The Talibs are winning or at least that’s how they see it and with good reason. They achieved a monumental victory (that we never mention) when they morphed from an insurgency into a classic, civil war. Going from guerrilla to rebel, from insurgency to civil war, depends on being able to establish an alternative government – holding territory, implementing judicial and administrative functions, either to the exclusion of or in parallel to the central government. This they have done and we had better realize what that portends.

The Talibs have said they’ll talk with Karzai but only after Western forces have left their country. From their position that seems strategically sound. Layton and Cannon are irrelevant.

Perhaps his best years were not necessarily as Prime Minister, but any one of the ‘Minister of’ titles he held over the years. He did lots of good as Trudeau’s foot soldier, and I think people fail to recognize that. He helped in a big way to bring home the Constitution, kick start the Natural Parks system, and of course in holding this country together. If anyone gets a chance to read his biography by John English, please do. He was a man built for politics.

Here are the email addresses of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hansen, and and link to the petition:

premier@leg.bc.ca
colin.hansen.mla@leg.bc.ca

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stoptheHST/

You may want to check out http://ww.howdtheyvote.ca to see exactly what the NDP has been doing.

It’s irresponsible to accuse treehuggers, PeTA et al of providing inaccurate information and then doing it yourself.

Admittedly, in the absence of substantive argument from you, I’ve tried to infer from the rest of your words why it is you think an unelected head of state is a problem and should be replaced with an elected office. As it seems I was unsuccessful in those attempts, the question then remains: why exactly is it ridiculous to have a constitutional monarch as head of state? Your position becomes even more puzzling when we remember that a) you admit the Canadian system of government is democratic, and b) that the institution of the Canadian monarchy is created and controlled – including the line of succession – by a constitution that’s been supported by elected law-makers since its inception.

We don’t have to share the same feelings, but surely you recognize that a subjective opinion backed up by neither evidence nor rational argument doesn’t have much value at all.

Now, if you agree with our head of state being in her position simply because she was born into the right family, so be it. I don’t share the same feelings.

But this mixes up the simple definition of direct democracy with the complex and variable political theory of democratic government, assuming, as it does, that the latter can be expressed in the same way as the former: solely through the act of voting. In reality, though, as invaluable and necessary as it is in any democracy, voting without counterbalance will inevitably result in a tyranny of the majority, thereby (and somewhat ironically) destroying the two key requirements for any democracy: an equal voice for all citizens in the exercise of power, and universally recognized rights and freedoms. As Canada already meets both those requirements, and more, the monarchy, for all its lack of votes, does nothing to hamper the expression of democratic values, thereby rendering your initial statement invalid: It is perfectly acceptable, even right, to have a hereditary head of state for a country that prides itself on its democratic values. For absolute clarity, though, I would add the caveat that such a head of state must operate within the constraints of constitutional law, parliamentary democracy, and responsible government, which, again, Canada has.

Now, what pray tell are the “cultural implications of abolishing the Crown”?

Pehaps you just don’t like answering questions?