What's with the Canadians we send to the United Nations ??

Are Louise Arbour, Louise Frechette and Maurice Strong the best we can do ??

Or were they hand picked during the decades Quebec rule ?? (Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin)

An adgenda ?? Naw, can't be.

It is very disturbing that this ignorant woman sat on the Supreme Court of Canada - if she is any indication of the 'talent' we have on the Court - Canadians should be very worried.

Down with that abomination of Stalin's USSR - UN!
UN: protecting the right of Soviets to sell weapons to the dictators all over the world.

Hey - does anyone else remember Ms. Arbour's report on the riot at the women's penitentiary - women guards were held hostage, the rioters being a particularly nasty lot - including one woman jailed for having slit the throat of an 80 year old man. Male guards were used to quell the riot and, sage that she is, Ms. Arbour insisted there be an apology to the rioters because a) men were used to suppress the riot, b) the rioters were put into holding cells in solitary for 30 or so hours i.e. a little longer than the prescribed 24 hours and c) the riot squad cut off the rioters' clothes to subdue them (which is a standard technique) - no harm done to the rioters, but the prison was a wreck and one of the guards held hostage quit the service because of her horrific experience as a captive, fearing for her life.

this is also a lady who felt the Supreme Court of Canada wasn't important enough for her and quit for career reasons - She has an ego the size of Jupiter, or should that be Venus. However, on the bright she can do Canada far less harm with the UN.

What a squeeze, Louise.

Ron, you forgot Avi Lewis' father. Argh.

Arbour is a national disgrace. Stunning indeed to imagine that someone could sit on the Canadian Supreme court one day, and beside a bunch of murderous misogynists the next. Especially a female someone.

I wonder if she knew Zahra Kazemi?

Boy,the lieberals sure can pick them.

Someone please put Arbour out of her misery...hell we'd do as much for any mad bitch with rabies.

CBC also did another piece, the one with Dick Clarke (sp?) where Bush was complete incompetent because he failed to connect the WTC and hijacked airliners as guided missiles, while Clinton as usual, exonerated, for letting Bin Laden grow his influence while AQ matured operationally. I don't recall, though, Clarke in the news, threatening to resign if we didn't go after bin Laden. Oh yeah, he was too busy writing his memoirs.

This link up with the moonbat left is a gift from Allah to the West. The "CIA did it" revelation should be out soon, too.
BTW, amazing how USSR, China in same cold war space as US, get a free ride everytime from the USA pariah state crowd.

C'est la vie.

Did I miss a memo? When did Iran's news agency become a reliable source on anything? Can we expect reprints of their reports on the latest from the Council of Elders of Zion next?
Sadly, as long as Iran's a member of the UN, Arbour will be obligated to deal with them as part of the conditions of her employment. I wouldn't want her job.

Perhaps not Mark - but she wants her job.

CBC Newsworld is broadcasting Michael Moore's conspiracy-theory documentaries as if these represent historical fact.

Canada needs it's own Fox channel.

SHe need no say the things she does, and in fact could have really done some good by highlighting some issues.

Of course I am sure, in good UN speak, that is best done behind closed doors.

Question is did she wear a hijab out of cultural dference. One hopes not. Just checked the picture, oops she did....talks big at home, backs down overseas.

The only good thing about this is that I'm-a-dinner-jacket and ayatollah whackjob will tie her to a wall and stone her to death for showing too much skin at this conference, once western liberal guilt puts these guys fully in charge.

Let's count our blessings. At least Louise Arbour is no longer a judge in Canada.

saw part of the CBCpravda piece that aired the night before the fahrenhiet 911 propaganda. it was done by terrance mackenna complete with ominous music and photos of bush reading to the kids in school while planes were smashing into the WTC.

it appeared that is was all the administrations fault , bush did nothing for 7 minutes , bush took 5 minutes to get to the motorcade, bushes motorcade turned the wrong direction.

hardly the guys that hijacked the planes fault , they were just martyrs. I dont think they even called them insurgents, the usual CBCpravda name for terrorists.

hardly

Nice orange hijab on the useful idiot.

It turns my stomach and insults me to the bone as an American that CBC chooses to air Fahrenheit 9/11 on the eve of 9/11. Have they no decency, the swines.

I think even the most craven network wouldn't dare pull that here.

It's disgusting that the CBC is so untouchable. I hope someday you can stop the taxpayer extortion money that funds it.

Thank you for posting this for us to read Kate. As you said there is not a peep about this disgraceful act of the 'unholy cow' attending this spectacle on the Canadian MSM.

This betrayal, by the MSM, of the Canadian people should make the CBC - paid for by taxpayers - a casualty of lack of funding. I second William Lyon McKenzie - we must demand the dismantling of this treacherous organization (CBC). The CBC is, by action, (choice of programing) aligning the Canadian people with the terrorists who want to kill us.

I'm really surprised that the CBC hasn't got one of those hooded wonders hosting the National news. I mean, don't ya think it's about time, CBC????

Total agreement. The CBC is a national disgrace because it has moved completely out of its original mandate to express the diverse work of Canadians, and has become a theocratic propaganda mouthpiece of the socialist left. It is now a propaganda agent of the socialist left. It has nothing to do with Canadians.

This is a result of a gov't system which has a governance made up, ten to one, of unilaterally appointed authorities rather than elected representatives. These people are appointed by the PMO without vetting by the parlt - and this PMO has been for over a generation -the Liberal Party - They are completely unaccountable to the electorate, to the auditor general, to anyone.

So, the majority of authority in our gov't is held by Liberal appointees - and they do what they want. No accountability. With our money.

The CBC consistently, on a relentless daily basis, sets up both anti-American propaganda and anti-Harper propaganda; it has bought into the Kyoto cult, it feeds us garbage about this, garbage about Afghanistan and Iraq.

None of this has anything to do with its original mandate - to express the work and views of Canadians. None of it. The CBC is just a publicly funded empire of the socialist left, set up by the Liberals and working for the left. The fact that CBC employees are then appointed by this same Liberal PMO - as our governor generals, tells us everything about the role of the CBC to the Liberals.

How about Elections Canada? Same thing. It too considers itself outside the authority of the electorate. The House of Commons voted to reject the right to wear the veil when voting. Elections Canada is defying this ruling of Parliament - and saying that 'it's OK to be veiled when voting'.

How about Elections Canada and its insistent attacks against the Conservative party for their transfering of funds between party and riding? Did Elections Canada ever go after the Liberal Party? Heck no.

What we have in Canada is an enormous oligarchy, a set up of unilaterally unvetted appointees, owing loyalty to the social Liberals..running this gov't, defying the will of parliament, ignoring the electorate, acting openly as propaganda agents.

Penny: FWIW the CBC showing of F911 was last week, not tonight.

( .... in the interest of your blood pressure; I'm still fuming that they showed it at all.)

At least this creep isn't still on the SCC having real power over Canadians.

She's at the UN where she will do no harm.

If we can't have her shot as a traitor to humanity, we can at least ensure she's in the UN sewer with her kind.

Farenheit 9/11 was on Newsworld last night...perhaps they are airing it over-and-over as they always do with their ideological crap.

ET. "What we have in Canada is an enormous oligarchy, a set up of unilaterally unvetted appointees, owing loyalty to the social Liberals..running this gov't, defying the will of parliament, ignoring the electorate, acting openly as propaganda agents."

What can we do about it? Our government does not seem to be doing anything to change that. What options are there for us and what steps can we take? All we conservatives seem to be doing is talking.

Just like in 1984....you need a majority government and then they scurry....the real running by the "shadow government" took place after 1988 whena seond majority was in place and it wasnt clear that there wouldnt be a third.....

disgusting. No other words ncessary to describe it.

djinbc - at the moment, what we can do is - talk. Talk a lot about this. On the blogs. Keep up the talk. Daily. It will get out into the MSM realm.

What is needed is a majority for Harper. Then, he can really restructure the gov't and remove the ratio of unilateral appointments. Then, he can insist that such appointments be vetted by parlt (he introduced this idea already, with his having his appointment to the Supreme Court questioned by parlt - a first time ever event).

And there's his attempt to reform the Senate - which is being fought against now by the Liberals but also by the Liberal dominated Senate who don't want to lose their 45 year unaccountable incomes. But, he appointed someone from Alberta who was elected by Albertans. A first time even also.

So- we can do two things. Talk on blogs about it. Relentlessly. And give Harper a majority.

They execute people for being "corrupt on earth", well there goes the Liberal party...

When did Iran's news agency become a reliable source on anything?

In fact, one of Bayefsky's listed sources is the NCRI, a terrorist organization, according to the United States and Canadian governments.

Here's the US State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization designation:

Description

The MEK [aka NCRI, PMOI, etc.] advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime. The MEK philosophy mixes Marxism, feminism, nationalism, and Islam. The group emerged as one of several political movements seeking to unseat the Shah in the 1960s. After Khomeini’s regime arrested most of the MEK leadership a few years after the Islamic Revolution, many members fled to Europe. Saddam Hussein invited the group to Iraq in the late 1980s, where it reformed as a paramilitary organization and conducted several cross-border forays into Iran. A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah’s U.S. security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution, and the group helped guard the U.S. Embassy after Islamic students seized it in 1979. Since then, the MEK has conducted terrorist attacks against the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad.

Canada also considers the NCRI/PMOI/MEK a terrorist group, although some Canadian MPs have wished the group well in the past...

Never so angry as over the blasted, blankety blank CBC's showing that frigging sham by Blubber Head Moore. Folks it's our network, we're paying for it.
This is pure propaganda. It's a wonder the US doesn't charge that bastard for treason. People like that are not worth fighting for.

Do we need any more evidence to get rid of CBC and get the hell out of the UN?

But, he appointed someone from Alberta who was elected by Albertans. A first time even also.

Just a small quibble, ET, not that it changes PM Harper's intent to bring the Senate into the 21st century.

Sen. Bert Brown is the second Senator elected by Albertans. Senator Stan Waters was appointed by Mulroney around 1990 after much foot dragging. Sen. Waters died not long after.

I think Michael Moore's managed to avoid being charged with treason by virtue of being a citizen in a country that doesn't regard criticism of the executive to be conspiracy against the state and also still allows free speech and differing opinions to be expressed, no matter how how loosely grounded in fact. A pity, I'm sure.

For all those who want to do the Left's work for them, in order to obtain a majority, I'd remind them that R.B.Bennett was PM for the birth of the #@!$&* CBC.

Scratch a liberal and you'll find an idiot/parasite under the skin! The UN has long ceased to be anything but haven for parasites and idiots!

Louise Arbour, pure and perfect symbol of all that is asinine in Canadian governance.

I'm sure if you dig down past all the bafflegab and faux good intentions you'll find she does most of this crap for either money or just to be irritating because she can.

She's a superannuated cheer leader and in-group favorite, risen to a position far outside her abilities, if any. Peter Principle poster girl.

Weren't there a bunch of Lefties here last week vigorously denying the Left/Islamofascist axis?

Where'd they go?

I think classes started for the children...............

"The House of Commons voted to reject the right to wear the veil when voting. Elections Canada is defying this ruling of Parliament - and saying that 'it's OK to be veiled when voting'."

Sorry, ET, this time you're wrong. Elections Canada is following the law, and the party leaders are full of crap. Parliament screwed up when they passed the bill. The bill provides for three ways to establish a voter's identity, and two of them do not require the voter to be visually identified. One doesn't require any ID at all, only that the voter affirm his/her identity at the polling station, and that another eligible voter vouch for him/her (who can in turn have verified their identity with two pieces of non-photo ID, so EC doesn't even have to see who the voucher is!).

For all the party leaders to turn around now and yell at Elections Canada for following the letter of the law *that they themselves passed* is a testament to the incompetence of the politicians involved.

True conservatives should applaud Elections Canada here, for not imposing requirements that do not exist in the law, and scorn Parliament for expecting bureaucrats to clean up after their sloppily-written legislation. If it's such a hot-button issue, the prime minister is well within his power to reconvene Parliament early to fix the law in time for the byelections, except he isn't doing it; the headlines are better if he just has to make angry statements at the bureaucrats.

The Iranians were delighted at Arbour's visit ... as Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi put it, participants "indicated international resolve to uphold human rights in line with the cultural diversity in the international community."

My ancestors barbequed people, those of certain friends used to rip the hearts out of their still-living victims, others played really terminal competitions, or made a habit of crucifixion and impalement. Cultural things, of course; business as usual…like burning widows and infanticide.

Now, we went civilized – repented, as it were.

Is someone saying we made a culturally inappropriate decision?

Can I get funding to “save” some of these near-extinct “cultures”?

Maybe they need a new homeland, too?

(‘cause some people are “S”tupid)

…and my apologies to the sensitive, but certain things ought not be ignored.

Canada is allegedly one of the most sophisticated and knowledgeable countries in the world.

And yet the pathetic Ms Arbour is OUR representative to the world.

So what does that say about the reps from the less educated and less sophisticated countries in the UN?
How bad can their reps be?

And people wonder why the UN is such an inept, blowhard, corrupt bunch of wackos?

Just like our own Liberal and NDP parties in Canada.

What the UN needs is a kickass guy like George W Bush, to run it.

First rule of international law - it is easier to act first and apologize later, than it is to ask permission to act the first time.

Or in layman's language - shoot first and ask questions later.

Ian in NS - I agree that the Elections Act should be rewritten; I think it was written without realizing that veiled women might refuse to allow themselves to be validated. That is, if they have a driver's licence or health card or passport with a photo- they could refuse to enable the electoral officer to validate that their documents validate the material person standing there.

But my understanding is that the visual identification of voters is a requirement.

The Act specifically asks for an identity card, issued by a gov't, containing a photo and name and address. That's the basic requirement. So, if you have this card, then, you have to enable the EO to match your document with you. This requires that the veil be removed.

In the absence of this visual identity, you neeed two other documents containing your name and address.

I am assuming, using common sense, that the secondary format, without the picture, also requires verification - that the two cards and their bearer match. This requires that the veil be removed.

The visual identification is to lessen fraud. Couldn't it be a man dressed in this burka? Or a young woman when the identification is for an older woman..and so on.

So, I agree that the Act requires fine tuning, but, the FIRST requirement is that photo ID. IF the veiled woman has this, then, she HAS to enable the EO to compare her - and the photo ID. The electoral officer is saying this doesn't need to be done. Then - why did parl't rewrite the act, putting in this new clause requiring photo ID??? Using common sense - the photo and the original have to be matched. Parl't wrote that clause in.

The secondary tactic - of the two pieces of non-photo are only to be used IF you don't have a photo ID (no passport? No medical card? No driver's licence?). AND - using common sense, you'd still have to show that you and the ID, are alike in age, gender etc.

Right you are ET - how can a DR compare a masked person with ID of any type? Further, how can anyone truthfully vouch for a masked person? We are not a country that wears masks unless there is a robbery of some sort on the agenda. Covering the face is a signal that someone is a crook or ashamed of themselves. We look for trouble when we see a masked face - unless it is Zorro or the Lone Ranger.

Maurice Strong and Louise Arbour, now there's a pair of tools. Who's actually following what's going on with either of them? What are they contributing to anything?
The media are ignoring them, that's telling in itself.

I personaly will wear a paper bag with eye cutouts at the next election and see how it goes.
Burka for me at the next election.

Another way to disenfranchise the oligarchy is for our elected legislators to USE THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE: SECTION 33 OF THE CHARTER ITSELF.

In this case, the legislature votes to retain a law struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, notwithstanding the court's objections.

If Section 33 were used more often--it's been presented as a bogeyman by the leftist parties and the MSM (Paul Martin, in one of the last election debates, stupidly said he'd abolish it)--many ridiculous rulings of the courts would be both exposed and resisted.

The consistent use of Section 33 is an important way to rein in the excesses and idiocy of too many of our judges: mixing my metaphors, once the law, as interpreted by these baboons, was truly seen to be an ass by the ordinary Canadian, a lot of judges would become more circumspect--not because they're principled, but because they don't like to be seen for the fools they are.

"Nice orange hijab on the useful idiot."

Sort of looks like Yasser Arafat -- he liked guys too. I wonder if she raised the touchy issue of female circumcision -- ya know, mutilating the clitoris so the daughters won't enjoy sex too much with the Hitleresque Hijab crowd.

The only thing missing from this photo op is Peter Mansbridge with that look like he's been holding a bowel movement through the overtime period in a Montreal Toronto hockey game. That's the look that the Corpse thinks signifies intense mental activity.

Arbour is probably old school Quebec anti semite, born and raised. Probably only gets physically excited in the presence of jew haters like Amadinnerjacket.

Some old Quebec Liberal debt/favour got her where she is today.

Where the hell is a deranged idiot with a gun when you need one?

What the UN needs is a kickass guy like George W Bush, to run it.

Who was that Islamo Fascist I saw a picture of Bush holding hands with the other day? Some kind of fundamentalist Wahhabist from the Arabian peninsula I think.

The fact that Bush is opposed to what Arbour is doing - and she certainly is a leftist nitwit - is no more evidence that Bush is not a nitwit or a leftist, than Stalin's hatred of Trotsky meant that he wasn't a communist.

"Maurice Strong and Louise Arbour, now there's a pair of tools. Who's actually following what's going on with either of them? What are they contributing to anything?
The media are ignoring them, that's telling in itself."

They are both very, very powerful people, mostly BECAUSE the media ignors them. If they would of had even scant coverage by our beloved media they would have been exposed for the nut-cases that they are. A long time ago.

What are they contributing to ??

Maurice Strong has been called the most dangerous man in the world. He is also called the Godfather of Kyoto. A Kult that is now dying (APEC Sydney) but not before it caused $Billions in damages and diverted countless human resources down the perverbial garden path. Pathetic.

The left...

The reason I continue to go on in life:

To see what ridiculous bullshit these idealogical morons can come up with next.

Louise is a top-honours moron.
Such unbelievable stupidity.

Can't wait for the next story from the leftist dum-dums.

You guys all realize that even the state controlled Iranian news agency couldn't parse anything more positive statements than an anondyne comment of the "pleased to be here" variety and a compliment on the effectiveness of their diplomats in Geneva? And you also realize that Arbour cemented her international reputation chasing war criminals in Serbia? So what have you done for me lately?
Also, Blakbird, Arbour is a former Ontario appeals court judge, as mentioned elsewhere in these comments.
Her wearing (in such a sloppy manner as to convey her contempt, to my eye) a veil fits in perfectly with the "when in Rome" attitude that has been espoused here in regards to Canadian Muslims and their veils. What's good for the goose, etc, etc.
Someone above mentioned that you all need to continue talking, and that Harper needs to get a majority for your views to hit the mainstream. Except that for Harper to get a majority his supporters - people like you - need to convince people like me (disgusted with the Liberals and NDP) to vote for him. Problem is, when some innocent questions any part of the doctrine, they're attacked as if your whole ideological house of cards was in danger crumbling. In this case, I would hold that Arbour does not need to be the devil incarnate (she is not) in order for your viewpoint on the UN to have vailidity.
I don't get the impression that anyone here is the least interested in discussion, or even making your case in the spirit of open, intellectual debate. You'd prefer to continue to act like a pack of starved jackals, content to laze away your days licking each other, rousing yourselves to theoccasional pack frenzy by the scent of passing heresy.
That's all well and good: everybody needs what the gay groups at my former university used to call "safe spaces," where they can just be themselves. But come the next election, I'll remember what I've seen here, and I'll be sure to tell anyone I know trying to make their decision to stop by as well. I don't think they'll come away with quite the impression you would hope.

Mark
1. this is not the CPC website

2. take my word for it, there is no way to confirm who posts here

3. trolls post vulgar comments, posing as conservatives

I know this to be true, as some moron moonbat was posting comments under my name, so please take some of this stuff with a grain of salt.

Was watching pm harper lastnight on ctv when he gave a great speech to the australian goverment live, flipped over to cbc, they had a show on muslim women and there burkas, lol they really are commie liberals bastards.

Was watching pm harper lastnight on ctv when he gave a great speech to the australian goverment live, flipped over to cbc, they had a show on muslim women and there burkas, lol they really are commie liberals bastards.

Was watching pm harper lastnight on ctv when he gave a great speech to the australian goverment live, flipped over to cbc, they had a show on muslim women and there burkas, lol they really are commie liberals bastards.

Mark, I made some comments about Section 33 of the Charter, abhorred by both the NDP and the Liberals, whom you claim disgust you: it is a fact that the undemocratic rule of judges in Canada, such as Arbour, would be seriously limited. (And let's not forget present SCC Judge, Rosalie Abella, who, in her tenure in Ontario, lowered the age of sexual consent to 14 in order that homosexuals could enjoy sex, early and often, within the law.)

You say you want debate: as a person, apparently disgusted with the NDP and Liberals, I'd be interested in your ideas about my suggestion that Section 33 be used by legislatures as often as it takes to rein in our unelected, mainly Liberal-appointed, leftie judges, who, in their contemptible alliance with the Liberals, happily did the dirty work the Liberals were afraid to do through legislation.

IMO, your "objective" remarks don't add up. SDAers upset when "some innocent questions . . . ": who are these innocents? I think you mean trolls.

Ad hominem put-downs don't strengthen your objectivity either: "I don't get the impression that anyone [sic] here is the least interested in discussion . . . You'd prefer to continue to act like a pack of starved jackals, content to laze away your days licking each other, rousing yourselves to theoccasional [sic] pack frenzy by the scent of passing heresy."

Frankly, I think you’ve misrepresented yourself. If not, please provide convincing evidence of 1) why you’re disgusted by the NDP and Liberals, and 2) why you might vote Conservative: surely, it's not entirely up to us to convince you! There are lots of other sources of information. (Why not access a primary source? Subscribe to the PMO’s statements and speeches. It’s free.)

For a person with open eyes to see and open ears to hear, there are plenty of intelligent posts at SDA to which you could, in your own words, “ mak[e] your case in the spirit of open, intellectual debate”.

Mark, in the spirit of practising what you preach, please be our guest.

If memory serves Jean Chretien did a CBC interview on the first 9/11 anniversary in which he gloatingly (yes, gloatingly) explained that the US got what it deserved -- for its "arrogance". Sorta like the old rape excuse.

Mark, there will be plenty of quotes and talking points that I will use with glee during the next election; so go for it, and good luck, you'll need it.

Lookout: thank you for your reply. The innocents include myself, who was attacked several times by regular posters on a previous thread for questioning the underlying premise of an article linked here.
The gang up on Arbour is another distasteful manifestation of the same tendency: it's not enough to disagree with your opponent, they must be demonized. It's off-putting to someone who admires her for doing an unrewarding job in difficult circumstances. I don't need to hate anyone, and have no interest in associating with those that do.
There are indeed also plenty of other sources from which I can, and do, get my information. On the other hand, it is the activists in the base of each party that determine that party's direction.
And while I am sure there are those that post here that do reflect badly on CPC values, I don't see other castigating them for their behaviour. If it isn't acceptable, don't accept it.
As to using the section 33 to overturn a judges decision: that's a mighty big stick for a fairly small fly. As far as allowing anal sex at age 14, the sin (if you believe it to be such) is not Abella's in harmonizing the law, but the law's in allowing intercourse at that age at all. You're perfectly correct that politicians - Martin in particular - were perfectly willing to have it both ways with judges, claiming to be forced by their rulings on the one hand while taking credit for being progressive on the other. But that remains a failure of politicians: if the law is not accomplishing what they want it to, they can draft new laws that do. Final authority always rests with Parliament. Why chase minnows when the big fish are basking in the shallows?

Mark

If you know the things that Arbour has said, you would be dismissive of her as well.

You say you are disgusted with the Liberals and the NDP. I would gather you are a life long center leftist who has had major doubts about the doctrine espoused of late from that quarter. It's suddenly like half the world has gone mad is it not?

Mark, I appreciate your civil reply.

But to say, "As to using the section 33 to overturn a judge[']s decision: that's a mighty big stick for a fairly small fly" shows that you don't really know what the heck you're talking about. E.g., You really believe that it's OK for the decisions of the duly elected representatives--they're called MPs--of the Canadian people to be routinely overturned by the politically appointed judiciary?

Re Rosalie Abella's decision, you say, "As far as allowing anal sex at age 14, the sin (if you believe it to be such) is not Abella's in harmonizing [?] the law, but the law's in allowing intercourse at that age at all".

Come again?? Contrary to your misconception, the law has no mind of its own: it CHANGED, Mark, because Abella DECIDED it would. That's why the law now allows "intercourse at that age at all".

Mark, please wake up and smell the whatever.

Lookout: I understand the issue very well, thank you. I'm also wide awake. The judiciary is, and always has been, a check on elected representatives, wherever democracy functions (and even in many places where it doesn't). There are numerous examples in Canada, but the best example I can think of is south of the border, where segregated schools were struck down by a higher court decision. For her part, Abella quite rightly pointed out that you cannot allow some sex acts at 14 while banning others, which was the situation before her ruling. There's no logic to it, and it was utterly unenforcable.
On the other hand, if Parliament were to raise the age of consent for all sex acts to 16 or 18 the problem would be solved (as unenforceable as THAT would be) with no need to use Section 33.
The law is a creation of man, and as such is a flawed instrument (as the recent brou-ha-ha over the elections act attests).
For that very reason, I'm wary of the idea of any government getting too comfortable with legislation that was specifically designed to abrogate parts of the constitution.

Mark, you say, "The judiciary is, and always has been, a check on elected representatives, wherever democracy functions."

In Canada, since the Charter, the previous checks and balances have been drastically skewed, so that Canadian courts now regularly not only override or strike down duly voted upon laws by our ELECTED representatives, the courts even make law, often by "reading in" equality requirements where no such wording existed in the original. E.g., NOWHERE in the Charter were the words "sexual orientation" included as a prohibited area of discrimination. The possibility of including these words was debated and rejected.

Later, an unelected judge, who disagreed with this, simply added—“read in"—the words "sexual orientation" to the Charter, thus completely overriding Parliament’s original and very clear intent. (And you call this a “check”: I’d call it a take over.)

The argument here is not whether gays should have the rights the judge believed they should have. The issue is, in a free and democratic country, who should make such an important decision: unelected, politically appointed judges, with tenure, or the elected members of Parliament?

You seem to think the usurpation of democracy in this country is OK—as it seems to be in alignment with your wishes. On principle, I beg to differ.

Let’s look at what Rosalie Abella did re the age of consent for anal intercourse. Quite contrary to your assertion, she was definitely not compelled to lower it to 14: that’s a myth.

In the late 1980s, a Parliamentary Committee refused to follow through on Svend Robinson's motion that the age of consent for anal intercourse be lowered to 14 to match the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse. (14 was allowed in 1892 because, with a much lower life expectancy, many young people of that age actually got married. Under present circumstances, raising the age seems quite appropriate.)

The Parliamentary Committee did reduce the age of consent for anal intercourse—which has attached to it a number of medical problems, e.g., high incidences of transmission of the AIDS virus— from 21 to 18. So, then, what did the unelected judges do?

In 1995, two feminist judges, sympathetic to the homosexual agenda and ignoring the health risks to 14 year old boys outlined by the Parliamentary Committee, arbitrarily decided to defy the Committee and lower the age of consent for anal intercourse to 14. Rosalie Abella stated that anal sex is, in her opinion, “a basic form of sexual expression for gay men” and that a difference in age of consent re vaginal and anal intercourse “ . . . perpetrates the gap for a historically disadvantaged group—gay men.”

The Liberals refused to appeal the decision, thus leaving vulnerable 14 year old boys prey to older homosexuals, who often prefer younger partners, who, among other things, are less likely to have AIDS.

Checks and balances, Mark? This kind of judicial usurpation in unbalanced! (Louise Arbour was a major culprit during her tenure on the SCC.) Again, whatever one thinks of rights for homosexuals—maybe this right is justified—the means by which it was decided were definitely arbitrary and undemocratic:

1) The words “sexual orientation” were read in to the Charter by an unelected, politically appointed (probably Liberal) judge; 2) A Parliamentary Committee, after due deliberation—among other things, both the Badgley and Fraser Reports were consulted—voted to reject 14 as the age of consent for anal intercourse because of health concerns; and 3) Two activist judges, unilaterally, on their own say so, using the read in words in 1), overturned the wishes of the legislature.

Democracy in action? I don’t think so. And this case is only ones of legions, where our courts have made a mockery of Parliament and the strict intent of its laws. Mark, I see this doesn’t seem to bother you. You said, "As to using the section 33 to overturn a judge[']s decision: that's a mighty big stick for a fairly small fly". Do you still think so?
(Just because, in this case, the court seems to have done something you approve of, doesn’t validate its undemocratic, arbitrary actions. In principle, remember, you could be the next victim of its arbitrary judgements.)

And, I’m still waiting to know why you’re disgusted with the Liberals and NDP: they actually seem to be quite in alignment with your biases here.

I’d appreciate if you’d actually engage my points: you say debate’s a good thing and I agree. I also agree with you that, too often, debating points simply get ignored. I think we all benefit from informed—even spirited—exchanges.

P.S. Mark, you have engaged some of my points, which I appreciate. (Politely too. Thanks.) But there are still some issues I'd like you to address, including a response to my latest post.

In your wildest and most deluded dreams, do you honestly think the left is aligned with Islamic fascism?

My god...this site never stops subverting reason and decency, does it? Whenever I think it can't sink into a deeper cesspool, it does so with relish.

I'm with Mark. There are many centrists who are looking for an alternative to the NDP and Liberals. This site scares off many of them. I'm being absolutely serious - it truly scares them. I think most of the regulars here have no idea how truly repulsive the content on this site is to non-partisans, especially non-Conservative partisans who are simply info-hunting. But to come across a comment like the following:

"If we can't have her shot as a traitor to humanity, we can at least ensure she's in the UN sewer with her kind." - Warwick.

...is an absolute disgrace.

Now, let loose with the "commie liberal bastard Taliban-loving" comments. Just remember that a lot of people visit this site, and are sickened by what they read. You're hurting your party and your cause, and you're chasing potential voters away.

Lookout,
I'm familiar with this background, actually, but it doesn't change the underlying premise that anal sex is still a sexual act like any other. Abella came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons: it may be more risky, but risk alone is not enough reason to limit freedoms (it's relevant, but not crucial. Did you know you can get a pilot's license at 16? I may never go outside again for fear of drag-racing Cessnas) It was a badly thought out law that attempted to apply a different and untenable standard to a specific sex act. Abella didn't have to "read in" special homosexual rights to determine this: anal sex ain't just for breakfast anymore, as they say. And again, if Parliament is concerned about its authority being usurped on this issue, it has remedy through drafting a sensible age-of-consent law in line with its goals without resorting to Section 33.
The ruling doesn't leave 14 year olds of either gender any more prey to older predators than before: 14 year olds can have consensual sex with each other, but not with 18 year olds.
I'm not terribly concerned about "activist judges" because I've yet to read of any situation where they've overturned a law where the remedy wasn't a better-drafted law. Failure to do so should be blamed on the politicians for failing in their duties, not the judges for performing theirs.
The NDP and Liberals are indeed in line with my thinking on this, but this is not a make-or-break issue for me in deciding who to vote for. Honest, realistic debate based on policy is (like we're having here, and I do appreciate it).
As to why I'm disgusted with the Liberals and NDP: it is largely over Afghanistan, where both are pandering to reflexive anti-war, anti-military, anti-American elements in the Canadian public. On the other hand, we just witnessed Harper indulging in anti-civil servant, Muslim-baiting over the Elections Canada issue, so I'm left without a home for my ballot. At the moment, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that a non-lunatic independant will stand in my riding.

Yep, the Left are all terrorists and they want Canadians to all die. They want an Islamic Canada.

Man, you guys really raise the bar for hyperbolic bullsh*t. I guess there wouldn't be anything to talk about otherwise.

"In your wildest and most deluded dreams, do you honestly think the left is aligned with Islamic fascism?"

You need to go to more peace marches, Perry.

Hi, Mark

I appreciate your response, though cannot agree with a lot of what you've said, but a good debate is worthwhile for clearing out intellectual cobwebs.

My thoughts on yours:

1) You say, “anal sex is still a sexual act like any other”. NOT!

Anal sex includes penetration but is not procreative.

I don’t know of a single human being who’s been created as a result of anal sex. Do you?

Anal intercourse is also much more dangerous: unlike those of the vagina, the membranes of the anus are delicate and very porous—easy for the AIDs virus and others to pass through into the bloodstream. Tearing of the membranes is also common, which increases the chances of both infection and disease. (The gay community has a notoriously bad health record, much of it due to the prevalence of anal intercourse in that community.) To suggest that because more and more people in the heterosexual community also practise this form of sex makes it “no problem” is to seriously miss the point.

2) In this context, that you seem unconcerned about the serious—even life threatening—risks to boys of 14, who usually lack the maturity and perspective to be making such an important decision, especially when the partner involved may well be much older and exploiting the boy’s youth and inexperience, seems callous, to say the least.

Re sex with others of the same age: I find your argument is disingenuous. Other 14 year olds are far less likely to be preying on the other or to have AIDs and the host of other STDs that older partners are more likely to pass on.

3) Re “reading in”, Abella didn’t have to do that because it had already been done. She simply used this undemocratic precedent as the basis for her arbitrary, pro-gay agenda decision.

4) I do agree with you re Parliament having the guts to use its mandate to draft laws. However, knowing that our activist SCC would only strike down an age of consent law, I’d prefer going to Section 33 sooner, rather than later.

However, it’s not as simple as you propose: with a minority Conservative government, changing the age of consent is doomed: all the other parties (not to mention our ignominious MSM) are flagrantly pro the gay agenda and would vote against any such change. On the other hand, in order to protect our vulnerable young people in this highly sexualized age, a majority Conservative government could—and likely would—pass legislation raising the age of consent. If such a law were struck down by the court, a Conservative majority would—I hope—invoke Section 33 in order to preserve the law.

5) You say, “I'm not terribly concerned about 'activist judges' because I've yet to read of any situation where they've overturned a law where the remedy wasn't a better-drafted law.” I’d like some examples, please.

(I notice that your statements are often general, e.g., “I'm familiar with this [Abella/anal intercourse] background, actually . . . ” but you provide no corroborating evidence. You seem very good at sounding knowledgeable, while piggy backing on information I’ve provided you.

It’s like not knowing the person on the phone, who says, “Hi, it’s Jill” [which one?] and then waiting for some clues. "Remember at yoga last week . . . " Oh, THAT Jill!)

I provide concrete examples to support my theses. I’d like you to do the same. So, please provide a number of actual cases “where the [judge-made] remedy [was] a better-drafted law [than Parliament’s]”.

I actually have in front of me books by Ian Hunter, Law Professor Emeritus, University of Western Ontario, and Rory Leishman, London Free Press journalist, (Against Judicial Activism, McGill-Queen’s University press, 2006—you should read it), which list case after sorry case where the Charter has been used to let murderers and other felons off scott free: Regina v Askov, Regina v Lavallee, Regina v Seaboyer and Gayme, Regina v Kokesh, etc.

The Charter and activist judges is a very serious problem in Canada and the main reason for “the democratic deficit” in this country.

The Charter has largely given the Left in Canada what it wants—not through legislation, but via judicial fiat. The fact that you approve of both this usurpation and the results, Mark, makes me seriously question your claim that the Liberals and NDP disgust you. These two parties revel in the SCC’s left-wing, pro-gay, pro-feminist rulings.

Again, please provide some concrete examples re just what disgusts you about the Liberals and the NDP. You sound like you’d fit either party—they’re virtually clones of one another—very well, indeed. Case in point: you've just written, “[w]e just witnessed Harper indulging in anti-civil servant [OH NO: a new victim class?], Muslim-baiting [sic] over the Elections Canada issue . . . ” Those are not the words of a voter disillusioned by the Liberals and NDP. (I, in fact, heartily agree with the PM and applaud his good sense in NOT pandering favour with the unelected, Liberal-appointed [un]civil service.)

Mark, you keep outing yourself as a really serious anti-C(c)onservative: a wolf in (very thinly disguised) sheep’s clothing, for sure.

6) You also say, “ . . . so I'm left without a home for my ballot. At the moment, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that a non-lunatic independant will stand in my riding.”

You’ve outed yourself again, Mark: a true C(c)onservative would laud the PM’s decision re veiled voters, while you suggest this is THE reason you must look for an independent candidate. (Some advice: politics is the art of the possible. Unless your independent candidate has a chance to win or to seriously upset the status quo in your riding, it’s a wasted vote, Mark. Believe me: I’ve been there.)

I’m enjoying our exchange. I know two things for sure: a) You’re smart but not that knowledgeable, and b) you’re no C(c)onservative! (You didn't really consider voting for the CPC, did you?)

Summary of lookout: "Being gay is just bad m'kay, and anal sex is gross so it's bad too, m'kay? Also, I'm, like, WAY smarter than you."

Re anon: This person's ability to precis is obviously woefully lacking, as are is his/her language processing skills. What this person says I said is utter hogwash.

I'd be willing to respond substantively if this person could express him/herself in standard English.

(I really hope anon isn't Mark. That would be very disappointing.)

lookout:

We don't need to have a conversation.

You clearly think that sex is only for procreation, and that anything that is remotely risky - even a calculated, relatively minor risk - is wrong. We fundamentally disagree about sex, and about what decisions adults should be allowed to make for themselves. We also disagree about what makes something right or wrong, and the role of the state in legislating or mandating social freedoms. We aren't going to meet anywhere on this topic.

We are also diametrically opposed when it comes to the current form and value of age of consent laws. You favour a heavy-handed threshold that I view as largely symbolic and ineffectual. I have no doubts that some kids are going to have sex and favour a harm reduction and education approach. I also refuse to characterize all kids with overgeneralizations.

I don't believe there is a pro-gay agenda any more than I believe there is an anti-gay agenda, and I abhor jingoistic labels. I think there are groups with varying interests and I personally think that the gay rights groups have, by and large, legitimate claims. I also feel that they are being met.

I think the term 'activist judge' is ridiculous. I support the judicial branch when it interprets rights that are guaranteed under a living state document, when the rights so guaranteed would be denied to the minority by a simple majority. Slavery is not open to a majority vote, and neither are fundamental rights. They can't be taken away with legislation in Parliament. The right to life, equal opportunity and access to state institutions, and self-autonomy are GOOD fundamental unassailable rights. There are others that are arguable.

I don't really care about all of the murderers and rapists that are let out of jail 'scott-free' because I'm pretty sure that my view would be skewed, too, if I ignored all of the stories about people who WEREN'T let out of jail, and all of the times that the system worked. Despite the horror stories, we live in one of the safest countries in the world. I don't think harsher sentences accomplishes anything beyond a point, and we've already reached that point.

Besides all of that, the general tone of your post was bitter, and it was peppered with tedious caricatures and tired cliches of people and groups that don't actually exist. I suspect that we use terms completely differently, and any real discussion would be spent sorting out what was and was not a personal attack, because you've already decided who the enemy is and what their position is, so there is no use in taking them seriously. You capped everything off at the end of your writeup by advising the person you were responding to that they were wasting their vote if they voted on their principles, indicating that 'beating the other guy' is more important than the possibility that there are other people in the world who may have different values, different goals and, overall, a different life than you. Then the coup de gras: you informed the person that you are wiser than he, and that his type could not be a 'real true Conservative'.

Sorry for making a funny out of it.

Unfortunately, CBC Newsworld's coverage of this important international event was pre-empted by the airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in commemoration of the 6th anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

I love your sarcasm!

Lookout,
No, anon is not me, but I've no way of proving that. I've also no way of proving I've considered the CPC over the Liberal or NDP parties.
Since this isn't one of "those" websites, I won't get into the numerous sex acts that are not prohibited and aren't procreative, but they do exist, all carrying their own sets of risk. And, as mentioned before, relative risk, though important in deciding an activities legality, is just one of many factors in play.
I must also point out that you've put words in my mouth: I didn't and don't endorse anal sex for fourteen year olds. I do hold that section 33 is not the remedy here, raising the age of consent across the board is. And in any case, my feelings on the issue have no bearing on the logic of a legal decision.
I will admit to piggybacking off your information here, for a few reasons: I trust what you're posting is accurate, so I'm happy to argue on the basis of the facts as presented; I don't want to expand the scope of the debate beyond what is reasonable for a comments board because, beyond Internet searching (and, let's face it, you can find anything you want to support an argument on the 'net), I don't have access to my usual resources and won't for some time; and finally because I'm commenting here instead of working, as I should be, and these searches take time. Moreover while I am familiar with the cases you mention, in a "Hi Jill" sort of way, they aren't, as I mentioned before, a preoccupation of mine, so I'm not nearly as up on the issue as you are. However, even in conceding that, in this case you have not convinced me that Abella was out of line or that judges on the whole are out of control. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples you could find to make that case, but I don't believe this is one of them.
You've correctly sensed that homosexuality and homosexual rights are not something I get particularly exercised about. However, as I know and respect several civil servants, I take exception to them being attacked or labelled partisan for doing their jobs. I don't applaud Harper's actions in this instance as he is attacking a bureaucrat for following the law (not, ironically, what Harper would seem to prefer he read into the law).
I can't accept the Liberal and NDP's apparent willingingness to sign over our foreign policy to the UN, so I am being pushed away from them. Harper's actions in this instance (though not many others) is pushing me away from the CPC as well. On the other hand, I'm happy to see what he actually does on the file first.
As to my sincerity, I can't prove that either, but I return to the point I made (albeit, in frustration) at the beginning: I needn't accept all of a party's aims to vote for them, anymore than I need to disagree with all of them to give them the heave-ho. The concept of "a true conservative," as you put it, is what appalled me about this board in the first place. Disagreement on any one issue, or the details of any issue, isn't heresy. You could, and probably can, point to many cases where judges have overstepped their bounds where section 33 might be the only remedy. My instinct, and the little I do know says no, but I'll recognize I'm outgunned on that question, and retire from the field. While that doesn't convince me that Abella did the wrong thing in the case you cited, for the reasons mentioned above, I sure were I to demonstrate that Harper is wrong on the voter id issue, it wouldn't change your mind on his overall fitness as Prime Minster.
You have, however, proven me wrong on my original assertion, namely that civil debate was impossible here, and for that I thank you.

Hi, Mark. Thank you to you for your civility, graciousness, and good will--traits fast disappearing in our million miles an hour society.

I'll only answer briefly for now as I have an early appointment today.

I'd suggest Rory Leishman's book, Against Judicial Activism, which quite convincingly makes a case about judicial overstepping since the Charter. Perhaps, because I am a C(c)onservative--we've fared very badly in most Charter cases, where our opponents, via the Court Challenges Program, have had many of their expenses paid by the taxpayer--and because the MSM is consistently hostile to C(c)onservatives and our initiatives, I'm quite sensitive to issues which may be of lesser importance to you.

Re political parties: they all have their faults and, IMO, one has to support the one that most closely approximates one's philosophy and goals. I prefer less government because governments are prone to abuse, sooner or later. At the moment, the CPC and Stephen Harper, for whom I have a great deal of respect--though he's not perfect--get my vote.

Re the veils and voting: Elections Canada has overstepped here, IMO, but, as you point out--and I agree in this case--Parliament may remedy this by drafting a more specific law. Then, if the courts strike it down, Section 33 could be used. I do agree that more guts on the part of our MPs--most are Liberals and other lefties--would help, if there were the will, to rein in our judges. (However, the left is more than willing to have the dirty work done by the courts, "Hey, that's not our fault!")

As you might expect, my contempt for leftie politics and its parties is strong and not one of them would get my vote. (I once, strategically, voted Liberal and NDP. That was against a candidate I wanted to see defeated.)

I'm on the fly. have a fine day.

From AP via the Globe and Mail.

:Ms. Arbour says she raised the matter with Iran during a visit there last week and expressed particular concern about death sentences handed out to juveniles in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Ms. Arbour says she also discussed the need for the Iranian government to safeguard the right of its citizens to peaceful protest."