Homosexuality is an anomaly

[M.Dancer]

And uh guys....I really dont think I need to have things "reported" when directed at me. Not my style to report people.......it makes them more cautious next time.

You might want to let the junior forest ranger, hall monitor eagle scout girl guide do gooder know about your feelings........

[guyser]

More cautious about what?

Never mind, just keep on keeping on. I think its 3.5M now.

Listening to you? "Poor ignorant lackey" should come as a compliment.

Thank you.

IMO that is what you are, 'a poor misinformed servile political follower' as indicated by your assholic replies.

Hmm.....when you re-read that something comes to mind.

You should smarten up and reply in a mannerism that reflects intelligent well thought out reasons to support your line of thought rather then reply in a childish manner that mocks and belittles a post and poster that you might not be in agreement with.

And that is the gist of the matter at hand. If you had intelligent well thought out reasons.......

I have no problems with disagreement, for the most part at least.

[guyser]

You might want to let the junior forest ranger, hall monitor eagle scout girl guide do gooder know about your feelings........

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings.

[Figleaf]

You might want to let the junior forest ranger, hall monitor eagle scout girl guide do gooder know about your feelings........

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings.

Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all.

[guyser]

Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all.

I understand that. And Greg will make the calls as he see fit. It is my opinion and feeling that I need not engage in sending a "report" to him.

I wish others would oblige. No one need to obviously, but frankly I just dont like people telling on others.Besides , it is apparent who does what around here.

No harm no foul.

[ScottSA]

It would be lovely not to have a hall monitor hereabouts.

[newbie]

It would be lovely not to have a hall monitor hereabouts.

Post appropriately and you'll have nothing to worry about.

[M.Dancer]

You might want to let the junior forest ranger, hall monitor eagle scout girl guide do gooder know about your feelings........

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings.

Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all.

And your standard is to report whom ever breaks the rules in your opinion, provided they are on the right of you.

The bully tactic of a sissy.

[Figleaf]

You might want to let the junior forest ranger, hall monitor eagle scout girl guide do gooder know about your feelings........

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings.

Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all.

And your standard is to report whom ever breaks the rules in your opinion, provided they are on the right of you.

The bully tactic of a sissy.

Aren't YOU left of me?

[Figleaf]

You might want to let the junior forest ranger, hall monitor eagle scout girl guide do gooder know about your feelings........

I would only hope those that recognize themselves understand my feelings.

Whether I report a post has nothing to do with who is the target of the reportable behaviour or whether he would like the report made. Greg has established a standard of behaviour and the idea of a standard is that it applies to all.

And your standard is to report whom ever breaks the rules in your opinion, provided they are on the right of you.

Aren't YOU left of me?

[Leafless]

Rights don't grow on trees.

Rights are fought for and not handed out like candy by what can be viewed, as by a traitorous Liberal government and a handful of undemocratic corrupt politicians.

Leafless, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in your view of rights and that of most people. While some "rights" are accorded by governmet decree, many are inherent and independant of government and don't require the holder to struggle to earn those rights. Inalienable Rights

Talk about arrogance.

Your accusing me of possessing a fundamental disconnect relating to my 'view of rights' and you don't have the courtesy to tell me what rights your talking about or provide or offer proof to support your unsubstantiated views relating to so called 'natural rights'.

[Renegade]

Talk about arrogance.

Your accusing me of possessing a fundamental disconnect relating to my 'view of rights' and you don't have the courtesy to tell me what rights your talking about or provide or offer proof to support your unsubstantiated views relating to so called 'natural rights'.

There was no arrogance directed in the post. It was simply an observation. There was no malice intended in using the words "fundamental disconnect", nor is it anything I'm "accusing" you of. I simply mean that the view you express on rights doesn't seem to be te same as most others. I make no judgement on which is right and which is wrong.

As for telling you what rights I am taking about, I discussed with you at length many post back in this very thread. Apparently you have a short memory on the issue. I didn't make up the wikipedia article. If you actually did some research on views on rights you will see it is very representative of a consensus view.

I'd like to understand what is your view on rights. Is the only rights you have are the ones the government gives you?

[Leafless]

I'd like to understand what is your view on rights. Is the only rights you have are the ones the government gives you?

Relating to our society, I believe in the fundamental principles that underlie our laws.

These rights, stem from numerous battles won by the people, against the absolute power exercised by the King and other autocratic authorities throughout the thousands of years of our English speaking history.

This is why our Western society has become so successful.

But to-day especially in Canada, and especially owing to Liberal rule as caused our society to implode and are going backwards in time, back to the days of when Kings and autocratic authorities ruled with absolute power over the commoner.

This is dramatically illustrated by how the federal Liberals and their 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' have destroyed previously fought for 'Rights' and effectively wiping out our inherited inherited English rights.

Strangely though, this very same Canadian federal government uses our inherited British system of government, to rule in a totalitarian fashion and is to COWARDLY to implement a new form of government that reflects their true political dictatorship identity as a 'banana republic' or a 'corrupt third world regime'.

[Figleaf]

... the federal Liberals and their 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' have destroyed previously fought for 'Rights' and effectively wiping out our inherited inherited English rights.

Can you be more specific about that please?

[Renegade]

Relating to our society, I believe in the fundamental principles that underlie our laws.

This is a great "motherhood and apple-pie" statement, but I'm not really sure what it means.

These rights, stem from numerous battles won by the people, against the absolute power exercised by the King and other autocratic authorities throughout the thousands of years of our English speaking history.

If I understand you correctly you view the "winning" of rights as a struggle and dynamic. ie we have a different sets of rights than we had in the past, and we may have yet a dfiferent set in the future. Are battles you speak of, physical battles, court battles, or what? In our modern society, how do you see these battles being fought? Do you mean by armed struggle or something else?

Finally, is it your view that there is only one kind of rights? (ie what you seem to be describing are what is commonly called "civil rights"). Do you distinguish civil rights from individual rights or human rights?

This is why our Western society has become so successful.

I guess it depends upon how you define success. Regardless, I think it is doubtful that the success is based simply on a single cause.

But to-day especially in Canada, and especially owing to Liberal rule as caused our society to implode and are going backwards in time, back to the days of when Kings and autocratic authorities ruled with absolute power over the commoner.

If in your view, the struggle for rights is dyanmic as you seem to indicate, and that rights are based upon struggles with the "powers that be". It would then seem logical that when the "powers that be" demonstrate strength, they have the ability to retract previously ganted rigths. (witness the Patriot Act as an example).

Strangely though, this very same Canadian federal government uses our inherited British system of government, to rule in a totalitarian fashion and is to COWARDLY to implement a new form of government that reflects their true political dictatorship identity as a 'banana republic' or a 'corrupt third world regime'.

Are you sayng that the Canadian government acted illegally? If not then they followed the "inherited" British system you seem proud of.

If their actons are not illegal, what justification do you have to call the actions "COWARDLY" or characterize the government as "totalitarian"?

[Leafless]

If I understand you correctly you view the "winning" of rights as a struggle and dynamic. ie we have a different sets of rights than we had in the past, and we may have yet a dfiferent set in the future. Are battles you speak of, physical battles, court battles, or what? In our modern society, how do you see these battles being fought? Do you mean by armed struggle or something else?

The battles I am referring to relate to the general belief that our English based law, the great Magna Carta issued by King John on the field of Runnymede in 1215 AD was the beginning of the power of the King to rule as he saw fit, and is the foundation of our Laws and Rights.

The rights outlined in the Magna Carta caused generation after generation of all classes of people to fight to secure their own rights by reference to the Magna Carta. It took many revolts, wars (civil, religious and otherwise), and the progress of time to confirm the beginning of our 'Rights' history.

Relating to our modern Canadian history we are currently confronted by totalitarian rule concerning the imposed 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. Currently the number of Canadians opposed to our Charter appear to be relatively small for the simple reason the majority of Canadians are not politically aware of the consequences of our Charter but ask any English speaking federal public servant and you will get a very different response. The Charter mocks democracy and allows judicial rule to replace it.

The potential consequences relating to opposition to the Charter could involve bloodshed or could simply be thrown out into the waste paper basket, where it belongs.

Finally, is it your view that there is only one kind of rights? (ie what you seem to be describing are what is commonly called "civil rights"). Do you distinguish civil rights from individual rights or human rights?

Provinces and the federal government have been protecting Canadians with 'human rights legislation' long before the implementation of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'.

The Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' provides fairy like undemocratic rights at the expense of of the majority English speaking population of Canada, being both fiscally extremely expensive and physiological damaging to English speaking Canadians who object being treated like fools by our federal government.

Are you sayng that the Canadian government acted illegally? If not then they followed the "inherited" British system you seem proud of.

Yes, the government acted illegally by abusing our inherited British system.

The parliament of Canada represents our collective will as a people expressed through our elected representatives.

Pertaining to the Charter Mr. Trudeau and a handful of politicians unilaterally implemented the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' ignoring the UNREPRESENTED collective will of Canadian citizens.

Also the federal government broke its own Charter rules by implementing 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service, when the Charter states otherwise concerning use of the 'official languages'.

The Charter simply states that there are two official languages in Canada, English and French and that 'EITHER' of these two languages may be used by any citizen in communicating with the federal government or 'WORKING' for it, or any of its institutions.

[Figleaf]

The battles I am referring to relate to the general belief that our English based law, the great Magna Carta issued by King John on the field of Runnymede in 1215 AD was the beginning of the power of the King to rule as he saw fit, and is the foundation of our Laws and Rights.

You mean 'the beginning of the end of the power of the King...', I think.

Relating to our modern Canadian history we are currently confronted by totalitarian rule concerning the imposed 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. Currently the number of Canadians opposed to our Charter appear to be relatively small for the simple reason the majority of Canadians are not politically aware of the consequences of our Charter but ask any English speaking federal public servant and you will get a very different response. The Charter mocks democracy and allows judicial rule to replace it.

You've recited this same charge in the past, but when asked to be specific about what you are refering to you have not replied. IS there any content behind this complaint, or are you simply braying?

The Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' provides fairy like undemocratic rights at the expense of of the majority English speaking population of Canada,

How so?

... the government acted illegally by abusing our inherited British system.

Again, how so?

Pertaining to the Charter Mr. Trudeau and a handful of politicians unilaterally implemented the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' ignoring the UNREPRESENTED collective will of Canadian citizens.

Trudeau was the legitimately elected PM, and the handful of politicians were the legitimately elected premiers of the provinces. Ergo, they did in fact represent the collective will of Canadian citizens.

[Leafless]

The battles I am referring to relate to the general belief that our English based law, the great Magna Carta issued by King John on the field of Runnymede in 1215 AD was the beginning of the power of the King to rule as he saw fit, and is the foundation of our Laws and Rights.

You mean 'the beginning of the end of the power of the King...', I think.

No, I mean what I said, "the beginning of the power of the King" or Queen.

Who do you suppose our head of state is? All I am saying it is the commoner objected and fought for rights that more represented the people, rather than be totally oppressed by the Kings totalitarian rule.

You've recited this same charge in the past, but when asked to be specific about what you are referring to you have not replied. IS there any content behind this complaint, or are you simply braying?

Any policy implemented originating from undemocratic 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and implemented by politicians and judicial rule is, bypassing the voice of the citizens of Canada is what I am talking about.

Official multiculturalism, official bilingualism in the federal government and Gay marriage, Aboriginal rights are item I am talking about.

Trudeau was the legitimately elected PM, and the handful of politicians were the legitimately elected premiers of the provinces. Ergo, they did in fact represent the collective will of Canadian citizens.

Federal governments are elected by a PARTIALLY democratic system (FPTP), but failed to represent and include the citizens (by MP representation) of Canada relating to the implementation of the Charter itself resulting in allowing judicial rule to overtake the involvement of Canadian citizens relating to very important constitutional issue's and amendments of OUR CONSTITUITION.

Driving Canadians back to the days of the Magna Carta and OPPRESSIVE RULE is not exactly the way to go.

This could force Canadians to develop alternate ways to deal with these oppressive measures, just like in the days of the Magna Carta.

[M.Dancer]

The Great Charter imposed limits on the Sovereign. No more could the Sovereign rule by whim. The Great Charter defined the limits of the Kings power, and defined the relationship of the courts, the laws etc etc.....

[Figleaf]

The battles I am referring to relate to the general belief that our English based law, the great Magna Carta issued by King John on the field of Runnymede in 1215 AD was the beginning of the power of the King to rule as he saw fit, and is the foundation of our Laws and Rights.

You mean 'the beginning of the end of the power of the King...', I think.

No, I mean what I said, "the beginning of the power of the King" or Queen.

Then you're seriously uniformed about history. The kings' authority pre-existed the Magna Carta which was promulgated to LIMIT the scope of the royal power, not to create or grant it.

Any policy implemented originating from undemocratic 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and implemented by politicians and judicial rule is, bypassing the voice of the citizens of Canada is what I am talking about.

Either you don't understand my question or you are evading it. HOW is the Charter undemocratic? and HOW is it undermining your rights?

Official multiculturalism, official bilingualism in the federal government and Gay marriage, Aboriginal rights are item I am talking about.

You may be talking about that, but you have not explained what negative real impacts you allege arise from them.

Trudeau was the legitimately elected PM, and the handful of politicians were the legitimately elected premiers of the provinces. Ergo, they did in fact represent the collective will of Canadian citizens.

Federal governments are elected by a PARTIALLY democratic system (FPTP),...

Your liking or disliking of FPTP is beside the point. You complain of an illegitimacy in the creation of the Charter, but there is no illegitimacy. The people who enacted the charter had the legitimate authority to do so.

[Leafless]

Then you're seriously uniformed about history. The kings' authority pre-existed the Magna Carta which was promulgated to LIMIT the scope of the royal power, not to create or grant it.

Yes of course, I inadvertently left out an important word, and it should have read:

"...Magna carta issued by King John on the field of Runneymede in 1215 AD was the beginning of the (LIMITATION) of the power of the King to rule as he saw fit."

Anyways the point remains the same as Canadian citizens reserve the right to object to abuses of power, IMO, such as the unilateral implementation of the Charter by politicians ONLY, excluding the citizens of Canada to be part of the constitutional amendment process to refuse or accept the new Charter.

Either you don't understand my question or you are evading it. HOW is the Charter undemocratic? and HOW is it undermining your rights?

You don't understand plain English, that I can object to whatever I choose, period.

It is undermining my rights by I am ( and all Canadians) not being part of the process the government now uses to GRANT RIGHTS.

I fully believe in something as important as the Charter to be excluded as part of the process to amend the thing into our primary Charter is a 'slap in the face' by abusive government who feels it is none of the business of the electorate.

You may be talking about that, but you have not explained what negative real impacts you allege arise from them.

1.- I might be speaking from a personal level but I feel for instance the federal government should not be full of Quebec nationalist as employees of the federal government.

2.- I feel immigrants must adapt to Canadian traditions and don't feel the federal government should cater to them via 'official multiculturalism'.

3.- Gay marriage rights should be a thing society at large either accepts or rejects and u8pt to the time of government interference in this area the majority of Canadians rejected homosexual unions, due to many reasons.

4. Aboriginal rights have been settled by treaties etc. There is no need to constitutionalize Aboriginal anything.

Your liking or disliking of FPTP is beside the point. You complain of an illegitimacy in the creation of the Charter, but there is no illegitimacy. The people who enacted the charter had the legitimate authority to do so.

I don't know if you understand that the Canadian people have a democratic right to be part of a national referendum concerning the amending of our constitution with the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' and the federal government could have obliged if they wished, but refused in order to have things their own way.

Now it is up to the Canadian people to do something about the undemocratic representation (if they wish to do so), in the same or similar manner riots and rebellions were used against Kings prior to the days of the Magna Carta.

What option is left, when a government wishes to practice in a totalitarian manner, excluding the citizens of Canada?

[guyser]

Either you don't understand my question or you are evading it. HOW is the Charter undemocratic? and HOW is it undermining your rights?

You don't understand plain English, that I can object to whatever I choose, period.

It is undermining my rights by I am ( and all Canadians) not being part of the process the government now uses to GRANT RIGHTS.

I fully believe in something as important as the Charter to be excluded as part of the process to amend the thing into our primary Charter is a 'slap in the face' by abusive government who feels it is none of the business of the electorate.

It seems that you cannot answer the question of what "rights" have you been stripped off, or have been given to someone else?

Just name and we can move on.

[Leafless]

It seems that you cannot answer the question of what "rights" have you been stripped off, or have been given to someone else?

Guyser what we are talking about here is undemocratic actions inspired by the Charter.

Since the advent of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' in 1982, the courts also decide cases on the basis of personal views of what they think the Charter seems to mean in cases that have had few or no precedents set by prior court cases.

Provincial judges and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have therefore become social activist by frequently overriding of our Provincial and Federal government, and thus the will of the people, as expressed through their elected MPPs, MLA's and MP's.

Do you think rights are not lost when Quebec for instance, never signed the Charter, declares itself unilingual French, defies the Charter, defies the United Nations with the approval of our English speaking parliamentarians? What is this? One set of laws for some and not for others?

The Charter is a fraud.

Or how about 'Multicultural Act of Canada 1988 that destroyed the principle of equality of each and every citizen before and under the law because it divided society by ethnic, cultural, national, colour, and promotes as being equal of every other ethnic, cultural or racial group.

What we have then is a form of Canadian made Apartheid. All cultural groups coming to Canada or are growing rapidly (no wonder) as they are now funded and promoted as being equal of every other ethnic, cultural or racial group.

What the law forgot though was our existing English speaking Canadian culture as being anything different than that of the latest group of immigrants from wherever.

This equates to a thousand years of our historical birthright of individual rights and principles, flushed down the drain.

I bet you still don't get it.

[Figleaf]

It is undermining my rights by I am ( and all Canadians) not being part of the process the government now uses to GRANT RIGHTS.

I'm afraid I don't see the sense in that comment. Unless you mean voting, you never were part of a process of granting rights. If you do mean voting, you can still do that.

I fully believe in something as important as the Charter to be excluded as part of the process to amend the thing into our primary Charter is a 'slap in the face' by abusive government who feels it is none of the business of the electorate.

So is your whole beef with the Charter simply that there was no referendum used to bring it in?

1.- I might be speaking from a personal level but I feel for instance the federal government should not be full of Quebec nationalist as employees of the federal government.

The Charter isn't responsible for that.

2.- I feel immigrants must adapt to Canadian traditions and don't feel the federal government should cater to them via 'official multiculturalism'.

Multiculturalism policy predates the Charter.

3.- Gay marriage rights should be a thing society at large either accepts or rejects...

Why?

4. Aboriginal rights have been settled by treaties etc. There is no need to constitutionalize Aboriginal anything.

What harm has happened to you from that?

I don't know if you understand that the Canadian people have a democratic right to be part of a national referendum concerning the amending of our constitution...

Well, actually there is no such 'right'. If you mean there SHOULD be that right, then you need to say 'should'.

[Leafless]

I'm afraid I don't see the sense in that comment. Unless you mean voting, you never were part of a process of granting rights. If you do mean voting, you can still do that.

I know that, myself and all Canadians were not part of the process.

This is the whole point.

Canadians never never received proper MP representation (the creation of a national referendum) relating to the federal government proposing at the time to implement a racist Charter.

You seem to be all for federal corrupt totalitarian rule. What nationality are you? Obviously you are very happy of the outcome.

The Charter isn't responsible for that.

Certainly the Charter is responsible for that.

Everyone knows Quebec is the BIG WINNER by default as a result of the Charter.

Why?

Relating to Gay marriage many Canadians feel offended by government legalizing a union between perverts.

I can detect a direct arrogance, that you have no respect concerning the society Canadians have developed over the years.

The federal government obviously shares this same arrogance as you or they would NEVER have forced the Charter on Canadians without the prior approval of Canadians in the form of a national referendum.

What harm has happened to you from that?

It extremely expensive to support in our case three societies ( Canada, Quebec and Aboriginals) when in fact there should only be one.

The only reason Canada is able to afford this is that they don't have the financial commitments of a real country relating to its sovereignty thanks to the U.S. in the way of trade and defense. Infrastructure suffers also by the federal government ignoring this area.

I mean continue to pump in the ethnic immigrants and let Joe Canadian suffer the consequences from having no place to put them, such as the case of Toronto where quality of life has plummeted because of this.

Include Ottawa also, where residents are fleeing even to Quebec to escape the consequences of high priced housing, plummeting quality of life caused by congestion and the inability of immigrants to conform to Canada's customs, which by the way the Charter promotes.

Well, actually there is no such 'right'. If you mean there SHOULD be that right, then you need to say 'should'.

Talk about a condescending view against Canadians.

Let's call a spade a spade and I will be perfectly honest that I don't have any respect for a person with a mentality like yours.