Melanie_

I would like to have seen the double standard eliminated in this legislation. If it is legal for 16 year olds to have heterosexual sex, it should also be legal for 16 year olds to have homosexual sex. Different ages of consent makes no sense, and tells young gays that there is something wrong with their sexuality.

I didn't watch the video - I don't need to see some sicko be cruel to a helpless animal. I hope the Marines send a strong message that this type of behaviour can't be tolerated.

You thought wrong. Sheesh, for someone who claims to love the English language so much, you certainly have a poor grasp of it. I'll try to explain this really clearly, with short sentences, because apparently you need even the simplest concepts spelled out for you. You wanted to insult Bubber. You told him to go join a female chat group. Using that as an insult implies that you have a lesser opinion of females than males. It implies a negative connection to men participating in "female chat groups". It implies that this forum is for men. It is a misogynistic comment. You brought gender into this, and are making a strawman out of it. Gender had nothing to do with your argument with Bubber or AW, but the post I'm quoting from makes it really clear that you somehow see gender as being part of this. Again, your misogyny is showing!

Your "female chat group" comment is misogynist regardless of whether or not Bubber is female (I'm pretty sure Bubber is a guy, by the way). Or were you not trying to insult him by suggesting he would be more comfortable in a female group?

I don't mean to imply that serving in non combat zones is less worthy than serving in combat zones. I just suspect that the powers that be will send William to a less dangerous assignment, regardless of what his personal preference might be. These two princes are in danger every day, regardless of whether they are in a combat zone or not. They could be targetted by an assassin on the streets of London, or meet the same fate their mother did, at the hands of the paparazzi. At least in combat, the danger and the enemy are clearly defined.

Chauchee, as entertaining as you are in this thread, I wonder if you have ever ventured into other areas of this forum. You make a lot of assumptions about the folks here at MLW, but I doubt that you have even informed yourself about us. Are you aware of the different viewpoints expressed by this community? Are you aware of the diversity of opinion on just about every topic? You have a very narrow outlook, focused on the injustices you perceive, and somehow think that we are to blame without even knowing who we are or what we believe. I can assure you that there is no "group think" happening here! Take off your blinders, stop seeing the world through the superficial filter of skin colour, and see people for who they are, regardless of their heritage. Or, continue to rage against your own assumptions, which have little basis in reality. That part is entertaining, but to leave it behind and actually participate as a thinking member of the forum would take courage and an open mind. Do you have these qualities? Can you go beyond the simplistic safety of assuming we are all stereotypes of the people you dislike? I hope so, otherwise you will be just another internet joke.

According to CBC, Prince William may also see active duty this year... I don't imagine there is too much danger to be found in the West Indies, though.

I like to think I'm a kind of beige-y taupe, but I can be quite pink if I spend time in the sun. I've heard eating lots and lots of carrots can turn you orange...

"Female chat group"? Leafless, your misogyny is showing!

Yes, lets hope they don't. She is bright, articulate, respectful, and gentle. She is also willing to use those qualities to stand up for Canadian values, which seems to be a problem for people who really want to say that second and third generation immigrants refuse to adapt. I would expect more support for her position from those who complain about immigrants clinging to their traditional ways.

Chauchee, you are the funniest thing to happen to this forum in a long time! Your obsession with colour ("pink! not white!") cracks me up!

Xul, I hope you are able to immigrate to Canada soon. I like the way you think, and your English is easier to comprehend than certain other regular posters on this forum who claim to support English as the majority language. I agree, Canada could never maintain an 80% white majority, even if anyone could be persuaded to support it. I'm not sure if the original post is a real question, though, or just an attempt to provoke Leafless.

Don't forget the gays, too. While the number may be small (estimates are that between 5000 and 15000 gay men died in concentration camps), they also were a targetted group and had a very high death rate for those sent to the camps (60%). Wikipedia article, not for the faint hearted.

It can be dangerous, I agree. Women who defy their families have been locked up, shipped away, beaten, married against their will, and killed. It takes a lot of courage to make this stand, knowing that they may be in danger but willing to risk it. It shows how assimilated the second and third generation of immigrants are; they are Canadian, and expect Canadian laws and values to apply just as much to them as to any white person.

Those girls, raised in Canada, are standing up more often and saying no. Recently one of my students (a Sikh in her early 20s) told her parents that if they didn't want her to have Canadian values, they should have raised her in the Punjab. She is marrying the man she chose, rather than the man her parents chose; he is Sikh, she isn't abandoning her culture and faith, but she is finding a way to make it work in a Canadian context.

Oh, Jesus clarified the issue. Right. .... tell that to all the different factions of Christianity, each with their own interpretation of the New Testament, each seeing the Old Testament in a different light. Look, if you want to believe in Jesus, God, etc, feel free. I have no desire to interfere with your freedom of religion (although I reserve the right to point out it's inconsistencies, contradictions, and illogic when you insist on bringing it up). But I object strongly to you interfering with my freedom of religion, or rather my freedom from religion. Religion has no place in the secular institutions of our society.

Drea, I also remember being single and pregnant, years before your experience. I had just moved to the city to go to university, and was a few weeks shy of my 18th birthday (young, naive, just fell off the turnip truck). My doctor didn't offer me an abortion, but his receptionist did, looking furtively over her shoulder and speaking almost in a whisper. I didn't take her up on it, having had it drilled into me quite thoroughly that abortion was the most evil thing a girl could do, and I don't regret for a minute having my child. But I chose to have that baby. I had a choice. All women need to have that choice, and I'm glad your doctor offered it to you, even though it was late in the game.

Muddy, I understand your reaction. I have a hard time with the idea of abortion after the fetus has reached viability (usually around 26 weeks gestation), but in the end I have to support the woman's right to choose. Most women who have abortions have them very early in their pregnancy; late term abortions are rare, and generally for medical reasons. But whatever reason a woman has for ending her pregnancy, it is intensely personal, and rarely casual. Here is some fairly recent (July 2005) information about late term abortions.... Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada

Bill C-338 was given a second reading in Parliament on October 16, 2007. It is a scarier bill than C484, that's for sure, but I doubt that any party would give it support. At least I hope not. White Doors, abortion is legal, but not always accessible. For women who live in rural or northern communities, it can take some time to get the arrangements made, particularly if they are trying to be discreet about it or if there are roadblocks in their way. There was a thread some time ago about doctors in Fredericton refusing to give the morning after pill and also refusing to refer a patient to someone who would; certainly in an urban setting you can probably find someone else fairly easily, but I doubt that applies to all areas of Canada.

I'm aware of no such thing. In fact, I think it is the height of arrogance to claim that any deity is the one true god, and that you know what that god expects of us. I have no issue with you choosing to live your life guided by your religious principles, just don't try to impose your principles on me, or the rest of the population via the government. The people who founded Canada may have been Christian, but that doesn't mean that all Canadians must adhere to Christianity.

This legislation could be interpreted to preserve a woman’s right to choose. If a woman has chosen to continue a pregnancy, and someone else causes that pregnancy to terminate, they have interfered with her right and thus could be charged. Roxanne Fernando here in Winnipeg was murdered by her former boyfriend because she refused to have an abortion. That murder in and of itself is reason enough to lock him up and throw away the key, but this legislation also recognizes that she had chosen to have a baby and he took that choice away from her. I am uncomfortable with the wording of this bill, which is why I previously said “cautiously supportive”, and why I am now reconsidering that support completely. The bill consistently refers to the child, not the fetus, and it consistently refers to the mother, not the woman. Those are subtle, but important, semantics – during pregnancy there is no child or mother, yet. Those words only apply after birth. It also refers to the "death of the child", which opens up debate – something can only die if it is already alive – is Canadian law prepared to say a fetus is alive? When does life begin? Also, this line from the bill gives me a shiver….. Once we have enshrined that concept in Canadian law, it does open up a slippery slope. The more I think about it, the more I think the general concept of the bill is good, but the details need a lot of work.

Only if there is a deliberate intention to harm the fetus or woman. From your link above:

Whoa, its stretching it to say I trust Harper! But I don't think this bill, as it is being presented, can be applied to women who choose to have an abortion, which is what the opening post claimed. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I wouldn't want to be in the position to have to make that choice, and I can't judge someone else who is in that position.

I don't think the cyclist could be charged. From my quote above: If the cyclist did not intentionally commit an offence against the woman, there is no crime here.

When your wife was pregnant, it sounds like you were happily anticipating becoming parents, and thought about the child that was to come. I remember that anticipation well, and the excitement of looking forward to a new baby through each of my pregnancies. But throughout the pregnancy, it was a fetus, and became a child once it was born. I don't agree that there should be a legal restriction on timing - the choice can only be made by the woman herself. There can be counselling and discussion, she may talk to her partner, her doctor, her mother, her clergyman, but the final choice can only rest with her. Its not a decision that can be taken lightly, but I don't believe a woman should be coerced or forced into continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want.