Hugo

"In our policy, the way we propose it, we say we won't recognise aboriginal rights." "Aboriginal rights... really means saying, 'We want you to preserve our aboriginal rights and to restore them to us.' And our answer... is no." Pierre Elliot Trudeau, August 8th, 1969, Vancouver Well, Lost said: "It's about time that the spoiled child lost his allowance, and took on some responsibillity." Read said "Dismantle it. " without any proposal for a replacement. And you yourself said: "You're economical contract analogy is relevant, but so is the need to "default" on that contract and bring aboriginals into the 21st century." What I hear is a bunch of people arguing that existing treaties with the Indians be scrapped without replacing them with other provisions. I disagree with that. If you want to replace the treaties with new agreements that will be of greater benefit to the Indians in Canada, I have absolutely no objection. That's just re-negotiation of the deal to bring it into the 21st Century. But I don't think it can be torn up without replacement. That's what I object to, morally. It's a breach of contract and what it amounts to is robbery.

No, you're putting words into my mouth. I am not against re-negotiation or updating the accords of aboriginal rights and entitlements, what I am against is deciding, as Trudeau wished to, that henceforth aboriginals are entitled to nothing, all contracts are void, we will keep what the Indians have given and return absolutely nothing. What I specifically said was that it's not immoral to negotiate or alter a contract where both parties agree. It's also not immoral to default on it if you will give up the obligations and the benefits. So, what I said was that it would be alright to update the system of aboriginal rights, bringing in reforms to encourage more native wealth and prosperity, for instance, but it would not be alright to just tear up the treaties and leave nothing in their place. Is that clear enough for you? I'm quite shocked at the terrible misquotations and outright lies in your post - it's no surprise that you haven't directly cited me saying anything that you allege I did.

I don't care about cultural assimilation, corruption or any of that. I think you guys raise valid points, but they are irrelevant to my argument here. What bothers me is to believe that it would be acceptable to renege on a contract or treaty, retaining all benefits but defaulting on all obligations. That is both illegal and immoral, and might has never ethically made right. That's why we are supposed to have equality before the law, so that the strong may not exploit the weak. It's the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality, and of our legal system. And when I say "exploit", I'm not talking about bullying the natives 200 years ago, I'm talking about defaulting on a deal just because you can and you know the other party can't realistically prevent you from so doing. That is my objection. I could not care less were it a treaty with the aboriginals or the martians, but to break this treaty just because we feel like it undermines our whole moral, ethical and legal foundations. Hitler broke treaties. Stalin broke treaties. I don't think any good has ever come of a breach of treaty, and if it has, I think it's fairly safe to say that that is a rare occurrence.

My mistake. The Arabic version reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." The "so-called Christ" comes from the Greek. Regardless, you can't find a version of the Antiquities that does not mention Christ, and my points stand. Me too. But Gauvin provides none.

Not necessarily. The Arabic version contains the phrase "Jesus the so-called Christ". The phrase "Jesus was the Christ" was possibly (and only possibly) added later and appears only in the Greek version, but the bulk of the passage is almost certainly genuine. Regardless, the fact is that every version of the Antiquities, Greek and Arabic, contains a reference to Jesus. The Greek version is more laudatory, but no version omits the existence of Jesus. It should be noted also, that there is absolutely no evidence that the Antiquities were ever tampered with. Any theory that they were is pure speculation. It is unlikely that this passage was written entirely or even in large part by later Christians, because the language used does not correspond with Christian, New Testament language. For instance, it refers to James as "the brother of Jesus" whereas the standard Christian expression would be "brother of the Saviour" or "brother of the Lord." If an interpolator was foolish enough to have Josephus hail Christ as the messiah, it is extremely unlikely that he would have been able to refrain from using Christian terminology in favour of the Jewish. The emphasis of the passage also lies not with Jesus, nor even with James, but with Ananus the Priest. An interpolator would be very unlikely to do this, as he would be very unlikely to deliberately contradict Hegesippus' account of the death of James, as Josephus has. None of the various translations of this passage mention a connection between Jesus and John the Baptist, furthermore, which does not tally with the account a Christian interpolator would give. Basically, there is no concrete evidence whatsoever that Josephus' account of Jesus is anything but genuine, and speculation on the subject is easily refuted. The fact that Gauvin takes this unprovable theory as irrefutable truth, and fails to even mention Suetonius, proves to me that he is talking through his hat.

I do agree, Craig, well said. A flat tax rate is the only equitable system. Graduated taxation basically penalises success and high earning. The Canadian economy will not pick up if it cannot encourage entrepreneurship and investment, and no entrepreneurs will come here to get fleeced, and nobody can invest anything because the government has already taken their money and "invested" it in worthless feel-good boondoggles. The taxation situation in Canada is sickening anyway. I pay a fortune in taxes: income tax on everything I earn, and then GST/PST on everything I spend! What do I get for this money? A 26th-rate military, no border security, illegal immigrants everywhere but where Immigration Canada can find them, a run-down and useless healthcare system, a marginalised police force powerless to stop a spiralling crime rate - where's the beef? And another thing: what gives MPs the right to keep voting themselves endless salary increases? To my mind, salary increases are a reward for excellent performance. In my life, every time I got a salary increase, it was for gaining a skill or showing exemplary performance. Canadian MPs are doing a terrible job of running the country. If they were my employees I'd fire them all, not give them raises. Now if US senators gave themselves a pay increase, that is more justifiable, really: the economy is booming, the war on terror is being won, and their performance has been good so far. But what have Canadian MPs done to deserve massive raises?

Says who? This is said, as though it were generally accepted fact, without citation or reference to the original documents. In a piece of historical analysis, one should quote sources. Has Gauvin read the original works of Josephus, and if so, how is he sure they are the originals? Or is he quoting someone else who was, and if so, who are they, and what study is he citing? He does not say. Gauvin doesn't even mention Tacitus Suetonius, or the Hebrew critics of Christ. What of these? This just illustrates the lack of knowledge of the author, to claim that contemporary authors do not mention Christ, without even being aware of quite possibly the most important Roman historian of the day. This is like claiming to be a physicist without having heard of Isaac Newton. Only Roman citizens had this right, and even that could be over-ridden. Jews were not generally Roman citizens, Christ had done nothing to be awarded citizenship, and he could very well have been summarily executed by Pilate. These are, after all, the days of the Emperors, who had power of life and death over anyone. The proxy of the Emperor also carries this power to be exercised in the interest of the Emperor. This all began when Sulla overthrew the Republic (although that was hardly a model of democracy and justice), a long time before Christ walked the earth. I don't believe this document is "generally accurate factually." It is full of glaring errors and omissions, and is obviously written by someone with little knowledge of the subject.

Then an alternative has to be negotiated, but it must be done fairly, with the agreement of both parties. To continue with the analogy, the tenant could approach the landlord and explain that he can no longer afford the rent and ask to compromise. But the fact that he cannot afford it does not give him the right to boycott the rent and keep the house! If you can cut out corruption, you'll probably find that the $7.5bn sum is greatly reduced anyway. Unlike boondoggles like state-funded bilingualism and multiculturalism or welfare programmes, the native deal is something that every non-native resident of Canada benefits from, because it buys their right to live in Canada. It's their rent. Because the native people gave special benefits to what we now call Canada in exchange for privilege. What you are proposing is to take the benefits offered, but instead of paying the party who offered them, you will divide that sum amongst all people, regardless of whether or not they offered anything. This is akin to your employer dividing your paycheck between everyone in Canada and calling it fair. It might be equitable, but it does not reflect the fact that you worked for that money, and nobody else did. And besides, as I said, the native deal does benefit everyone. It's the price of living in Canada, with all its land, fertile soil, natural resources, etc.

Morgan, Vercingetorix, I would agree. Freedom of speech is a given, however, where children are concerned society has always compromised their freedom in light of their lesser responsibility and capacity. Adults can be trusted to view and access what they want and to ignore what they do not, so a free run of the net is permissible. However, children cannot be trusted to make such distinctions and are naturally curious. It does not make sense to allow them the same access. The same logic gives us the reasons why children cannot smoke, drink, drive or vote. Diminished responsibility yields diminished rights.

Permit me to make an analogy. Regardless of notions of cultural superiority, it is illegal for one man to seize possession of another man's dwelling. However, he may offer to rent that dwelling. If the two men agree to this, they may draw up a contract in which it states that their descendents will be subject to the same clauses. However, if in the future, one descendent is unhappy and wishes to renegotiate, that is fine, but the new proposal can be rejected in favour of the old. Also, if one descendent wishes to terminate the agreement, cease to pay rent and leave, that is also fine. If the other wishes to cease receiving rent and ask the tenant to leave, that, too, is fine. However, to cut off Indian benefits is basically akin to the descendent of the tenant announcing that he will pay no more rent, will keep the house, and the descendent of the landlord can whistle for it. Basically, a crime. I see nothing wrong with re-negotiation of the treaties, but you cannot renege on them such that you keep all of the benefits while defaulting on the obligations. As I said, I don't agree with the corruption, bearing in mind the standard of living for natives. I think that the system should be overhauled in that regard.

He was born a Catholic, but renounced his faith. Some notable quotations of Hitler on the subject of Christianity: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity." "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless" "Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't" While Hitler did make mention of God and Christianity in his earlier speeches and writings, it should be noted that by the time he rose to power he had pretty much abandoned his faith and had committed himself to secular humanism. The quotes I cited were all said by Hitler after he had embarked upon his worst crimes. I believe that the self-contradiction, glaring errors and obvious prejudice and bias throw the whole document into disrepute. After what I have read, I would take nothing in it at face value.

I see your point regarding the corruption, and I think reform is necessary to end it. Corruption is never a good thing, especially given the situation on the reservations. It would be more reasonable, say, to give aboriginals income tax exemption up to a certain point, and then to just raise the level of the strata. This gives a break to working, employed aboriginals. However, as I've said, to actually cut out all aboriginal benefits is a breach of contract.

Between 1870 and 1921, 11 treaties were signed with the native Canadians. These treaties all have a common theme: the aboriginals signed away their land and most of their rights in exchange for annual cash payment, tools and so forth. The original sums were, for example, $2, or $5, or a quantity of tools or agricultural implements. Obviously, this is hardly valid today, so the annual sums, grants of land and so forth have been replaced by scholarship grants, tax exemptions and so on. The treaties have no sunset clauses. The original treaties were pretty much signed at gunpoint. The aboriginals were pretty desperate by the period of 1870-1921, and not only that, were told that if they did not sign, their lands would be colonised anyway and they would get nothing. I think it is highly immoral to not only force a lousy deal on the aboriginals, but then to decide that you are going to renege on that deal at a later date. This is tantamount to a breach of contract. Like it or not, our immigrant ancestors signed these deals with the intention that we, our descendants, and the descendants of the aboriginals follow them. I think it would be acceptable to attempt to re-open negotiations with representatives of the First Nations, however, those representatives should reserve the right to reject any new proposition in favour of the status quo. To just tear up the Treaties is disgusting and smacks of exactly the sort of conduct that white settlers exhibited centuries ago.

Excellent points, Neal. To be honest, the story of Christ is an extremely improbable and, frankly, ridiculous one - were it not true. It seems very odd to me that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would stick to this wild tale through ridicule, torture, imprisonment and death, and not a single one would speak out against it. The article that Vercingetorix references is pretty much invalid as a piece of historical analysis. In the opening paragraphs, the extract should clue us in that the author is not interested in historical fact or analysis, but in proving a pre-conceived point or prejudice. To make a valid historical analysis, you must begin from an unbiased viewpoint and attempt to ascertain the facts, which this author does not do. It also casts serious doubts on the validity of this document to even say the above, for it is blatantly a fantasy. The author claims that Christianity is the "greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social... improvement", when he should know that it was Christians who ended slavery and segregation and that it was Christians who opposed Nazism and Communism. While speaking of Nazism and Communism, it must also be noted that even withstanding the Crusades and the Inquisition, the crimes waged in the name of Christ are utterly insignificant compared to the horrors unleashed by secular humanists: the Holocaust, the Great Terror and more. It is also obvious that the author of the document has not really studied Christian history or theology in any depth. For instance, he remarks that "The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings." Do contradictions prove that a person does not exist? If this is the case, then many people on this very forum must not exist! The fact is that Christ was never given to precision of speech and did not leave any written words behind anyway, which is where a lot of Christian schism has arisen from. Basically, due to the biased, unscientific and self-delusional nature of Gauvin's text I see no reason to take it too seriously.

The Ark and Genesis are irrelevant. The issue is the historical existence of Jesus Christ. Is that your counterpoint - that it's not "beyond the scope of reason" that these sources are unreliable?

The IRA is not a movement based upon religion, it is based upon nationalism. Judaism and Christianity have, as a whole, moved beyond the use of violence and the waging of war in the name of God. These are not major theological differences but differences in methodology of worship. Islam cannot claim to be an off-shoot of Christianity, nor can it claim to be the inheritor and descendant of Christ and Moses, any more than Karl Marx could claim to be continuing the works of Adam Smith. Yet, it does.

This would be true if, like Buddhism or Hinduism, Islam claimed no connection to Judaism or Christianity. However, it does. It claims to be a development of the same religion, worshipping the same God, and yet it does not have a consistent theological theme. That's the lie.

But he is mentioned in contemporary literature. Tacitus Suetonius' work "The Twelve Caesars", which was written within living memory of his death, records his existence. He is also mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus, and in some anti-Christian Hebrew writings.

What we have to look at is the foundations of the religion. The fact is that Islam is founded on lies. Although Mohammed claimed to be the latest and greatest of prophets of the same God, including in that list Moses, Jesus and all in between, much of what Islam professes is not in tune with Judeo-Christian theology. For instance, Judeo-Christian scripture states that the universe is divided into heavenly and earthly realms, and God withholds his absolute power from the Earth. Islam, on the other hand, claims that God is omnipotent in both realms, which raises some pointed questions on pre-determinism that do not plague Judaism and Christianity. It's also noteable that while Judeo-Christian scripture does not view violence and war as a good way to solve problems and does not promise heaven as a reward for valour in battle, Islam does. Mohammed, unlike Christ, was a man of war, and when snubbed in one city he went to another, where he received a more appreciative audience whom he quickly molded into an army to sack the city that spurned him. This is the "root cause" of the violence and backwardness of Islam, and it is why, where Judaism and Christianity have pretty much left bloodshed and war in the name of God behind them, Islam never has. Most movements to reform and civilise the religion have actually been Westernising movements, and most of those self-confessed.

Well, Blackdog, I gave you the opportunity to learn more about the other side of this debate, and you rejected it out of hand. Since you have told me that you are unprepared to hear both sides of the argument, I can only conclude that you have absolutely no objectivity, and thus further debate with you is pointless. I haven't conceded anything to you in this debate not because I'm unable to, but because I haven't found that anything you've said has been sufficiently true or informed enough to sway my opinion. Notice that for every point you have, I have a counterpoint, and where you have conceded items or just dropped them entirely after I countered them, I haven't found a point of yours that I cannot readily answer. As to whether or not I consider both sides, I have. However, I have my information from an Arab village I visited while in the region, first-hand, as opposed to whatever MSNBC or the Guardian choose to tell you. I would relate what I learnt to you, however, I don't believe you'd listen or take it seriously so I won't waste my time.

I don't see any evidence of that. What I see is Israel responding to incessant and underhanded terrorist attacks in the only way that they can, having tried the peaceful route and come up against a stonewalling and corrupt Palestinian leadership. What cannot be denied (although you have tried, ironically) is that Israel never starts wars. All the Arab-Israeli wars were fought due to Arab aggression. The Israeli presence in Gaza and other Palestinian lands is due to incessant Palestinian terrorist attack upon Israelis. And despite what you have tried to say, "who started it" is very important. Except that those concepts are not being universally trampled. As I said, the US has had a hand in building or rebuilding a lot of genuine democracies and free societies. Her enemies have never done so. Good attempt at evasion, though. Your arguments are bereft of sense and understanding, Black Dog. You've shown that you will only give the time to hear one side of the story, that you do not understand the history of the region or, indeed, history at all including basic concepts of historical analysis, and that you are not the slightest bit interested in learning the truth about anything. To the contrary, you have pre-judged both Israel and the USA and you are only interested in learning that which supports your prejudices. I have given examples of all these failings earlier in the thread. I encourage you to visit this website. It is biased, but it will give you the Jewish and the Israeli opinion of the situation, and if you are going to give the Palestinian movements the time of day, you should at least be prepared to learn the opinions of their enemies too.

So what really happened was, someone there was firing mortars at Israelis, the IDF sent a helicopter or two to investigate, one of which saw what he thought was the target and opened fire. Here, the Israelis attempted to kill a leader of Hamas. In war, command/control structures and personnel are legitimate targets, according to the Geneva Convention. They hit their target, but unfortunately said target chose to hide himself amongst non-combatants and some were wounded and killed in the attacks. What these stories tell me is that a war is going on, and it is one in which the enemy is cowardly enough to hide amongst non-combatants, basically giving the Israelis the choice between losing the war or causing collateral damage. Some choice. For Israel, losing means their destruction, another Holocaust or at best, another Exodus, the dhimmi and so forth. They are not going to do that. Neither would you. Your main problem with the US is that it looks after US interests? Well, duh! That is what every nation does. That's what the job of every government is. However, bearing in mind what the US stands for, I'd far rather that the US was calling the tune for the world than the Soviet Union, Red China, or the Islamo-Fascists. The US has backed some dictators. It's also backed a lot of democracies - post-war Germany, Japan and Italy, South Korea, Israel, Britain and France, and indeed all recipients of Marshall Plan aid. However, it should be noted that the USSR (e.g.) never backed a democracy, always installed dictatorships, and always oppressed people in its homeland and in foreign satellites. So to summarise, sure, the US has backed some dictators, financed some massacres and wars, but it's also done a lot of good in the world too. Its enemies, however, have done no good at all, and indeed, have been responsible for the vast majority of all the evil done in the 20th Century. For two reasons: 1) it would mean the end of Israel as an independent, democratic and Jewish state and 2) allowing Palestinians in would also mean allowing terrorists in.

So, better to kill the child in case that happens? That is a truly monstrous argument. After all, anyone in poverty has the hope and opportunity of improving their situation. Once you've taken that person's life, you have rendered them bereft of any hope and any opportunity, forever. But when it's not clear, is it not normal to err on the side of preservation of life? If you were driving at night and saw a shape that looked like a child ahead of you, would you slow down just in case, or would you lay on the gas and bet it was a shadow? If you saw someone lying motionless on a riverbank, would you assume they were alive and see if you could help, or assume they were already dead and leave them lying there? Where it's not clear if life actually exists, you must give the benefit of doubt to life. To do otherwise is inhumane. But it seems reasonable to force an unborn child, against her wishes, to die? Abortion is not the answer to these problems. Since it was legalised, the problems of poverty and child abuse have remained or grown. Therefore, the argument that abortion solves social ills, or can help prevent social ills, is proven wrong. Edward Lenoski of SoCal University discovered that 91% of abused children were, in fact, planned pregnancies. When abortion was legalised in the US in 1973, there were 167,000 reported cases of child abuse. In 1982, that number had climbed to 929,000 and in 1991, to 2.5 million. Furthermore, it could be argued that killing a child by burning her to death in saline solution, tearing her limb from limb with forceps, or stabbing her in the back of the skull and suctioning out her brain was in and of itself "child abuse". Abortion falls under a woman's right to control her own person? So you believe that for nine months a pregnant woman has two blood groups, two different genetic structures, and in 50% of cases, is a hermaphrodite? So, like Hitler, you advocate selective murder based on arbitrary conditions you have set for "worthy" life?

So, rather than risk that, you would just kill the children before they are born? What you are basically advocating is killing those who would live in poverty. Not only is this a disgusting concept, it opens the door to killing others in society who are felt to be unproductive or unhappy - the disabled, for instance. Before Hitler began his Holocaust against the Jews, he had 270,000 handicapped people put to death. This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Death is better than poverty? Why do we have any poor people at all, then? Wouldn't they all just commit suicide once they dropped below the poverty line?

And Canada is a model of moral standards? From Trudeau, who had a fetish for Soviet Communism, to Chretien, who wants Bully-Boy Bush to leave the misunderstood torturer Saddam alone? But as I said, the USA did some dubious acts in the Cold War. They are beginning to right their mistakes under Bush, however, and your reaction is "they should be doing more" and "they should be doing nothing" at the same time. Please provide the full details of this particular incident, with citation of sources. Invalid analogy. What would be closer to the truth is if the Native Canadians threw European Canadians out of the Maritime provinces only. Where would they go? Back to the other provinces. The Palestinians have a homeland, and it is called Jordan. Why is there no international pressure on Jordan to allow the Palestinians to rejoin their countrymen, instead of dumping them all in UN-funded camps which are breeding-grounds for terrorists?