Adelle

Do our elected reprehensives and the leaders of our government not have matters of greater importance to consider of national and international concern than who the captain of a hockey team is? He was cleared of any wrong doing, is held in great respect by his team mates and his peers but Team Canada officials must now defend their decision. Yes, the GoC does provide some money to the team and, if it was a matter of how that money was spent, they certainly have a right to ask questions but that does not give them the right to question the make up of the team or the positions held by individual players. Other organizations also provide funds; do they also get the right to call the admin on the carpet? I am sure that there are other things that the government could better spend it's time dealing with.

I don’t expect it will take the judge long to deal with this frivolous suit once the lawyers have had their say. I mean it would be as if, because some people can and do speed down provincial highways, someone sues all levels of government from municipal to national, the people who built and maintain the highway, the people who make the signs and the people who make, transport, sell and rent the cars. Sounds like a serious case of sour grapes. If this is the fellows mentality, I am very glad he isn’t a member of government.

Get used to it, I think they are about to get a lot higher. The Minister of the Environment said as much and, even if he is wrong, the oil company's will use the new Green Plan as an excuse just has they have so many other things in the past. I don't know about you, but I'm saving for a Hybrid then they can only ding me for electricity and the little bit of gas I'll be using.

No doubt, as alcohol (beer/wine/liquour) is as much drug as nicoteen (tobacco) and THC (marijuana) and can subject the user to addiction. Of course, people have started to talk about sex addiction now, too. And food addiction, which causes obesity. Fitness addiction would be good, but requires too much effort to catch on. Though I am not much into rec drugs (especially when you have no clue as to what it really is) or smoking, moderation seems to be the key. I have been able to drink alcohol since I could hold a glass of wine. My family has a very euro outlook on the subject, were beer is considered a 'soft drink'. The thing that makes the diff is experience so that, at 18, I didn't go nuts at the bar and turn into a drooling idiot. (Just a drink, not a right of passage.) Same with sex, I learned about it, I experienced it, I explored it, I demystified it so it wasn't a big deal in my life. (No life isn't a soap and isn't about getting laid every weekend.) That strikes me as much more sensible than the alternative; stumbling into it, fumbling through it, getting prego and becoming a single mom or getting married to some guy who is as unprepared as you are. (How totally 20th Century.) Yeah, like that abstance thing (don't teach, don't learn, don't do) really works - have you seen the stats for STD's and teen pregnancies in the USA vs Cda and Europe? Anyway, just a thought.

I think that the single greatest weapon in a person’s arsenal is education. On my website I declared that “Knowledge is power, power is freedom”. Teens have a lot more access to information now, particularly regarding sexuality, than at any time in the past. In Sex Ed here, beginning in Grade 1, we are taught to know our bodies, know that they are OUR bodies and know when someone steps over the line. We are taught to know the difference between healthy exploration and abuse and it is made very clear that, whatever else, the fault is not ours, the shame is not ours and that we must TELL someone, anyone, in order to stop a situation we feel is abusive. When I was 14 my friend and I were both ‘goosed’ by a guy on a public street in broad daylight. He walked away limping and we reported it to police right away. I don’t know if they caught the guy but I hope our actions and our refusal to be victims made him reconsider his ‘hobby’. Of course there is more to Sex Ed than that. Children and teens have an insatiable hunger for knowledge about our changing bodies and emerging sexuality. "Sex education classes are really good for health information. But we also need to deal with the social and relationship issues around sexuality," says Jan Selman, drama department chair at the University of Alberta. “ While more teens are having sex younger, they don't always have the skills to negotiate their boundaries and communicate effectively with one another. Amazing numbers of teens are (sexually) active to some degree and we owe it to them to make sure they're safe and prepared." As noted in the article “Sex-ed for the future” (http://lifewise.canoe.ca/SexRomance/SexFiles/2006/10/11/2000727.html) we are now using a made-in-Alberta interactive play and workshop for 14 to 16 year olds, called” Are We There Yet?” to address this as well. A good martial arts class wouldn’t be a bad idea either. We can hobble the predators all we want, but we must also work to make our children and ourselves less inviting prey. Though education (Sex ED) is VERY important and training (Martial Arts) a desirable alternative to 'stay in the herd and hope' they are only two strands of the safety net. In truth, in addition to prevention, there must also be strong deterrents and enforcement to insure the protection of children, teens and adults from abuse and exploitation.

"For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. " (Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNHCHR) Yes, and at the same time we can drop the Age of Majority to 16. This is what the UN is talking about, rather than the Age of (Sexual) Consent. They don't even discuss sex until Article 34 and that refers only to sexual exploitation. "Article 34 States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: a. The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (Child Sex Trafficing) b. The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (Child Prostitution) c. The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. " (Child Pornography) The part I like is: Article 16 1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. And I love this section of the Preamble: Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community, Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,

Regarding a previous post: As it is, gays are no more prone to sexual offences than are hetero’s. Pedophiles and hebophiles exist across all racial, sexual and class lines. Pedo’s are generally reviled everywhere while hebo’s are more tolerated, even in the USA. What isn’t tolerated, nor should be, are violence, abuse and exploitation regardless of the ages of those involved. Not every teen sexual experience is an offence and shouldn’t be treated as such. We, as a society, need to focus our efforts to protect those who actually need and want protection. In Canada we have educated and empowered our youth regarding their sexuality, allowing us to recognize as sexual offences those things that actually are offences and concentrate on those. We neither criminalize out teens nor turn them into automatic ‘victims’. We have told out lawmakers to keep their hands off our sexuality, that it is ours to do with as WE choose, that we are not helpless and require no more or less protection than any other person. This is what I found regarding NAMBLA: The North American Man/Boy Love Association opposes the use of age as the sole criterion for deciding whether minors can legally engage in sexual relations. NAMBLA defends what it asserts to be the right of minors to explore their sexuality more freely and calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." Opponents argue that pre-pubescent children in particular are not capable of giving consent and that the power imbalance between adults and children makes any sexual relationship exploitative. Some gay groups, Christian groups, anti-sexual abuse organizations, law enforcement agencies and other critics see NAMBLA as a front for the criminal sexual exploitation of children. However, NAMBLA's webpage states that it does not "engage in any activities that violate the law [or] advocate that anyone else should [violate the law]." Suspicion pertaining to the group's activities led both the U.S. Senate and U.S. Postal Service to conduct investigations of the group, both of which concluded without allegations of legal impropriety. Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and inquiries are rarely responded to. More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts. It has essentially ceased to exist. In the summer of 1993 the ILGA gained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as a Non-Governmental-Organization, joining 3,000 organisations throughout the world. However, that status was suspended in 1994 after a campaign led by Jesse Helms focussing on NAMBLA's membership in ILGA. Following this ILGA, by a vote of 214-30 expelled NAMBLA and two other groups in early 1994 because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." On December 11th 2006, ILGA-Europe (along with LSVD and LBL) were successful in being granted ECOSOC consultative status. NAMBLA, when it existed, was working toward changing the law regarding ‘age of consent’. The right to attempt to change a law through peaceful and legal means is the right of any individual or group. NAMBLA was entitled to this right and all other rights afforded a citizen of the USA however so many people disagreed with them so strongly that they no longer exist. Democracy in action. That is also the right of every citizen. We can’t pick and choose our rights or who gets to enjoy them.

Why, thankyou sir. I'm 18 now, so legally I am an adult (kin vote n everythin) but am still a teen for a little while. You're right, but it usually does which is how we eventually 'know better'. I disagree with exploitation or abuse of any persons at any age, and not just as regards sex. People get totally twisted about the sex thing, even when it healthy and consentual, expecially where non-adults are concerned. I've gotten in trouble for my views on that subject more than once but if we (teens/girls/women) don't stand up and be heard we could be 'protected' right into burkas and hareems (as an example).

Actually, he or she is a hebophile, a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to a child (<14) not a youth (14-18). Presently, this is not illegal in Canada nor in a number of other nations. Please keep in mind that sex is as much a part of developing an adult identity as anything else in a teens life. And please stop infering that teens are mindless bags of hormones that must be protected from themselves. Sure we have issues, so do adults, but we all grow through our experiances. I may regret many things I choose to do between now and the day I die (especially the thing that made me die) but I'd rather live life than second guess it all the time.

I believe in politicians. And the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus, and Mother Nature and truth in advertising... Actually, I believe none of what I hear and only half of what I see. Read the fine print and do nothing without a lawyer at hand. And when someone says "trust me", don't.

Actually, that only refers to persons age 12 and 13, at present. Persons age 14 and above are not restricted as to the age of their partner age 14 to 114 (can you say necrophilia?).

“Health care workers have a great concern about this bill and the situation of those youth who are in a relationship that is greater than five years and who contract a sexually transmitted disease. Under those circumstances, because of provincial law, people who go in to get treatment and care have to disclose all of their sexual partners. Those youth who did that may very well find that the evidence would be compelled to be used in a court of law against their partner. They would not want to do that and therefore, they may very well resist going for treatment and care, according to the health care workers. I will be proposing an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act that will make that information non-compellable. There is precedent for this in our law. It would be a wise amendment. It would protect our youth. It would ensure that they got treatment if they were to contract those types of illnesses and diseases. At the same time, it would protect them in terms of the balance of the bill from being used as bait by predators.” He seems to be talking about health care information here, not internet luring information.

As far as sexual activity is concerned, the definition of ‘child’ in the criminal code varies by section. For the majority of Part V, CoC, ‘child’ seems to be defined as a person under the age of 14. This includes consensual/non-consensual sexual activity and bestiality. In section 153, Part V, CoC, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years. For the purposes of section 172, Part V, CoC, "child" means a person who is or appears to be under the age of eighteen years. This section includes corrupting and luring of a child. This definition also seems to apply to anal sex, prostitution, pornography and other exploitive activity. In some cases, this puts 12-13 in a grey area, which is an ironic reflection of reality. United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law. However, age of majority and age of consent are not necessarily the same thing.

The median seems to range from 14 to 16 years, but laws stating ages ranging from 12 to 21 do exist. Some jurisdictions forbid sexual activity outside of legal marriage completely. In the US, for the purposes of age of consent, the only Federal provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which may vary between 16 and 18. States, counties and municipalities seem to be able to make something illegal locally which is considered legal by the higher authority as long as it doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to US Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States. So having sex with a 14yo might be legal here, but when you get back home you are going to jail. The unfettered age of consent in Mexico is 18. In Mexico, criminal legislation is shared between the Federal Government and regional states. Federal law may allow relations between young persons as low as 12, however, there may be local state laws that override the federal law. Europe seems to be split down the middle with roughly half above 16 and half below 16.

Age of Consent in Canada. "Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of their consent. (However) a complete ban on sexual intercourse never did apply to girls over 14. Only girls under 12 were absolutely unable to consent to sexual intercourse until 1890, when the age limit was raised to 14. With the advent of the Criminal Code in 1892, the strict prohibition against sexual intercourse was retained for girls under 14 (not married to the accused) and the law was strengthened to make an accused’s belief about the young woman's age irrelevant. That age limit has not changed and remains in place today, with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age. " (PRB99-3E) "The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Quebec Court of Appeal have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code." (PRB99-3E) With Bill C-22, the government intends to raise the unrestricted AoC to 16. However, the "close in age exemption" will still exist for persons 12-15: two years for 12-13, five years for 14-15. Having corresponded with the PMO on the subject I will quote the Justice Minister's response: "Our intent is to protect youth more effectively from adult sexual predators while not criminalizing sexual activity between consenting young persons." Also, it is expected that anal sex will no longer be considered an "exploitive sexual activity" as it is considered that doing so violates the Charter.

Personally, I see no reason to restict anal sex to persons over the age of 18 when all other sexual positions and techniques can be engaged in at 12/14, or 12/14/16 after C-22 becomes law. For some reason, anal sex is presently considered exploitive, right up there with the sex trade. No wonder some in the gay community consider the different attitude regarding anal sex to all other forms to display an element of homophobia. Adelle Shea

Here is a possibility as I see it. She starts as a conservative, which makes sense given her background. She runs for leader and looses. The Liberals win the election. She can't be leader and isn't in power so she crosses to the party that is in power, the "naturally governing party", the Liberals and gets a juicy Cabinet post (just a coincidence). The Liberals loose the next election. She wants to run for leader of the Liberals but can't get enough support. So, again, she is not leader and is not in power. Can't switch sides again, even in politics, so guess what; she quits. Give her a few years; she'll be back again. This is one ambitious woman and she REALLY wants to be PM. The only problem is, she wants it NOW. She isn’t willing to ‘pay her dues’ and build a history which is definitely required if you want the support of the ‘backroom’. Does this make her a bad person? No, just another politician. Just my opinion.

When they are on our side, they aren't 'terrorists', they're 'freedom fighters'. I believe the politic correct term is 'partisans'.

You know, healthy. Not subject to illness or disease due to lifestyle choices. Not subject to sudden death or incapacitation due to eating habits, toxicant use or inactivity (or activity for those with 'extreme' interests). BMI is only part of it. There are many professions that have some sort of fitness test. I am sure we could come up with a fitness test for the average citizen. Genetics is a different matter and is usually not subject to an individual’s control. It is one area in which you really can blame the parents. Anyone seen Gattaca?

I vote yes but healthy people should get a break and unhealthy people should pay extra. Doesn't matter about the body shape but if you will tax the system in the future. Oh, and fitness clubs should be covered by the provincial HIP. Call it preventative medicine, like a vaccination for healthy living.

I think that Britain could still seriously mess with Iran if it had to, even without the US. The last time this happened they had the entire Empire to draw upon, particularly India, but they were also fighting a World War at the time so it kind of evens out. Then they used the equivalent of two divisions to do the job but that was also a different time. Of course, the Soviets came in from the north with two ARMIES. The Shah abdicated and his son was put in charge and we know how that went. Anyway, if they got a Div from ANZAC (does that exist now?) and one from India again and say two from the UK and maybe some logistical support (Supply, Medical, Communications, etc) from Canada (do we even have a div?) I think they could win the war but would have to get out before it went the way of Iraq. Of course, I doubt if the other Arab nations would be sending hugs and kisses through all of this. There is more to war, in the 21st century, than just the fighting. I mean look at the things happening now because of events a hundred years back. We could end up with another Arab League or Union of Arab States and you think we have problems now? Fortunately (sic), at the moment, if these folks aren’t busy killing us they are busy killing each other but it could happen if there were a catalyst and a real leader with more on his mind than using airliners as missiles. Just a thought.

The "kill them all and let god sort them out" solution is a little simplistic. Ok, a lot simplistic. The problem with intervention is that what ever happens afterward is YOUR fault even when people have been dieing by violence for generations before. NATO and UN in Afghanistan, US and UK in Iraq, African Union in Sudan, Ethiopia in Somalia, etc. Even supporting an opposition movement makes YOU responsible for the consequences (see CIA meddling in national affairs). Many want the EU and US to aid in the intervention in Sudan but how long would that last once people started dieing at OUR hands. Canada supported the effort of African forces by giving them our old AFV’s when we went to the new 8-wheel model you see in the news. Those weren’t perfect but they are better than the Toyota pickups the Africans were using. Maybe that is the answer, provide logistical and material support and let some else do the dieing and killing. No embarrassing body bags or news reports that way. As for Canada being involved in Iran, it is my understanding that our military it taxed to the max in Afghanistan. We are having a real effect there but people keep confusing it with what is going on in Iraq and question our efforts every time someone gets hurt or killed. Afghanistan is a sanctioned UN mission while Iraq is a unilateral intervention on the part of US/UK forces.

Who are you, a social studies teacher? No, just a student. The possibility of a woman and negro holding the highest office is just one thing to look at. The fact that it is even a possibility says a lot in itself. Since this area is about "Relations" I am also wondering what we could expect from them. De-militarize the boarder, more open trade and immigration, higher minimum wage or status quo, business-as-usual, all-we-wanted-was-the-power-and-money. I mean, look at the Liberal Party here. Now that the are on the outside wanting in, they have done more (and promised to do more) in the pass 6 months than they did in 13 years in power. (promise everything, do nothing). Others noted the NDP in BC. I am sure people could say the same about the Conservative Party and the PC party-that-was.

Your right, it isn't only a Quebec issue. It just happened there. I suppose you could argue that it had to, as Quebec has a more distinct, French/European, culture than the rest of Canada. If it had been Alberta, the press would have been full of stories about those intolerant, racist, neo-nazi rednecks. Shame we have all the oil. (sarcasm warning). As a national issue, this is a direct threat to official 'multi-culturalism'. Like official 'bi-lingualism' this is enforced and artificial (you can speak 14 languages but you aren't bi-lingual unless you speak french and english). So how much should we bend to accommodate the culture and morality (cultural morality?) of other people. Whether they were born here, chose to come here or escaped here is not the issue. Most new canadians, and some home grown types, think that women must always be modest, always properly clothed, and not lewd. So no bikinies and mini-skirts, no bending over to work out and, for sure, no "Girls Gone Wild" antics. Canadian Law says we can do anything a man can do. So if men dress in jeans, t-shirt and leather, then why would women have to wear a burka or dress like the just left the 1950's. (Note: I like some of the '50's styles, very elegant.) By that same law, women don't get to hide their faces any more than a man could, personal choice not withstanding. (Oh, no, the not-withstanding clause!)

Ok, lets move on to possible policies. I have heard they are both anti-Iraq war (not necessarily anti-war) as are most dems so how long could the US expect to remain in Iraq and would they be willing 'put it on the line' for a cause in the future? With a woman pres would they revisit the ERA (god knows the need to)? They do need to address the 'pink collar getto' and the 'glass ceiling'. Mind, with a being woman pres to begin with ... was that glass breaking?? Will they be able to walk the line between 'Femi-nazi's' and 'Old Boys', and various race activists. I have already heard some say that Obama isn't really black or isn't black enough (I think the term used to be Milato) so would Clinton be considered 'woman enough'? Would she be - unofficially - treated like some other female heads of state (Campbell - symbolic bimbo, Thatcher - man with tits, Gandi - daddys girl)? Would governement be less intrusive and invasive or more so? Will Hillary pose for Playboy? (Ok, that one is a LOL). It might be a nice 'body issue' thing, like the DOVE commercials, but we know how uptight Americans seem to be about nudity and 'depravity' (sic). Any thing else anyone can think of?