Melanie_

So maybe I'm not clear about what it is about "ethnic Canadians" that causes you so much discomfort that you contemplate giving up your right to vote. Could it be you assumed they fit into your preconceived ideas about who "ethnic Canadians" are, and what their collective agenda is? Could it be you assume that all "ethnic Canadians" are involved in gang activity? Could it be you assume they are thinking about you the way you are thinking about them? Could it be you think "ethnic minorities" have no right to advocate for causes they believe in? Could it be that you think that applications for volunteering or working in a polling station should be accepted or rejected based on the colour of someone's skin?

Leafless, you are imagining all kinds of boogeymen on the streets of Canada, and then generalizing your paranoia to anyone you see who doesn't look like you. Your original post that started this thread was about going to a polling station and seeing people you knew nothing about, noticing that they had a different skin tone than you, and assuming they were in cahoots with every other dark skinned person to take over the country. You can't see that there is inherent racism in that. I'm not denying that there is crime in our streets, and a disproportionate amount of it is committed by minorities. That doesn't make all minorities responsible for the crimes, any more than you are responsible for the crimes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, just because they were white.

I'm not usually the first person to jump to Harper's defense, but I agree that the media is playing up any missteps in the early days. From awkwardly shaking his kids' hands when dropping them off at school (a poor choice for a photo op) to "secrecy" around his medical state (no one's business) the media is jumping to show a bungling leader. Lets give him time to settle into the job, and save all of our criticism for when the real bungling begins!

And do you have some way of knowing that those are the people that were at Leafless' polling station? Because if you don't, you have no business attributing those beliefs to them. Their communities have done enough to condemn these people and disown them. Until they do, they represent that community. Not doing anything to stop that behaviour or at least publicly denouncing these people, is just as bad as supporting the policy yourself. Ethnic minorities don't do enough to eliminate the radicals and freaks from their ranks. It would be in their best interest to have immigration laws that are tougher against these idiots, it would give their presence in Canada a much better image. "Their communities" are our communities. They are subject to the same laws as the rest of us; whatever ethnic group they belong to has no mandate to police them. I don't see white people being expected to say "we condemn and denounce white people when they commit crimes."

Geoffrey, the point is that you don't know who was at Leafless' polling station, what ethnic minority they belonged to, or what individual beliefs they held. I doubt Leafless did, either. My husband and I are both Canadian, but I am of European descent and he is of East Indian descent. Does that make my presence at a polling station more legitimate than his? When my children go to vote, will the fact that they were born and raised in Canada matter, or will it just be the fact that they have a darker pigment to their skin? Does their skin colour give them less of a stake in Canadian politics? I guarantee you they don't think of themselves as having less say than a white person. The unthinking judgments being expressed here are worthy of the Southern states 50 years ago.

And do you have some way of knowing that those are the people that were at Leafless' polling station? Because if you don't, you have no business attributing those beliefs to them.

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here is a group of law professors' take on the constitutionality of changing the definition to exclude gays. http://www.law.utoronto.ca/samesexletter.html Hicksey, that is what this whole argument is about. Yes, lets make everyone equal before the law. But don't restrict marriage to be only the function of a religious institution; many people choose to get married in non religious ceremonies, and they are still legally married. I don't see how taking the word marriage out of the legal definition is equality for all.

Leafless, your logic is consistently hard to follow, but I'll give it a shot. From this I think you are saying that the actions and lifestyles of some members of an ethnic group can be used as the basis for your expectations for other members of that ethnic group. So when you see members of an ethnic group participating in the election, carrying out the responsibilities of the polling stations, shouldn't you also extend that expectation of responsibility to the other members of that ethnic group? I would expect your logic to see this as something you can stereotype people by. Maybe instead you should see individual people as being responsible for their own individual actions. I don't want people looking at you, seeing a white person, and thinking that your actions and lifestyle represent me, after all.

I just noticed that eureka's been banned. What happened? Something specific?

Leafless, get a grip. Skin colour has nothing to do with someone's right to participate in the electoral process, either as a candidate or working at a polling station. I can't believe someone would even notice such a thing. Why don't you try seeing people as individuals, rather than as representatives of their ethnic group? I love your "logic", Argus: when whites go out to vote, they are participating in the process, but when visible minorities go out to vote, they are swarming the process. Heaven forbid we should treat them as equal.

Can we make an amendment to Godwin's Law, so that rather than comparing to Hitler it also counts when someone brings Mulroney in, for no good reason on earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law I voted Liberal, but I'm OK with the way it turned out. A minority government gives us the chance to test drive the Conservatives, and they get the chance to convince Canada that they really are capable of governing (I, for one, will need convincing, but am willing to have an open mind). It also gives the Liberals a chance to get their act together, and perhaps tone back the arrogance a bit.

Many people are married without religion at all; friends of mine were married by a justice of the peace, and their union is just as much a marriage as any performed in a church. There is a difference between civil unions and common law as well - common law is living together without any ceremony. I understand that you want your marriage someday to be meaningful, but ask yourself what will make it so. Marriage is about the committment you make to your wife; that will be between you and her. I've been married for 20 years; I don't see how someone else's committment to their partner cheapens the relationship I have with my husband.

Politika - You imply I have to accept your religion when you state that religion is the only institution that can define marriage. Marriage exists outside of your definition, and has for much longer than the 2000 years you claim. The Charter guarantees freedom of religion. The only way we can have freedom of religion is if there is a complete seperation of religion and state. Otherwise, one religion is getting preferential treatment over another (Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhism/Wicca, etc.) And you might want to check on your reference to the Notwithstanding Clause. It wasn't used to pass same sex marriage, but it might have to be used to change it back.

This is the problem with religion defining any rights for the rest of us. What other rules do you want to set? Just because you believe it doesn't mean you can impose it on everyone else. I don't accept your religion, and I don't want it making rules for me to follow. Religion has to be seperate from the state, and the state has to value each person equally.

Charles Adler, the "radio rottweiler". Athough he is so closeminded, the word "conservative" seems generous.

At least you tried. Part of the appeal of MLW is the diverse cross section of intelligent opinion, which you both contribute to. Who wants to hear everyone agree with each other? Where's the challenge in that?

Crazymf, even though I rarely agree with you, I'm glad to see you back. I appreciate your perspective, and your sense of humour! I'm voting Liberal tomorrow - go Reg Alcock!

This is how the Liberals planned to roll out their child care plan. Each province received their allottment, and then distributed it through thier own child care programs already in place. The federal government had no role in managing it, other than to say the money had to go towards the QUAD principles (Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmental). Harper has already said several times he will only honour the agreements until the end of June this year, then go into his own childcare plan, which will not build on the provincial systems at all. Those provinces, like Manitoba, who have invested the first year's money with the expectation that there were 4 more years of money coming will see the systems take huge steps backwards.

Liberals - 9 BQ - 2 NDP - 1

Given that you have chosen "Harare" as your board name, the suggestion that Robert Mugabe could be anyone's hero is a pretty low blow. But for the record, let me say that, while not overly familiar with the history of Zimbabwe, I can safely say Mugabe is not someone I admire. JMH - no harm done.

Wow, Harare, I had no idea you were studying my posts so carefully, that you can sum up my beliefs in just a few sentences.

Well, you were articulate and reasonable until the end - there's no need for personal attacks. If I misunderstood your post, a simple correction is all that is required. Churches have the right to decide who they will and won't marry. If I'm not Catholic, I can't get married in a Catholic church. There obviously is a divide in the gay community on the issue. Being gay doesn't mean there is a standard agenda for all.

The problem with true democracy is that majority rules. This leaves the rights of minorities open to be trampled and ignored. It promotes a culture of bullying, with a corresponding culture of victims. Don't ask me for a better system, I haven't got one, but the imperfections of democracy need to be recognized.

I agree that is why they went, but I still contend they were wrong to do so. Your biggest concern with the Arab world seems to be that they want to spread their culture around the world, and take over, by force if necessary, all non Arab territories. If we agree that they don't have a right to do so, what gives the Americans the right to do the same thing, pre-emptively?

Perfect, BD!