Melanie_

RB, did you read my post, beyond where I disagreed with you? I didn't say discrimination against women has been eradicated, I just don't think it is as bad as you portray. Maybe because I am looking at where we have come from, and you are looking at where we still need to go. For those interested in different perspectives on biology vs. socialization, and the current swing of the pendulum... I'm reading a book right now called "Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences," by Leonard Sax. I'm not sold on all of his arguments, but he makes a compelling case for specific biological characteristics and traits that are linked to being male or female. This is not to say one gender is better than the other, or more capable, or deserving of favoured treatment; it is a recognition that there are some biological differences inherent in gender, which we all intuitively know. However, it also recognizes that how society acts on those inherent differences, and the value placed on them, influences attitudes towards, and the experience of, being male or female.

RB, your post is a bit over the top for me. We have come a long way towards equality for women, and there is certainly ground yet to cover, but it is not as bad as you paint, at least in my experience. I think one of the biggest barriers for women's equality is the moralizing about how they shouldn't work once they have children. When we make it difficult for women to access good child care, and imply that they are not good mothers if they return to work after having children, we are setting them up for dependancy - on their partner, or on the system. Women now spend years in university or college specializing in a career, and often put off having children for several more years while they pursue the wealth that many on this forum have advocated comes from just such hard work. There still is a subtle (or not so subtle) backlash against these women, when men who follow the same path are seen in a much more positive light.

My understanding is the police were undercover, not in uniform. If I were a Muslim man in London, and three men started yelling and chasing me, I might just run away too, rather than stick around for what might be vigilante justice.

Yes. I'm not always in favour of unions, but that one worked well for me. And now for an advertisement.... If you are interested in the history of unions, or just want to see a great play, see "Strike!" if you ever get the chance. Its the story of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.

You asked who else claims supplementary benefits while collecting EI. Many companies, both private and public, top up maternity benefits, which are also funded through EI at 55% of salary. Some do it as a bonus after the mat leave ends, some do it as an ongoing benefit throughout. Its seen as an incentive for mothers to return to their jobs after their mat leave expires. I received just such a bonus 16 years ago, working for a University. My point is that CAW is not alone in offering top ups. <edited to 16 years from 12; they just blur together after a while...>

I agree. My husband is a visible minority, and it has always offended him that people would expect him to use that as leverage. He can compete with anyone on his own merits, regardless of the colour of his skin.

A civil servant is not representing his or her own beliefs; they are representing the government, and as such must uphold the laws of the land.

What a nasty article! "The corruption, socialism, poverty" of Canada and Mexico... "massive US foreign aid" to Canada and Mexico... international trade decisions from (gasp) "non American judges"... formerly illegal aliens now able to work in the US legally for a fraction of what Americans would expect to be paid...this is exactly why people don't trust American right wingers. Not a comment on the content, just the negativity and ethnocentricism of the writer.

So because there are people who abuse the system, we should discard it even for those who do not? It seems that you are suggesting that the majority of people who use the system are abusing it, but I don't think that is the case (I will concede that each person on this forum can probably think of at least one example of an abuser, but challenge yourself to think of examples of legitimate use. You will likely come up with them easily.) Better management may be required, but I still would rather contribute to a system that offers supports than try to fend for myself if ever I were in need.

This may be true, I wouldn't dispute it. But circumstances come up where even the hardest working person is in need of the social safety net Canada provides. People are involved in accidents, they get sick, they are laid off when their company downsizes, they need to spend time with a dying parent, their fields flood and the entire summer's crops are ruined, etc. These people are not lazy, or trying to sponge off the rest of us. I don't begrudge my taxes, and willingly pay into our social safety net with the assurance that, if I ever needed it, it would be there for me as well; I have no interest in dying trying.

I'm also not convinced there is much of substance here, other than the call for a return to dependance on Europe (because it worked so well the first time ). I'm curious about who is behind this site, and where it is originating from. I have family in Nairobi, so I am forwarding this to them to see what they think.

I agree with all of you; those are the same reasons I oppose prayer in school. I was just surprised to find it was still an issue anywhere, and wondered if it was an issue here. Apparently not. No one willing to take up the other side of the debate?

Well, if you do have too much time on your hands, I for one appreciate how you spend it! Keep 'em coming, Canuck E Stan, these are hilarious!

I thought this was a dead issue, but a substitute teacher in rural Manitoba has filed a complaint with the Minister of Education regarding daily prayer in the school. The school division also has, as part of its mission statement, a line about "cooperation with the family, church and community." This division operates in the southern Manitoba Bible belt, where the overwhelming majority of people are Mennonite; they also are seeing increased immigration of German Mennonites, who find the area culturally similar to what they knew back home. The division's argument is that if parents request prayer in the school, they are allowed to provide it as long as it is outside school hours (they technically start school 5 minutes late). The law also requires that it be held in another part of the school, so that those who choose not to be included are not the ones being asked to leave the room; however the school says that, since virtually all of parents opt in for their children, it makes sense to do it in the classroom. Personally, I am against prayer in public schools, and would certainly object if it were part of my children's education. But this is a school division that is made up of families that almost all practice the same religion, and it is very ingrained in their culture. Should the law allow for prayer in school in this situation, or should it uphold the seperation just in case someone from another faith moves to the area?

I agree, Sparhawk, I'm not trying to debate who is more worthy of care, just giving an example based on Renegade's idea of increased health care premiums charged to those who engage in risky behaviour. My point is, is it likely that a mother who drinks enough during pregnancy to have a baby with FAS would purchase the extra insurance? And if she doesn't, what do we do for that baby? This can apply to any risky behaviour; FAS was just an example.

I shudder to think what a parent of a child with cerebral palsy would make of your post; cerebral palsy is actually often caused by an accident at birth, and often is the result of medical error - who is responsible then? But here is another scenario: a child born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. This is wholly the result of the mother's choices during her pregnancy, and is irreversible. Estimates are that the health care and social costs this child will generate will top 2 million dollars. Is it likely that this mother will have purchased the extra health insurance to cover this baby's care? Do we just turn our backs on these babies, on the grounds that they are damaged beyond repair anyway? Denying the child interventions is likely to end up costing us even more in the criminal justice system in the end (and may anyway, even with interventions).

No, I haven't been to a great number of forums, but I think the nature of this one is given to dispute, and people sometimes get carried away. Mostly it is civil, though, as long as you can take the odd post with a grain of salt. There is an amazing amount of collective knowledge here, and you can learn a lot (there are threads I read all the time, but am out of my league to post in!)

I'm not a Conservative, but I think its too early to replace Harper; more change at the top would mean more perceived instability. What they really need to do is project confidence in their leadership and convince non-Cons that they are a viable alternative. This will be accomplished more by changing policies than leaders; and if the East can't accept a Western leader for a party, that is the sign of a bigger problem.

Let me rephrase. I'm not in favour of withholding care from "abusers" of the system, even if we could define what "abuse" consists of. But is there a way to encourage people to take more responsibility for managing their own health? Not with a cut off, as Renegade suggests, but with more recognition of how our choices impact our health. As I think about it, we have had things like Participaction, and there are the warnings on cigarette packages; the liquor mart has an extensive campaign against drinking during pregnancy, as well. Seat belt laws are in effect in every province, I think (correct me if I'm wrong). Some of these interventions have had an impact, and others maybe not so much. But people can take more control themselves to reduce their health problems.

I first came to this forum in 2003, and only stayed around for a week or so, because it just seemed so meanspirited. I've often wondered since I came back if I was just here at a bad time back then, when some of the same kind of bickering you are talking about was in full swing. It makes me wonder how many others might also be turned off from participating.

If the cost were that high, no one could pay it, privately or publicly. This topic reminds me of studying Lawrence Kohlberg, and his Heinz dilemma. If a man's wife is dying, and the pharmacist has rare medicine she needs but has inflated the price so much the husband can't afford it, is he morally justified in breaking in to the pharmacy and stealing the medicine, curing his wife? I think there was a Hollywood movie not long ago (Denzel Washington comes to mind) along the same lines, where the hospital is taken hostage until an organ transplant is arranged, even though insurance wouldn't cover it. I am not advocating criminal action, just pointing out that people become desperate and resentful, especially when they know treatment is available to others, but not to them. Also, people who are chronically ill may not be able to work, and therefore wouldn't be able to pay the increased costs, even though they are the ones who would need it the most. I think we would end up with a society that says stay healthy, because once you are sick you are just a burden to yourself and everyone else. Having said that, I agree with crazymf that people need some incentive to take more responsibility for their own health. It does bother me that we are on the hook for paying for emphesima (sp?) treatments for people who smoke two packs a day, and continue to do so even after they get sick. Its the abusers of the system that perhaps could be targetted, not the legitimate users.

It leaves people on pretty shaky ground, if no one chooses to support their particular cause. And it puts the rest of us in the position of being guilted into giving on a constant basis. I'd rather just give a set amount to a central agency (say, the government, through taxes) instead of being constantly bombarded with requests that are valid but beyond my means to support (especially if I am approaching my own health care limit). A further thought - in your model, I can see large corporations offering health care grants to employees; how long would it take for those grants to turn into a private insurance program? We would soon have a single tier health care system with three categories of users: those who do not exceed their maximums, those who are fundraising, and those who are covered through their workplace. It would be the poorest among us that would have least access to health care in this case.

The voluntary giving scenario sounds good on paper, but I wonder how well it would work in practice. How many of us would just give of our own free will? Would it depend on the immediacy of the need, and our own connection to the patient? We hear sometimes of families going to great lengths to fundraise for treatments not covered by medicare, but these families at the same time are under tremendous stress that is only made worse by the worry of trying to raise enough money. And in the economy driven health care model, I wonder how many of us would be willing to donate, and how many would be fundraising? I can tell you, I am tired of buying chocolates from kids going door to door for hockey, baseball, etc (although I am partial to the mint Girl Guide Cookies). And I get enough calls from worthy charities asking for money, without having needy families thrown into the mix. Maybe there could be a defined model for how extraordinary circumstances would work?

Renegade - don't worry, our collective bark is worse than our bite. I think your ideas would require a change in the basic philosophy behind our universal health care system. Right now, it operates on the premise that collectively we share the costs of care for all Canadians - no one is expected to bear the full financial burden of health care for a child born with cystic fibrosis, for example. Your suggestions would have this family pay based on risk (=high, as this child will likely die by the time s/he is 15), and usage (again, high, for ongoing treatment of a chronic disability), and would have them cut off after a certain point, regardless of the need for further care. On the other hand, this family will likely be down to one income, as someone needs to spend a great deal of time managing and monitoring the child's health, and would therefore be less likely to be able to afford any care over and above what you would allot. Your point about not spending huge sums of money on one person, when the funds can be used more effectively for many, might make sense from a purely economic view, but not from a humanitarian view. That is the fundamental question we have to ask ourselves as Canadians - do we want a health care system based on economics, or based on social principles?

A Muslim woman doesn't wear her hajib at home, as she doesn't need to cover her hair when among her family. It is when she leaves her home that she needs to wear it. Your idea that people only practice religion at home doesn't work in this case, and in many others (i.e., turbans); their religions are also their way of life. Also, should a nun only wear her habit in the convent, and put on street clothes when she goes out in public? What about Hutterites, who also wear distinctive clothing? I don't think the answer is to hide our religions (although I personally don't practice any); people need to be able to seperate the religion from the fanatics.