Leafless

Drea You wrote- " People immigrate from countries under stive "You have stive, you probably mean strife. People intially immigrated to canada from Europe has there was a skill shortage and Canada offered oppurtunities across the employment spectrum with the added opportunity of being part of a new and growing country. The U.S recruited from the same source also with many opportunities. I don't like it when I hear people like you suggesting the only reason people from Arab countries immigrate hear because of domestic internal political problems or food shortages etc. causing strife. But if this is the real reason I hope Immigration Canada takes note. You also wrote- " I don't believe in public housing for anyone. No wonder there's "ghetto's". I don't know where you come from but in Canada public housing is "subsidized housing". All housing can be described as institutionalized since there is no private property and everyone lives in sheltered towns villages cities etc and is surrounded by masses of people. At one time I supplied services for equipment in public housing talked to many people and all in all public housing was the same as any other housing with a low crime rate. To-day it's a different story. Poor people do not create "ghetto's". Ghetto's are created by people PRONE to crime who want the easy way out or simply have a poor attitude. Drugs,cheat, steal and even murder to get there own way. The system is broken in this area by not being able to rectify at this time that problem.

lonewolf You wrote- "Emerson has also said had the Liberals won, he wouldn't have switched parties." This guy sounds a bit unstable and must think he's in 'the politcal garden of Eden'. I think this floor crosser's politcal future will be short lived.

Well, here we go again. But this time with a difference it's happening in Canada HOME OF THE MODERATE MUSLIM, I would like to think and the way most Canadian Muslims like to describe themselves. Muslim's must know Canada is part of the free world and that Denmark is also part of the free world and allowed to protest volatile actions carried out in this case by fundamentalist Muslim's in the form of what every one in the free world considers harmless--cartoons. But 1,550 hundred protesting Muslims is a heafty enough number to be supporting Muslim fanatics who are responsible for the reason why the cartoons were published initially. Do MODERATE Muslims actually support criticism of fundamentalists Muzlim's HEAD BOSS, UNFORTUNATELY also part of the Muslim religion and known as Muhammad? It seems some Muslim's refuse to accept the analogy that Muhammad can be good or bad depending on the stance of the religon's believer's or followers. http:/www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060211/muslim_rallies_060211/20060211?hub=Canada

Michael Harner You wrote- " No one has yet supplied a good reason why Islam itself would cause it's aderents to become violent which leads me to think there are other factors happening here." "Kill the Jew, kill the Christian, kill the Isareli, kill the American" are words preached by Islamic clerics in their mosques. Muslims are people like the Germans or Russians but Islam as a system is evil like Nazism and Communism. Islam is a world domination system like Nazism and Communism.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " What main cultural group" There are two main official cultural groups "English and French". The group I am reffering to which is obvious that the Liberals fostered are the French or Quebec interest which has been pursued by the Liberals since the Trudeau era. The Liberals have always had Quebec support and a significant number of Quebec seats including a Liberal Quebec wing. The political emphasis on a Quebec as a distinct society or a major player has been around since the Trudeau era. I have always seen the Liberals as a Quebec party due to the political trade off (power) the Liberals were forced to surrender to obtain Quebec support which as resulted in French as an official language and official bilingualism in the federal public service along with many Charter benefits- truly a distinct society. I believe multiculturalism was simply thrown in to take the emphasis off of Quebec as being overly catered to by the liberals and getting everything. Immigration would have happened regardless but multiculturalism is the word that made everthing look fair and equal hiding the enormous shift in power given to Quebec. Third world immigration has politically helped the Liberals with loyality at the ballot box with the liberals packing these immigrants into important ridings in the Toronto area with insufficient infrastructure to support these foreign masses. Quebec meanwhile gets to pick and choose it's immigrants in an orderly fashion and is not forced to accept uncontrolled numbers of immigrants. Immigrants outside of Quebec seem to choose the Toronto area to reside with no interference from the Liberals to evenly distribute this immigrant population thus in effect destroying the quality of life in the Toronto area. The number of immigrants actually needed is another controversial area and raises the question why are so many of these immigrants comong from troubled Arab countries? Cultural differences have made White Canadians move from these crime ridden congested areas of Toronto and even force them out of public housing.

Greg You wrote- " My wife and I had our first child" Guess I am not keeping up in the way of biological advancements. Anyways Gegg man, the best of luck. Your going to need it being a brand new dad!

Michael Hardner You wrote- " This is highly conspiracy minded." Then I suppose the onus is on you to prove me wrong. The purpose of Canada's multicultural policy 1971 was to encourage ethnic groups in Canada to MAINTAIN and SHARE their language and cultural history with other Canadians. Now of course it can not be forgotten on top of the fact in addition to Aboriginal people and the founding British and French "official language" groups who have prority over common ethnic groups designated with as described by government as being German, Italion , Dutch, Ukranian, Chinese, Black, and Indo-Pakistani and Arab nationalities. So in otherwords ouside of the dominating English and French the rest of the cultures including diverse Quebec can do what they want in the way of maintaining and practicing their individual associated cultures with NO emphasis on integration basically at the expense of the majority English (all under varing cultures)who are the group despite what government says who built Canada and are the ones responsible for the freedoms and previous quality lifestyle we once enjoyed. There is a power shift in this country one you should be able to recognize as totally undemocratic that basically serves and supports one particular main official cultural group while the other cultural groups are now causing basically chaotic conditons concerning the fractionating of cultural groups destroying the notion of assimilating for the good of the country.

FTA Lawyer You wrote- " When citizen's are free to move, associate, think speak and to a large extent act, you import a significant level of uncertainity... it is one of the cost of democratic freedom." I don't know how you can make that kind of statement when it was Canadians that established associated freedoms which is part of our democracy. If you relate this to immigration it would be fool hardy to suggest that we import immigrants from volatile countries who do not possess a democratic identity themselves and come here and try to promote their religious and political ideolgies that are not compatible to ours, but this is what is happening. Immigration needs a shake up. You also wrote- " Do radical Muslim fundamentalist pose a risk? Absolutely. Do we respond by banning the religion? Makes no sense to me." How else do we domesticate a violent, aggressive religion that has been proven destructive time and time again? Either you ban the relgion or stop immigration from those countries. It is really ironic as the previous Liberal prime minister did in effect cripple the Christian religion unlike the U.S. for instance by distancing himself thus obliterating any type of government support towards Christianity and by encouraging or allowing attacks on Christianity by the homosexual community which resulted in a favourable law passed by the federal government on behave of the homosexual community. Canada I think requires important changes very quickly before the violence what is happening in Toronto becomes law of the land.

FTA Lawyer I am not saying all Muslims are a risk but do you know a way of distinguishing the radicals from the moderates? I hve not heard of many Mulim moderates denounce through the media as a group or groups the action of radical Muslims. There are I believe over 30 Islamic terrorist organizations and considering cold blooded murders committed by these groups over the years Iam very suprprised that you do not consider Muslims a risk in a democratic country especially surrounded by the latest political controversies. In fact the burning of a flag by Mulims can be considered a direct threat if you understand at all why Muslims are going around the world establishing their presence for reasons related both to politics and religion based on the same side of a coin in a very violent manner. For instance Muslim Mosques are in many cases dominant expensive structures that they obviously think make a statement, a statement I think that can be made directly to "9-11" in which they considered the world trade center a symbol of western power rather than simply a high rise office building. When I hear Muslims chant " death to all infidels" it tells me this is no ordinary religon but a religion the contains a closed aggressive violent or potentially violent society which has in fact proven to be the case. FTA obviously we think differently and right at this moment Muslim created problems around the world should be an indicator to you these people are problematic and a threat to the free world in general.

Drea You wrote- " Poor little white boy whining that he can't live in an immigrant "community" or go to an immigrants "house of worship" or share in the immigrants culture." Trivilization the problems of official multiculturalism which in my estimation was only created to take the emphasis off of Quebec and their Liberal fed imposing culture on the ROC will not solve any problems especially with an aggressive dominating Muslim religon and no jobs to address the needs of many immigrants.

Durgan You wrote- " Hagiography interesting word. Function: noun 1:- biography of saints or venerated persons 2:- idealizing or idolizing biography" If the second definiton of the word "hagiography" is "idealizing or idolizing biography" which is worshiping saints, correct. Also hagiographer in my dictionary "is a writer of the lives of saints not necessarily a biographer." Then what purpose does the noun "hagiolatry" serve if you already have it included in "hagiography" as idealizing or idolizing. Then another closely related word "hagiology" is "literature dealing with the lives and legends of saints." I challenge you to pick out ANY well informed member or members of society to correctly define the different meanings associated with these closely related words to define them correctly and not only directed at "some poor old farm boy" suggesting this falls under your definiton of ignorant asshole.

FTA Lawyer You wrote- " And, in my response to caution between expression we just don't like versus that which is violent or terrorist in nature you equate burning a flag with dragging a dead soldiers body through the streets??" The burning of the Danish flag by Muslim fanatics and then further burning embassies which include according to news stories the deaths of 11 people with scores of others injured yes I certaintly do compare that to the burning of the American flag and dragging a dead soldiers body through the streets as these are violent acts carried out by followers of Islam. In the case of Iraq there were no authorities or reflection of a civilized society to stop these barbaric acts of total disrespect to a human body in which case these uncivilized fanatics felt freer to do. You also wrote- " Puke all you want (is that a form of protected expression?) but I will defend the burning of a flag even if it's done by a fanatical Muslim." If you are that foolish to grant rights to fanatic Muslims with Muslim being defined as "someone who has surrendered to the will of God" including it's own politics then no wonder Muslims love Canada--hopefully not everyones like you. Hopefully countries will realize Muslims are a risky proposition in combination with a free democratic country. BTW- To 'Puke' is not a "form of protected expression" but in my case an involuntary reaction pertaining to the extreme repeated politcal disgust of a situation being repeated over and over throghout the world in different ways by fanatic Muslims. It is to bad for Muslims there is no sure fire way to 'domesticate' their potentially volatile religion.

FTA Lawyer You wrote- " I can't help but be very skeptical about the number of papers well after they first appeared...is this really about free speech or selling newspapers." Seems to me anyone that anyone who is printing them now fot the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic." These cartoons represent objection to a politcal statement being made by Muslims on the basis of religion rather than political and is being supported by the free world as Muslims CONTINUE to denounce these cartoons. Their political leader that is causing acts of terrorism by Muslim followers is the same as their religious leader. You simply cannot hide behind your religious convictions to support your politcal convictions. You also wrote- " Civil disorder based on on Islam is in itself of the same protected content that protects the expression of the cartoons themselves. Burning Danish fags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemmed." This depends who is doing the burning and the associated spite behind the burnings. In this case the burning of the Danish flag in my mind is along the same lines as terrorism itself as was demonstrated with further acts of destruction and violence by Muslims. Iraqi's were also very proud every time they got a hold of an American flag to burn it and destroy it in the same the bodies of dead American military personell being draged through the streets and physically being pulled apart by angry Iraqui's. Something about these fanatical Muslims that make me puke.

The above link won't work --This one should- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Is multicultualism alive and well in Canada or is it all federal smoke and mirrors. For instance our two official languages integrated into a discriminatory official bilingualism mess in our federal public service is suppose to be -admired -successful. I don't think that is the case when you realize it's origins was created with the same style the Muslims are trying to enforce in France the Muslim fact with the anarchist type torchings of 3,000 vehicles within two days as compared to the the activites of the FLQ in the 60's. I look around in the bowells of public housing in our Canadian city and it is filled with minorities with reports of white tennants being harassed and threatened not to complain and are viewed as the new white minority. Now we have Canadian officials applauding the fact Canadian Muslims are not the same as other Muslims worldwide but are only the educated ones but nevertheless have basically given them the power to do whatever they choose in Canadian society including their own communities, temples of worship and the right not to intigrate. To have exclusive rights to ones culture in my estimation is not the meaning of the word integrate. I think multiculturalism is a dismal failure in Canada and can't wait for Mr Harper to correct this Liberal cultural boondoggle with his version of a fair , just society. http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/L...PStory/National

Sparhawk You wrote- " Since when is Frank considered a credible source." Then how about- http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=221

August1991 You wrote- " But Muslims are an oppressed people. How can the weak compete against the strong? A level playing field is only fair for the rich and strong who have a voice. We must restrict the voice of the strong so that the weak can express themselves." Who is doing the oppressing? Could it be their own governments or even themselves? The U.S. protected middle east countries from Iraq, but nevertheless are blamed for everthing. The Arab Muslim countries want to live like they did hundreds of years ago and repel democracy. First Muslim countries are going to have to become democratic in nature to benefit and experience the same benefits as the free world. They must want to do this freely. Look at what the U.S. is going through with Iraq. There is strong oppositon to democracy Western style that makes the world tick. If Muslims in Arab countries want to retain their own ideologies of masters of power they will have to accomplish this themselves but fail to realize Muhammad has failed in this respect and in turn their socities continue to crumble with the absense of democracy. Attacking the free world with acts of terrorism will only result in further ostracization and could very easily escalte to something a lot more serious.

Freedom of the press and free speech in my opinion are absolutely necessary to keep society free the way western culture and other cultures have evovled For instance it has allowed the homosexual community to attack Christianity in order to benefit towards their ultimate goal SSM. It has allowed government to severely criticize other governments of the world who might be carrying on a hidden agenda harmful to all socities in general. It has allowed everyone if they choose to voice their opinion pertaining to anything that arises as an issue to voice their opinion in publications etc. Free speech and freedom of the press must be viewed as compulsory in a democratic society or we could become an oppressed , dictated to society rather than be socially equal. This is what is happening right now. We are being dictated to by a backward society trying to impose it's religious cultural values on countries of the world. Members of this Islamic society have perpetrated terrorist acts all over the world and when criticized by a series of cartoons directed at the root scream foul. In fact the Koran does not forbid depictions of Muhammad as no one really knows what he looked like but the point in matter is these cartoons attack the politcal aspect of Muhammad and not the religous one. These cartoons in my opinion are absolutely necessary in order to magnify the fact that terrorist acts or civil disorder based on Islam are or have created world disorder which free democratic countries will not allow or will protest that fact. Without democracy, freedom of the press and free speech the world would become unmanagable in a short time with cultural groups or other groups growing and taking over society to suit their agenda. Freedom of the press, free speech must prevail at any cost to halt cultural imperialism that is invading free, democratic countries.

Geoffrey You wrote- " This is a good reason to have mandatory minimums in drug trafficking as well." You know you probably would not see this story in print or stuck in some corner of the newspaper if the Liberals were in power as they support the drug culture. But from my experience the problem lies with the parents in a lot of cases by basically being negligent concerning their own children's welfare and safety. But I agree harsher sentences are necessary relating to drug trafficking.

BubberMiley You wrote- " The market has a tendency to drift towards what people can afford--that's why house prices go up when interest rates go down." I always thought it was property school and municiple taxes that rule the housing market along with desirable locations along with the commercial real estate market who always artificially push the price of houses up to save their sales industry. It's the Bank of Canada that controls interest rates. The real reason women went to work en masse was to fulfill their feminist ideologies and to acquire materialistic things including housing sooner. The reason women are not having children is it because it is beneath them to do so as their careers are more important. I don't know why it is imperative to subsidize someones income so they can even live MORE comfortably while other low wage Canadians suffer. This whole topic of public daycare is nonsense and the only reason government wants to take from everyones wallet to support it certtain ways is because of the extra two wage earner income tax revenue it generates. The bottom line is your children are your responsibility.

tml12 You wrote-" The party is left-wing that's all there is to know." Coming out anywhere in Canada other than Quebec I would accept that statement. The 'LEFT' can refer to Socialism, Social Democracy/Social lLiberalism or Radical Left wing is the Marxist Philosphy and Communism. The term comes originally from the legislative seating arrangement during the French Revolution when Republicans who opposed the Ancien Regime were commonly referred to as Lefties because they sat on the Left Side of successive Legislative Assemblies. As I said previously I to think their political agenda leans heavily to the left. I suppose we will just have to wait and see how their social justice game plan unfolds and if it lives up to their description.

lost&outofcontol You wrote- " Take a look at their plan." What is the difference between socialism and communism? Who will be controlling the socialistic agenda the party or Quebecers? Who will be paying for all these 'public social schemes'' Quebeckers or the ROC? If neo-liberals =capitilist what does Quebec Solidare=to?

theloniusfleabag You wrote-" Where should the line be drawn between free speech and 'hate literature. there should be a line, but it should not be up to one specific group to define it. http://www.priestrapeboys.com/ http;//www.godhatesfags.com/ Should these site be 'legal'? Censorship is a slippery slope." Hate literature is a name given for offensive material perpetuated towards a group religious or otherwise. With this being said the only group that has been successful in classifying free speech as 'hate literature' and having something meaningful done about it in the free world are the Jews. Who else outside of Mr. Zundel as ever been thrown out of a country for his views pertaining to free speech. Hate literature has a double standard when applied to most other groups. The point is with the Muslims, they are lashing out from within their group in a very violent manner. They are attacking the world as a civilization containing many different groups and cultures with mostly all subject to verbal attack known as 'free speech.' The countries that habour these individuals have a responsibility to the world to control the actions of a large number of uncivilized fanatics and they have failed. This is war and in this point of time no one is exactly quite sure what to do about it.

Muslims attacking and torching embassies is more than a protest over what they consider an insult. What is happening is more serious in my estimation and that is a mini revolution. The class struggle which is expected to lead to politcal change. The replacement of a ruling class by another.

August1991 You wrote- " The "new party" has been around for years, if not decades." According to the article this new party is a merger of two left wing groups in the province-- L'union Des Forces Progressives and Option Citoyenne. The two groups say they will provide the true leftist voice in Quebec politics. Thanks for the informed reply.