So I ask, what is or defines a Canadian?

[Canuckistani]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/oecd-better-life-index-suggests-canada-income-equality-170330413.html

"less than 100%" No they weren't. There was ample, conclusive and clear cut evidence that could only arrive at a guilty finding.. I've read the case pretty thoroughly and there is no doubt whatsoever to any reasonable person that would conclude other than that, on the body of evidence it is conclusive that they are guilty.

Certainly 'they' may never kill again, but other convicts do as a matter of fact.

I didn't actually write any of that. Not sure where you got if from, but not from me.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Signals.Cpl]

Also, the death penalty is not a necessity to strengthen the justice system. Toughening up the justice system does not necessarily mean death penalty, saying that punishment in Canada is not enough does not necessarily mean we need to go to the other extreme.

By this I mean we don't need to introduce the death penalty in order to toughen the system, although I support the death penalty we should not equate tough on criminals policy with the death penalty. For too many people there are only 2 options, what we have now, or the death penalty.

My personal opinion is that we can be tough on criminals even if the majority of people do not agree with the death penalty as it again should be directly associated with a tougher policy.

[Signals.Cpl]

Actually I wonder. The defense can go after the victim in many ways while the defendant need not even take the stand.

The victim's character, history, medical condition and finances can be used to discredit them on the stand. If they refuse to testify they can go to jail, yet the defendant need not take the stand and often much of the evidence that would attest to their past behavior is denied to the prosecution.

Not to belabor the point,but,the convicted criminal may then pursue a path of harassing the victim-victims by means of the Internet or phone or letter. The victim gets no protection from that and often can't prove the harassment.

Then the criminal gets hearings where there is a recurring reminder of the crime to the victims.

There are probably more examples, but why bother. The victim is dead te murderer lives and the victim's families never recover while the convict might go on for decades. See Richard Speck case maybe.

http://serialkillercentral.blogspot.ca/2010/07/richard-speck_16.html

Thats one of those things, if you misuse your privileges while in prison you lose them. If a prisoner threatens someone or harasses someone over the phone/internet/mail then they should lose all of those privileges should they continue they lose more and more until the only human contact is with the prisoner giving you your food.

[guyser]

Actually I wonder. The defense can go after the victim in many ways while the defendant need not even take the stand.

And that has what to do with 'rights'? Nothing.

The defense is not the one who has the burden of proof , the accuser and his court appointees do.

The victim's character, history, medical condition and finances can be used to discredit them on the stand. If they refuse to testify they can go to jail, yet the defendant need not take the stand and often much of the evidence that would attest to their past behavior is denied to the prosecution.

As a blanket statement, that is incorrect. Sex assault , the first three of your assertions are generally off the table. The plaintiff is the one who asserted something wrong was done to thier person, thus they have to prove it. Why would a plaintiff not take the stand?

The accused rep is guarded because of prejudice to the jury , or not likely having anything to do with the trial at hand.

Not to belabor the point,but,the convicted criminal may then pursue a path of harassing the victim-victims by means of the Internet or phone or letter. The victim gets no protection from that and often can't prove the harassment.

No they could not harass. One phone call and that person would be in some hurt. Charges would be laid in no time.

Then the criminal gets hearings where there is a recurring reminder of the crime to the victims.

Do you or do you not want to press charges? If yes, then they signed up for that.

If not, then good bye and take care.

There are probably more examples, but why bother. The victim is dead te murderer lives and the victim's families never recover while the convict might go on for decades. See Richard Speck case maybe.

http://serialkillercentral.blogspot.ca/2010/07/richard-speck_16.html

Not sure what you are saying here.

[guyser]

Thats one of those things, if you misuse your privileges while in prison you lose them. If a prisoner threatens someone or harasses someone over the phone/internet/mail then they should lose all of those privileges should they continue they lose more and more until the only human contact is with the prisoner giving you your food.

Just what do you think happens ? This is what happens.

[BornAlbertan]

an impossibility...everyone lies...the police lie, prosecutors lie, witnesses lie and then there's human error to consider as well...the state killing/murdering one innocent person undoes the entire process of our judicial system...

Bullshit. People like Paul Bernardo for example get off on videotaping their heinous crimes.

Can you honesty tell me that sack of shit deserves to live? I don't care if he lives in a 5x10 concrete cell with no windows...it is more than the girls he killed have. Why should we pay a cent for him to live?

For what it costs to buy that cocksucker a tube of toothpaste and a toothbrush I could buy the bullet to put in his head, the gas to burn his fucking body and a beer to sit back afterwards and reflect on a job well done.

[BornAlbertan]

double post....but I clicked cancel. Grrr

Edited May 22, 2012 by BornAlbertan

[BornAlbertan]

No they could not harass. One phone call and that person would be in some hurt. Charges would be laid in no time.

Tell that to the families of the victims of that sack of shit Clifford Olson.

[dre]

Bullshit. People like Paul Bernardo for example get off on videotaping their heinous crimes.

Can you honesty tell me that sack of shit deserves to live? I don't care if he lives in a 5x10 concrete cell with no windows...it is more than the girls he killed have. Why should we pay a cent for him to live?

For what it costs to buy that cocksucker a tube of toothpaste and a toothbrush I could buy the bullet to put in his head, the gas to burn his fucking body and a beer to sit back afterwards and reflect on a job well done.

LOL, what a crappy post.

[guyser]

Bullshit. People like Paul Bernardo for example get off on videotaping their heinous crimes.

Except murder.

Can you honesty tell me that sack of shit deserves to live? I don't care if he lives in a 5x10 concrete cell with no windows...it is more than the girls he killed have. Why should we pay a cent for him to live?

We do not , as a nation , deserve to pick who dies. No fan of Bernardo at all.

For what it costs to buy that cocksucker a tube of toothpaste and a toothbrush I could buy the bullet to put in his head, the gas to burn his fucking body and a beer to sit back afterwards and reflect on a job well done.

For what it costs to re-try him , and set up for appeal on appeal , and the years that would pass (assuming we had the death penalty) id rather leave him where he is to stew in his lousy existence.

I have no want nor need to spend more money on him. And trying to get a DP conviction will cost more than what we have already spent.

[guyser]

Tell that to the families of the victims of that sack of shit Clifford Olson.

Gotta telephone number?

[-TSS-]

This thread has been slightly derailed regarding the title of the thread, don't you think?

[Benz]

I seem to recall that in all the fuss about Quebec wanting to separate, while the great majority of Quebec people felt that Quebec should have that right should they so decide, that same great majority of Quebecers were aghast at the thought natives might enjoy that right. Apparently it's okay to qualify natives as a nation when dealing with English Canada, but if they decide they're distinct from you, well, that's another thing entirely!

No it's not. No matter how loud you lie, it won't become true. Québec is the first one to give the natives a nation treaty. Paix des Braves! Same kind of treaty with the Innu as well and ongoing to do the same with the Inuits as well.

What's funny though is, some english canadians like you do not care about the natives in Québec. Their only interest is to try to pick a piece of land from Quebec and grab it to the rest of Canada. As usual, you will promise those natives the world and give nothing. And yet you think they are still very naive and will follow you. This is not what we hear from them. You have no lessons ot give regarding the natives.

[Signals.Cpl]

No it's not. No matter how loud you lie, it won't become true. Québec is the first one to give the natives a nation treaty. Paix des Braves! Same kind of treaty with the Innu as well and ongoing to do the same with the Inuits as well.

What's funny though is, some english canadians like you do not care about the natives in Québec. Their only interest is to try to pick a piece of land from Quebec and grab it to the rest of Canada. As usual, you will promise those natives the world and give nothing. And yet you think they are still very naive and will follow you. This is not what we hear from them. You have no lessons ot give regarding the natives.

Its not what Quebec has done for the Natives, its what they can't do. If Quebec cannot offer anything to the Natives but economic hardships should Quebec separate then the Natives can look to remain in Canada.

[dre]

Its not what Quebec has done for the Natives, its what they can't do. If Quebec cannot offer anything to the Natives but economic hardships should Quebec separate then the Natives can look to remain in Canada.

I agree. If Quebec does separate they have no right to drag the entire northern part of the province with them.

[g_bambino]

Québec is the first one to give the natives a nation treaty. Paix des Braves!

Um, no... The French and British Crowns were the first to engage in treaties with the First Nations, which are all now between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian Crown. The federal guise of that Crown is party to the Paix de Braves agreement, since the constitution allows for only it to deal with First Nations matters.

[August1991]

Surely, capital punishment does not define (English-speaking) Canadians.

Ahhh, how sweet.

It's not something "sweet", Argus.

IMHO, Canadians are people who are civilized. Whatever happens, "we get along".

---

René Lévesque was intrigued with the English phrase "fair play". The phrase "make money" intrigued Bernard Landry. (Does Bill Gates produce money?)

The English phrase/verb that has always intrigued me is: "To get along". What does "get along" really mean? "Get beside"?

"Get", what a word. Get up, get down, get around, get by, get with, get to, get in, get out, get ahead, get behind.

Get along.

Edited May 24, 2012 by August1991

[-TSS-]

Is there really any possibility to dispute the borders if Quebec some day in the future decides to secede from Canada?

[Signals.Cpl]

Is there really any possibility to dispute the borders if Quebec some day in the future decides to secede from Canada?

If they were to separate Canada could kindly tell them to leave minus the territories that they gained after confederation. Another one would be individual cities and towns as well as natives voting to stay within Canada and that could split large parts of Quebec. Or the Rest of Canada can have a referendum on wether Quebec should stay or go and if they should go with their whole territory, territory at time of Confederation or any variation where natives choose to leave as well.

[g_bambino]

Is there really any possibility to dispute the borders if Quebec some day in the future decides to secede from Canada?

Absolutely. Much of northern Quebec is First Nations land, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

[guyser]

Absolutely. Much of northern Quebec is First Nations land, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

Not to mention is prime power producing land, excellent wildlife land...hope it never happens.

[Guest Peeves]

the first question to ask is, what is a canadian. If we ask it to an english canadian, the definition will be significantly different from a Québécois or a native. French and natives are different nations from the english canada and their vision of what Canada should be is much more like the actual Europe. A union of several sovereign nations. As opposed to the english canadian, they want their country to be one nation that has total domination among the other ones, like in UK.

If the english canadians would eventually accept their different mates as they are, and define the canadian nation as a union of 3 main cultural groups (enligh, french and native), the two others would be very glad to identify themselve as canadians as well. Just like the german, the french, the spannish, the polish and so on, are all proud to be europeans.

I doubt many nations of the world have conceded separate nationhood to the extent Canada has with funding representation and language rights.

That's another topic.

I guess no. We are very permissive for that specific case and there will always be someone to benefit from a weakness, whatever that is. It's up to us to restrict or monitor this. Some countries do not allow double citizenship, so, I don't think we would be that severe to expect a new citizen based on its refugee status to no go back to the oppressors, or could lose its citizenship. However, this need to be debated. We do not want to become facists either.

Yes, but I may not totally agree with you about what needs to be tightened up tho. I find it quiet odd that you include me (french), in the same bag of the natives, the refugees going back home and other immigrants that stay here long enough to benefit from our system. What makes you think you fit in the ideal canadian definition.

I puzzle why you would even question the inclusion of a Québécois in a question such as posed. Quebec has it's own language, has been given a as asked for, a separate identity, wants their own international diplomats etc. and has decreed frequently a need for a separation from Canada. (Bloc Québécois), I think is grounds for including them in the question.

I wasn't suggesting Quebec isn't Canada I posed a question.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Peeves

[g_bambino]

Quebec has it's own language, has been given a as asked for, a separate identity, wants their own international diplomats etc. and has decreed frequently a need for a separation from Canada. (Bloc Québécois), I think is grounds for including them in the questio

Why do you lump all Quebecers under the separatist banner?

[Guest Peeves]

Why do you lump all Quebecers under the separatist banner?

Where did I do that? Why do you say I did?

There are Anglos, French and many diversified others in Quebec.

The question obvious to most would be regarding those that may not consider themselves as Canadians...first.

?Are Québécois that define themselves first as French -Québécois really implying they aren't Canadians?

Edited May 25, 2012 by Peeves

[g_bambino]

There are Anglos, French and many diversified others in Quebec.

Who, according to you, all want their own ambassadors/high commissioners, their own (collective, I presume) identity, and frequently express a need to separate from Confederation.

Those are generally the demands/proposals of the Quebec separatists.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 25, 2012 by g_bambino