# Canadian Asks: Should Pres. Bush Be Arrested For War Crimes?



## NATO AIR

hope there aren't any canadians planning on trying this... why don't you guys arrest kissenger instead?



> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...S/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes  http://www.rabble.ca
> 
> Should Canada indict Bush?
> 
> 
> THOMAS WALKOM
> 
> When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa  probably later this year  should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?
> 
> It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
> 
> This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could face arrest.
> 
> In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.
> 
> War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.
> 
> Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium, no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall under the war crime rubric.
> 
> The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the fact of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo  in an astonishing precedent  ruled that states no longer had the unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started such conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.
> 
> Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except those authorized by its Security Council.
> 
> Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.
> 
> Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.
> 
> The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of 100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use of excessive force.
> 
> Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who allow them to happen.
> 
> What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of torture.
> 
> Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.
> 
> Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.
> 
> In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.
> 
> Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely. And, at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no jurisdiction over any American.
> 
> But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their country against him  so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S. threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.
> 
> As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office  or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.
> 
> And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the federal attorney-general.
> 
> Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General Assembly.
> 
> There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial board noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Walkom writes every Tuesday. twalkom@thestar.ca.
> 
> Additional articles by Thomas Walkom


----------



## Isaac Brock

I'm quite sure he won't be tried for war crimes in Canada.  To my recollection, nobody has as of yet.  In addition, though most of Canada did not and does not agree with what Bush did in Iraq, I don't think there is even popular support or belief that they are war crimes.

It's going to be a shaky meeting since relations have been at an all time low since the LBJ years.  I hope Canadians at or near the meeting behave (including a certain MP), but I hope Martin does not simply bow to the wishes of the president to gain favour.  I'd like to see a dialogue, not demands on both sides as there are some very serious bones of contentions that need to be resolved.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure he won't be tried for war crimes in Canada.  To my recollection, nobody has as of yet.  In addition, though most of Canada did not and does not agree with what Bush did in Iraq, I don't think there is even popular support or belief that they are war crimes.
> 
> It's going to be a shaky meeting since relations have been at an all time low since the LBJ years.  I hope Canadians at or near the meeting behave (including a certain MP), but I hope Martin does not simply bow to the wishes of the president to gain favour.  I'd like to see a dialogue, not demands on both sides as there are some very serious bones of contentions that need to be resolved.



What are they again? 

drilling in anwar?  Your refusal to have sensible immigration policy?  The idiocy of your unwillingess to recognize the threat to freedom inherent in the spread of radical islam?


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> What are they again?
> 
> drilling in anwar?  Your refusal to have sensible immigration policy?  The idiocy of your unwillingess to recognize the threat to freedom inherent in the spread of radical islam?



You can read, I'll let you go look them up yourself.


----------



## freeandfun1

Should the Canadian PM be arrested then for those actions of the Canadian military in Africa a few years ago?  I can't recall all the details, but some Canadian soldiers killed a couple of African "insurgents" they had in their custody by beating them to death and sodomizing them with, I believe, the barrel of an M16.  I will have to go find the story and post it.....


----------



## Said1

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Should the Canadian PM be arrested then for those actions of the Canadian military in Africa a few years ago?  I can't recall all the details, but some Canadian soldiers killed a couple of African "insurgents" they had in their custody by beating them to death and sodomizing them with, I believe, the barrel of an M16.  I will have to go find the story and post it.....




Actually, it wasn't even an insurgent. It was a kid who hopped the fence at one of the Canadian forces compounds in Somalia.  

Of course the PM should not be held responsible for that, and neither should Bush. Another stupid article from and equally stupid paper.


----------



## freeandfun1

Said1 said:
			
		

> Actually, it wasn't even an insurgent. It was a kid who hopped the fence at one of the Canadian forces compounds in Somalia.
> 
> Of course the PM should not be held responsible for that, and neither should Bush. Another stupid article from and equally stupid paper.



I figured as much.  Thanks for the clarification.  I knew it was in Africa, I just couldn't remember if it was in Somalia or Rawanda.


----------



## Isaac Brock

The point boils down to this:

The majority of Canadians didn't and still don't agree with Bush on Iraq.
The vast majority do not believe Bush is committing war crimes.  Perhaps a few in Abu Graib, but not vast majority of US troops

It really is a non-issue.

As for Somolia.  That WAS a war crime perpetrated by several members of the airborn, IMHO.  They were court marshalled sentenced and had their entire airborne batallion disbanded.  Honestly, I think we should have sent them to jail in Somolia for what they did.


----------



## MrMarbles

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Glad you said so said, I didn't want to be the one to point that out!
> 
> MrMarbles wouldn't by any chane write this column?



Bush tried for war crimes.... thats a stretch. I hope Canadians behave themselves when he is here. Peacful protests are all right. But no booing if he speaks to pariliament. You don't have to like, but treat him with respect.


----------



## Merlin1047

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> hope there aren't any canadians planning on trying this... why don't you guys arrest kissenger instead?



Well this article certainly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we Americans do not have a monopoly on morons.  What an idiotic premise.  This guy would fit right in with the Hollyweird crowd.


----------



## Isaac Brock

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Bush tried for war crimes.... thats a stretch. I hope Canadians behave themselves when he is here. Peacful protests are all right. But no booing if he speaks to pariliament. You don't have to like, but treat him with respect.



Agreed!


----------



## Hobbit

I dunno what he's thinking.  If Canada even considered trying prosecute an American citizen under its laws for 'crimes' not committed in Canada, especially if that citizen happened to be the president, they might as well consider themselves states 51-60...after a little common sense set in (wouldn't want their electoral votes to count right after something like that).  No offense, Canada, but you need to shut this guy up before somebody actually pulls something.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> You can read, I'll let you go look them up yourself.



I know, stating your problems clearly and concisely reveals their utter derth of merit.

1.  Drilling in Anwar is a miniscule environmental threat.
2.  Your borders are your responsibility too.
3.  Your cancerous attitudes towards socialism and acceptance of terrorists will be your downfall.


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I know, stating your problems clearly and concisely reveals their utter derth of merit.
> 
> 1.  Drilling in Anwar is a miniscule environmental threat.
> 2.  Your borders are your responsibility too.
> 3.  Your cancerous attitudes towards socialism and acceptance of terrorists will be your downfall.



...and if you read the last thread.  I answered all your questions.  Sometimes it's like I'm listening to an old skipping record.  Liberal, socialist euro weenie, traitor to democracy.  Yeah, I got it RWA, don't worry, I got that you don't like Canada's system.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Hobbit said:
			
		

> I dunno what he's thinking.  If Canada even considered trying prosecute an American citizen under its laws for 'crimes' not committed in Canada, especially if that citizen happened to be the president, they might as well consider themselves states 51-60...after a little common sense set in (wouldn't want their electoral votes to count right after something like that).  No offense, Canada, but you need to shut this guy up before somebody actually pulls something.



Thomas Walkom just a writer and for the Star, no less.  I wouldn't worry that is attitude is indicative of a greater sentiment.  Bush isn't going to be tried in Canada, nor does anyone wish that.  

He probably won't receive the warmest reception from some of the ordinary citizens, but demonstrations in Canada are most always peaceful.  I think there is a greater understanding what is at stake with our relations and no one would like to permanently screw them up.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> ...and if you read the last thread.  I answered all your questions.  Sometimes it's like I'm listening to an old skipping record.  Liberal, socialist euro weenie, traitor to democracy.  Yeah, I got it RWA, don't worry, I got that you don't like Canada's system.



And you have your schtick as well. " We cannot enhance security cuz it's just not the canadian way?  Extra scrutiny of terrorists?  Hell no,  just cuz it's not our way!"

And your paper written by a bunch of left wingers that "proves socialized medicine works", does nothing of the sort.  More evidence shows that socialized medicine inevitablely leads to a decline in quality and timeliness.


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And you have your schtick as well. " We cannot enhance security cuz it's just not the canadian way?  Extra scrutiny of terrorists?  Hell no,  just cuz it's not our way!"
> 
> And your paper written by a bunch of left wingers that "proves socialized medicine works", does nothing of the sort.  More evidence shows that socialized medicine inevitablely leads to a decline in quality and timeliness.



Yeah, but the difference between you and I, is that I don't keep bringing it up on completely unrelated threads.

So do you think RWA, that Canada will try to prosecute Bush when he comes to Canada?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the difference between you and I, is that I don't keep bringing it up on completely unrelated threads.
> 
> So do you think RWA, that Canada will try to prosecute Bush when he comes to Canada?



Yes.  Use the off topic argument to shut down discussions you can't win.

No.    They won't try it.  Let them try it.


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes.  Use the off topic argument to shut down discussions you can't win.
> 
> No.    They won't try it.  Let them try it.



No, it's called not hijacking Nato's thread.  

There are plenty of other threads in the Canada section that you can reopen to satisfy your fixation.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> No, it's called not hijacking Nato's thread.
> 
> There are plenty of other threads in the Canada section that you can reopen to satisfy your fixation.



yeah.  Sorry.  I just get riled up when I think about all your "problems" with america.

Sorry Nato.


----------



## NightTrain

RWA, don't lump Isaac in with some other Canadian posters that have rolled through here.  He's proven himself a very knowledgable & polite member, I think you may have him confused with Marbles.

Not once has he tried to promote a socialism / communism / anti-america agenda that I've ever seen.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

NightTrain said:
			
		

> RWA, don't lump Isaac in with some other Canadian posters that have rolled through here.  He's proven himself a very knowledgable & polite member, I think you may have him confused with Marbles.
> 
> Not once has he tried to promote a socialism / communism / anti-america agenda that I've ever seen.



Then obviously you haven't read his strident and relatively unreasoned defenses of socialized medicine and canada's "tradition of diversity".  I agree he's polite.  But he's pretty far left.  If calling a spade a spade is a crime, then I'm guilty.


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Then obviously you haven't read his strident and relatively unreasoned defenses of socialized medicine and canada's "tradition of diversity".  I agree he's polite.  But he's pretty far left.  If calling a spade a spade is a crime, then I'm guilty.



Give it a rest already. It's our system, we like it, it works. If you don't, then tough, stay where you are.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Give it a rest already. It's our system, we like it, it works. If you don't, then tough, stay where you are.



You give it a rest, Bong Hit Boy.  Your acceptance of terrorists will destroy you, beware.  Your other socialist withering institutions will continue in their downward spiral.  Turn back now. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!


----------



## TheEnemyWithin

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> hope there aren't any canadians planning on trying this... why don't you guys arrest kissenger instead?



I have NEVER seen a nation such as Canada before. Once they were proud, friendly people who enjoyed being our northern neighbor, now, a Socialist, war-fearing nation to the left of John Kerry!!!

Even then I couldn't care less...


----------



## Isaac Brock

TheEnemyWithin said:
			
		

> I have NEVER seen a nation such as Canada before. Once they were proud, friendly people who enjoyed being our northern neighbor, now, a Socialist, war-fearing nation to the left of John Kerry!!!
> 
> Even then I couldn't care less...



I'm curious to when the last time you've been to Canada?  I think you might be surprised that Canada isn't what you think it is.  

Canada has changed very little, value wise, since the years of Pearson.


----------



## NATO AIR

to clarify canada's actions in rwanda, they had a general (dalliere) who served with honor and distinction as the UN peacekeeping mission leader.

this mission was gutted of troops, supplies and intelligence by the US under Clinton as well as the UN leadership, but this Canadian did his best to save as many Rwandan lives as he could, despite no authorization from the UN, the US or his home nation's leadership.

There is honor in Canada, a great deal of it in fact.


----------



## Said1

TheEnemyWithin said:
			
		

> I have NEVER seen a nation such as Canada before. Once they were proud, friendly people who enjoyed being our northern neighbor, now, a Socialist, war-fearing nation to the left of John Kerry!!!
> 
> Even then I couldn't care less...



Yor're right, manic depression sucks.


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You give it a rest, Bong Hit Boy.  Your acceptance of terrorists will destroy you, beware.  Your other socialist withering institutions will continue in their downward spiral.  Turn back now. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!



Ok crazy guy, whatever you say.

How many times do you need to hear that the you are now sleeping in the bed you made. Canada has not trained terrorists, has not supported terrorists, not supported Dictatorships, not imposed Dicatorships. America's foreign policy has done all of these things, now they are coming back to hurt you, not us.


----------



## theim

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Ok crazy guy, whatever you say.
> 
> How many times do you need to hear that the you are now sleeping in the bed you made. Canada has not trained terrorists, has not supported terrorists, not supported Dictatorships, not imposed Dicatorships. America's foreign policy has done all of these things, now they are coming back to hurt you, not us.



Bullshit. All that crap you listed was during the Cold War, when it was either that or let the Soviets dominate. So as an American, I am not sorry in the least for whatever we did in South America or wherever.

Canada has an extremely loose immigration policy. Even your own officials acknowledge a large militant islamist segment of your population. But they are in YOUR country, not ours. So enjoy 'em. If Spain is any indicator, just because you are nice to them does not mean they will be nice back.

And I am quite comfortable in my bed that America has made for me. History is repeating itself yet again. Russia, under the former KGB director, is reverting back to dictatorship. Germany has outlawed "hate-speach", but the Neo-Nazi Party is on the rise anyways. Canada also has laws against "hate-speach" and even bans certain books. How the f*** any one of these nations can call themselves more free than America is beyond me. Once again I urge you as your neighbor to the South to turn back before it is too late. Socialism leads to totalitarianism. It always has, and it always will. For the love of Christ turn away from that path.


----------



## Isaac Brock

So left unchecked you believe Canada will head towards totalitarianism?  I'm just wondering what part of Canadian history would lead you to that conclusion.  The suggestion that somehow there is this big, sudden change in Canada towards a police state is perplexing.

Politically since WWI, Canada is one of the most unchanging countries you can find.  It swings neither more to the left or to the right.  Medicare has been around since the 50's, hate speech was first officially outlawed in the 60's, but widely prosecuted under British law before that.  Canada has always been multilateral with its military (WWI, WWII, Korea, Cyprus, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Gulf War I, Afghanistan).  Multiculturalism has also been enshrined, even, perhaps, to a point of excess.

My question is you, is what do you think has changed about your Northern neighbour?  Where did this slippery slope suddenly come from?


----------



## MrMarbles

theim said:
			
		

> Bullshit. All that crap you listed was during the Cold War, when it was either that or let the Soviets dominate. So as an American, I am not sorry in the least for whatever we did in South America or wherever.



Last I heard, the Soviets collapsed under it's own weight, it was just a matter of time. A large corrupt State, competing for dominance. The terrorists trained to fight this big corrupt nation didn't do much in the whole scheme of things. All it did was prepare them for the eventual fight against a bigger corrupt State. RWA said that our "acceptance' of terrorism will be our downfall. I was pointing out that America has accepted terrorism as a valid tool, and has supported it fully, and is now paying the consequences for that support. It dosen't matter which devil you make your deal with, they will always come back to collect.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Last I heard, the Soviets collapsed under it's own weight, it was just a matter of time. A large corrupt State, competing for dominance. The terrorists trained to fight this big corrupt nation didn't do much in the whole scheme of things. All it did was prepare them for the eventual fight against a bigger corrupt State. RWA said that our "acceptance' of terrorism will be our downfall. I was pointing out that America has accepted terrorism as a valid tool, and has supported it fully, and is now paying the consequences for that support. It dosen't matter which devil you make your deal with, they will always come back to collect.



And having to compete productionwise with our capitalist economy forced the cracks in their system to break apart much quicker.  

The goal is what gives the use of force it's moral contact.  Communism is a human evil and needed to be fought by any means necessary.  Capitalism works and is therefore good.  Communism is the height of human corruption and is therefore evil.


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And having to compete productionwise without capitalist economy, forced the cracks in their system to break apart much quicker.
> 
> The goal is what gives the use of force it's moral contact.  Communism is a human evil and needed to be fought by any means necessary.  Capitalism works and is therefore good.  Communism is the height of human corruption and is therefore evil.



Communism is not inherently evil, niether is Capitalism. But both corruptable. The USSR was a Communist dictatorship, ruled by evil men. Democracy has built in failsafes to prevent corruption, e.i. elections. To generally label communism as bad is wrong. It is a form of gov't that can work for some people.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Communism is not inherently evil, niether is Capitalism. But both corruptable. The USSR was a Communist dictatorship, ruled by evil men. Democracy has built in failsafes to prevent corruption, e.i. elections. To generally label communism as bad is wrong. It is a form of gov't that can work for some people.



who HAS it worked for, in your opinion?

Also when I said you tolerate terrorists I mean you tolerate terrorists that are PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO THE WESTERN TRADITIONS OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM ON WHICH CANADA IS FOUNDED.  Saying the U.S. employed terrorist tactics in fighting OUR ENEMIES is a little different.  You're on a national suicide trip.

you cross a line of toleration when you tolerate intolerance.


----------



## wallyvon

it'd be nice if bush could be arrested on that basis, but it won't happen.  If country's weren't so terrified at our military might, they'd show their true colors and opposition to our foreign policy immediately, but as it is, their fear of us demands they shroud their opinions as best they can.


----------



## theim

wallyvon said:
			
		

> it'd be nice if bush could be arrested on that basis, but it won't happen.  If country's weren't so terrified at our military might, they'd show their true colors and opposition to our foreign policy immediately, but as it is, their fear of us demands they shroud their opinions as best they can.



would you just get the hell out of our county? Seriously. The border with Canada is hundreds of miles long. It cant be that hard to get in illegally. If you hate America so much just leave please.


----------



## wallyvon

its much more fun pissing off fools like you.  Its my pleasure


----------



## theim

wallyvon said:
			
		

> its much more fun pissing off fools like you.  Its my pleasure



No, to piss me off you must form some semblance of a logical argument. As it stands now, I just find you funny as hell.


----------



## wallyvon

keep on chuckling, freak-show


----------



## theim

wallyvon said:
			
		

> keep on chuckling, freak-show



like I said in another thread...just keep opening your mouth.  :scratch:  :rotflmao:


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> who HAS it worked for, in your opinion?
> 
> Also when I said you tolerate terrorists I mean you tolerate terrorists that are PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO THE WESTERN TRADITIONS OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM ON WHICH CANADA IS FOUNDED.  Saying the U.S. employed terrorist tactics in fighting OUR ENEMIES is a little different.  You're on a national suicide trip.
> 
> you cross a line of toleration when you tolerate intolerance.



The last time we had terrorists groups openly attacking the foundation of Canada, we invoke the War Measures Act and kicked they're ass. Remeber there are have been no terrorist attacks in Canada since, and know terrorists has used Canada as a base of operations to launch attacks on the States.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> The last time we had terrorists groups openly attacking the foundation of Canada, we invoke the War Measures Act and kicked they're ass. Remeber there are have been no terrorist attacks in Canada since, and know terrorists has used Canada as a base of operations to launch attacks on the States.



It hasn't happened yet, so don't worry?  What an ignorant attitude.


----------



## Merlin1047

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> So left unchecked you believe Canada will head towards totalitarianism?  I'm just wondering what part of Canadian history would lead you to that conclusion.  The suggestion that somehow there is this big, sudden change in Canada towards a police state is perplexing.



You may recall we had a similar conversation once before which I abandoned rather that pursue.  If you cannot see the danger of your meek acceptance of your government's regulation of speech, then there is little point in discussing this topic with you.

I see Canadians as riding the razor's edge between socialism and totalitarianism because one eventually and inevitably leads to the other.  Witness any number of European countries who have sent citizens to jail merely for making statements critical of muslims.  That is your future.  As government "benefits" increase, so does government regulation.  As regulation increases, government becomes ever more intrusive and controlling.

Americans face the same danger.  Leftist freaks in this country demand politically correct speech.  They demand an ever increasing level of government services and entitlement programs.  Their agenda is to impose their will and their social view on everyone.

The main difference between Americans and Canadians is that we still have a majority of our population which objects to excessive government while you seem to have come to accept, even to expect government policies to run your lives.

Perhaps you can be comfortable with big brother government.  I cannot.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> You may recall we had a similar conversation once before which I abandoned rather that pursue.  If you cannot see the danger of your meek acceptance of your government's regulation of speech, then there is little point in discussing this topic with you.
> 
> I see Canadians as riding the razor's edge between socialism and totalitarianism because one eventually and inevitably leads to the other.  Witness any number of European countries who have sent citizens to jail merely for making statements critical of muslims.  That is your future.  As government "benefits" increase, so does government regulation.  As regulation increases, government becomes ever more intrusive and controlling.
> 
> Americans face the same danger.  Leftist freaks in this country demand politically correct speech.  They demand an ever increasing level of government services and entitlement programs.  Their agenda is to impose their will and their social view on everyone.
> 
> The main difference between Americans and Canadians is that we still have a majority of our population which objects to excessive government while you seem to have come to accept, even to expect government policies to run your lives.
> 
> Perhaps you can be comfortable with big brother government.  I cannot.



I suggest you read the law I posted restricting violent hate speech and see then if you really believe it is an un-due restriction on basic freedoms.  Why does your government, for instance, ban obscenity, nudity in public places?  Is that not a restriction on your rights?  I ask you where do basic, unalienable right begin and where do our specific moral restrictions begin?

I can simply cannot agree with you, that social programs lead inevitably and completely towards totalitarianism.  There simply are too many examples of countries that are perfectly free with large social nets (ie All of Scandinavia, Finland, Australia, NZ, Italy, Germany, Singapore etc).  Whether or not public systems are necessarily more efficient, cost-wise than private systems is certainly a reasonable discussion, however to suggest that it was pre-cursor to totalitarianism is historically irresponsible.  

Let us look at the modern Communist, totalitarianism states in history and how they go that way.  
USSR - Revolt from the lower class due to large social disparities.
China - Revolt from corrupt, elitist Nationalist government
Cuba - Revolt from former dictator and exploitation by Western industries.
North Korea - Again, revolt from lower class with Chinese/Russian backing

Where can we find one example of a country become totalitarian through too many social programs?


----------



## CSM

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I suggest you read the law I posted restricting violent hate speech and see then if you really believe it is an un-due restriction on basic freedoms.  Why does your government, for instance, ban obscenity, nudity in public places?  Is that not a restriction on your rights?  I ask you where do basic, unalienable right begin and where do our specific moral restrictions begin?
> 
> I can simply cannot agree with you, that social programs lead inevitably and completely towards totalitarianism.  There simply are too many examples of countries that are perfectly free with large social nets (ie All of Scandinavia, Finland, Australia, NZ, Italy, Germany, Singapore etc).  Whether or not public systems are necessarily more efficient, cost-wise than private systems is certainly a reasonable discussion, however to suggest that it was pre-cursor to totalitarianism is historically irresponsible.
> 
> Let us look at the modern Communist, totalitarianism states in history and how they go that way.
> USSR - Revolt from the lower class due to large social disparities.
> China - Revolt from corrupt, elitist Nationalist government
> Cuba - Revolt from former dictator and exploitation by Western industries.
> North Korea - Again, revolt from lower class with Chinese/Russian backing
> 
> Where can we find one example of a country become totalitarian through too many social programs?



Are you trying to use that list of particular countries as an example of Utopian idealism?


----------



## Isaac Brock

CSM said:
			
		

> Are you trying to use that list of particular countries as an example of Utopian idealism?



Does it look like I am by calling them totalitarian states?


----------



## CSM

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Does it look like I am by calling them totalitarian states?


 Just seeking calrification. Each of those nations were founded under the guise of holding socialist ideals paramount.


----------



## Isaac Brock

CSM said:
			
		

> Just seeking calrification. Each of those nations were founded under the guise of holding socialist ideals paramount.



Absolutely correct, I am not disputing that in the least.  However, I am asserting that none of these countries began with a prosperous, democractic country with social programs.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Absolutely correct, I am not disputing that in the least.  However, I am asserting that none of these countries began with a prosperous, democractic country with social programs.



Then go get your guns if you want a socialist utopia.  The producers (conservatives) want nothing to do with your excess of collectivism.  That's always been the problem.  If only you could villify us and force us into your system somehow...


----------

