A stab at philosophical truth

 

You might be familiar with standardizing an argument.  I am having a lot of difficulty with this passage and just thought you could offer some insight.
The paragraph is:

Either truth is absolute or relative.  If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.  If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places.  But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate.  If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true:  "Truth is absolute."  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentencce cannot possibley be true.
What I have to do is decide if the passage contains an argument and if it does, standardize it by picking out the premises and the conclusion.
So far this is what I have, but it doesn't feel right to me.

A)     Question C contains an argument and can be standardized as such:

i) Either truth is absolute or relative.

ii) If absolute, a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.

iii) If relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, or places.

iv) However, if claimed that all truth is relative, the sentence “Truth is absolute” may be relative to some persons, times, or places.  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.

Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative.

i, ii, iii, iv are what seem to be the premises and "Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative" seems to be the conclusion.  Does this make sense to you, or am I way off course?

Thanks so much for looking at this.  If it is not something you are familiar with...no worries!

Premises that I see:

                                      

1)      The question is phrased as a polemic.  The states are assumed to be one or the other, but not a 3^rd, 4^th or 5^th.  For example, is it possible for a state to exist where Truth could be both relative and absolute?  Why must these concepts be considered in opposition to each other?  This is the initial premise.

2)      Everything that relates to Truth, must be a true statement.  All Truth is true. , makes the assumption that Truth (big T) is equivalent in some way, or derives from truisms.     If this were not the case, there is no way to argue Truth as an absolute, because the inconsistency of Truth being absolute or being flawed and therefore out of the argument.  So Everything must relate to truth as something that is true and not false.  Falsehood and Absolute Truth are really what should be in polemic.

4)      No quarter is given for different kinds of Truth, they aren't considered.  For example, there is Historical truth and Empirical truth.  Historical truth might correctly relay a lie that some character speaks or purports to be true.  So the assumption that Truth can have no falsehoods is a problem.  Empirical truth assumes that all that is true can be identified by the 5 senses.  But there are things that are true that lie outside the empirical boundary like: I love my kids.  This statement of fact is true, but there is no satisfying extrinsic ways to assess its validity, although some have tried.

5)      There is some sort of universality of Truth implied here that makes no room for Truth that changes.  Can Truth evolve?  Consider a stop light.  It is true the light is green, but not all the time.

6)      Truth could be states, that obeys quantum laws, especially in ways like Schrodinger cat.  Schrodinger proved that two opposite states could exist at one time, and that the state collapses to one of the two upon observation.   Each state is as true as the other simultaneously.

7)      ________________________________________

Those were some problematic assumptions. 

Now the argument: .  If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.  If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places.  But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate.  If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true:  "Truth is absolute."  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.  I am not convinced that this is proven: “relative to some persons the following sentence is true: “Truth is Absolute”, is what this is stating:

It assumes that Truth Can be true to some people as relatively absolute.  In other words, how can it be that for some people truth is absolute, if by way of opening definition Absolute Truth is in polemic with  “Relative Truth”. The premise assumes that each excludes the other. So then it could not be possible for the statement Truth is Absolute in a Relative way to some person since they are mutually exclusive to each other by way of a priori.   It is excluded by the premise. 

Another logical flaw includes the idea that Truth is on some sort of continuum from Absolute to Relative, when the a priori precludes it.  If truth is Absolute, then it exists off the continuum of relativity.  If this is true, then from the onset, from the first given, this shows that we are talking about entirely different concepts, but calling them both truth.

In my opinion the argument and conclusion does not remain true to the premise, or at least the alluded premises, which see Truth: Absolute and Relative--in opposition on a polemic, or affixed upon a continuum.  One assumes knowing relative truth in the most pure way causes one to know Absolute truth, when all the evidence shows that is unsubstantial.  It puts Truth on a continuum.  A continuum refutes the opening sentence, the first a priori—from the outset.  Because a continuum conflicts with the statement Truth is either  absolute or relative.  I think Absolute truth and Relative truth are across an event horizon from each other.  Otherwise there would be something in the argument that allows Absolute truth to exist as a quasi-relative truth across a sliding scale, instead of across an event horizon:  Allowing for relativity to approach it but never arrive.

In my mind this is resolved if we understand that Truth may be Absolute.  But our perceptions of Truth will always be relative.

Israel, Canada and the Rebuff at the UN.

In the long trajectory that is the direction of Canada, a government of what ever political stripe can change its trajectory but not it's direction.  In BC, the Fraser River arrows for the coast.  Intersecting it west of Kamloops flows the crystal clear waters of the Thompson.  For a time, as the two streams flow, the clear water flows still independent of the Fraser, but after a while, there is no distinguishing the two.  The Fraser river continues on its rush to the Pacific looking the same muddy brown it was before.

So it is that parties and Prime-ministers are elected.  Each contributes its unique flow to the nation of Canada.  But we appear to the world much the same as we always have been, for the nation is of hundreds and thousands and millions of streams.

Canada has always stood for freedom & democracy.
It was that principle that was behind our support of the creation of the UN.  Just as it was for the creation of the state of Israel:  Both Democracies...

So if we are to pay for this fundamental direction so foundational to our nationhood and our reason 'detere, then we should take it with honor when that is attacked by despots and Islamists. It reminds me of the Biblical Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said "blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you..."

For Canada to suffer standing for Freedom and Democracy and do do it with such grace & dignity should make us all proud.

An excellent article by David Frum. Diplomacy and the Candian SC bid.

David Frum  October 16, 2010 – 8:10 am

Canada needs a new national sport: solo boxing. What could be more Canadian than beating yourself up?
The story of Canada’s disappointment at losing the Security Council seat took a new turn Thursday: “U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest. With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve.” So reported Richard Grenell, a former press officer with the U.S. mission to the UN.
Grenell is right that Susan Rice was AWOL during the Security Council elections. She was travelling in Africa, which does seem a strange thing for an UN ambassador to do at such a crucial moment.
Others have suggested that the issue is one of competence. Susan Rice has not been receiving general good reviews for her UN service. Grenell goes even further: He scourges Ambassador Rice as “wildly ineffective,” complaining (among other things) about her failure to produce tougher UN sanctions against Iran.
This last complaint seems unfair. Sanctions are negotiated at the highest levels: in Washington, Berlin, Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing, not at Turtle Bay. Anyway, the key decision moment for Canada’s hopes for a Security Council seat was not last week at the UN. It was months ago, in Europe, when the United States and Canada should have persuaded one of the other Western contenders, Germany or Portugal to stand down. That way there would have been only two Western nominees for the two open Western seats.
So if a U.S. abandonment of Canada occurred, it occurred months ago — and it involved many more people than just a single UN ambassador.
I’ve been working the phones to understand why the United States was not more active on Canada’s behalf. I don’t have an answer yet. But I do have a theory. It’s only speculation, and could be wrong, but it’s worth thinking about.
The theory starts in Latin America.
Of the five seats that open in January 2011, one belongs to the Latin American bloc.
This seat will go to Colombia. The seating of Colombia is a deserved accolade for a democracy that has successfully battled terrorism and drug gangs. Colombia’s seating also represents a diplomatic victory for the United States: Colombia is a close U.S. ally and a target of subversion from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
How did the United States score this victory? Answer: with a lot of help from rising regional heavyweight, Brazil. (Brazil also helped the United States stop a Venezuelan bid for the Security Council back in 2006. The seat went instead to Guatemala.)
But when a country like Brazil offers help, it usually expects some kind of payback. Portuguese-speaking Brazil feels a special relationship with its former metropole, Portugal. And we know that Brazil campaigned hard for Portugal in the General Assembly vote.
So, let me spell out a possible solution to the case, Sherlock Holmes style:
In the early 2000s, Germany had launched a quixotic bid for a permanent Security Council seat. That bid went nowhere. But as a consolation prize the other European countries agreed to give Germany another early turn in a temporary seat — even though Germany had had a turn very recently, in 2003-2004.
Accelerating Germany’s next turn in this way threatened to displace small country Portugal, which had not had a turn since the 1990s. Portugal declined to stand down.
The United States might have tried to pressure Portugal — but didn’t, because it needed Brazil’s help with the Colombian nomination. Thus, two Western European candidacies went forward at the same time as Canada’s.
Although the United States preferred Canada’s nomination over Portugal’s, the deal with Brazil required the United States to stay neutral between Portugal and Canada both in Brussels and then at the General Assembly.
As I said, this is speculation. I can’t confirm it. But I do notice this: The U.S. government has kept awfully quiet about the suggestion that it went missing during the Security Council vote.
Not that silence proves a story true. But it makes you wonder.
Of course, as sometimes happens with amateur sleuths, it is also possible that my solution is far too complicated. It is possible that the real answer is much more blunderingly simple. The Obama administration dropped the ball, went passive, couldn’t be bothered. It was a botch, not a plan. That’s the least interesting and least satisfying explanation, but maybe in the end, the most plausible.
National Post
dfrum@frumforum.com

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/16/david-frum-asking-why-america-did-not-support-canada-at-the-un/#ixzz12XiAguEE

Comment to a sensical comment in the NP

Amen Stepp, so the new bully on the playground of the UN, the 57 vote block: Organization of Islamic Conference gave Canada a black eye.  Its pretty hard to win a vote with almost a 50% handi-cap.  Canada recused itself after the 2nd ballot, graciously giving the seat to Portugal.  Canada holds its head high.  We will not cow-tow to bullies.  Canada never has, and hopefully never will.

I am ok with not being the lap dog of an organization whose purpose is the infiltration and conversion of the free world.  I am ok with standing up to the most ruthless and dispicable group of people in the world.

Thank you Canada for standing tall on this one.

Chris Selly makes some good points in his article

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/chris-selleys-full-pundit-now-the-un-cant-come-to-our-birthday-party/

Good point Mr. Selley.  We need to keep everything in perspective.  The Organization of Islamic Conference wielded 57 votes.  They voted as a block against us, and persuaded others to as well.  Its hard starting out with nearly a 50% handi-cap at the best of times.  This group of despots and tyrants does wield power in the world, but it isn't something we should congratulate ourselves for winning over.  Since their overt reason d'être is to promote Islam, its dissemination and ultimate conquest of the world, I am ok with not being its toady.

Canada's rejection by the UN

Does anyone have the breakdown of the vote?  Which countries voted for whom?  It might be interesting to look at that.  It has been reported that the Islamist conference voted against Canada.  Canadians should take note of that.
Canada's neutrality when it comes to Israel is a myth.  Canada has always supported Israel--at least until recent years.  I was there in 1967, 1971, 1973.  I remember.  Am I the only one? 
   Or is it that reason?  Could Afghanistan factor into their equation?  10 years of war in a Muslim state could be taking its toll on other Islamic countries, notably  Pakistan recently.
  Speaking of which did Pakistan vote with that bloc?  After the 10s of millions of dollars we sent for flood relief? 
  Or how about Brazil?  Why would Brazil oppose Canada?  Just because Portugal is the mother country, would that be the reason?  Or could it be that Canada stood up and agreed that Nuclear-swap deal was an Iranian scam.  I know it hurt the president's feelings.

I don't know for sure if those are relevant factors.  They might be.  Admittedly it is conjecture.  But when I look at the list, I think I am pretty certain of 4 out of 5.  And I can't see Canadians wanting us to compromise on them,  So stay principled Canada--"good things come to them that wait."

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Anthony Watts describes it thus:

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
_________________________________________________________

Joblob...you have forgotten what I taught you again. Try to keep up, there's a good troll.....Reminder form your last tutorial:

The Earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age and has reached circa 15 to 15.5 deg C today.

However, it should be noted that the temperature of the Earth has been as high as 25 Deg C and as low as 10 Deg C. Hence today's temperatures are closer to the lower end of the geological reconstructions than the higher end. Scotese also shows the long term cycles of warm through cold and so on.

Ref Scotese Paleoclimate:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The State of the CAGW Hypothesis in Summary (last updated 20.00 hrs 3rd October 2010)

There is no empirical evidence of CAGW just a laboratory hypothesis that does not fit the highly complex nature of climate. The AGW cabal groupthink has turned (by stealth) a weak hypothesis based on a very old theory (Svante Arrhenius in 1896) into an urban legend (Dr Roy Spencer, climatologist, describes on his website what an urban legend is in this situation).

Statistical Facts on Global Temperatures etc:

If you use the HADCRUT or GISS data set (scatter grams), and use a best fit straight line then, of course, about 0.6 deg C increase in temperature is apparent over the entire 20th century – hardly alarming and few climate scientists consider it is all due to human emissions anyway. Because of the recent lack of warming this drops to 0.5 deg C if the last 100 years are considered.

However, a closer look reveals that as in any coupled non-linear complex (verging on chaotic?) system, we have to seek changes in trend. Linear Regression (best fit straight line) is insensitive to changes in trend i.e. recent stasis or cooling will do no more than reduce the slope of the regression line BUT for decades it will go on to show a fake warming trend. Any statistician knows this.

Let’s now analyse the multiple temperature trends since 1937 (the period attracting the heaviest accusations of man-made warming):

a) Statistically negative i.e. Cooling 1937 to 1970 (33 yrs)

b) Statistically positive i.e. Warming 1970 to 1995 (25 years)

c) Statistical Stasis 1995 to 2010 (15 years)
- ref Prof Phil Jones UEA CRU

Throughout the entire 73 years, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased smoothly year on year. FYI it was 310 ppmv in 1937 and had steadily risen to 390 ppmv by 2010. That’s about a 26% increase.

For only 25 years of the 73 year time frame above (period b) did warming correlate in any way, shape or form to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even then the erratic temperature profile showed little resemblance to the smooth steady rise in CO2.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Added following Dr Richard Courtney’s visit on 27th September 2010

Using the same mean global temperature datasets but going a little further back to 1910, we see the following:

1) An overall warming trend (slope on the graph) from 1910 to 1940 with a negligible rise in CO2 levels of 10 ppmv

2) Virtually the same overall warming trend (slope on the graph) repeated from 1970 to 2000 but with a rise in CO2 levels of 43 ppmv

IF CO2 were the primary temperature driver then how could a 43 ppmv increase only produce the same rate of warming as was observed with a mere 10 ppmv rise?

Note: This does not prove the rise in atmospheric CO2 has had no effect; it does prove that the rise in atmospheric CO2 has had no discernible effect.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In simple terms for you, the observations do not fit the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis.

The General Circulation models produce “pseudo-scary” scenarios for the future from poor assumptions based on exaggerating the weak relationship between temp and CO2 and also on highly inflated CO2 estimates. As Dr Freeman Dyson said, the models do not even get close to simulating reality (not verbatim).

You see, we know the science of aeronautics works because planes fly. The weak AGW hypothesis has created so much challenge and dissention because it can’t get off the ground; it falsifies itself time and again against the empirical data. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible (ref. UN-IPCC 2001 report).

Canadian foreign policy polemics

Foreign policy polemics:

Kyoto vs Canadian Economy.
Copenhagen vs Canada's unique energy needs
Afghanistan vs Abandoning NATO
G8-G20 vs The UN
Profligacy towards Dictatorships in Africa vs Common sense prudence
Canada's economic performance vs Any western government.
Canada's natural resources vs Those who want to steal them from us.
Canadian common sense vs UN insanity

Thank you Mr. Harper. I am with you.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/blame+Security+Council+defeat+Ignatieff/3660691/story.html#ixzz12CaAeJSO

On Vale gettting 1b dollar loan....

Mining turns dirt into gold. We tax that. I would rather these industries stayed Canadian. However, Canadians, and their pension plans thought it better to sell them. We need to remember that. Canadians owned the companies, and THEY decided to sell.

So the greed factor falls at our own feet. Shareholders decided it was better to take the money than the asset. I sympathize with the comments that object to this. However, if we want them back, Every Canadian can go buy a few shares. If unionists want to effect the psychology of the company, buy your way onto the board of directors.

I hate being told to put my money where my mouth is, however, until my unease turns into appropriate action, all I am doing is flatulating

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/10/04/vale-edc-financing.html#socialcomments#ixzz11QUVbtRb

Freedom of Speech and Islamic Hatred

I am for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But not without borders.
The borders are clear in Canadian law. Any promulgation of hatred is against the law. Whether it be from a pulpit, or a lecture stand, a classroom, the military, the police, the legal system, or even parliament.
Hatred is evil.

However fuzzy Canadian law might be, it becomes clearer the closer it comes to evil. Gay bashing, for example is easily and quickly identified as hatred, and vigorously prosecuted by society. Hatred under the guise of freedom of expression is harder to define. It becomes "fuzzy". Racisim, prejudice, belief, and opinion can become vehicles for hatred. It is hatred that makes them evil. You can talk about black people and white people. But when you talk hatred: Inject evil, then it becomes an ugly thing:  Racism.

Western society at least at the unconscious level is attuned to Islamic hatred. It is the evil we are at war with. Islamic people in most contexts are good people-not evil at all. Christian people in most contexts are good people-not evil at all. But whether you are Christian or Islamic, if you add hatred, then make no mistake the taint is through and through; anything even with supposedly good intent, becomes evil like leaven in bread--Or food that has touched gasoline.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/01/imam-mackay.html#socialcomments#ixzz11DoL4Oeh

Canadian Politics 12:00 PM on October 1, 2010

12:00 PM on October 1, 2010

This comment has been removed from our system.

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore SilverSliver77. Show DetailsHide Details

Had the aide not resigned, effectively taking responsibility, then it would be appropriate for the minister to resign. The aide may in fact be falling on his sword, it has happened this way before countless times under every administration.

The minister appropriately notified the Information Commissioner. Hello did any one catch that?
An impartial assessment will be made. If Paradis had done anything wrong, would he do such a thing?

Rabid behavior is identified by irrational attacks

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Opposition+call+Paradis+resignation+over+aide+gaffe/3609102/story.html#ixzz118iCHBds

On Prostitution Laws being struck down by the supreme court:

2:58 PM on October 1, 2010

This comment has been removed from our system.

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore SilverSliver77. Show DetailsHide Details

Dan, I have written elsewhere that we keep the pimps under the criminal code. The prostitute however should be licensed. They would pay far less in taxes than they do their johns. We could use that money to put extra officers in the red-light district. Rebuild the sense of trust such that a girl in trouble can get quick assistance not from a john, but a cop that can lay assault charges on the spot. Monthly health checkups could be mandatory, and addictioin services could be available as well.

Man NP Get your Editor FIXED! ITs the WORST on the entire NET!

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/01/dan-gardner-prostitution-ruling-confronts-wall-of-apathy/#ixzz118hyR9jO

Cyber Super Weapons

This is inevitable technology. The west better have its systems on guard for this sort of tech to come back on them. It makes me particularly nervous to read new fighters are to be programmed in C. I hope the programming is isolated or we could see planes falling out of the sky.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/01/burrowing-inside-the-worlds-first-cyber-superweapon/#ixzz118hjoNEP

Ms Jean. Canada's retiring GG

3 Million is promised for a foundation in her name...

Ms Jean  Greatly loved by Canada. This was a gesture of appreciation. A token. It wasn't payment, nor was it tied to a reward for her. It amounts to less than 10 cents per Canadian. But has a federal matching component for the next decade. If you think the gift too little send one appropriate, and the government will double it. That would be putting your money where your mouth is.

Opinon on opiniion in Don Martin's book.

Re Don Martin's smear of the PM in his book:

 

Even if none of this book is true, even if it is debunked line upon line,
There will still be people who would believe it before the facts, and not change their opinion in spite of them.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Book%20Harper%20seeing%20Liberal/3604905/story.html?plckItemsPerPage=20&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:4e619a13-eb52-4373-abbb-b46dc6dc594f#pluck_comments_list#ixzz113GeB6Rs

2 people died in a shoot out in Toronto...

There goes our 66-104 million dollar gun registry--hard at work.
(its not 4mil that was mis-reported. It was supposed to be an efficiency saving in the report--check it out.)

Well police cheif Blair, hows that gun registry making your job any easier...

OH right, its one of your peons that have to go break the news to the families.

Sure am glad you yapped about its effectiveness... Irrelevant and expensive garbage.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/09/30/toornto-homicides.html#socialcomments#ixzz112RYUmu3

What the Analists Say: Canada's GDP

http://business.financialpost.com/2010/09/30/what-the-analysts-say-canadas-gdp/

So the economy declined .1% in July.  And inflation numbers look flat.

Surprise surprise.  I told Mr. Carney those interest rate hikes were too soon.  As if he would ever listen to the likes of me.  The economy is too fragile.  The rebound does not reach every corner of the economy.  Businesses are still failing--unable to recover from the past 2 years.

Flagherty Ragging

Bah humbug!! The ragging about deficit spending is so old, and so well answered, I wonder if there are bots on the boards. In case you haven't gotten out lately the last 2 years have been extremely challenging times.
50Billion in spending is peanuts. In the past 19 months Obama has racked up a 2.65 trillion dollar deficit.
If we were lock step with them as we often are, our defecit would be 265 billion, in stead of 50.

And yet there are these complainers to rag at this ad nauseum. Exceptional times call for exceptional measures. Why doesn't that get through to some people? Are they partisan shills? I mean if we are going to have a debate, score some innovative thought-provoking points---Not the same-old same-old stuff.
I am small c conservative, but its as plain as day that we needed to do this stimulus. The world was on the edge of a flipping depression for *od's sake. Does no one know the difference between a structural deficit and a stimulus deficit? Would you expect Canada to be the only country in the western world to hold back stimulus--it would be suicide. In fact, compared to the raging printing presses to the south, I am worried we didn't print enough money ourselves. The plummeting US dollar is to be expected, and they are going to pull our currency down with them, no matter what our interest rate, deficit, or budget. Deflation is happening, we just are not aware of it yet.

Canada has a plan to be back in a balanced budget in a couple years. That is extraordinary.
We stride the precipitous ridges, remarkably up right

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news/Ottawa%20wind%20down%20stimulus%20plan/3585415/story.html#ixzz10ky81Jv8

Cancer in Ft Mac?

I would like to see the results of the full study.

Some people know this first nation group has exhibited rare cancers, and ill-health for a hundred years at least.

Some people know that along the banks of the Athabasca bitumen has been seeping for thousands of years at least. Some people know where the seeps are worst is where the companies mine first. The net result will be a big drop in the natural contaminants of the river.

I would expect that it is in those places these pollution rates are highes, since it is the source of both river contaminants and bitumen.  What I want to see is the environmental review now commissioned.  Few people know the care that is undertaken to keep contaminants from the system.  If there is a leak from oilsands development, then show us the numbers.

I don't know how the first nations band is treated at Ft. Chip.  Do they not get some sort of royalty?
Is there not some sort of set up for water sources that are clean and pure?  I know there are many lakes all around that can be fished aside from Athabasca.  I would have been fishing from there for the last 100 years. 

A very important piece on the birth and growth of the Canadian Debt.

As much as the die hard liberal voter want to deny the truth, the history books won't let them. It always concerns me when people remember historic events but only go back so far in history. Where do you think the debt came from before Mulroney? Our past debt was left by My Charisma himself, Trudeau, inflated by 16-20%+ interest rates in the Mulroney era. That is why I had to save this following comment from A Catherine:   "I am a retired federal government employee who worked under the Trudeau government, who took Canada from a $18 billion debt left over from WW11, when he took office in 1967, & turned into a $271 billion dollar debt, created by massive out of control spending, & lack of balanced budgets the full 16 years he was in power. He grew the National Debt by 1100%.   The Interest owing on that debt after he left office and Mulroney took power in 1984, was $30 billion per year which ate into the Mulroney budgets the full 8 years he was in office. Mulroney managed to pay down $42 billion down on the Trudeau debt, and balanced his budgets every year, however, the interest owing on the Trudeau debt caused him to declare deficits most of his time in power.   Chretien came to power in 1993, the Trudeau debt had grown to $471 billion because of the massive interest charges on the debt. Chretien began his own spending spree in 1993 that grew the debt by another 200% by 1996, bringing the National Debt to $521 billion, before he was forced to take notice by the Bonding Agents who downgraded Canada's  Read more:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/23/united-nations-canada-security-council.html#socialcomments#ixzz10NQ3jsbI

Dimmano's Article on Spousal stats and the Long Gun Registry

Had some trouble accessing this Rosie, didn't want to lose it by your newspaper purging it from the website:  Hope its ok...

When domestic violence turns deadly in Canada, killers are far more likely to reach for a knife than a gun.
However impetuously spouse-on-spouse homicide may occur — such murders are rarely plotted before the fatal eruption of rage — the weapon of choice is usually as close to hand as a kitchen drawer.
A female, four times more often than a male the victim in spousal homicide, will probably be stabbed, not shot by a long gun, the firearm that is again at the centre of a rural-versus-urban divide over Canada’s polarizing gun registry.
These figures have remained consistent since Statistics Canada first began tracking the too-long-ignored phenomenon of domestic murder. In 1995, the year Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s government passed the new Canadian Firearms Act — with its included gun registry requirement — 71 women across the country were slain by their intimate partners, a dozen of them by a rifle or shotgun. Sixteen were knifed to death, 12 strangled, six clubbed by a blunt instrument, six shot with handguns and other lives variously extinguished by poisoning, cutting with an instrument other than a knife, or set on fire.
In 2008, the last year for which figures are available, nine women were killed by a long gun (one by a handgun, a weapon not legally licensed to most Canadian civilians, though easily obtained by street criminals seeking fire power), 15 stabbed and eight strangled.
Spousal homicide in general, whether male on female or female on male, has been steadily declining for three decades. In 1995 there were 93 murders; in 2008 there were 62. One is still too many, obviously, but the trend does suggest that men and women are becoming less hotheaded or lethally explosive on the home front, at least with each other. This could be attributable to public education about domestic violence, earlier intervention in volatile relationships or partners wisely removing themselves from a potentially dangerous situation before the point of no return. And maybe women are making better choices about the men to whom they make a wedded or common law commitment.
Yet there’s nothing in the research to support the argument that the registration of long guns is saving women’s lives — a fallacy championed by many fearful the billion dollar registry will be scrapped when put to the vote Sept. 22 in the House of Commons on a backbencher Conservative private member’s bill.
There may be good reasons for maintaining the 15-year-old registry, however faulty and unwieldy it’s been in the application, but as legislated bulwark to safeguard the lives of vulnerable women is not one of them, any more than accidental discharge can be prevented by a duly logged and properly provenanced firearm.
It’s a misleading and dramatically overwrought hypothesis.
If the theory is that having a long gun in the house puts women at risk because some combustible guy will use it in a moment of blind fury, that opportunity would exist whether the weapon is registered or not. If not a shotgun because that individual has been refused a licence after a background check, or because he has turned over the firearm rather than cooperate with the system as it now exists, then he will seize on something else to commit the crime, whether a knife, a baseball bat or his bare hands.
Women die in domestic confrontations because they are usually smaller, weaker and unable to defend themselves. Ironically, a shotgun in a woman’s hands is a great equalizer.
To remove the offending article, or simply make it more bureaucratic to possess, doesn’t render the assailant any less deadly. That assumption may feel right, virtuous, but it lacks both logic and evidentiary basis.
We all want to protect lives, particularly those lost so senselessly to a moment of frenzied and irrational thought. We think we can impose buffers on violence by limiting the things that kill, which are not merely the articles designed to kill.
The same well-intentioned assertion was passionately wielded in Toronto to justify erecting a costly suicide barrier on the Bloor Street viaduct: If you build it, they won’t jump. Critics who countered that people intent on killing themselves would simply find another means — perhaps leaping from the nearby Leaside Bridge — were drowned out. Yet that’s precisely what happened. An academic study published this year showed there’d been no change in the average number of jumper suicides in Toronto pre- and post-barrier.
Facts and realities will likely not influence the upcoming Parliamentary vote which, with some rural NDP members now signalling a reversal of intentions — from opposing to supporting the registry’s continuation — might yet lead to the bill’s defeat.
It’s a trigger issue, deeply emotional for its symbolic substance if nothing else.
Just don’t pretend that the lives of women hang in the balance of a gun registry’s fate. They’ll still be on the knife’s edge of spousal murder.

Question on the effectivness of the LGR on suicide.

ous etes con said: ""Hello officer? Yes, I just got off the phone with my son and his marriage is not going well and he was talking about suicide".

Cop's do a check and see he has guns, which he does, and goes and takes them before he does something regrettable.

"You did the right thing, ma'am, he has two rifles in his house, Nobody's going to get hurt".

The next morning he was found hanging from a rope in the garage with the car running and barbituates in his blood stream.

This is too true.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/09/20/long-gun-registry.html#socialcomments#ixzz106Cl6PVa

Reworked Gun Registry /property or harm?

Tnarg said: "Oh yes! I know what you mean you poor law-abiding shooter! I'm a law-abiding driver and I have to register ALL MY CARS!!! I too feel treated like a special class of criminal.
Fight the auto registry today!!!"

First of all, in a 3:2 decision the Supreme court said the LGR was constitutional for 2 reasons: 1) It was under the federal jurisdiction because it was criminal law. 2) It was acceptably classified under the purview of criminal law because it was a law to protect from imminent threat of harm. So conversely, if the law fails to protect, it can't be under criminal law.

If it fails to protect, then its only value is as a registry of property. Property is a provincial matter. That is why you register your car--under provincial law, your house, your dog, whatever property you have is under that umbrella

Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.

So you want to apply vehicle registration to the debate? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic.
Vehicle registration has zero to do with safety.
There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade. Did a registry stop them? Vehicle registrations are about theft and insurance neither of which factor into the LGR debate. Because that is supposed to be about safety.

Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that make you able to sleep at night?

Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?

Gun Registry politics.

I think you have a point.  Had the registry's defeat been secured, anti-registry people would not be as energized in the next campaign.  However this defeat is the best solution politically.

1.2 million people own a registered gun. 1.2 million people had to go through screening.  1.2 million people have to pay annual fees on their guns to keep their registry current.  1.2 million gun owners can have their homes invaded by the police so their guns can be "inspected"--all without warrant.  So the very act of registry annuls section 7&8 of the charter.

The 1.2 million voter's vote will be hard as steel.  They will vote. (had the registry gone down they might not have).  They will vote against the opposition parties en masse.  1.2 million votes represent 10% of the last election's voters.

All of that said, the registry represents only about 1/3 of the gun owners in canada.  The 2/3s those of us equally opposed, will be voting as well.  In the face of previously being law abiding, but now being outlaws, criminals, how do you think we will vote?

That means gross numbers could be as high as 30%.  Especially given the fact that entire families of an outlaw are probably going to vote with him.

F-35s again

Metasphere: Thank you for the report/comparison.  The SU-35 is an interceptor.  It was designed to attempt to achieve air superiority.  The suitable counter is the F-22.  Less than 200 of these planes were built at a cost of 500b.  Production was halted and unfunded this year.  The F-22 is not sold to ANY other country than the USA.  However, if Canadians are balking at the cost of the F-35 at 134m each, how would it go if the price per plane was 250m each?

Russian planes have always been good on paper.  Their numbers are essential equivalents to the planes of the West.  The SU-35 is rated as a 4.5 generation plane however.  The reason relates to the vastly superior avionics in the F-35.

It is easy for Canadians to default to the view these planes are for arctic interception.  However, I think there was analysis that looked at all the roles we had need of in the past 25 years.  Our F-18s were nice planes.  But air superiority was achieved fairly quickly, and the usefulness dropped as we needed more of an Air-ground role.

Barring some radical turn, Russia's warming relationship with the west may lead to negligible threat from them.  There are states overtly hostile to the west.  God forbid we should need to clash.  The future is best seen in hindsight.
I can tell you in 1977 we could not see that within a decade the Soviet Union would fall.

A military command is charged with looking at as many scenarios as possible, and to prepare the military as best we can to meet them.  At least under the conservative watch, we don't have to stand on a runway with our thumbs up looking for a ride.  A vast improvement.  We are moving in the best direction in my view.

Jablonsa: "Its a rotten deal considering the Americans are paying 132 million per plane while Canadians are being asked to pay 246 million per plane."

Ok considering your are repeating this nonsense, here is the logic:

The projected purchase price of these planes which includes cost over-runs is 134 million.  It actually is less, closer to 95 m a plane.  But the 134 number is used because we wanted to include cost of missals etc, AND we wanted to make sure our cost at this stage was on the high side.
Secondly, opponents have disingenuously added 7 billion dollars to the cost for maintenance for the next 20 years.  Some including this paper buy into it hook-line-and sinker.  While it is outstanding our government is willing to publish total cost of ownership, never has this standard been employed.  It wasn't for our F-18s which just had a maintenance contract approved for 1/2 billion.  Do you really think that 1/2 billion was in the original purchase price?  Give me a break.  So the government tries for transparency, but the partisan shills on this board turn it into a vice instead.

So, this 250m per plane is a crock.  Since no one else is calling you guys on this, I guess I will.

The cost of Mental Ilness

There is so much stigma still in admitting you are struggling with mental illness. For many, they will read no further now that is said.

I think in some mental illnesses there is a continuum that ranges from suicide to happiness and pleasure.
Some Canadians spend their lives living in the dark side of that spectrum. Some don't even believe there is such a thing as light, so long they have lived there.
It is true that there are drugs that can change that.
These drugs don't get you high, nor are they addictive. But many many people have been significantly helped to almost say there is a cure.
There is a great counseling network across Canada as well.
It is hard to keep a job sometimes with a mental illness particularly if it is debilitating. Perhaps this is why so many homeless people suffer mental illness

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Mental+health+leaves+cost+Canadian+economy+billion+Study/3505498/story.html#comments#ixzz0zT2DyRQL

On Doctors Supporting a Gun Registry

Prairie Lady said:and the Medical Doctors, nurses etc... are on board for a gun registry.  Public workers not only police who deal with the horrific results of previously not having a registry are on board.

Horrific results?  Any more horrific people dismembered by a drunk driver?  Does it matter in this regard that the drunk's car was in  fact registered?  ER doctors get exposed to a lot of excruciating stuff, and we respect them for it.  But this issue is one that daunts even their intelligence I guess.

I am sure the list would be long what they want to ban...
from Marijuana to Heroin to Drunk Drivers, to incompetent ones.  From pill overdose to CO poisoning.  Lets keep everything in context

More Registry as the NDP drop predicably spaced to maximize the bill's demise

Hmm the Star ran: "Dimannno: Long Gun Registry won’t save the lives of spouseshttp://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/859053--dimanno-long-gun-registry-won-t-save-the-lives-of-spouses " After  listing the stats thoroughly with actual numbers to back them up, she concluded:
"Yet there’s nothing in the research to support the argument that the registration of long guns is saving women’s lives — a fallacy championed by many fearful the billion dollar registry will be scrapped when put to the vote Sept. 22 in the House of Commons on a backbencher Conservative private member’s bill"
Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that really make you Liberals able to sleep at night?
Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sick person wielding it**?

Comments on Mental Illness VS says it costs us 51b annually

There is so much stigma still in admitting you are struggling with mental illness. For many, they will read no further now that is said.

I think in some mental illnesses there is a continuum that ranges from suicide to happiness and pleasure.
Some Canadians spend their lives living in the dark side of that spectrum. Some don't even believe there is such a thing as light, so long they have lived there.
It is true that there are drugs that can change that.
These drugs don't get you high, nor are they addictive. But many many people have been significantly helped to almost say there is a cure.
There is a great counseling network across Canada as well.
It is hard to keep a job sometimes with a mental illness particularly if it is debilitating. Perhaps this is why so many homeless people suffer mental illness

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Mental+health+leaves+cost+Canadian+economy+billion+Study/3505498/story.html#comments#ixzz0z90BWgTD

When you barely can get out of bed, when your body aches, when you can't stop crying, when you have to cope with panic attacks, when some days all you can think about it suicide.  It is hard to stay on the job.

More LGR debate.

proffessorx said: "Why is it ok to register a car, a tractor, a trailer, a boat, or a dog - but registering a gun is an infringement of liberties?"

"The LGR protects?" "We register Cars, why not guns?"

Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.

So you want to apply vehicle registration to the debate? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic.
Vehicle registration has little to do with safety.
There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade.  Did a registry stop them?  Vehicle registrations are about theft and insurance neither of which factor into the LGR debate.  Because that is supposed to be about safety.

Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? Does that make you able to sleep at night?

Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens because of the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?

Supreme Court decision

An exhaustive read:


http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/CourtofAppeal/Judgments/tabid/84/ctl/previewSelectedResult/mid/664/Default.aspx?results=3CFD0C24-DB34-413D-9C78-B7CD77ADF323&doc=8

http://www.garrybreitQuotes From: kreuz.com/publications/violatescharterofrightsandfreedom.htm

?impact said: "Absolute BS. You do not give up any of your rights after registering a gun. That is simple fear mongering used to stir up distrust in the registry. The police are under the exact same obligations with regard to search and seizure regardless of how many firearms you may have registered."

Oh really?
"But C-68 goes far beyond these legitimate objects of state regulation and strikes at the mere act of possessing a Firearm inside one’s own home. This is done in the absence of any evidence of harm to others or threat of such harm—the primary justifications in a liberal democracy for the state to interfere with the personal liberty of its citizens. C-68 imposes an intrusive and stigmatising regulatory regime on the lawful activity of merely possessing a firearm in the privacy of one’s own home. As noted by Justice Conrad of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the first constitutuional challenge to C-68:"

And More:
"Section 105 of the Firearms Act also violates section 7 (and 8) of the Charter.[vii] Section 105 requires a person to bring in a firearm for inspection when requested to do so by a government official. Section 113 makes it a criminal offence (punishable on summary conviction) to refuse to comply with a request made under section 105. This violates the “principles of fundamental justice,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that a person cannot be coerced into providing police with self-incriminating evidence...However, as Wicklum has pointed out, section 105 is an attempt to circumvent the search warrant requirement. When drafting Bill C-68, the government anticipated that it would be wildly impractical, inefficient and costly to have to apply for a search warrant for every suspected unregistered firearm. Section 105 provides a much more efficient and less expensive way to achieve the same end: just tell the suspect to bring the evidence to the station “for inspection,” and make it a crime not to comply"
____________________

In addition to prescribing procedures to obtain a search warrant, sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act authorize warrantless searches in two instances: if the inspector has the consent of the occupant or has given the occupant “reasonable notice.” Since these two exceptions allow the police to conduct searches and seizures—in private homes--without prior judicial approval, they are prima facie violations of section 8 of the Charter. Neither of these criteria meet the requirements spelled out by the Court for warrantless searches
____________________

?impact: Here read this.  My argument is fully substantiated.  I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar because you disagree with me.
I see very little fact from the pro-registry argument.  But a lot of unjustified put-downs.
A sign they have lost the debate.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hail+these+chiefs/3462216/story.html
____________________
?impact said : "How do you come to that conclusion? There is nothing in the act that allows that. If they believe you have a gun they can demand that within a reasonable time you produce that gun for verification."
_________________

Wow, its simple to find that information.
Here is a court finding, and a quote from the act itself.
"While Canadians have a right to protection only against ‘unreasonable’ intrusions upon their privacy, the provisions of Bill C-68 go beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The search and seizure powers granted by C-68 are unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes “at any reasonable time” and to search “any place where the inspector believes . . . there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]” and “may open any container . . . examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police “fishing expeditions” imposed by the courts’ interpretation of the section 8”
"Section 102 in particular states: “102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may..."

A slightly different spin on LGR.

For my urban friends, I need to say that the registry issue for over a million Canadians is so serious, it could become THE single reason for the rural vote. More than infrastructure, free-trade, immigration, balanced budgets, and abortion put together. Liberal MPs are wiped out west of Sudbury. The vehemence is on par with that which still lingers over the National Energy Policy of the Trudeau era. Does that mean everyone in the west are anti gun registry? No, obviously that would be impossible. There are urban centers out here too which simply can't understand the rural Canadian.

This issue has the ability to make the next election a one button issue for 1 million of us. Iggy could stand on his head, dress in a tutu and not squeak one more vote out here. Had they allowed a genuinely free vote, rural Canadians in question would be far more likely to swing their votes on some other issues. But this will harden their opposition, create volunteers and door knockers for MPs that voted on the basis of their personal integrity and the wishes of their constituencies.

StanL: I think you have misjudged the mind of the Rural voter. What you fail to see is that we are far more pragmatic that you seem to give us credit for. Had the rural gun owner been treated fairly, and the state had stayed out of our homes, and had we not born this injustice for so many years, this issue could fade away. If the registry dies even moreso.
It could otherwise be virtually forgotten by the next election. The Liberal voter might be concerned but not *that* concerned. It is different with us. To not appreciate this is to continue to misunderstand us, and further deepen the schism between the rural and urban classes. Assuming the west is not alone, that rural voters across Ontario,Quebec, the North and Maritimes feel the same way,the old East vs. West polemic loses its strength.

Last election 35% of of registered voters voted. In round numbers, 12 million votes. 1.2 million gun owners is 10%..

Gun Registry the illusion of safety.

"The LGR protects?" "We register Cars, why not guns?"

Such "protection" is an illusion. You think the registration of the Nanny state affords any protection at all? It isn't the registry that protects Canadians from guns, its common human decency that does so.

Apply the logic to vehicles will you? How many vehicle registrations stop vehicular homicides? Take a look at your logic. Make that point and suddenly you are approaching this from the position of hysteria. There are far far more people killed by drunk drivers each year than long guns in a decade.  Did a registry stop that?

Do you honestly think that my registered rifle stops me from parking outside a school yard and committing mass murder moreso than my unregistered one? How safe does that make you feel?

Step back and examine a few instances. Try the tragic fact individuals in China penetrated schools and murdered kindergarten students. They used unregistered knives and cleavers. Tragic. Is it logical to think that murder happens in the instrument used, or instead rather **the sicko behind it**?

Safety is an illusion on this one.

Treatise on Canadian Right to bear Arms.

The Right to Bear Arms--A Canadian Thing?

First of all, let it be accepted that most Canadian law has its roots in the British Legal system--Quebec excepted.

Secondly, let it be noted that the Canadian constitution explicitly states that the constitution recognizes in sec 26, "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as to denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."  It simply limits the constitution's purview, and explicitly states it shall not usurp other rights and freedoms just because it doesn't mention them.

3)It is possible then that Canadians have rights and freedoms not identified in the Charter.

4)How are we to know about such rights?  Firstly because of legal precedent--both in terms of earlier laws, and subsequent judgments.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not toss out all legal precedent. Rather it is deemed that the Laws, Rights and Freedoms that existed before the charter existed after.

5) Where is the precedent?  It stretches back to 1688 under article VII of the English Bill of Rights.  The same sort of root of law we look to in our own Bill of Rights.  This was in effect in Canada for so long as it was under British rule.
Legal decisions both before and after the BNA act of 1867 looked to this document as a fundamental to law.  Additionally, all British legal precedent weighed in on Canadian legal decisions.

6)The exact quote is: "That the subjects which are protestant may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law"

7)Following this there are centuries of precedent, Blackstone's Commentaries in the 18th century for example, included the right to bear arms as one of the five most fundamental rights.

8) Bill C68 that gave rise to the registry, violates fundamental rights on far more levels that quoted herein.

The Canadian Charter states Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure."

In every other case, Canadians who do not register a gun have this right. Once you register, you lose it.

You lose it because instead of getting a warrant the rests on reasonable proof at the hand of a judge, your home can be invaded if an inspector believes (suspects) you have a gun in the home.

Ironically, unregistered gun owners are still protected by the Charter sec. 8.

9/7/2010 12:36:41 PM For my urban friends, I need to say that the registry issue for over a million Canadians is so serious, it could become the single reason for the rural vote. More than infrastructure, free-trade, immigration, balanced budgets, and abortion put together. Liberal MPs are wiped out west of Thunderbay. The vehemence is on par with that which still lingers over the National Energy Policy of the Trudeau era. Does that mean everyone in the west are anti gun registry? No, obviously that would be impossible. There are urban centers out here too which simply can't understand the rural Canadian. This issue has the ability to make the next election a one button issue for 1 million of us. Iggy could stand on his head, dress in a tutu and not squeek one more vote out here. Had they allowed a genuinely free vote, rural Canadians in question would be far more likely to swing their votes on some other(s)issues. But this will harden their opposition, create volunteers and door knockers for MPs that voted on the basis of their personal integrity and the wishes of their constituencies.   ____________________________   9/7/2010 12:58:23 PM I think you have misjudged the mind of the Rural voter. What you fail to see is that we are far more pragmatic that you seem to give us credit for. Had the rural gun owner been treated fairly, and the state had stayed out of our homes, and had we not born this injustice for so many years, this issue could fade away. If the registry dies even moreso. It could be virtually forgotten by the next election by proponents and opponents. You are right Mr. Silver, the Liberal voter might be concerned but not *that* concerned. It is different with us. To not appreciate this is to continue to misunderstand us, and further deepen the scism between the rural and urban classes. Assuming the west is not alone, that rural voters across Ontario,Quebec, the North and the Maritimes feel the same way. The old East vs. West polemic loses its strength. Last election 35% of registered voters bothered to vote. In round numbers, 12 million votes. 1.2 million votes in the bag ought to give any party pause for thought. A 10% head start?

The G20 issue drags on.

I am sure the Canadian public opinion will move.  I think 17% disapproval is a bit low.  It will rise in direct relation to time, as people forget the images of burning police cars, smashed windows, targeted businesses.

If a poster has had a negative experience with police in the past, I could see it overshadow the issue of the G20.  Because the "unfair" encounter leads one to suspicion on this account.

The black block needs to be treated as a terrorist organization, and be hunted down and taken apart.  They ruined the protest for any other group.  It was a disgrace.

If it weren't for Blair's involvement in CPAC, I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Now I just think he should do the right thing, & fall on his sword so we can move on.
____________________________

Another Opinion: "You want an answer to your question? Fine.
Stopping the mob from doing any further damage is enforcing the law. I'm sure if there was an easy way to stop them, the police would have used it... but there wasn't.

What would YOU have done?"
_____________________________

Excellent point.  You can view this at least 2 ways: 1) There was a peaceful protest infiltrated by vandals.  They were in no way protected by the protest, but were distinguishable by their black clothes and should have been seen for what they were.
      2) There was not a peaceful protest.  There was nothing peaceful about it.  In many ways the vandals were protected deliberately by the crowd.
Lobbing feces, urine, stones, spitting etc are not acts of peaceful protest.

In the first case, one splits the groups up, as is commonly done in this forum.  The second case views the group as a whole.