Jump to content

Canada's media


Topaz

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

bjre

Are you serious ? The same ?

But I can't go to Tiananmen and light a candle in public without being detained.

Do you think light a candle in public can solve any kind of problems?

The Rally 4 Accountability rally each year,

Ontario's ombudsman is still not be granted the power to investigate child-protection agencies.

http://woodstocksentinelreview.com/Article....aspx?e=1975389

If Canada's CAS or any of CAS like things can be defined as crime if they take any children from their parent without the willingness of any parent or child, I can permanently disappear from any forum on politics in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Canada's CAS or any of CAS like things can be defined as crime if they take any children from their parent without the willingness of any parent or child, I can permanently disappear from any forum on politics in Canada.

That is the very basic human right.

Even for animal, to bring a kid like themself is their basic right.

Take children away from parents are real kidnap, that Canadian police and CAS good at, instead of the case shopkeeper catch a thief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be somewhat effective, or the Chinese government wouldn't ban them.

Ok.... that's enough... you've stated that being able to protest isn't important to you. That's as far as we can take this discussion.

To be able to choose one's own living style without being assaulted by government granted company such as CAS are much more basic than protest.

If I can live well what need I protest for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bjre,

To be able to choose one's own living style without being assaulted by government granted company such as CAS are much more basic than protest.

If I can live well what need I protest for?

Yes. You would also be happy in a harem, I suppose.

A great quote I once heard from was Ayaan Hirsi Ali to an interviewer who tried to say we weren't free in North America "…you grew up with freedom so you spit on freedom…”. Doesn't seem to apply to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be somewhat effective, or the Chinese government wouldn't ban them.

Ok.... that's enough... you've stated that being able to protest isn't important to you. That's as far as we can take this discussion.

Why I believe protest in Canada can not solve problem, because there is money behind the system, that law are designed to decide how to cut the cake of social wealth in this country, that isn't any of ordinary people can change. The powerful people of industry won't let this happen, so some people has to be the victims, so that the money making system can running well, that is the real human right situation in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bjre,

Why I believe protest in Canada can not solve problem, because there is money behind the system, that law are designed to decide how to cut the cake of social wealth in this country, that isn't any of ordinary people can change. The powerful people of industry won't let this happen, so some people has to be the victims, so that the money making system can running well, that is the real human right situation in Canada.

Ok, if we move to your definition of human rights - which seems to be about material comfort - Canada is still better off per capita, and I would attribute this to freedom of capital, freedom of movement, and freedom of opinion.

What would you attribute it to ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the very basic human right.

Even for animal, to bring a kid like themself is their basic right.

Take children away from parents are real kidnap, that Canadian police and CAS good at, instead of the case shopkeeper catch a thief.

I think you'd better go look up the Cultural Revolution. And your saying that China has no child welfare agencies at all? Tell me, if I were a Chinese citizen, could I beat the crap out of my kids and not fear incarceration or removal of the children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why I believe protest in Canada can not solve problem,

Whether it can solve a problem or not is irrelevant, really.

because there is money behind the system, that law are designed to decide how to cut the cake of social wealth in this country, that isn't any of ordinary people can change.

I don't know about that. About seven years ago, the province was planning on basically turning our local hospital into a glorified ambulance station. Believe me, a couple of thousand very angry people standing on the front lawn of the hospital suddenly saw the appearance of more funding.

The powerful people of industry won't let this happen, so some people has to be the victims, so that the money making system can running well, that is the real human right situation in Canada.

No, it is not. Yes, money is an advantage, sometimes too much of one. But we still live in a democracy, and I can still vote, or find other ways of letting the politicians know my feelings.

I'm sorry the government of your country sucks so bad that it is only now trying to correct decades of incompetence and corruption. I'm sorry your country was ruled by ideological madmen like Mao, I'm sorry your country still pretends to be a socialist society while really being a technocracy run by a new class of super-wealthy power brokers and the obscenely wealthy generals in the PLA.

Yes, Canada has its flaws. Yes there are institutions that have gone haywire. But you know what, I'm still better off than my fellow man in China. I fear no authority. I can speak my mind on all subjects. It comes down to this. On my Google search, I can pull up countless pages on all the wrongs of my government in the past and to the present. Just try to look up Tiananmen Square in China.

The difference is simple. We are free, the Chinese people are not. The technocrats are trying to con them into believing that the delivery of material wealth makes the natural desire of liberty moot. I'll take Canada over China any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bjre,

Ok, if we move to your definition of human rights - which seems to be about material comfort - Canada is still better off per capita, and I would attribute this to freedom of capital, freedom of movement, and freedom of opinion.

What would you attribute it to ?

It is same no matter in Canada or in the world. The powerful industry groups have their representatives to make international game rules to decide how to cut the cake of the wealth in the world. Just like what they do in Canada such as take money from tax payers and give to CAS. In the world they do this by banking rules, treading rules, price rules, and they have something like police, court system in Canada, those are human right organizations, army, so that if any country don't agree with them they can "make peace" by killing people there. Something more than CAS did in Canada. Just like when European came to North america, most native people were killed:

Scholars vary greatly in their estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived in 1492. Estimates range from 40 million to 90 million for all of the Americas,

By 1900, these factors, along with increased mortality and decreased fertility, had reduced the Native American population to its low point of only about 250,000 people in the United States and about 100,000 in Canada.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570...th_America.html

In Canada, they use law and taser and pepper spray to its own people, in the world, they use rules and army to other nations.

That is why China produce one third of world's production 200 years ago and 100 ago wars are everywhere and people were poverty. It is not easy for china to do with its own power to improve as current situation, although the living standard of many people in China are not as good as Canada, some people in China (the number is more than Canada's total population) now is living same as or better than Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is simple. We are free, the Chinese people are not. The technocrats are trying to con them into believing that the delivery of material wealth makes the natural desire of liberty moot. I'll take Canada over China any day of the week.

You are so free that CAS can take your children away if your idea is not same with them.

You are so free that your right to natural health products will be take away.

You are so free that when a thief come to your shop, what you can do is only let him to take what he want and waiting hopelessly for police coming.

You are so free that police will shoot you to death with a taser just because you can not speak English to find a way to home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so free that CAS can take your children away if your idea is not same with them.

I don't live in Ontario. But yes, there are some troubling aspects to the powers given to child protection agencies. That hardly means that Canada is no more free than China, and for the most part, the children I have personally known who have been seized have been seized for good reason.

You are so free that your right to natural health products will be take away.

You are allowed to ingest whatever you like. What companies are not allowed to do is to make claims that have no scientific backing.

You are so free that when a thief come to your shop, what you can do is only let him to take what he want and waiting hopelessly for police coming.

You are advised not to get into armed conflicts with thieves, but the last time I heard of a merchant getting in trouble over a gunfight it was in Vancouver because the guy opened fire on the thieves as they were fleeing down the street. You are not allowed to endanger the public, nor is it shooting at people as they are running away generally considered a reasonable application of force.

You are so free that police will shoot you to death with a taser just because you can not speak English to find a way to home.

Yes, another black mark, but we are having a public inquiry which has already at least laid some criticism at the door of the RCMP, and actually seems to have had the effect of BC police chiefs (both RCMP and various provincial forces) calling for a fully independent civilian overseer.

If you put as much effort into trying to reform China's system as you did into trying to find examples that somehow heal your wounded pride, it would be impressive. As it is, you're just another apologist for tyrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are allowed to ingest whatever you like. What companies are not allowed to do is to make claims that have no scientific backing.
Canada’s Police State Bill C-51 Camouflaged as a health bill

.....

The government is using the slogan that we need this new bill to protect our health. That’s a complete fraud and deception.

......

Under Bill C-51 the State could:

· Enter private property without a warrant

· Take your property at their discretion

· Dispose of your property at will

· Not reimburse you for your losses

· Seize your bank accounts without a warrant

· Charge owners shipping and storage charges for seized property

· Store your property indefinitely

· Levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per charge

· Will not have to report seizures to a court.

· They can charge you just for talking about or promoting natural alternatives

This bill is a crime against our democracy and those involved in introducing it and passing it should be charged with treason against the kind and totally naive trusting Canadian people.

......

This bill is part of a much bigger New World Order depopulation, and longevity reducing UN agenda. Conducted under the Codex Alimentarium agenda that was started in 1962.

The communist European Union Government has already implemented the almost identical laws. EU civilians are now, unable to get natural health products that have been around for thousands of years.

Canada, The USA and Mexico have signed many secret agreements that are piece by piece, producing the North American Union.

This legislation was introduced in Canada because it is a place of least resistance. Because under one of the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreements. It will automatically become law in the USA and Mexico. Since Canada has a very small and spread out population which pays little if no attention at all to what our elected officials do or say, and is being rushed through Parliament. I am sorry to say that soon Canada will no longer be a democracy. It will be a DESPOTIC DICTATORSHIP.

....

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2008/05/...-a-health-bill/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the actual bill:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...x?DocId=3398126

Any references to seizure and the like are empowering inspectors. Do you think, for instance, that health inspectors are representatives of a tyrannical government?

Maybe, rather than running around on Google looking for things that you hope prove your point, if you think a bill is going to do all you claim, you, uh, might actually want to read the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget about the negative impact the so-called Human Rights Tribunals have had on our freedom of speech and press.

I assume you realize that Prime Minister Stephen Harper supports the censorship powers of the tribunals and supports the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 13:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...section-13.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any references to seizure and the like are empowering inspectors. Do you think, for instance, that health inspectors are representatives of a tyrannical government?

Not necessary, their work is just for the interest of the groups that push the law, those who can make more money from the law.

Just like CAS case workers, their work is for the interest group that can take more from tax we pay. Those groups are who push the related legislation.

Western governments are actually are weak ones, they are controlled by the large interest groups. In extreme cases government member who want to make some law that make the interest group earn less will be killed like several American presidents, who want to change some bank rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Western governments are actually are weak ones, they are controlled by the large interest groups. In extreme cases government member who want to make some law that make the interest group earn less will be killed like several American presidents, who want to change some bank rules.

Doesn't anybody in the rest of the world take a crap without worrying about what happens to American presidents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessary, their work is just for the interest of the groups that push the law, those who can make more money from the law.

You haven't actually read the enforcement clauses of the bill, have you? It's fascinating arguing with someone who believes ignorance and hearsay hold equal footing with fact.

Any regulatory law is going to have an enforcement section. That's kinda the point.

Just like CAS case workers, their work is for the interest group that can take more from tax we pay.

They work for the government. They may be right in what they do. They may be wrong in what they do. But they are public employees.

Those groups are who push the related legislation.

It's the public that wanted child protection laws. It started about 150 years ago when somebody said "Hmmm, maybe little Johnny shouldn't be working in the factory when he's nine years old. Again, you seem to have little comprehension of the purpose of these laws. You have some vague notion, because a group of social workers have perhaps taken a step too far, that somehow it's all about some secret special interest. There's nothing terribly secret about it at all.

Western governments are actually are weak ones, they are controlled by the large interest groups.

What, and China isn't. Come on, don't be naive. The technocrats are making money hand over fist, and pretty much anything that resembled the Maoist regime was tossed out the door after the Gang of Four were dealt with.

But I don't think we're terribly weak. Canada has had the same basic form of government since 1867. In that period of time, China has gone from Empire to republic to tyranny under the Chiang kai-shek and his Nationalist goons to the lunacies of Mao's strange and wild ride culminating in such fascinatingly destructive periods as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution before Deng Xiaoping began its transformation into the greatest experiment in modern times, a modern capitalist industrialized power with an an autocracy running it.

In extreme cases government member who want to make some law that make the interest group earn less will be killed like several American presidents, who want to change some bank rules.

Huh? Abraham Lincoln wanted to change banking rules? James Garfield wanted to change banking rules? William McKinley wanted to change banking rules? JFK wanted to change banking rules?

Do you know anything about anything? I'd laugh at this kind of thing, but I kind of feel sorry for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Abraham Lincoln wanted to change banking rules? James Garfield wanted to change banking rules? William McKinley wanted to change banking rules? JFK wanted to change banking rules?

Do you know anything about anything? I'd laugh at this kind of thing, but I kind of feel sorry for you.

Just give you 2 examples:

Kennedy's Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President

With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Kennedy_Executive_Order_11110

Given Lincoln's sentiment about the bankers and money power of the country, it would seem to beg the obvious question: did it play a role in, or was it the reason for, his untimely death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth? The international bankers clearly disliked Lincoln after he managed to get the Congress to pass the Legal Tender Act in 1862 that empowered the US Treasury to issue paper money called "greenbacks." Lincoln needed this legislation after he declined to pay the bankers the usurious 24 - 36% interest rates they demanded on the loans he needed to fund his war with the South. With the new banking law, Lincoln was then able to print up the millions of dollars he needed which was debt and interest free. Clearly this was not what the greedy bankers wanted as they can only profit when they get their pound of flesh from financial transactions they control. Right after the war ended Lincoln was assassinated, and shortly thereafter the so-called Greenback law was rescinded, a new national banking act was passed, and all money became interesting-bearing again.

http://www.populistamerica.com/how_the_fed...e_us___part_iii

Do you think if you need to learn more of the nature of the system you support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kennedy was killed by a nut.

http://www.populistamerica.com/how_the_fed...e_us___part_iii

Do you think if you need to learn more of the nature of the system you support?

Lincoln was killed by a disgruntled southerner.

I think you should learn something... anything. You seem pretty much ignorant of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like the government refusal to operate in a transparent manner is one of the causes behind our drop in the rankings.

Not according to the following which states that the Daniel Leblanc case is the reason Reporters without borders dropping Canada to a lower ranking. Leblanc is the reporter who initially broke the Sponsorship scandal. The article states that an amendment to the Criminal Code introduced a provision forcing reporters to divulge their sources if it is deemed necessary in a police investigation.

La cause impliquant M. Leblanc est à l'origine de la décision de Reporters sans frontières (RSF) de rétrograder de la 19e à la 13e place le Canada dans son classement annuel sur la liberté de la presse. RSF rappelle que cette cause est attribuable à l'ajout, dans le Code pénal, d'une disposition obligeant les journalistes à collaborer avec la police si celle-ci juge que cela est indispensable dans le cadre d'une enquête.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Natio...r-supreme.shtml

The pertinent amendment to the Criminal Code, put forward by the Liberal Government, flows from Bill C-36 (Anti-Terrorism) which received Royal Assent in 2001

Section 273.65 of the deemed that the Minister could, for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, give authorization to CSEC to “intercept private communications in relation to an activity or class of activities specified in the authorization,” meaning that the agency could tap any communication signal interacting with a foreign entity when authorized by the Minister of National Defence. The Minister could provide this authority to the agency if it met the following criteria: the interceptions targeted individuals and associations outside Canada; the desired information could not be obtained any other way; the interception justified the intelligence to be gathered; sufficient measures were taken to protect Canadians’ privacy and ensure private communications are retained only if essential to international affairs, defence or security.

This section could affect journalists who communicate electronically with confidential sources from foreign countries. Those sources, if deemed salient to foreign intelligence, thus cannot be given credible assurances that they will remain anonymous. There is likewise nothing in the Act to suggest that Canadians should be notified if their phones are being monitored, which means that journalists can give sources whatever assurances they want, but the authority accorded to CSEC by Bill C-36 has rendered such assurances moot.

The Canadian Bar Association filed a submission to the government about Bill C-36 shortly after it was tabled in the House of Commons. It argued that section 273.65 “removes any ability for journalists to keep their sources confidential.” The CBA said the section was problematic because it “relies on the Minister’s discretion to weigh the government’s interests and privacy rights.” The submission ultimately argued that the reference to the Minister in section 273.65 should be amended to read “a judge” instead of conferring that level of authority on the Minister.

In the end, however, the CBA’s efforts were not fruitful. The Act received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001, and the provision allowing CSEC to monitor calls as the Minister pleases remains in effect.

http://www.journalismethics.ca/feature_art...al_sources.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Harper had a majority he probably do something about the Canadian media and what they report and he said this past week that he doesn't watch Canadian media but rather watch the US. He doesn't like what the Canadian media say about him but Stevie, they say worse things about Iggy!! I wondering who is the more American between the two? Is Harper coming out of the closet? http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephen...-s-not-watching

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...