Student gets visit from Homeland Security over "Red" library book

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Flame On

What an assinine post!

Care to elaborate?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Care to elaborate?

I think it's you that should be elaborating. The Canadian government wants to control what we see and hear, and what we do. They attempt to protect us from ourselves.
Any evidence what so ever to support that claim?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

One point is we still have our senators appointed by our benevolent leaders.

I don't think an appointed Senate is such a bad thing or anti-democratic any more so than the President of the U.S. being able to appoint people into power.

An appointed senate ensures that there will be some people who are under represented involved in the political process - particularly native and Metis. People who deserve to have a voice in the Canadian political system but can't get elected because of how riding boundaries are drawn.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I think it's you that should be elaborating. The Canadian government wants to control what we see and hear, and what we do. They attempt to protect us from ourselves.
Any evidence what so ever to support that claim?

1) Gun Registry
2) If Liberals are elected, ban on hand guns
3) CRTC
4) Ban on smoking in public places
5) Ban on vehicles comming into the Country
6) Liberal funded Day Care

If it keeps going like this, we will be living 1984.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by arsenal

1) Gun Registry
2) If Liberals are elected, ban on hand guns
3) CRTC
4) Ban on smoking in public places
5) Ban on vehicles comming into the Country
6) Liberal funded Day Care

If it keeps going like this, we will be living 1984.

and these are all bad things?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think an appointed Senate is such a bad thing or anti-democratic any more so than the President of the U.S. being able to appoint people into power.

An appointed senate ensures that there will be some people who are under represented involved in the political process - particularly native and Metis. People who deserve to have a voice in the Canadian political system but can't get elected because of how riding boundaries are drawn.

You're comparing the appointment of legislators to the appointment of executive employees and judges?

Come on. People should be able to directly elect those that make laws. It is more anti-democratic than the American examples you cited.

[arsenal]

Yes, I don't need nor want the government to protect me, To hold my hand. I am able to make my own decisions. If I want to buy a hand gun, I should be able to. If i want to buy a car that will cost me thousands of dollars to repair if i crash it 10 km/h, i want that choice. The way things are going, I will not be able to make that choice. Right now, there have been many choices made for me already.

And have you even read the book 1984?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by arsenal

There is more freedom in the US than there is Canada. The Canadian government wants to control what we see and hear, and what we do. They attempt to protect us from ourselves.

As far as freedoms go, the US is more free than Canada.

Back in my high school days, I was in a debating tournament at a private school just outside of Boston called Roxbury-Latin. I forget the name of the school we were against (another New England Ivy League Prep Private School) that actually ran that the US was good in terms of freedoms as a case. Then based their entire arguments comparing the US to Canada.

You should have seen the look on the first member's face when I looked him in the eye and told him that the team he was facing was Canadian.

Long story short, my partner and I walked away, our opponents were left bloody on the floor (figuratively speaking of course)

Ahhh to be in high school again... life was so much simpler back then, LOL

[Maritime Q-Scout]

after skimming most of this thread I just wanted to say a few things

- both countries are different

- generally you'll prefer your own I prefer Canada over the United States, if I was an American I probably would prefer the USA.

- Neither country is right or wrong

- both have flaws

- whatever you choose to "fix" its flaws will create other flaws, new flaws, or won't solve all the problems

- by having 100% freedom, you have none. I have the freedom to kill you, **** your laws, and censorship (<-- right there see the ***s). If I kill you, what freedoms do you then have? The freedom to be dead! (an extreme example, but the example that makes the 100% freedom argument fall of its own weight)

- by having laws, we have organization. Our society wouldn't be where its at without them. Without pattens how much will drug companies put into R&D? Who's gonna make sure their drugs are safe? Kiss healthcare goodye




Seriously, if you want to pay 1,000s of dollars for a car that you'll have to repair if you crash it at 10kmh, so be it. However make sure it doesn't kill anyone else. But there are laws like wearing a seatbelt that while yes infringe on your freedom; you have the freedom to drink, and the freedom to drive, but not to do both at once. Damn that government for infringing on my freedoms... it's stupid to do it, but should we have the freedom to be stupid?

Are there holes in my logic? Yep, why? Because I'm late for meeting friends for food, that and when you debate freedoms there's always Always ALWAYS arguments against.

Question: Who's better in terms of freedoms the USA or Canada?

Answer: Depends

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You're comparing the appointment of legislators to the appointment of executive employees and judges?

Come on. People should be able to directly elect those that make laws. It is more anti-democratic than the American examples you cited.

In practice, the Canadian Senate is far less powerfull than the elected House of Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

Meanwhile, judges in fact, are the largest creators of laws because precedence law is a very powerful tool to create change an de facto law. Precedence law basically dictates what our rights and freedoms are, and is almost impossible to overturn.

So yeah, appointing judges is more anti-democratic than appointing senators who really only act as a forum for discussion and recomendation making. People who the president appoints (like for the head of the department of Homeland Security) are more powerful than a Canadian senator who really only has nominal power.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think an appointed Senate is such a bad thing or anti-democratic any more so than the President of the U.S. being able to appoint people into power.

An appointed senate ensures that there will be some people who are under represented involved in the political process - particularly native and Metis. People who deserve to have a voice in the Canadian political system but can't get elected because of how riding boundaries are drawn.

It would be quite easy to have a senator or two elected by natives. Taking the US example that has two senators per state regardless of population we can have any setup our little hearts desire.
Your later example criticising the Americans for having an appointed judiciary doesn't fly because Canada also appoints our judges and I believe they don't have to go through the approval process as they do in the States.
I like our system but it could do with some improvements.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In practice, the Canadian Senate is far less powerfull than the elected House of Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

Meanwhile, judges in fact, are the largest creators of laws because precedence law is a very powerful tool to create change an de facto law. Precedence law basically dictates what our rights and freedoms are, and is almost impossible to overturn.

So yeah, appointing judges is more anti-democratic than appointing senators who really only act as a forum for discussion and recomendation making. People who the president appoints (like for the head of the department of Homeland Security) are more powerful than a Canadian senator who really only has nominal power.

Slow down for a second. You're attacking my point about American judges (Federal appointees, not local elected judges) by describing how powerful Canadian judges and their decisions are. That doesn't work!

I can tell you that the American judiciary isn't nearly that powerful.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Maritime Q, I too have fond high school debate memories!

We once gave a very good team a copy of our case because we were convinced it couldn't be beaten. It held true for that regional tournament as my partner and I went 8-0. Then our debate coach grew a heart at the state tournament the following week and subbed a fellow senior in my spot for half the rounds. Went 5-3 at state and took 5th. we were 4-0 when I was in though.

It was fun handing people their hats in that setting. Especially the really ****y ones!

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Yes, I don't need nor want the government to protect me, To hold my hand. I am able to make my own decisions. If I want to buy a hand gun, I should be able to. If i want to buy a car that will cost me thousands of dollars to repair if i crash it 10 km/h, i want that choice. The way things are going, I will not be able to make that choice. Right now, there have been many choices made for me already.

And have you even read the book 1984?

No I have not read the book 1984 yet. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything. It is a work of fiction. There are many such books on both sides of the argument.

Fair enough if you feel they do too much to protect you. But there are a couple points you make I disagree with wholeheartedly. Handguns for one. Why should you be able to buy a handgun? What use does it have other than for killing people? I would very much like for the government to make it more difficult for other people to get things with which to kill me. If you want to "buy a car that will cost me thousands of dollars to repair if i crash it 10 km/h" that's great, but what about the people who don't, but will get screwed anyways by the companies simply because they do not know better? Maybe you should be able to buy something like that if you want, but there still needs to be some sort of control over the lengths a company can go to to screw you as well, IMO.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Slow down for a second. You're attacking my point about American judges (Federal appointees, not local elected judges) by describing how powerful Canadian judges and their decisions are. That doesn't work!

I can tell you that the American judiciary isn't nearly that powerful.

So, you're saying that in the U.S., judges are not responsible for setting precedences that are then followed as defacto law? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the U.S. judicial system, but I know precedence law is a factor there just like here.

And I'm not attacking the U.S. at all. I'm just making the point that our senate is no less undemocratic than other accepted institutions that exist in Canada and the U.S. If people are really concerned about democracy, then Canada's powerless and nominal appointed senate should be the least of their concerns.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It would be quite easy to have a senator or two elected by natives. Taking the US example that has two senators per state regardless of population we can have any setup our little hearts desire.
Your later example criticising the Americans for having an appointed judiciary doesn't fly because Canada also appoints our judges and I believe they don't have to go through the approval process as they do in the States.
I like our system but it could do with some improvements.

If senators were elected like how you suggest, minorities would never get in.

And I'm not criticizing the U.S. judiciary. I'm criticizing judiciaries in general.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So, you're saying that in the U.S., judges are not responsible for setting precedences that are then followed as defacto law? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the U.S. judicial system, but I know precedence law is a factor there just like here.

And I'm not attacking the U.S. at all. I'm just making the point that our senate is no less undemocratic than other accepted institutions that exist in Canada and the U.S. If people are really concerned about democracy, then Canada's powerless and nominal appointed senate should be the least of their concerns.

It's a factor here, absolutely. However, precedent is not nearly as binding here as you made it sound to be in Canada. The judicial mandate here is to interpret the law. Therefore, it is possible for the laws to be interpreted differently across time and/or geography. The Supreme Court, as it's name indicates, does strike down laws that it deems unconstitutional and is the only body with the power to do so.

We've had native members of Congress elected by their constituents. ben Nighthorse Campbell was a very popular Congressman from Colorado for several years. Not sure how you think Natives would be less likely to be elected in your country which I believe has far less racism than mine.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

No I have not read the book 1984 yet. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything. It is a work of fiction. There are many such books on both sides of the argument.

Maybe you should. If you have seem Demolition Man, that is loosely based on the book 1984. Personally, I would rather live underground, than live in the socailist "utopia".

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Why should you be able to buy a handgun? What use does it have other than for killing people? I would very much like for the government to make it more difficult for other people to get things with which to kill me.

Well then they better make the following illegal as well:
smoking
drinking
knives
sex
fast food
the sun.
Because guess what? They all can kill you. Do you honestly think that banning hand guns will stop people from getting shot? All it will do is keep hand guns out of law abiding citizens, and in the hands of criminals. Do you think the guns that where used in last weeks shootings on Young street where registered? Should I not have the right to protect myself? What if I use hand guns for shooting contests? Should I not be allowed to own a hand gun? There are lots of other purposes for owning a handgun other than killing people. Oh, and by the way, and hand gun will not kill any one, unless there happens to be a PERSON pulling the trigger.

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

If you want to "buy a car that will cost me thousands of dollars to repair if i crash it 10 km/h" that's great, but what about the people who don't, but will get screwed anyways by the companies simply because they do not know better? Maybe you should be able to buy something like that if you want, but there still needs to be some sort of control over the lengths a company can go to to screw you as well, IMO.

Your missing the point. The car in question is the Lancer Evolution. Not allowed in Canada becuase it fails the 8 km/h crash test. A test that states that a vehicle must not sustain any damage in an accident at that speed. What is damaged in the Evolution? The intercooler. Now it could be a minor crack, or the whole intercooler would need to be replaced. Minor issue. Why then is the car not then allowed to be sold in canada? Because it is not considered "safe". Yet thousands of these vehicles are being driven around in the states, and japan.

[CalgaryFan68]

What I find disturbing is how easily some people jump on the anti american wagon on heresay and conjecture.

We need to stop following France's lead on everything. Kinda sickening how our Canadian leadership cowtows to Paris, and depreciates all of the positive that the US does do in the world. Much better to concentrate on the negetive... Kind of an Al Qaeda way of thinking in my opinion.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Maybe you should. If you have seem Demolition Man, that is loosely based on the book 1984. Personally, I would rather live underground, than live in the socailist "utopia".

Who said anything about living in a socialist utopia? There's a difference between having some things government controlled and being a true Marxist state.

Originally Posted by arsenal

Well then they better make the following illegal as well:
smoking
drinking
knives
sex
fast food
the sun.
Because guess what? They all can kill you. Do you honestly think that banning hand guns will stop people from getting shot? All it will do is keep hand guns out of law abiding citizens, and in the hands of criminals. Do you think the guns that where used in last weeks shootings on Young street where registered? Should I not have the right to protect myself? What if I use hand guns for shooting contests? Should I not be allowed to own a hand gun? There are lots of other purposes for owning a handgun other than killing people. Oh, and by the way, and hand gun will not kill any one, unless there happens to be a PERSON pulling the trigger.

You're missing the point. All those things you listed have uses aside from killing. Hand guns do not (shooting contests? Are you serious? I have never seen nor heard of a hand gun shooting contest, not that that means they aren't out there, but use something different if you must - you can have archery contests, for example). I never suggested banning handguns would be able to prevent their use altogether, but it will make it more difficult for them. Having a gun "for protection" is MUCH more likely to escalate things and result in someone being shot than if they have one and you don't. A hand gun will not kill anyone if there's no one pulling the trigger, but neither will that person be shooting anyone if they don't have a trigger to pull. I'm all for making it harder for that person to obtain a handgun.

Originally Posted by arsenal

Your missing the point. The car in question is the Lancer Evolution. Not allowed in Canada becuase it fails the 8 km/h crash test. A test that states that a vehicle must not sustain any damage in an accident at that speed. What is damaged in the Evolution? The intercooler. Now it could be a minor crack, or the whole intercooler would need to be replaced. Minor issue. Why then is the car not then allowed to be sold in canada? Because it is not considered "safe". Yet thousands of these vehicles are being driven around in the states, and japan.

Ok so for your single specific example, perhaps the laws are overly stringent (maybe not...I don't know the full details), but that is bound to happen in any system in which restrictions are placed. The system we have in place, despite minor flaws, is FAR better than having no restrictions whatsoever. The line has to be drawn somewhere.