Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Savant

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Savant

  1. Of course... And we all know that since booze and cigarettes are legal there isn't a single instance of criminals selling 'underground' or 'contraband' booze or cigarettes. AmIrite? Eh?
  2. I want to chime in here, since although I think The Star was highly unprofessional in how they acted, I do think they had a 'right' to cover the story. However, there was no real need to visit the property to cover a 'zoning issue'. Especially when you consider that there is no guarantee that Rob Ford will even get his request approved. (since the city rarely agrees to sell off parkland) So run a print story and be done with it. Don't go to the guy's house and peek in his yard. If worse comes to worse, go to his house during the day. The Star *knows* that they and Ford don't get along. Why a
  3. Do you know what invasion of privacy means? Try 35 to 50 meters from the sidewalk to the spot where he was located, if he was to travel on 'public land'.
  4. He was behind Rob Ford's fence at the rear of his property. While the reporter was standing on public land, that doesn't mean he has the right to look into Rob Ford's back yard. As stated, this reporter was supposedly doing a story about land Rob Ford wanted to buy, yet that land was nowhere near where the reporter was. The reporter had to go through bushes to get to the spot where he was. All it takes is a quick trip to google to see the land Rob Ford wants to buy, without any privacy breach at all. (People can see a pic of the property in question here. It's the land to the SIDE of Rob
  5. It's not. Have you looked at it with Bing or Google?I'm sorry, you are incorrect. The property is indeed to the SIDE of Rob Ford's house. The reporter was behind the BACK of the house. The rear of the house is NOT where the property in question in. In fact, the reporter could have stood on the sidewalk and took pictures of the land in question. The back yard was never a part of the land in question. A video that covers it all can be seen here. The reporter had no business in the back yard.
  6. This is complete and utter incompetence by The Star. They still have the hate on for Ford since he won't grant them any interviews after they printed libelous comments about him. While it may not be trespassing, it certainly qualifies as 'mischief' under the law. Of course getting a conviction could be difficult, but there is plenty of precedent for this. Off the top of my head, this decision comes to mind. The TLDR version is that a neighbour put a security camera in their own yard but pointed it towards his neighbour. Despite no 'tresspass' taking place, the court found that this was
  7. No it isn't, because she dismissed them as irrelevant ... but she was wrong about that. The land claims are all that is important going forward. You just don't get it. She didn't dismiss the land claims since the book wasn't about the land claims. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this. Frankly your ignornace in this regard is perplexing, since you seem to think that you can speak about something you haven't read.
  8. Wow, really? That's the best you got? (Since my user name flummoxes you, I'll give you a hint, it's french, not english.) Again your ignorance betrays you. Seeing as you haven't read the book, you are ignorant to the fact that her book was NOT about the land claims at all. Let me quote from the first freaking page of her introduction. That's the problem with ignorance, people unfortunately speak without knowing what they are talking about. You obviously haven't read the book, or you would know that your remarks are completely baseless. She didn't "dismiss" land claims, as you ignorantl
  9. And there was a signed statement by 37 chiefs that said they WERE consulted about it when they surrended the land in 1841. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about agreements being signed by native ancestors that current generations refuse to respect, yet they expect the current government to respect agreements signed by the governments of the day from over a century ago. Furthrremore, the courts issued an injunction against the First Nations ordering them off the property. The law applies to everyone, native and non. Wow you have so many facts wrong here, I don't know where to start. She wa
  10. I was agreeing with you... For anyone interested, there is an excerpt from Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless", at the link below... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/caledonia-the-town-that-law-forgot/article1769901/singlepage/#articlecontent It offers just a glimpse into what went on. There were other excerpts published, I'll see if I can dig them up. I was literally awestruck at what went on after reading her book. For whatever reason the police in Canada only seem capable of two responses. Extreme pacifism, or excessive force.
  11. The only 'racist' thing happening in Caledonia is the double standard that sees one 'race' (First Nations) allowed to flout the law, while those who live in the area (non First Nations) are harassed, threatened and police do nothing about it. I've had many a debate with people about this, and when I bump into the rare supporter of First Nations, I just hand them a copy of Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless" and then wait for the reality to set in. Once they have finished reading it they are usually shell shocked. The only ones who have 'failed' here are the First Nations residents who put
  12. I don't have a problem with this. We have minimum wage laws, and so long as these wages are above the minimum, then why should anyone object? If you don't want the wage, don't take the job - it's that simple. No one is demanding that people work in these jobs and get FREE health care while they are here. That little tidbit alone should make up for it. Bottom line, no one is forcing anyone to work. If employers need workers and no one will apply at the wage they are paying, then they will have to pay more. Supply and demand. No company should be obligated to pay more than minimum wage.
  13. I dont see why thats a problem if (very late term abortion) isnt happening anyways.That cuts both ways now doesn't it? One could also say 'why is there a problem with discussing new laws' when such a proposed law would not actually ban abortion completely.Laws are there for a reason. While no ethical doctor in Canada would extract a person's kidney and sell it, we still have laws against that. There are many more examples I could use... In the end I really don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the issue.
  14. That's the bottom line here.Some people suugest there should be no restrictions on abortion, but there already ARE restrictions on abortion. As you noted, there isn't a doctor in the civilized world that would 'abort' (kill) an unborn child in the 9th month of pregnancy. The child would be deleivered prematurely. Could a woman go into an abortion clinic a few days before delivery and get an abortion? No. So in reality there already are defacto 'prohibitions' regarding abortion in Canada. The problem is that there are no rules. If there isn't a single doctor in Canada that would perfor
  15. Buying alcohol doesn't harm a fetus, drinking it does.
  16. Oh? And you consider allowing a pregnant woman to shoot up is cool? Because that is precisely what happens. No effort is made to stop a woman from using Insite while pregnant, despite EVERYONE knowing what will happen to that baby.I'm not advocating "for approaches that have proven ... harmful for users" - since by definition detoxification is a process to REDUCE harm to that person's body by detoxifying them. Allowing them to continue to shoot up is what is harmful to users. The damage done to these addicts is often irreversible when they reach the point where they are so far gone that t
  17. Insite is NOT an intervention program. It is a place where drug addicts can go to shoot up drugs. There is no intervention at all, which is why there are so many objections. If they WERE intervening - we wouldn't be having this debate. I could say the same about your protestations. What rational person would voluntarily and knowingly allow a person addicted to drugs to continue said conduct knowing full well how physically and mentally damaging that conduct is. It boggles the mind that someone would actually try and suggest that people be voluntarily allowed to stay addicted.I don't obj
  18. Moral hangup? My objections aren't moral in nature at all. I don't have a problem with people - who genuinely need it - getting powerful drugs to deal with pain. That's not the issue here though. What I do object to is the idea that those who are addicted to drugs should be allowed to freely continue said behaviour without any intervention from society. I'm totally fine with detox, and I would have no objeciton to giving addicts as much free herion (or whatever they are hooked on) they need so long as it is part of a actual detox program that has pre-defined goals. There are plenty of det
  19. I never said it did. However the thread topic is about that concept, and the same backers from Insite have being doing 'test programs' that involve giving away free heroin. (Look up NAOMI and SALOME if you want more details.) This is the way these drug 'enablers' want to go. It's bad enough that they keep addicts hooked on drugs, they also want to provide those drugs for free.
  20. Oh yeah? Like OxyContin for example? Drugs that are highly addictive can never be allowed to be disytributed freely. Time and time again society finds out that there are some drugs that can just never be allowed to be given openly since the addictive nature of the drug is just too high. You're right, but they should be taken off the street and detoxified, not given drugs and fresh needles and told to go nuts.
  21. So does that mean we should just give up? No point having minimum age laws for alcohol since kids will drink anyway? Same for smoking? Heck, we can't stop people from drinking and driving, so why even try? We will never stop terrorists, why even try? Even child porn, why fight it when you can never put a dent in the number of pervs out there?Why? Because society - by and large - doesn't believe in defeatist ideology. Just because an corrective action won't totally eradicate a particular behaviour doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
  22. That's not accurate. In fact studies have shown (and I can dig up links to back this up) that people who do NOT drink any alcohol at all are at a higher health risk than those who are light drinkers. (IE, glass of wine a day etc.) Sure. However risk comes into play. You can die from drinking too much Coke (soft drink) as witnessed in recent news. No one suggests we should ban Coke. However, the addictive qualities of certain drugs makes it irresponsible to allow those drugs to be obtained freely. We could say the same about those who are suicidal. We can hospitalize them and hope that w
  23. Sorry, but your comparison is flawed. You miss the point that you CAN drink alcohol safely in low to moderate amounts. A better parallel would have been tobacco and smoking. There is no 'safe' number of cigarettes that a person can smoke, so this would have been a far better position to argue from. However, had you gone that way, I would have countered by suggesting that we have people who advocate for marijuana legalization, and studies have shown that inhaling marijuana smoke is no less risky than inhaling tobacco smoke. Mind you the point is still apt that we have governments that refu
  24. So do you suggest that suicidal people shouldn't be stopped - by force if necessary - from taking their own lives? How is this any different? Drug use is as much a death sentence as suicide is. Yet why is it that we have no qualms in 'committing' a person to an institution if they want to kill themselves? Isn't that using 'force'?You can't play favourites here. If drug addicts refuse to get treatment, then they should not be enabled to continue their destructive habit. It's no different than handing a loaded gun to a suicidal person. The state should never facilitate behaviour that is
  25. I have to reply to this since it isn't fully accurate. Does Insite offer detox to those who ask? Sure. However you can get into detox through any one of a number of social service agencies. The bigger issue with places like Insite is not just that they are drug use 'enablers', it's that there is no obligation for any user to enter detox while using their services. All the 'clinic' does is fascilitate drug use. They do nothing to prevent or discourage such drug use. Some people seem to be missing the bigger picture here. These drug users deserve better than a government that does nothin
×
×
  • Create New...