[Vigilanteman]

Yes, there was Benedict Arnold's invasion during the American Revolution and another during the War of 1812, both based on the erroneous notion that Canadians really wanted to get out from under the British thumb.

However, I don't believe the Americans ever entertained any idea of incorporating them into the United States, so the reality is that you fought off an invasion, not a War for Independence.

That being said, I'm afraid you are right about the phony Human Rights act. We will have to fight tooth and nail to prevent a similar encroachment here. In other ways, Canada is already more free than we are thanks to the supreme idiocy of our voters since 2006.

[Vanders9]

I'm quite certain that the Americans wanted to incorporate Upper and Lower Canada as new States in the United States. It was more than just two invasions too...there were at least four attempts made in the war of 1812 and one (not official admittedly) in 1866. No I've no doubt they wanted to do that at all - as much to destroy British influence in North America as "free" Canadians. The distinction between fighting off invasions and a war for independence is pretty moot. In both cases you are still asserting yourself against an unwanted attempt to control you. Surely fighting for independence doesnt have to be a pro-active event. You can do it by defending the status quo as much as by an active rising up against it. After all, thats what people on this site are doing, not so? The revolutionaries are not always on the side of the angels. It depends on whether you are happy with the status quo or not.

Anyway, we're all friends now.

The Human Right act is a classic example of good intentions going wrong, and ending up infringing on rights as much as on protecting them. Apart from the whole thing being unneccesary anyway, as the common law system did the same thing much better, what it has effectively done is nothing more than change the position of the goalposts. It gives some people more rights but only at the expense of taking away the rights of others. And as the rights removed are your ability to say what the heck you want, that's very dangerous, particularly in a nation with a democratic system of government. We are the ones who are supposed to tell the government what is right, not the other way round. People say "oh but its wrong to say hurtful and/or hateful things about others". Fair enough. But surely the better answer to that is to have a citizenry who are so morally tuned in they can spot prejudice, bigotry, humbug and falsehood and just simply discount it? When you legislate against such things, you basically give the Government the right and power to enforce truth, and it has no business doing that.

I cannot understand how anyone can be made culpable for someone else's comments - even on a blog. Especially if said comments are subsequently removed.