tooner

preaching to the choir!!

Exactly. He's not one for the sheep, but most of his comments hit the nail on the head. He has turned into a bit of a nob lately, but suppose fame and being so god damn right all the time is bound to make you big headed. Thirded. Plus, anyway, I'm literally amazed at some of the comments on this thread from people I'd expect something different from. FFS freedom of speech is nothing to do with this so-called 'hand-wringing'. It's common sense! Jesus wept, do we want to live in a world where only 'normal' comments are allowed or are we actually allowed to make our own minds up? Also George Galloway has been elected a member of Parliament and Canada are part of the so-called 'Common wealth'. It's an utter joke the guy isn't being allowed to speak in a supposedly 'free' country called Canada, especially when the USA has no problems with him. He's banned for National Security needs apparently . Maybe someone can tell me how old George is going to threaten the Western civilised world with his wicked pen and tongue? have you seen our PM FFS, the guy is scary I personally think he's a robot. I think the issue is his (GG) ties to Hamas, giving money or something, anyway because our gov't has Hamas on a "list" of terrorist organizations his affiliation is what the stink is about......not what he has to say. As fer Parky, hahaha Canada boring!!!??? Whatever, if you've been here, fair enough to each their own. If not, STFU!!!! Canada is anything but boring, T.O. Montreal and Vancouver are all world-class cities with world class night life. Calgary, well I apologise for Calgary it is boring as fuck. Only joshing mate. Don't take anything I say on these boards too seriously. :huh: duly noted we canucks have a bit of a passive/aggressive nationalistic side, we're overly polite and can't really identify with what it is that makes us canadian but get bent out of shape if someone slags the great white north (no Danny that is not a racist nickname), back to the post...... just to show how ridiculous and clueless our gov't is, the U.S. have let Galloway in yet Harper and his cronies still won't because of "security concerns"......bunch of idiots, what kind of security concerns could there be if the U.S. is ok with it. It's like highschool student council up here, if you've ever had the displeasure to see the current canadian parliamentary question period they stand/sit around and yell insults at each othere while the other side is trying to make their point......utterly disgraceful.

Exactly. He's not one for the sheep, but most of his comments hit the nail on the head. He has turned into a bit of a nob lately, but suppose fame and being so god damn right all the time is bound to make you big headed. Thirded. Plus, anyway, I'm literally amazed at some of the comments on this thread from people I'd expect something different from. FFS freedom of speech is nothing to do with this so-called 'hand-wringing'. It's common sense! Jesus wept, do we want to live in a world where only 'normal' comments are allowed or are we actually allowed to make our own minds up? Also George Galloway has been elected a member of Parliament and Canada are part of the so-called 'Common wealth'. It's an utter joke the guy isn't being allowed to speak in a supposedly 'free' country called Canada, especially when the USA has no problems with him. He's banned for National Security needs apparently . Maybe someone can tell me how old George is going to threaten the Western civilised world with his wicked pen and tongue? have you seen our PM FFS, the guy is scary I personally think he's a robot. I think the issue is his (GG) ties to Hamas, giving money or something, anyway because our gov't has Hamas on a "list" of terrorist organizations his affiliation is what the stink is about......not what he has to say. As fer Parky, hahaha Canada boring!!!??? Whatever, if you've been here, fair enough to each their own. If not, STFU!!!! Canada is anything but boring, T.O. Montreal and Vancouver are all world-class cities with world class night life. Calgary, well I apologise for Calgary it is boring as fuck.

what is the ban for smoking over there? Here the ban is for restaurants and bars/pubs but the private clubs (i.e. fraternal orders, legions etc.) can get around it because the people behind the bars and waiting tables are volunteers and therefore not covered by worker compensation which was the real catalyst. personally I think it's not such a bad idea, i enjoy not smoking a pack and a half of second hand cig's while I'm out and about, and my clothes don't reek like an ashtray, I'd have to say they probably have the "smoking" ban in the right places IMO as far as raising taxes on booze, in BC we already have some of the highest prices in Canada and there is another raise coming for hard liquor.....about $1.30 / liter. It's funny to me that wine is cheaper in the UK than it is here ( i live in the Okanagan, wine country for fucks sake), damn government!!!! Are you smoking for free you cunt? haha....why whatever do you mean?

what is the ban for smoking over there? Here the ban is for restaurants and bars/pubs but the private clubs (i.e. fraternal orders, legions etc.) can get around it because the people behind the bars and waiting tables are volunteers and therefore not covered by worker compensation which was the real catalyst. personally I think it's not such a bad idea, i enjoy not smoking a pack and a half of second hand cig's while I'm out and about, and my clothes don't reek like an ashtray, I'd have to say they probably have the "smoking" ban in the right places IMO as far as raising taxes on booze, in BC we already have some of the highest prices in Canada and there is another raise coming for hard liquor.....about $1.30 / liter. It's funny to me that wine is cheaper in the UK than it is here ( i live in the Okanagan, wine country for fucks sake), damn government!!!!

myopic view as usual Stevie...

Worse than those Man United fans from outside Manchester who claim they've got a legitimate reason for supporting them because their "Uncle once bought a dog from a man who cut Sir Alex Ferguson's lawn" .....so it should only be observed in Ireland then? I'll send a memo to Boston and New York then shall I?

Freedom of speach as long as it is legal Renton, that is what you appear to be glossing over. What they are doing is illegal, if I racially abused them I would be locked up, they are inciting hatred and should be punished. Its not hard. could you make out something other than "free palestine" and "allah akbar" in the video? from Wiki, but also found in the act itself(section 29J) "The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J: Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

Pro-hunt protesters out numbered them in Parliament square, that still didn't stop the police beating innocent people to a bloody pulp for a crowd surge behind them (not hitting police with sticks or throwing fencing or anything like that, not even for just swearing at them). I can't remember them telling the miners to "calm down, please calm down" either, just beatings and horse charges. That's the whole point, they aren't.... only in completely the OPPOSITE direction to the one you are implying in this case (which is utter hypocrisy on your part, I'm afraid - you can't claim you are against such things, then turn a blind eye when something then doesn't fit your beliefs). so because you can provide two examples of the police treating white people different during protests i'm a hypocrite? how does this not fit my beliefs? FFS give your head a shake, the stanza you quoted me on was commenting on the implication by other posters that what was being said was illegal which it is not. Throwing fences and pylons at police IS illegal and I can't fathom why the police would not enforce based on those things, however this was a discussion about the "abuse" of the freedom of "speech"......refer to my other posts in this thread if you need clarification of my beliefs.

I am going to celebrate (even though I'm Canadian) with a guinness or two, not because I need an excuse to have one, but my family came over in the 1800's and I'm paying respect to my ancestry.....errr, sounds a bit like an excuse now that i've written it down.....

There's the irony, both 'sides' driven by the same type of hatred, and both oblivious to it. word

not sure what the video was "supposed" to be showing, looked like the 5-0 was scared shitless and outnumbered. If there had been more police with riot gear you can be assured there would have been more conflict. As for all the "send em back" sentiment, have a word with yourselves ffs. Fact is we live in a time of global cultural experience that stands for all countries. Canada has a very open immigration policy and it makes Canada a better place for it. This idea that only those that were born in a country that has the freedom of expression are protected by that freedom is frankly appalling, more appalling than anything I saw on the video.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh From Wikipedia's Patriot Act page.... Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[51][52] hardly what I'd call restrained, subverting someones rights in the name of protecting them.....see Alex's post on Phillip Pullman's article As a civil society we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a cycle of violence otherwise we are not a civil society. What separates us from those that would plant bombs in the underground and kill innocent people if we react by "nuking" them? Look as was stated before by another poster, I do not agree with what the protestors are saying, quite the opposite, but I do not condone assault for no other reason than not agreeing with them, violence causes violence, and we could do with a whole lot less of it IMO

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh.

.......exactly, freedom of speech is there to protect the ideals and opinions that we disagree with otherwise whats the point in having it. To a point, but would you agree people should be allowed to protest against black people or gays ??? absolutely!!!!.....that's why this is such an important freedom. IMHO there are nutters on either end of the spectrum who will say some fairly offensive (and crazy) shit, so what !!the rest of the population is left standing with mouths agape because we can see that what's being said is bullshit. All it does is make the people saying the offensive crap look even more like the nutters they are

.......exactly, freedom of speech is there to protect the ideals and opinions that we disagree with otherwise whats the point in having it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...eding-bust.html ......thats 155 mph!!!!!.......so glad I don't live there anymore, the roads are death-traps in T.O., to give you some perspective it's roughly 70 km from Barrie to Toronto, the trip would have taken 16 min.

.......YUP!!!

Man on Wire really good documentary about the french guy that wire-walked between the twin towers in 1974...... ....guy is a bit of a nutt-bar

he said engineering course not outdoor rec....

while the canucks have never won, the Vancouver Millionaires won it waaaaaaay back at the beginning of the 20th century, they are my second team because I live in BC now and if you cheer too loudly for the Leafs there is a good chance of having to step outside.......I'm a lover not a fighter broke my heart to see Mats Sundin sink the leafs (former captain) in the shoot-out on Saturday Sound more like us all the time The Canucks got beat in the final once as well didn't they? Indeed they did and how about a little serendipity, it was Mark Messier a former canuck that beat them in game seven of the final.....how's that for heartbreak? the last time the Leafs won was 1967, Bill Burillko scored in overtime to win the cup for the Leafs, then in the summer he was killed in a plane crash while on a fishing trip in Northern Ontario.......check out "50 mission Cap" by the Tragically Hip for a musical rundown on that bit of Canadiana

while the canucks have never won, the Vancouver Millionaires won it waaaaaaay back at the beginning of the 20th century, they are my second team because I live in BC now and if you cheer too loudly for the Leafs there is a good chance of having to step outside.......I'm a lover not a fighter broke my heart to see Mats Sundin sink the leafs (former captain) in the shoot-out on Saturday

Toronto are my favorite team....always have been, seems I like the teams with the 40+ year droughts for championships He he Maple Leafs are patently the NUFC of the NHL! Trade deadline on Wednesday too, wonder how many Leafs are left after that. Wish we could trade away some of our players, Trading Viduka, Smith, Duff, Geremi and Cacapa for a bag of grass seed would be fair value. you reckon any of them can skate?

lots of star power on the Pens to be sure......however the Leafs have had their number this year they lead the season series 3-1, but hey to each their own. Did you see the game that started this thread? Crosby and Ovechkin getting ready to scrap..... too funny Sid the kid would get WHOOPED

Absolutely do not take that as an answer, it's like asking the boss that's just fired you if they are sure. Go and see someone outside the department and get some advice (the university itself should have someone that deals with this sort of thing, as should the students union), I don't for a second believe that there is "no" appeals process, no process they want you to try more like. agreed..........until the president of the Uni tells you to pack up your shit, it ain't over. One fail and you're out seems really harsh, usually (at least in Canadian universities) there is some sort of probationary period where they tell you to stop coming to class straight from the kegger the night before and you at least gt to prove you are serious abut being at the school. best of luck with that and remember you are paying for that education so you are not only a student but a paying customer as well