Homosexuals and Children

[Leafless]

I Miss Trudeau

My reply was basically concerning the initial question-"Should homosexual couples be allowed to adapt children."

To that I suggested no they should not on the grounds their children could or will be subject to any degree of discrimination or harassment along with a host of other problems.

The Right to homosexuality covering the legal aspects and later the equality aspect has never been presented to Canadians via a referendum which it should have been since ramafications of homosexual lifestyle could have serious effects or influence normal heterosexual society.

Obviously you have a low regard for religion which is your choice just as it is your choice to discard the distinction between right and wrong which of course includes your personal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

This is why this topic cannot be debated and all aspects of homosexuality should be decided by the general population as it directly intrudes on religious believes concerning major religions, tradition, majority morals and the general direction concerning civilized behavior of society which must be controlled to prevent society itself from becoming dysfunctional.

[I Miss Trudeau]

To that I suggested no they should not on the grounds their children could or will be subject to any degree of discrimination or harassment along with a host of other problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, thats not a very strong argument. That other people will treat them unfairly is supposed to be a reason to deny homosexuals the ability to adopt? Would you accept the argument that putting black kids in white schools at the tail end of segregation should have been prevented because the black kids would face discrimination?

The Right to homosexuality covering the legal aspects and later the equality aspect has never been presented to Canadians via a referendum which it should have been since ramafications of homosexual lifestyle could have serious effects or influence  normal heterosexual society.

What people choose to do in their private lives is not subordinate to the will of the people. Unless you can demonstrate that a credible harm will come from a cetain action (and not from a third party's response to that action), then I don't see any reason to prohibit that action.

Obviously you have a low regard for religion which is your choice just as it is your choice to discard the distinction between right and wrong which of course includes your personal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

I have a low regard for people that believe that "Well, major religion X believes this so it doesn't need justification or defense." Not for religion itself.

This is why this topic cannot be debated

Huh? Its been debated quite a lot. You're even doing it right now!

and all aspects of homosexuality should be decided by the general population

Uhm, you haven't provided a single credible argument for that conclusion. Go back a few steps.

as it directly intrudes on religious believes concerning major religions, tradition, majority morals and the general direction concerning civilized behavior of society

But you have no trouble intruding upon the beliefs and freedoms of others. Your words are ringing pretty hollow.

which must be controlled to prevent society itself from becoming dysfunctional.

What needs to be controlled is theocratic rule.

[Leafless]

I Miss Trudeau

Concerning theocratic rule: Are you suggesting Canada falls under theocratic rule? If you do that's news to me.

It seems to me all the Rights pertaining to homosexuality have been created by law rather than evolve from an established society such as the Rights and Freedoms Charter which I personally think destroys established iniatitves created from democratic concerns.

I've heard the segregation argument many times and how you can apply this to a sexually diverse group not concerning race beats me.

What you do in your private live is your buisness but how can you detirmine if this is detrimental to your neighbour or a group when you consider your actions normal?

I to can argue any issue good or bad and may sound credible but the point is do you have a Right to argue your position initially in the face of established society.

If this is the case why have laws just legalize everthing -no holds barred since everyone has a Right to self-detirmination.

The trouble is a stable society requires standards detirmined by it's population and not by a handful of politicians who try to appease everyone regardless of cost.

[redhead_pt]

they should not on the grounds their children could or will be subject to any degree of discrimination or harassment along with a host of other problems.

Children already face a myriad other nonsensical insults through the course of their schooling. In fact, they would be far more likely to suffer the wrath of a perceived weight problem, acne issue, funny name, or any other of a host of superficial childish critiques. What further harm could be presented by their parents' sexuality, which is for the most part out of view of their peers. It is for this reason exactly that children with a homosexual parent(s) are typically less discriminatory and judgmental in their overall views; an irrefutable benefit. A good parent is a good parent plain and simple; sexuality is a non-issue.

The Right to homosexuality covering the legal aspects and later the equality aspect has never been presented to Canadians via a referendum which it should have been since ramifications of homosexual lifestyle could have serious effects or influence normal heterosexual society.

Please define normal heterosexual society? Homosexuality is as much a normal orientation as is heterosexuality. Its prevalence throughout the human population has been steady at around 5-15% over several millennia. What's more, homosexuality is endemic to many animal species- but found in ALL mammalian species. Please enlighten me as to what exactly the ramifications of homosexual lifestyle are?? Do you fear that our fashion sense will seep into your str8 male populus? Or could it be our unfair advantage in dealing with women and the not-so-surprising correlation of higher average income for gays? I must reiterate, majority rule is not the way to deal with a minority rights issue.

Obviously you have a low regard for religion which is your choice just as it is your choice to discard the distinction between right and wrong which of course includes your personal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

Thank-you Leafless for your epitomizing demonstration of a run-on sentence. I do not hold religion in contempt… well, but for the fact that it as been there every step of the way telling people what they can and cannot do, guiding them into meaningless wars, and precluding charter rights for ALL minority groups- gays, blacks, and women alike. The whole point is, morality is purely subjective. We may not all agree on what is right, but we can certainly all agree on at least one thing that is wrong: the denial of charter rights to any person or group thereof. What’s wrong is superiority-complex assholes like yourself, touting moral authoritarianism over everyone else. Without the guarantees set forth in the Charter, you would not even have the right to freedom of speech nor the freedom of religion which you seem to hold in such high regard.

This is why this topic cannot be debated and all aspects of homosexuality should be decided by the general population as it directly intrudes on religious believes concerning major religions, tradition, majority morals and the general direction concerning civilized behavior of society which must be controlled to prevent society itself from becoming dysfunctional.

The only thing that is dysfunctional in our society is naïve religious-right nutjobs like you who cannot wrap their minds around the idea of “separation of church and state”. Go to church all you like for your bi-weekly brainwashing needs, but don’t expect all people to share your beliefs, morals, and other twisted self-serving maxims. Democracy lies not in the adage of “majority rule”; democracy is present only in the fair and equal treatment of our fellow man.

[Leafless]

redhead_pt

Of course sexuality is an issue.

I don't claim it to be an issue concerning a non organized group but when it comes to homosexuality pertaining to an organized group it does become an issue as it pits the 'standard' heterosexuality directtely in conflict with homosexuality and if you fail to see this you will also fail to recognize any problems directly owed to this.

The basis of any country falls on the shoulders of heterosexuals except in the case like Canada at the present that has to rely on imported heterosexuals in hopes they will continue the tradition of providing children to provide a stable population growth.

Homosexuals always downplay the majority who just happen to be heterosexuals and complain as a disadvantage heterosexuals controlling aspects of society.

If you truly want to start your own country consisting of people of your own group go for it as in Canada it is a normal heterosexual community and to deny this would be ludicrous.

I consider Mr. Trudeaus's Charter of Rights and Freedoms an attack on democratic advancements in Canada and is nothing more than hyped up legislation to enforce Liberal hippie style ideologies not recognized by the majority of any democratic Canadian.

Liberal policies force the poorest of the poor and force Canadians to dig into their savings in order to pay their taxes to support Liberal buisness buddies and their scheming ways to extract money from the public purse.

[Melanie_]

Leafless, I find your logic difficult to follow. Why is homosexuality pitted against heterosexuality? Do you really believe there can't be peaceful co-existance? You haven't presented any reason for why this can't happen, other than bigotry towards the gay community - I refuse to accept bigotry as a valid justification. The bottom line is, how two consenting adults find sexual gratification is just between them, as long as it causes no one else any harm. It shouldn't have any impact on their right to provide a loving stable home for a child.

[Leafless]

Melanie_

Why do you refer to this as bigotry?

It is my Charter Rights to follow the religion of my choice and my religion does not include homosexuals. It is my Right to be reasonably bigoted.

It is the homosexual community who disrupted 'the concept of marriage' with unreasonable demands when it was made clear there were other alternatives avilable regarding spousal benefits and other benefits including an alternative to marriage in which gays were never barred initially but simply did not meet the criteria.

Now, new questions arise including this topic on homosexual adaption.

What will it be next.

A restructuring of the entire educational system to include gays and their lifestyle and criteria acceptable to them?

I firmly believe two sexual concepts of 'ma and pa' will create many problems as well as create preferences between hetero and same sex parents concerning their children.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Concerning theocratic rule: Are you suggesting Canada falls under theocratic rule? If you do that's news to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I don't believe Canada falls under theocratic rule, nor did I intend to suggest that. You, however, seem to be advocating just that:

Homosexuals who shout out bigot at those who reject homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals forget that the key word in bigotry is 'obstinate' which in this case justifies bigotry since the 'adhering to one's chosen course' could be backed up by a major religion,

This is why this topic cannot be debated and all aspects of homosexuality should be decided by the general population as it directly intrudes on religious believes concerning major religions, tradition, majority morals

It seems to me all the Rights pertaining to homosexuality have been created by law rather than evolve from an established society such as the Rights and Freedoms Charter which I personally think destroys established iniatitves created from democratic concerns.

Let me ask you this. Completely ignore all of the cases and specifics regarding the application of the charter of rights and freedoms. Is the basic premise of the charter a good one? Can you find fault with it?

I've heard the segregation argument many times and how you can apply this to a sexually diverse group not concerning race beats me.

So, if I understand you correctly, its ok to put children at risk of racist discrimination, bot not discrimination based on sexual orientation? Got any arguments to justify this special pleading?

What you do in your private live is your buisness but how can you detirmine if this is detrimental to your neighbour or a group when you consider your actions normal?

Well, you've apparently determined that homosexual rights are going to result in a dysfunctional society. Figuring out whether or not Bob and Ted next door have a detrimental effect ought to be a whole lot easier than figuring out whether or not gay rights are going to destroy society, don't you think?

If this is the case why have laws just legalize everthing -no holds barred since everyone has a Right to self-detirmination.

Can you seriously not see how homosexual rights are different than, say, permitting people to murder others at will? Or is this just a cheap rhetorical tool?

[I Miss Trudeau]

I don't claim it to be an issue concerning a non organized group but when it comes to homosexuality pertaining to an organized group it does become an issue as it pits the 'standard' heterosexuality directtely in conflict with homosexuality and if you fail to see this you will also fail to recognize any problems directly owed to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute... who exactly is doing the pitting here? Did homosexuals say "Well, we don't believe that heterosexual marriage is good for society, so we think we'll make it an exclusively homosexual arrangement."? No, they didn't. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find very many who really care what heterosexuals do, as long as it doesn't involve harming others.

The only, and I repeat ONLY, conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the one that people like you get off on creating.

The basis of any country falls on the shoulders of heterosexuals except in the case like Canada at the present that has to rely on imported heterosexuals in hopes they will continue the tradition of providing children to provide a stable population growth.

What on earth are you talking about? The birth rate, perhaps? You know, some homosexuals have shown an interest in taking in and caring for the children that heterosexuals have thrown away or cast out... I'd say that those people have shown that they're willing to carry the burden, so whats the problem? Oh yeah! Its that people like you, while seeking to exclude them from carrying that burden, attack them for not doing so! How delightfully clever you are.

Homosexuals always downplay the majority who just happen to be heterosexuals and complain as a disadvantage heterosexuals controlling aspects of society.

You know, any majority is pretty likely to possess more control of society than a minority. I don't think homosexuals really take issue with that simple fact. What they do take issue with, however, is that control being used against them with no justifiable reason.

If you truly want to start your own country consisting of people of your own group go for it as in Canada it is a normal heterosexual community and to deny this would be ludicrous.

So the fundamental identity of Canada is "heterosexual?" How many travellers when asked about their country would begin by saying, "Well, its heterosexual, a little cold at times..."

I consider Mr. Trudeaus's Charter of Rights and Freedoms an attack on democratic advancements in Canada and is nothing more than hyped up legislation to enforce Liberal hippie style ideologies not recognized by the majority of any democratic Canadian.

Sorry, I want democracy to be a little more robust than a semi-annual conference for WASP's to decide who they're going to let do what.

Liberal policies force the poorest of the poor and force Canadians to dig into their savings in order to pay their taxes to support Liberal buisness buddies and their scheming ways to extract money from the public purse.

I knew this was going to come sooner rather than later. Really, the real target of your hatred is the Liberals, not homosexual rights.

[Leafless]

I Miss Trudeau

"Is the basic premise of the charter a good one? Can I find fault with it."

To sum up both questions the answer is 'NO' as it destroys the Right Wing political agenda by establishing a socialistic bible to resort to and can create new socialistic agenda at the whim of the government with little interference. This also effectively destroys Canadian politics by allowing the creation of a single Party regime.

Concerning discrimination--It's not okay to subject anyone to any form of discrimination but then again I know of NO race or culture or identifable group that does not discriminate one way or another at some particualr time.

Concerning self-detirmination--No it's not a cheap rhetorical tool but simply illustrating the necessity for majority rule.

[I Miss Trudeau]

To sum up both questions the answer is 'NO' as it destroys the Right Wing political agenda

So the measure of worth for a document is the degree to which it promotes an agenda? Its not based on individual liberty, freedom from coercion and violence, or any of that jazz, but rather, "How does it help me?"

by establishing a socialistic bible to resort to and can create new socialistic agenda at the whim of the government with little interference.

So argue against the charter. Make the case for its eradication. Not specific applications of it, mind you, but the charter itself. Tear it up. I'll await this is your next post.

This also effectively destroys Canadian politics by allowing the creation of a single Party regime.

What creates a "single party regime" are cancerous regionalist parties. Well, that combined with our FPTP system, anyway.

Concerning discrimination--It's not okay to subject anyone to any form of discrimination but then again I know of NO race or culture or identifable group that does not discriminate one way or another at some particualr time.

So because no one is perfect, we may as well embrace it as a fact of life and make no attempt to mitigate it?

Concerning self-detirmination--No it's not a cheap rhetorical tool but simply illustrating the necessity for majority rule.

But it doesn't illustrate that supposed necessity at all.

[Melanie_]

Leafless, I don't believe your right to freedom of religion trumps gay rights to equality, whether it be for marriage or adoption. And no one is asking you to become homosexual, so it really doesn't impact you in the least. BUT, your persistance in denying gays and lesbians equal rights does do them harm, for no purpose. Why is it so important to you to marginalize them?

[Leafless]

Melanie_

"Why is it so important for me to marginalize them."

Basically what is happening to this country is that it is becoming fractionated both culturally and now sexually.

Is this the type of country you want to live in with little groups all over, all claiming recognition of one sort or another.

I think under these conditons Canada does not deserve the status of a country but some sort of socialist commune with no real values or common identity.

I've lived in Canada all my life and will continue to repel this type of situation as I feel this will hasten the end of Canada as we know it to-day.

[Black Dog]

Of course sexuality is an issue.

I don't claim it to be an issue concerning a non organized group but when it comes to homosexuality pertaining to an organized group it does become an issue as it pits the 'standard' heterosexuality directtely in conflict with homosexuality and if you fail to see this you will also fail to recognize any problems directly owed to this.

Let me ask, for the sake of clarification: what the hell are you talking about?

The basis of any country falls on the shoulders of heterosexuals except in the case like Canada at the present that has to rely on imported heterosexuals in hopes they will continue the tradition of providing children to provide a stable population growth.

You make no sense. Canada is not any different from any other country in that the vast majority of population growth is depenant on old fashioned heterosexual procreation. Nor is Canada alone in having a slumping birth rate. Many other industrial nations (such as Germany and Japan) have seen birth rates fall below the death rate.

Homosexuals always downplay the majority who just happen to be heterosexuals and complain as a disadvantage heterosexuals controlling aspects of society.

Yeah: first it was the blacks, then the women and now those uppity homos won't shut up about their marginalization by the white male heterosexual dominant society. Whiners.

If you truly want to start your own country consisting of people of your own group go for it as in Canada it is a normal heterosexual community and to deny this would be ludicrous.

Canada is a diverse nation consisting of many ethicities, religions and, yes, sexual orientations. There is no "normal heterosxual community".

It is my Charter Rights to follow the religion of my choice and my religion does not include homosexuals. It is my Right to be reasonably bigoted.

It is your right to believe, but not your right to dictate what other believe the same as you. And if you want the right to be a bigot, don't cry when people call you, well, a bigot.

I firmly believe two sexual concepts of 'ma and pa' will create many problems as well as create preferences between hetero and same sex parents concerning their children.

If I'm reading this right, this is a varient of the old saw that gay couples who adopt kids will somehow give the kids the gay. Which is weird, because generations of heterosexual parents have been completely unable to turn their gay kids straight, so I have to wonder: what trick the gays are privy to that can cause kids to flip their biologically predetermined sexual oreintation?

To sum up both questions the answer is 'NO' as it destroys the Right Wing political agenda by establishing a socialistic bible to resort to and can create new socialistic agenda at the whim of the government with little interference. This also effectively destroys Canadian politics by allowing the creation of a single Party regime.

Curiously, the Canadian Conservative Party (which is the closets approximation to a right-wing political agenda in action) hasn't done too bad. And let's not forget, too, that the party in power following the demise of the Trudeau Liberals were Conservatives.

Basically what is happening to this country is that it is becoming fractionated both culturally and now sexually.

Is this the type of country you want to live in with little groups all over, all claiming recognition of one sort or another.

I think under these conditons Canada does not deserve the status of a country but some sort of socialist commune with no real values or common identity.

I've lived in Canada all my life and will continue to repel this type of situation as I feel this will hasten the end of Canada as we know it to-day.

What effing difference does it make? is a unified identity necessary? Or is it possible for different groups, religions culture etc. to coexist? I'm no great fan of institutionalized multiculturalism, but even in "melting pot" societies such as the U.S.A., different groups still jockey for position and retain their cultural traditions etc etc. Is it even possible to creat a unified national identity? And if so, how does one enforce it?

[Melanie_]

Leafless - As a matter of fact, it is the type of country I want to live in. A truly democratic society is able to balance the diversity of its members with the unity of the group. You seem to believe that we all have to be exactly alike, and adhere to the dominant value system regardless of individual rights or expression - not the kind of place that I want to call home.

[Leafless]

Melaine_

You call Canada a truly democratic society when the only think democratic about it is about the same as what they are trying to apply in Iraq---Your Right to an intial vote concerning your choice of government.

Please explain how Canda is so democratic and name me another country in this world that is the truly democratic type you speak of??

[Black Dog]

Please explain how Canda is so democratic and name me another country in this world that is the truly democratic type you speak of??

I would pose a counter question: can you name a country that's more democratic, and in what ways?

I mean, there's countries with superior electoral systems and countries with less corrupt politicians, but that doesn't make them more democratic, unless one's definition of democracy is limited to the sphere of political process.

Me, I like to think of democracy in terms of how we go about our day to day lives. I'm not in any danger of getting "dissappered" because of my political beliefs. I can read what I want and pretty much say what I want. And everyone else has the same rights. That's not a bad way to go. Can things be better? No doubt, but you haven't really articulated why, all of a sudden, the place is an anti-democratic hell hole.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

"Can I name a country that's more democratic

Sure, the U.S. is more democratic and houses every skin colour and culture known to man and immigrants are beating a path to immigrate to the U.S.

They incorporate mini referendums every election, and do not incorporate a totalitarian type democracy like Canada. Immigrants fair very well and as a result incorporating the so called 'melting pot' producing Americans that leave their politcal baggage at home.

The U.S constitution as remained realitively intact unlike ours that was repatriated from England in which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a MAJOR addition to the existing BNA Act WITHOUT the participation of individual Canadians is a slap in the face to democracy in Canada.

[Black Dog]

Sure, the U.S....houses every skin colour and culture known to man and immigrants are beating a path to immigrate to the U.S.

Same goes for Canada.

They incorporate mini referendums every election, and do not incorporate a totalitarian type democracy like Canada

So the number of referendums is your benchmark of democracy?

And "totalitarian democracy" is a contradiction.

Immigrants fair very well and as a result incorporating the so called 'melting pot' producing Americans that leave their politcal baggage at home.

That's an extremely idealized way of looking at it.

The U.S constitution as remained realitively intact unlike ours that was repatriated from England in which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a MAJOR addition to the existing BNA Act WITHOUT the participation of individual Canadians is a slap in the face to democracy in Canada.

Funny you should mention the U.S. Constitution: it too was imposed without a referendum, and its Bill of Rights fulfills the same role as our Charter of Rights (that is; a constitutional safeguard of individual civil rights and liberties ).

Are you suggessting that individaul civil rights and liberties should not be protected?

[Melanie_]

Melaine_

You call Canada a truly democratic society when the only think democratic about it is about the same as what they are trying to apply in Iraq---Your Right to an intial vote concerning your choice of government.

Please explain how Canda is so democratic and name me another country in this world that is the truly democratic type you speak of??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are thinking of democracy purely from the standpoint of how we elect a government. I'm talking about the value that underlies a democratic society - each citizen is equal. Diversity, then, becomes just another aspect of who someone is - regardless of their sexual orientation, skin colour, gender, income level, etc, they are all still equal in terms of rights owed them by society and the responsibilities they in turn owe to society.

Does any country truly live up to the ideals of democracy? Maybe not. But just having the right to debate this, to push each other's buttons and defend our perspective freely, without worrying that we will say the wrong thing and offend the powers that be, means we are better off than most.

[Leafless]

Black Dog

Concerning-Individual Rights and liberties should not be protected."

The U.S. constitution was adapted by convention in 1787 and later ratified bt the individual states.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an addition to our original BNA Act 115 years later without a referendum.

Also this charter include sections on language pertaing to Quebec which under certain interpretation promotes bilingualism under federal authority.

I question what right does the federal government have to promote this when there is nothing specific pertaining to any degree of bilingualism in the government or promotion of any kind in the provinces.

This is why I think there should have been a referendum as the federal government chooses do do what they want without the permission of the people of Canada relating to the charter.

Of course I belive human Rights should be protected but in Canada it should be a provincial reponsbility as to avoid federal manipulation concerning any possible hidden agenda.

[Guest eureka]

The American Bill of Rights was in the form of amendments to the American Constitution not a part of the Constitution. It also did not protect citizen's Rights from the State governments - only from the Federal Government.

The Charter of Rights is not an addition to the BNA Act. It is a separate Constitutional Document. And, it changed nothing other than by agreement with the Provinces, make the Rights established by Common Law applicable to all Canadians and not amenable to manipulation by the Provinces.

The Charter does not contain sections pertaining to the language of Quebec. Neither does the base Constitutional document; the Canada Act, formerly the BNA Act.

[Leafless]

eureka

I won't short cut on terminolgy with you any more as you apparently are unwilling to accept broad interpretations.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not directly added to the BNA Act but added as a separate document to be included with the BNA Act to form our constitution.

I have to ask you eureka--why was the constitution repatriated in the first place??

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms certaintly do contain parts that are applicable to Quebec because when in the hands of the federal government parts can be interpreted to include Quebec or to propell Quebec interest and I believe this charter to be a replacement for the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord.

Official languages of Canada Sections 16-22 promotes Quebec interest by promoting enforcing bilingualism.

Minority language educational Rights-again forces English to provide French schools and promotes bilingualism while Quebec is excluded.

It should be noted Canadians never were involved regarding official languages although English never required any sort of official status.

Iam not against the charters basic freedoms but I simply think these freedoms should be PROVINCIALLY controlled because as it is the federal government cannot or will not provide English with charter Rights in Quebec and is promoting French in a discriminatory manner as well as forcing provinces to provide French federal charter Rights outside of Quebec.

The federal government is using the same 'one way street logic' as Quebec.

[Guest eureka]

You are on the right track with respect to the diminishing of the Rights of English speaking Quebeckers. However, that is not a fault of the Charter.

The rest of what you are saying is purest nonsense. For example, the Charter came a decade before Meech and Charlottetown.

Why should we have repatriated the Constitution. you ask. Why in heaven,s name should we not? Should we have the only country in the world without a native Constitution?

[Leafless]

eureka

Yes the charter was implemented a decade before Meech and Charottetown but it is being used to make Quebec a 'distinct society' by propelling and enforcing Quebec's interest especially via official bilingualism and bilingualism in general.

The federal Liberals have always been tied in with Quebec and Quebec politicians it seems have a very influential effect within the Liberal Party itself.

This is why I've always thought it a risky or dangerous to have this charter in the hands of the federal government.

Your view of repatriating the constitution intially simply to have our own native constitution is trivial.

The constitution was repatriated so the feds could make ammendments to it and especially to include this charter. But I don't believe the Charter of rights and Freedoms should ever have included as a separate document as part of our constituion without a referendum.

We still follow the British system of parliament to a tee and the main reason Parties like the Liberals like this system is because involves power.

Paul Martin has the power of a king and can pretty much do what he wants with little interference.

I think Canadians have been 'had' democratically speaking and should demand electoral reform as this is going to be the only way to eliminate the Liberal stranglehold on Canada.