betsy

Dick Cheney, George Bush and (as far as I know) Donald Rumsfeld are all Christians who waged a war in Iraq that has killed over a hundred thousand people. Therefore all Christians must publicly voice their disapprval of the war and hold big anti-war rallies, according to your logic. No. My logic is Muslims who had CHOSEN to come VOLUNTARILY to LIVE IN CANADA, and HAD CHOSEN TO BECOME CANADIANS MUST PUBLICLY SHOW THEIR SUPPORT for this country that had welcomed and given them a haven and a home! Furthermore, it is the obligation and the duty of every citizens of a country to show and give their support to their country. ESPECIALLY in times of need! And most ESPECIALLY when public perceptions are of tantamount importance! It is more to their own benefit, actually. Distrust and suspicions will only go on.....unless the Muslim Community really show that they are with the rest of Canada. Public denounciation and protest against terrorism is one major step in showing this.

So find out when and where they'll have the big rallies protesting and denouncing terrorist acts and show massive support to Canada....perhaps other Canadians will join. I will. This way, no one can mis-interpret their quick reaction to protest and rally (like regarding those cartoons), as support for radical Islam and terrorism.

I can't believe you just said that! You have justified these acts by reason of.... perceived desperation. Let's be brutally frank here: whose side are you really on?

Well, I agree that not all Muslims are terrorist...nor do they all support terrorism. But they better start PUBLICLY voicing their disapproval of terrorism and begin speaking LOUDLY against the terrorists...just so to show that they are not silent supporters by virtue of sharing the same Islamic faith. This is the time to hold protests and rallies DENOUNCING terrorism and showing support for Canada and other parts of the world!

Yes. This is not about race....for as we see, terrorists Muslims can come from anywhere.

I agree that immigration by muslims into this country ought to be frozen by now....just so to give our immigration officials and law enforcers to sift through and properly do their jobs. The Conservative Party of the past may have had a hand in opening the gates of immigration wide open....but it's the Liberals who had sunk us so deep into this quagmire. Them, and the radical lefties they've pandered to! It already boggles the mind how criminals like that Chinese Lai had gotten in the country (and may further cause diplomatic strain with China)....but to have let in individuals with terrorist ties and links? A probe ought to be done on Immigration. I wouldn't be surprised if any corruption is found in that direction.

I couldn't believe my ears a couple of days ago at MDuffy...when all he could think and worry about was the possible violation of rights when he learned that the suspects were denied to get together to do their communal prayers! Sorry for the crass comment.....but he makes me wanna puke!

The use of 'fear' isn't confined to just the 'left'. Remember Bush's state of the union address? Where he directly implied that if they didn't invade Iraq, America would get nuked? They didn't get nuked. But they had 9/11.

Did you buy lots of supplies for Y2K? Well, I've always believed the boy scout motto. Is there any harm done by being prepared? You don't expect me to be like the way the Liberals had neglected our military that if ever we do get attacked by outside forces, we'd be begging next door to give us a hand, would you? But of course, silly me....it will never happen to a place like Canada, for we do have a special elite unit to handle these kind of things: Appeasers Commando! So no need to fret about preparations and all that.

Fear? Just for wanting to know? Actually, the very idea of looking at possible horrific scenarios squarely in the face is far from feeling fear. Dismissing and refusing to even take a peek at what could possibly happen...(as if pretending nothing will happen makes it so).... is actually a symptom of fear. Burying heads in the sand is a sign of fear, unless one is an ostrich.

Liam and Newbie, when the Dixie Chicks and Alec Baldwin spoke out against their president, their country was in a state of war. Whether he approve of this war or not, is not enough to have a citizen casting doubts and inflammatory sentiments directed to the leader of his nation. It is then that the saying fits: "either you're with us or against us." Free speech is one thing. But using your popularity or status to influence the people to go against your leader is another thing.

On this forum, it seems all you have to do is question US foreign policy, or suggest taxes are necessary. Otherwise, those terms are generally used (but not always) only in times of an actual 'War'. One must either be 'working for the enemy', or be trying to topple the gov't on behalf of another power. from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason To date, it seems only 2 people have been tried and convicted for treason in Canada.from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...cted_of_treason And for sedition? What is sedition exactly?

Please don't dismiss this question. I just would like to know. If for example the alleged scenario of the plot was indeed successfully done by the alleged terrorists (and by all luck...or unluck, all MPs just happened to be present on that day of all days)...what happens then? Do we become under military rule? What is the normal chain of command in such dire scenarios?

The old wars had seen acts of treason and sedition promptlyy met with punishment. I've heard horrific stories from old folks how the populace reacted towards the enemy sympathisers/ collaborators after World War 2 in the Philippines. The descriptions of how the mob dipped the collaborators in boiling asphalt was enough to cause anyone nightmares. The anger towards collaborators and symphatisers was even more felt than those of the actual enemies. The betrayal by someone whom you would naturally think to be with you is more painful I guess. But times had changed. Just look at Hanoi Jane, the Dixie Chicks and the Alec Baldwins of Hollywood....the sentiments expressed on these various threads in our forum. So where is the fine line drawn? When does an act or statement fall under the category of Treason and Sedition? When does one actually be deemed as an enemy sympathiser....and collaborator?

So Bush and Harper are sharing the same stance regarding national security! And they're wrong? Bloody hell. And I thought the number one priority of a nation's leader is the security of a country and its citizens from all types of hostilities....especially aggressive hostilities.

What happens if the Prime Minister and all MPs (from all parties), become hostages or die. Who governs then or make decisions?

Gerry, did you voice out a criticizing opinion when Jews' religious sites (can't remember what they call them) are occasionaly vandalised in Canada? Considering the vandals strike without any prompting events...except for their continuous hatred for all Jews and all things Jewish. I am not favoring the vandalisation of Muslim mosques, or any retaliatory acts against all muslims.....I'm just saying that these vanadlisations are knee-jerk reactions motivated by the arrests and disclosed plots.

But it is the belief in our faith that all sins are evil. He condemned the act/relationship, not the person/people.

Oh c'mon, "we were here first", is not a valid argument. All places have their own natives. We had the Aetas (and the Igorots) who had been here way before the Spaniards came. As far I know, they still live in the mountains and still practice their way of life, although some would sometimes venture to the towns and beg. Entered into agreements based on the climes of that era! As an example, if it was the culture then to fish for sustenance....then that was the agreement agreed upon. To fish to feed. Not to have commercial fisheries! If the agreements' purpose is to "preserve your culture"....then as far as housing goes, the government just need to provide you with tee-pees.

I do suspect so. Unless I'm wrong, I've always thought that Quebec is predominantly Catholic. It wouldn't surprise me to know that those who actually do not agree with SSM are just being quiet about their sentiments, especially when it is a "sign of bigotry" to not support it. Just for the curiousity of seeing how "divided" are we exactly on this matter, I wish there'd be a referendum.

Very true. Just imagine how the world would be if there is no USA right now to wield its power....and if instead, fundamentalists like the Taliban is the world leader.

Terrorism is driven by fanatical fundamentalist Islamic extremists who believes that to get rid the world of infidels (non-believers) is a task they need to do for Allah. They see US as the main threat largely because they see the USA as a big and powerful influence to the "wrong way of life" that goes against every aspect of their belief. But of course they would not admit to that outright ...for that means admitting to the ultimate intent of global cleansing.

Betsy, when discussing native treaties you have to consider a few facts:1) The are over 600 native groups in Canada - only some of those groups have anything that resembles a treaty. The other groups are claiming that they deserve similar treaty rights because their ancestors were the first immigrants to North America. 2) The Canadian courts have bent themselves into contortions to accomodate native claims. The courts would insist on some sort of proof if a non-native went to court to demand rights promised to their grandparents by the Canadian gov't . However, if you are a native in Canada, proof is not required: the recollections of an aging native elder is considered enough. 3) The treaties that did exist were agreements with native 'nations' that do not exist anymore. Insisting that Canada must live up to literal terms of these treaties is no different than saying Canada is obliged to live up to terms of treaties with Austro-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire. The native industry and many in the media would like Canadians to beleive that every native treaty claim is an indisputable fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, even when properly documented treaties exist there is still the moral question about whether we want to live in a society where people have to get a DNA test to determine what rights they have. Thank you for explaining that to me.

They're speculating on MDuffy that they'd have a quick vote on it (whether to re-open the issue of SSM) and that Harper is using it as a "wedge issue" to divide the Liberals before their convention. They say that actually, Harper will just prefer to get it over with (and do the same thing he did with gun registry....a little tweaking here but not actually abolish it). Oh well...if it stays, it stays then. And if by luck SSM does gets re-opened...and get scrapped, I'll have a party!

Believe it or not, I remember about Pocahontas, the Wampum belt, as part of American History (taught in grade school during my time in the Philippines). In the Philippines! Can't recall accurately but I think we also touched the early settlers/pilgrims' encounter with the natives.