The Republicans don't 'hate' the first amendment. They're just not very fond of it. And more importantly, how much is the first amendment going to pay them? Hmm? Not nearly as much as the oil and gas industry, I'm betting. Fox wasn't arrested for breaking the rules. He was arrested because the oil and gas industry don't like his documentaries. And the Republicans on that committee are bought and paid for. They might as well have SOLD stamped on their foreheads in bright red letters.

You mean like: How serious is the cost side of this conundrum? The president of the C. D. Howe Institute, Bill Robson, has projected the “net unfunded liability” implied by this unprecedented demographic shift — that is, promises to pay benefits out of public funds for which we have made no provision in taxes, “net” of any savings from having fewer children about — at about $2.8-trillion. With a T, ladies and gentlemen: about 160% of GDP. (That’s in addition to the $800-billion unfunded liability in the Canada Pension Plan and its Quebec counterpart — yes, they are pulling in enough each year to meet their current obligations, but that does not mean they are “fully funded,” the prime minister’s claims to the contrary — to say nothing of the $600-billion national debt.) Andrew Coyne And voters only have to look around them to understand the sustainability argument — that within 20 years, half the number of working people will have to support three times the level of benefit expenditures. The government’s plan is as much about keeping people in the workforce, as it is about saving money. John Ivison

This is a parliamentary democracy. Parliament is almost always supreme, whether it is the NEB or the CRTC.