the daily snivel
Warning to Mr. Harper
Don't hitch your party's prospects too closely to George W. Bush's popular, values-based ideology. From the Washington Post:
Even the Americans, God bless 'em, are starting to get it after years of just taking it. The sort of big-business, social-conservative "values" that conventional wisdome says swept the election by that stunning two percentage port is now just giving way to a sobering cold rush of buyer's remorse. If I were a Conservative in Canada, I'd sit up and take notice. This stuff may play well in the sticks (OK, Alberta), but it gives me a warm fuzzy to think that people can and do smarten up when they realize how bankrupt and self-serving the far-right's ideology is.
Thanks to Daily Kos.
Comments:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling:
Approve Disapprove
A. Social Security 31 64
B. Iraq 42 56
C. Economy 40 57
D. Terrorism 56 41
E. Energy Policy 35 54...
Which party better represents your personal values?
Democrats - 47%
Republicans - 38%
Even the Americans, God bless 'em, are starting to get it after years of just taking it. The sort of big-business, social-conservative "values" that conventional wisdome says swept the election by that stunning two percentage port is now just giving way to a sobering cold rush of buyer's remorse. If I were a Conservative in Canada, I'd sit up and take notice. This stuff may play well in the sticks (OK, Alberta), but it gives me a warm fuzzy to think that people can and do smarten up when they realize how bankrupt and self-serving the far-right's ideology is.
Thanks to Daily Kos.
No Kiddin! Mr. Harper smells a rank
sour smell that we now know was the same smell that permiated the room when that Brian Baloney was in office.
And while we are at it would there be just one(1) MP who would dare have the definition of "treason" redefined For Our Own Protection?
sour smell that we now know was the same smell that permiated the room when that Brian Baloney was in office.
And while we are at it would there be just one(1) MP who would dare have the definition of "treason" redefined For Our Own Protection?
WHEN WILL WE REDEFINE TREASON IN CANADA. WE ARE AT ECONOMIC WAR WITH THE USA. WHEN!!!!
I have to ask: how would you redefine the definition of treason from its current definition at sections 46(1) & (2) of the Criminal Code? Here it is as it presently reads:
46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);
(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
------
Just curious. What would you change?
46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);
(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
------
Just curious. What would you change?
