Leafless

Sorry mcqueen625 but Canada allows dual citizenship and gleefully promotes official multiculturalism. If you want to question Canadian nationalism blame TRUDEAU and the LIBERALS who have invented the criteria necessary to keep Quebecers and immigrants of foreign nationalities HYPHENATED Canadians. And Melaine your initial question 'does security trump liberty' is really inconsequential as if you ask yourself 'how free is free' you should realize freedoms come to end when detrimental actions that endanger the majority take priority over previous assumed freedoms to persons, groups etc. abusing that privilege.

This is a poor example for de Gaulle did play a role in promoting Quebec separatism by uttering "Vive la Quebec" while giving an address to a large crowd from a balcony at Montral city hall july 24,1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vive_le_Qu%C3...ec_libre_speech Furthermore Quebec is one of ten provinces within the prosperous country of Canada using the separation agenda as a political pawn unlike in most cases poor separate Arab countries with nothing to fall back on.

How do you propose to make homsexuality illegal again and what sort of penalties do you see for it? That sounds like a LIBERAL problem but for a start Canada's Constitution will have to be rewritten as there are many problems concerning the EQUALITY aspect being dictated by the federal government in a way that discriminates against many other Canadians. Maybe another 'kitchen accord' with free flowing champagne and plenty of pate and crackers will get the premiers in a good mood to come up with something OTHER than what Trudeau initially pulled off.

Homosexuality is illegal in many African states. Often on pain of death. Has that helped hinder the spread of AIDs? Homosexual sex acts, organized rape, sexual degradation towards women, all of these is part of their culture. All the condoms in the world isn't going to help that bunch. Often their are no answers for third world countries and I think Africa is one of them, but there is NO excuse for Canada pertaining to the spread of HIV.

France and the U.S as always played the role of 'big daddy' to Israel. France in a nuclear sense and the U.S. as a conventional arms supplier to help avoid Israel from using 'the big one' when threatened.

Lots of cancer is behaviour induced, not just lung cancer. Add mouth cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer. Need I go on? Other diseases are behavior related as well. Heart disease, respiratory diseases. Most of the research on AIDs is also applicable to cancer and other diseases. Anything that looks to improving the immuno response is transferable to any of the above diseases. Actually the latest in cancer therapy is actually using modified HIV virus and structured it to home in on the cancer cell. But I agree with Army Guy and the disease is blown out of proportion in North America. The thing with behavioral induced cancer is primarily caused by the misuse of legally available products excluding external risk factors like over exposure to the sun's rays. HIV on the other hand is spread by a previous illegal method in which case I strongly would advise authorities to reinstate that law for the protection of the majority as to upgrade health standards in this country that presently compare to the out of control NO STANDARDS situation that exist in third world countries concerning especially HIV. Canada is going backwards rather than forward in in areas pertaining to killer diseases. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4257783.stm

I said "apparently homosexual". It was Rue who posted this July 24/2006 11:20 a.m. Topic: -Under Federal politics-Pierre Trudeau: Anti-semitic Nazi lover-Post #4.

Do you think that making it illegal would act as a deterrant against homosexuality? Since heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV, do you think we should make that illegal as well? Sure, HIV may be spread more easily through homosexuals, but where do you think the line should be drawn (in terms of how easily it is transmitted)? 1.- Certainly, making it illegal and being subject as a criminal offense and imprisonment, I think it would like it did in the 70's, it kept them in the closet and for the most part and relatively inactive unlike to-day. 2. Heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV but where did the heterosexuals pick it up? Most heterosexuals that acquire this disease are prostitutes and wives of bisexuals or wives of husbands who also run around with prostitutes. I haven't heard of many married heterosexual women whose husbands don't cheat on them acquiring the disease. Have you, or can you provide stats. I don't think it's a question of where you draw the line concerning how easily it is transmitted but to try to eliminate initially the most common form of transmission being made by male homosexuals and male bisexuals and that is to make homosexuality illegal.

What an inane argument. Are you suggesting that since anal sex was technically illegal, it simply didn't happen? Since Jaywalking is illegal, I guess that never happens either? How often was the anti-sodomy law enforced even when it was on the books? You've staked out an extraordinarily foolish position here. (and don't go accusing me of being a Liberal supporter or a Trudeau-lover. Long-time board members would snort coffee out their noses at that idea.) -k 1.- For your information homosexuality was a criminal offense prior to 1970 and in Canada homosexuals found themselves subject to criminal charges and imprisonment. Your absurd analogy of jaywalking and anal sex as something that 'just happens' sounds like something as stupid as what someone would say on the Jerry Springer Show as what we are talking about here is the spread killer disease HIV. 2.- Sodomy or buggery is still 'in the books' but is restricted I believe to cases involving children. If you think it is foolish to implement 'homosexuality' as illegal once again, I suggest you think twice concerning the killer vdisease HIV and it's spread and the associated high cost of drugs to keep a victim alive for his or her remaining years and the associated risk to the heterosexual community. 3.- Hopefully your not a supporter of Mr.Trudeau once apparently a homosexual himself and the Charter he designed to help promote and protect homosexuals and indirectly is responsible for the INCREASE of homosexuality and the subsequent spread of HIV.

I don't agree to disagree. You are the one who wishes to concede, not I.

Just because sodomy was decriminalized doesn't mean that it wasn't happening anyways. It just meant people weren't going to jail. And same sex marriage applies to women as well. Are they "sodomists" as well? It would seem to me that same sex marriage is an affirmation of monogamy. And healthy monogamous couples don't pass the disease to one another. I won't even look at the Christian site because it adds nothing to this argument. If you want a law to ban homosexuality, just come out and say it. 1.- Sodomy prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remained in the 'closet' for those who dared to participate. To-day because of that Charter it is freely flaunted with homosexuals emulating heterosexuals in a sexual sense. 2. Now you are being silly with your analogy comparing male homosexuals with lesbians. 3. Whatever makes you think same sex marriage is an affirmation of monogamy when we know homosexuals indulge in sodomy. I presume your talking male homosexuals but lesbians as most of us know have the tools to achieve satisfactory sexual relations. 4. You refuse to look at the Christian site because you know that what the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Canadians belong to and disregards homosexuality. Sort of makes you feel like the odd man out. 5. It should be up to all of society to engage in the process on whether or not to remove Charter protection for homosexuals and provide applicable laws to reasonably safeguard the majority from the spread of a killer disease and from factors contributing in degrading lifestyles and traditions and customs the majority utilize to provide a STABLE society.

There has been a lot of anger over Hersh over the years but his sources have been impeccable. Properly described as Hersh being a quintessential muckraker!

Please cite your sources for this claim. You almost make this sound as if this is an impossible task and only shows how uninformed you are. The Liberals under Pierre Trudeau are directly responsible for the 'decriminalization of sodomy' which we are directly talking about concerning homosexuals as the main root source pertaining to the spread of HIV in which I provided a link. Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals are indirectly responsible for the spread of HIV by allowing homosexuals not to be prosecuted and are legally protecting them under the Charter of rights and Freedoms Sec.-7 and Sec.-15. and with the Liberals at a later date legalizing homosexual marriage. http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...1e-f35ccd7b6a6f And religions do not approve sodomy either: http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publicati...gaymarriage.htm

Here is some data on the rates of transmission for different kinds of activities: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=pr-r...doc&slide=6These numbers show that anal sex is 7-10 times more likely to result in HIV transmission than vaginal sex. This huge difference in transmission rate swamps all other factors like the strain of the virus. I postulated that a computer model would demonstrate that societies with larger homosexual populations would experience faster spread of the virus based on these statistics. An education campaign that focused on eliminating anal sex as a sexual activity would likely have a large effect on the spread of AIDS in a society. Keep in mind that telling homosexuals that they should not have anal sex is not the same as telling them they shouldn't be gay. Many people seem to forget this detail. Then what type of irresponsible federal government do we have that would 'legalize' certain gay activities or go so far as to legalize 'gay marriage' which does contribute to the pain and death many HIV victims are suffering or have suffered. It would be unthinkable that a federal government would promote a killer disease such as HIV, but appears to be the case.

I just was pointing out that the data was from 1993 and it didn't say that homosexuals were the root cause. Otherwise, I can't find anything that suggests that the root cause of HIV is homosexuality. No it didn't say homosexual's are the root cause but it was one of the FEW articles that says anal intercourse is the MOST EFFECVTIVE METHOD OF SEXUALLY TRANMITTING HIV. Since 100% of male homosexual sexual intercourse involves this "effective method of sexually transmitting HIV" it would relatively safe to suggest that homosexual sex is the main root cause concerning the transmission of HIV to the heterosexual population as well as naturally amongst themselves. This includes bisexuals when infected are an extreme danger to the heterosexual population. This is simply to counter your false claim that HIV is not 'ONLY' a 'gay disease' which is totally misleading considering the spread of the disease is attributed to homosexuals and bisexuals.

I think your data is out of date. The least you can do is provide a link to back up your claims that HOMOSEXUALS are NOT the ROOT CAUSE and are NOT the main contributor regarding the spread of the killer disease aids.

If gays and bi-sexuals are not responsible for the spread of aids then who is? The disease spread to the heterosexual community and woman through infected needles and the sorts and direct contact is the result of initial contact with an infected homosexual wouldn't you say? "Anal intercourse seems to be the most effective method of sexually transmitting HIV infection. This statement is true whether the sexual partners are heterosexual ("straight") or homosexual ("gay"). Anal intercourse involves inserting one person's penis into the anus of another person. From the body's viewpoint, anal intercourse is not a great idea. The anus is biologically designed for the excretion of feces. Evidently, medical disorders can arise from frequent and/or rough anal intercourse. During anal intercourse, the receptive partner is the partner at greatest risk of catching HIV. The receptive partner is the person whose anus is being penetrated. This high risk for receptive partner exists whether the receptive partner is male or female. Previously, it was thought that anal intercourse transmitted HIV infection because, during anal intercourse, the penis opened bleeding wounds inside the receptive partner's anus. These bleeding wounds were thought to be the doorway by which HIV directly entered the bloodstream to reach and infect T4-cells. Now, it appears that the presence of bleeding wounds in the anus is not necessary for HIV transmission to take place. Macrophages are present, roving over the surfaces of the anus. HIV may infect these macrophages directly. Also, HIV is probably able to cross the mucous membrane and enter the tiny blood vessels inside. No damage to the wall of the anus may be necessary for HIV transmission to take place. According to a statistical study, rectal douching after anal intercourse increases the risk of HIV infection." http://www.aproposinc.com/hap/catch.htm

The Catholic Church?If that is the only one you know then you proved my point and made your own point redundant. How about fun loving anal oriented homo sexuals. They are the primary cause of aids.

Land disputes is a federal responsibility. Gimme a break, the immediate responsibility of upholding the law is a provincial responsibility, AKA as Mr. Mc.Guinty's problem. If he can't do it why does he not call federal authorities for assistance. I've heard somewhere along the way that Mc.Guinty does not want to take action as to not upset the progress made to date. Mc.Guinty's name is spelled all over why this problem continues.

Islam is political as well religious and is definitely is a source of initial problems. But what about radicals or extremist as the 'few' or 'some' Muslims equates to what "tens of thousands" and millions more supporting their cause with money. The rest of the world is the 'ostrich' with his head stuck in the sand pretending Muslim terrorist actions is the result of only a few. How much longer will the world play 'ostrich'.

Actually, they are quite serious. They've been saying at the conference that women have been bullied into not using condoms both in Canada and around the world and that more leaders speaking up will help bring change. You disagree with that? I totally disagree with what your saying. The problem in Africa is RAPE--there were 550,000 reported rapes in 2004 and entitlement to the female body is part of their culture. I don't blame Mr. Harper in not attending that conference when it is obvious the ONLY answer is COMPULSORY STERILIZATION and significant prison terms for the criminal offense of rape. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&am...15740479C698943 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1909220.stm

Absolutely not. Simply think of the countless different variables that exist in the minds of individuals that determine the thought process to interpret what constitutes as being 'offensive'. No standard could ever be created as to constitute 'what is or what is not offensive'.

Yes, he does. In this case, his "basis" is called the Ancient History Is Irrelevent / Human Freedom Is More Important principle. Interesting! Maybe you can explain "Human Freedom is Important". Who's freedom or what freedom are you talking about?

If you can't stand up for the Queen and Britain as the 'initial source' that gave us this country then you have no basis for forming any other opinion as facts speak for themselves. It should be remembered it wasn't Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals that gave us Canada. In fact if Mr. Trudeau had any fortitude and integrity he would have held a referendum to let Canadians decide if they wish to retain the monarchy. But he wouldn't do that since a prime minister has significantly more power and control than a president. It was to Mr. Trudeau's advantage to retain the monarchy. If you have a problem with the Queen of Canada blame Trudeau.

All Muslims are not terrorist but mostly all terrorist are Muslim from Muslim Countries. We have TWO choices. Obliterate all Arab countries or BAN all Muslims from trains, ships, planes, travel and immigration or the West and it's allies will slowly become bankrupt from the costly process of implementing every type of security known to man to stop these Muslim terrorist.