Scotty

Suicide is generally the product of emotional instability. I don't believe we can hold others to legal fault for actions which lead to such an end. We can castigate them for their lack of morality, but merely being rude and offensive to someone, much less a group of someones, cannot lead to charges.

But the point remains. If you pay nothing, why should your vote be the equal of those who pay far, far more? They are contributing much more than you are.

Why? Do you have some doubts? It's an oft-repeated statement. In the US I usually see it referred to as "federal income tax", and about 46% of Americans pay none or get money back. The corresponding figure in Canada is lower - about 1/3rd. CS Monitor

Cite?

Are you saying it's a waste of money to train police officers in DUI recognition? I'm presuming your real objection is that they're doing it in Phoenix rather than Winnipeg. But that objection is only valid if you can show it would not, as the RCMP claim, be cheaper to do it in Phoenix than in some Canadian centre, and you haven't made any effort to do that.

I realize he simply took your words out of the context of the sentence. However, if stated alone as it was, that would certainly cause issues with any number of posters here, including myself.

And you would not?

I think one of the issues with prohibiting racist speech (one cannot, of course, prohibit racist thoughts) is in describing both the harm and the speech. We've seen here on this site numerous declarations of racism and bigotry which don't appear to follow the dictionary term very clearly. Some think holding a poor opinion of Muslims constitutes racism, for example, despite Muslims not being a race. It's a pejorative term which tends to get flung around a lot, often by the ignorant. Second, it's difficult, in most cases, to describe why one should be prohibited from exercising a basic right. Hurt feelings or offense is not sufficient reason to ban one from speaking ones mind. Generally, in Canada, you have the right to express your racism fairly completely, if that is your desire, and I agree with that right. The only brake on this is that if you are attempting to 'incite' others towards some harmful action or goal towards your target and are doing so in a consistent and public manner. That is to say, if you tell people at the pub you hate Jews (or Blacks or Pakistanis or Arabs or whatever) that's perfectly legal. However, if you set up a web site and start giving speeches calling for them to be put in concentration camps or forced out of Canada, you'd likely be guilty of "hate speech", which is a criminal act. This, at least, is my understanding. Now in other countries, notably the more leftist ones in Europe, you have no such right, and can be prosecuted and imprisoned for expressing your racist feelings (Britain and France come to mind). Thus far, such state intervention to stamp out racism has, of course, done exactly the opposite. Violent racism seems more prevalent in those states which have striven the hardest to be politically correct.

I'm not certain what point of debate this might raise, aside from our definitions of what constitutes good government. But I've often found Conrad Black's columns to be quite informative, and certainly well-written. Doubtless, he has a lot of time on his hands to ponder great thoughts, and whatever his other flaws he's certainly an extremely educated, intelligent, and erudite man. Or perhaps it's merely that his thoughts on the governments of the world largely mirrors mine. My year-end column will be a tour of the political horizon, with a reflection on the comparative virtues of good government. But anyone gripped by the fear that I am going to sermonize some treacle about civics at them has nothing to fear. In all of the European Union, apart from a few of the very small states, only Germany, Finland, Poland, and the Czechs qualify as well-governed. They have all kept unemployment and deficits under control, returned to economic growth, and avoided catastrophic immigration policies. It is the last problem that has bedeviled the otherwise fairly commendable Dutch (although their taxes are too high). The World Stumbles On

I find it quite interesting to read this earlier discussion, or at least, the first six or seven pages of it from 2004. The issues posed by the Islamic world are a recurring theme here, but on looking back seven years I note a level of debate rarely seen in 2011. No insults, no sneering and mocking tone, no obscenities, no personal attacks or put-downs. I presume this site was more actively moderated back then to produce such a high level of debate...

That goes without saying, but there are a lot of consumers like me who aren't struggling to make ends meet...

The factory was three years old. Don't tell me it couldn't have made smartphones if they were minded to do so. They said it was cheaper to build them in China, but again, don't tell me the wages of the workers there had nothing to do with it.

The fifties were an era when a whole bunch of countries were 'given their freedom' and held democratic votes. Almost none of them... I might even go out on a limb and say NONE... of them survived as democracies for more than a few years before becoming dictatorships. And given the proximity to the Soviet Union, with the Soviets doing their level best to turn it into a puppet, I doubt any government in place at that time could have survived as a democracy.

In most cases I'd be willing to pay more for an item which was made in Canada, if I had that option. Show me a $17 toaster made in China with a $40 toaster made in Canada beside it and I'll buy the Canadian toaster.

Was watching a BBC story the other day, about a Nokia plant in Romania. The Romanians gave them the land to build the plant, along with a number of tax breaks, in 2008. So we have a very modern factory, with an enthusiastic work force which was, of course, non-unionized, and a government bending over backward to give Nokia whatever they wanted. The average pay of their work force? $300 a month. And guess what? It wasn't good enough. Nokia closed the plant and moved production to China. Dropping wages is not going to cut it, not unless you drop them to something close to what most Chinese get, which is under $2 a day. You willing to work for under $2 a day, blueblood?

The crusades were far earlier. I did mention, did I not, that the Arab world was once actually more advanced, socially, scientifically, and militarily than the Europeans? That's how they were able to take over the so-called Holy lands and forcibly convert the Christian populations to Islam (which, of course, led to the Crusades). But then it froze in time, no advances whatsoever, while Europe grew, reformed, prospered, and brought in new economic, political and social systems which helped it move far ahead. Meanwhile, the Arab world is still frozen in time. And the only thing the new 'democratic' political movements will do is continue that since they are all dedicated Islamists.

In point of fact, my understanding is that, historically, the Arab world was enlightened while Europe was a bastion of ignorance. Sometime prior to the seventeenth century, Europe surged ahead, while the Arab world faded behind. Much of the reasons historians give to explain this are the emerging economic systems in Europe which began to produce a middle class independent of the state (ie, which did not derive their wealth from the state's coffers or from governmental patronage). Political reform followed, and then religious reform. None of this happened in the Arab world. In part, that is likely due to Islamic laws. As an example, Islam forbids loaning money for profit, thus making it virtually impossible for private entrepreneurs to obtain financing other than from the state. With no emerging, independent middle class, there was no political reform. And of course, no political reform - especially since laws and government were dictated by the Koran. That's a catch twenty two. You can't reform the religion when questioning it gets you imprisoned. But according to Islam, you can't reform the state because - at least at that time - the state and it's laws are part of Islam. Now we see reform in the Arab world, but largely in favour of returning to those old days, when the state ruled as, in a manner, and with the laws decreed by the Koran.

Riiight. Because no one puts labels on Scottish people, or the Irish. Naahhh. No cliches or broad brushing there. Spare me your self-righteous sermonizing. I don't go out of my way to offend anyone but I'm not going to whitewash things because someone might be offended by the truth either.

I'd call spitting on people getting mouthy, yes. I'd call throwing stones at women who are 'immodestly dressed' considerably more than that. Don't a lot of people in Israel carry guns around? Wouldn't a woman being 'stoned' by men be legally entitled to pull out her Uzi and gun the freaks down?

I understand it. I just don't care. Why do you care so much about offending people anyway? You clearly don't mind offending them personally, so why does it bother you to offend some great amorphous mass of humanity far away? Let me be clear again that my judgement is in response to actions and behaviour. I am almost as contemptuous towards these Jews and the only slight advantage they have over the Islamists is they haven't produced a subset of bombers and martyrs ... yet. In some ways I'm even more contemptuous. At least most of the Arabs work for a living, or want to. Not these leeches.

I want the Muslim world to stop blaming others for their own ignorance and backwardness. It didn't originate with the west in 1953. It's been an ongoing process for centuries.

Oh cry me a river.

Almost every nation experienced war, poverty and brutality in its past. I don't see why they should get to use that as an excuse in perpetuity.

I didn't say they were, and nor was the Spanish government of the time particularly enlightened.

You can invent whatever meaning you feel gives you comfort. That doesn't make it any more factual. My words and meaning are both clear to anyone not steeped in political correctness.