Rue

Not all. Some. Fundamentalist Muslims probably do. Then again fundamentalist Jews and Christians want the same thing. In fact in Ontario we had this ridiculous debate of allowing Muslims to opt out of family laws and people arguing for this right were not necessarily Muslims and people arguing against this suggestion were at times Muslims. In fact fundamentalist/orthodox Jews supported the Muslims wanting sharia law. See for me its inaccurate to say "they" as if its ALL Muslims. Its not. Many came to Canada to get away from sharia law. I disagree with orthodox Jews who feel they should have their divorces done outside family law courts and in rabbinical hearings. Not all of us think the same way simply because we are all Jews or Christians or Muslims.

O.k. I am saying it loud and clear, Rob Ford in a thong marching down Yonge Street should not be funded by the city. I heard rumours he is thinking about it for next year. No I say. No. No. No. No. Those are huge cheeks. Also I think any anti Zionist gay who wants to monopolize the parade with calls for the eradication of Zionists understand I do not turn my other cheek with or without thongs when they dance about but I respect the right of gay people to make their own decisions as to the parade and event. I am just expressing my opinions. Bottom line it is up to Toronto taxpayers, their mayor and the gay community to decide such issues. I live under Queen Hazel. I have full confidence she will not wear a thong in public. Man all those wrinkles no one would find her underneath all that.

Thank you for your gracious direct blunt honesty and yes I am a fat head. I fully admit it. Absolutely hyper on this one and the holocaust and I overreact to it. I genuinely thought you knew and were flipping off the topic. Sorry. I apologize. I try to come across tongue and cheek to people I disagree with and sometimes it comes across mean spirited and personal and if I did sorry. I get intense with some topics but rest assured I know I am a fat head and smell. I know can sound like a sanctimonious bag of wind. For sure. To know me though is to know I would never pee on your shoes. Just threaten to send pictures to your mother in law if you have one. I have class you know.

I forgot they can have beards. True. I take that back. Come to think of it I never head a loud Amish/Mennonite person either. On a more serious note bang on again with the population comment. You must write Haiku the way you get right to the point. I agree. I do understand Bon's comment but I think while immigration policy in Canada is more designed for what he says-trying to make up for the low birth rate because of future CPP issues or the need for an adequate basin of tax payers-I think in Europe it was more of a case of finding cheap labour and "guest workers", many who were of course Turks, basically came to do the jobs Europeans did not want. Then we have of course the phenomena of Africa not being too far away from Italy and Spain and so the same sort of magentic pull on poor people the US has to Mexico-some of it yes is deliberate immigration policy to assure future population when it comes to Canada, but I think a lot of it has to do with the global economy and the movement of people desperate for work and leaving countries devestated by climate, weather or political issues and simply looking for work. We know in the specific case of Palestinians, they have openly stated they encourage high population grown and large families as a deliberate tactic to try outpopulate Israelis.Its not a secret. They have never hidden that tactic. We also know there are more fundamentalist Muslims than fundementalist Jews or Christians, so given that even though all three fundementalist types believe in large families, the Muslims have a higher rate of badda boom babies. Then again while Muslims may be copulating with greater frequency then we Jews or Christians puhleeze the Indians and Chinese have everyone beat. Also in my case don't pressure me. I can't perform under pressure. I need ambience, maybe some nice music, a bottle of wine, Sara Silverman wearing a negligee, or Mia Kirshner in something skimpy and the two are busy at the moment. sheesh all this pressure to pop them out...where's my viagra-Oleg you have any extra?

Oh Shwa you stated: "I actually couldn't care less about Cherry's remarks per se..." Of course you do. You keep raising them as a basis to justify including the QUIAA in the gay pride rally. You stated: "but you admit they were partisan and the "platform" for him to express his "personal political views" was paid for by the City of Toronto funded, in part, by it's citizens." Lol what I said is his off colour jokes were politically partisan in nature yes. I didn't admit it. His words speak for themselves. I don't have to admit anything. I am only referring to his words. What I also stated is he was nto paid for his appearance and yes if you want to equivalate his words and behaviour at the swearing in ceremony with the QUIAA shaking their anti zionist booty at gay pride, then all power to you. You state again "The Mayoral Swearing in Ceremony is a cultural event by any other name. Call it a political event or a social event, they are all cultural events. The 'word' ceremony should have clued you in. Uh no. Shwa stop pushing yourself out on such a tangent. You'll get a hernia. Don't be absurd. don't suggest because something is a ceremony its not political. Also you might want to be a tad more attentive at the actual issue I was debating. I was not debating the gay pride day or mayor ceremony. What I was debating was the decision for the gay pride event planners to allow the QUIAA with an agenda that has nothing to do with being gay taint the gay pride event. The QUIAA agenda is about raving and ranting about all Jews or anyone else who supports the right of Israel to exist-period. Nothing to do with celebrating gay culture. Spin all you want that the mayor's swearing in ceremony is not political or or the gay parade was intended to be political. Spin spin spin. It doesn't change the fact that the QUIAA is a negative, narrow, hate mongering group whose message is to incite violence and hatred against anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist. Now you said in regards to Don Cherry's comments: "Actually I got a kick out of his comments, they were funny. There is no trauma." Sounds like you are still in denial. Don't worry the skin rash will clear and your hair will grow back. Look you are in good company. Many people find Don offensive. Be my guest. You stated: "The only reason I used Cherry's remarks is to point out the gross inconsistency with your have-it-both-ways type of argument." No the reason you used it is because you are trying to twist what I actually stated and to argue that since Don Cherry said what he said the QUIAA should be able to do what they did at the gay pride rally. What I stated is if you not I want to push that envelope and equate them as the same and then argue one justifies the other, go ahead. But don't try suggest I have said one is politically partisan and the other is not. I never said that. What I did say is that for you to try push that comparison borders on absurdity. Don Cherry never told anyone pinkos don't have the right to exist nor does he champion genocide of bicycle riders, pinkos or tree huggers. To compare his comments to those of QUIAA and say they are of equivalent moral meaning is hilarious. Go ahead. Push. A man makes a pinko comment for a cheap laugh and you compare that with the QUIAA which calls for violence to rid the state of Israel of its existence? Lol. Uh yah. Don Cherry at the Mayor's inaugral is just like the QUIAA and the gay pride parade. Uh yah. Lol. You stated: "my quibble is with the strict idea that the City should not fund events where individuals are provided platforms to express their personal political views. Of course the City does this all the time at all kinds of events, paid for by it's citizens. I am just using Don Cherry's remarks as an example." Give other examples. The one of Don Cherry with due respect is a tad absurd. Give another. While you are at it explain how Don Cherry's appearance has now set a precedent that the city must continue to fund anyone who wants to have a political demonstration. Do continue with that reasoning. Oh but wait...do I hear more words from you... "No, I am saying that "the City" funds plenty of events - and always has - that provide platforms for individuals to express their personal political views. " Yes that's the second time you stated it with no examples. Do explain the "plenty of events". I need to know. I am sure Torontonians would like to know as well. Have you told Mr. Ford? You stated: "I could care less about Don Cherry or some anti-Zionist group." Of course you do. Don has upset you with his tree hugger and pink comments. Are you denying you hugged a tree? Oh come out of the closet Shwa. Plenty of people hug trees. I do. I am proud to hug trees. Hear me loud and clear-I love trees! As for the QUIAA you responded because you agree with their anti Zionist views. The feigning of no interest is silly. Stop that. Its like pretending you don't like trees and hug them or have the hots for Olivia Chow and Jack Layton. Come clean. You want to be their friend and protest at rallies with them. You stated: "If you are OK with one having the platform then don't whine when another takes advantage of the opportunity." Nice attempt at restatement of something I did not say. What I said is the off colour jokes of Don Cherry being used by you to try argue two wrongs make a right and because Don Cherry said something you consider politically partisan the QUIAA should be allowed as well-is your words. I never stated that Don Cherry could do something the QUIAA can't. In fact I made it quite clear there would be a contradiction if we allowed one and not the other using your arguement. What I did state is I consider Don Cherry's questionable humour a tad different in nature than the QUIAA's but I did concede for consistency in the arguement, neither is appropriate. The difference for me personally though is I know the difference between someone making a couple of gag comments for laughs with a group that calls for violence and terrorist tactics. If you want to equate Don Cherry with preaching all pinkoes and tree huggers should be wiped out and is equally offensive and morally questionable as the QUIAA gof or it. Just stop trying to be absurd and put words in my mouth to suggest I have created a double standard. I have not. The attempt to jsutofy the QUIAA at gay pride with Don Cherry at the mayor inaugral is with due respect a pretty lame arguement to suggest the city must now fund events for anyone who wants to use those events to have a political tantrum. By all means petition Mr. Ford and say-no more Don Cherry at any future mayoral events. Be my guest. Better still tell that pinko station CBC to not use him anymore. Shwa, smile before I send you a picture of Olivia Chow nude. Then you will have real trauma. You should see what she has done with the NDP logo. You stated: "No, it would be better to make people aware that at public events, people will be public with their views." Oh and you speak on behalf of tax-payers now do you. Toronto tax payers have nothing better to do then fund QUIAA tantrums? Really now. That's interesting. Heaven forbid the money should be used for other things. You stated: "..Has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with a freedom of expression.." Neither. The issue has everything to do with what the city should fund. You completely missed the point. No one is saying either Don Cherry or QUIAA should not express their views. The issue is whether the city should fund events for people to vent their politically partisan views. Shwa, you might want to stick with the issue. No one is saying the QUIAA can't march down the street in their thongs screaming at Israel-what I am arguing is the city's taxpayers should not have to pay for it. You stated: "which both Don Cherry and the anti-Zionist group did at events funded, in part, by the City of Toronto. " Yes you keep repeating that as if 2 wrongs will make a right? Indeed you have beaten that one to death. Yes they were both in your mind equivalent in political exercise. If they were it still would not etablish they should be funded by the city, just that they are political in nature. You stated: "So you are admitting you are all for limits to freedom of expression in Canada now because it offends your sensibilities? " No and your attempt to try mistate what I said is silly. At no time have I said censor people because I disagree with them. You and Black Dog really have tried to go far with that one but it just won't stick. I have repeated now 2zillion kabillion times the QUIAA does not offend me nor does Don Cherry. Don Cherry I find funny the QUIAA I find to be annyong gnats, but neither offends me. Please don't presume to know what offends me. My contention all along is whether they should be funded by the city and whether people at the gay parade who come out expecting a non partisan event find the QUIAA annoying gnats. In fact the only thing that offends me is Rita MacNeil if she wanted to parade naked in Toronto. Probably Celine Dion or Anne Murray too. You stated: "Not me, I say allow the Don Cherry's and the anti-Zionist group their platforms, speak, be heard and be evaluated on what they have to say." Yes Shwa that's nice. But you missed the point. The point is not whether they be allowed to speak. This is a free country. Of course they can speak. The question is, does the city need to fund events so they can have platforms to vent their political views. Oh look you stated again: "There was no trauma for me.." Say now that is the second time you mentioned it. Clearly the trauma is deep and you are asking me for help. Again all I can say is come out of the closet and admit you hug trees. I have and I feel better for it. I especially love pine trees. Love the smell of all fur trees. I also like berch, poplar, maple, oak, lilac, spruce. don't get me going about blueberry bushes. Now you suggested I am traumatized by the QUIAA as you stated: "...but there appears to be some with you from this anti-Zionist group." Trauma no. Now mind you in the past certain men with big flaby cheeks wearing thongs did scare me a bit. Also I was very upset with this beautiful dyke who I know I would never ever be able to have carnal knowledge with. Now nothing is a bigger trauma then a hot dyke when you are a guy. Its bad man. I am still in trauma over Jody Foster from years ago and now Michelle Rodriquez. You stated: "Of course it never dawned on you that even the most partisan political event could be "purely cultural" in the same way that partisan Catholics and partisan Protestants are still "purely religious." No idea what the point is you were trying to make above but I can say it dawned on me that the QUIAA trying to turn gay pride into an opportunity to incite people to cry out they want Israel wiped out was a tad inappropriate since not just gay faux hags like me but boring straights and gays (that's what Black Doggy calls me)also found it unwelcome and poisoning to what was otherwise supposed to be a time to enjoy inclusiveness not single out for hatred people who support Israel's right to exist. You stated: "So, now you are stating that others should adhere to your personal sensibilities when it comes to expressing their views?" Oh really? Can you reproduce the words where I stated the above? Lol. Shwa trying to mistate what I said won't change what I said. You said: "Trendy leftist?? LOFL! " Do you deny you have loafers? Do you deny having anything stylish? Are you suggesting thou votes for Bubbly Bob Ford? Lol. Now Shwa. Finally you stated: "You need to get out in the fresh air a little more Rue." Lol I do. Then I made the mistake of being downwind from the QUIAA. p.s. you have to love the irony that "Shwa" can be used to refer to an unstressed and toneless neutral vowel sound in some languages p.s.s. Rue is short for rude

The terrorism Israel rights can be traced back to the Mufti and his Nazism. Of course that doesn't suit the historic revisionism of Bud and Jonsa or their agenda now does it boys? http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1510 http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-08-05/nazirootsofpalestiniannationalism.htm http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/nazi_arab.htm http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543 Quick change the subject again!

Jonsa for you to try suggest the Mufti was not an active participant in the holocaust then turn around and try suggest I am manipulating history to suggest he is, and then trying to bait me with the name calling simply reflects on you. Jonsa before you leap and ridicule-read and no the evidence of the Mufti's direct role in the holocaust does not come from the children's section, it comes from his own memoirs and the Nuremberg trials and page upon page of corroborated evidence. Attacking me personally won't change that fact, his role, or history. The Mufti was personally responsible for the deaths of 20,000 Jews murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. He personally arranged the killing of 12,600 Bosnian Jews by Muslims, whom he recruited to the Waffen-SS Nazi-Bosnian division. He personally interceded to prevent 4,000 Jewish children, and 500 Jewish adults, from leaving Europe and having them sent to Auschwitz to be gassed. He personally intervened to prevent 2,000 Jews from leaving Romania and 1000 from leaving Hungary and having them sent to Auschwitz to be gassed. During the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Eichmanns assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, testified that Mufti was a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews. Instead of making idiotic statements about history go read it and read what Wisliczeny testified at Nuremberg including this: "He (the Mufti) was one of Eichmanns best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz." It is corroborated fact admitted in his own memoirs that The Grand Mufti repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler that Jews must be exterminated en masse. Here enjoy his own words in his memoirs: "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours." The Mufti was in fact the forerunner and number one proponent of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and and pushed both Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan and then would go on to pressure them to increase the level of killings. He lived as a guest of Hitler in a house stolen from Jews and lived a lavish lifestyle spending stolen Jewish money to keep him fed and drunk. It is a fact that in the summer of 1944 he sent letters lobbying the governments of Germany, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary to speed the extermination of the Jews by sending them to Poland where the Nazi death chambers were located. This is the best you have? Ridiculing me? Telling me I am narrowing history and get my information from children's books? That's the best you have-ridicule and denial? Personal attacks? Lol. Go on home and come back when you learn to read. Jew baiting will get you nowhere with me.

Lol I do need to learn to be less wordy and to the point like you. Right to the point.

To be fair to B-Dog, every year they have held the gay pride event the organiozers claim to have had financial problems. From the get go. One must wonder why? Maybe they should ditch the socialists running it and bring in some of those yechy poo poo conservative gays who run businesses and make profit.

Shwa you stated: "It has less to do with two wrongs making a right than you blatantly - and openly - contradicting yourself by acknowledging the political partisan aspect of Don Cherry making a speech at the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony all the while denying others to do the same on City dime." I didn't contradict myself. I stated Don Cherry's comments were partisan. I openly stated that. How about you read what I wrote. You are in such a rush to paint what Don Cherry did as the same thing this anti-Zionist organization did at gay pride day that you now want to try put words in my mouth to say I think neither is partisan. Never said that. But do continue.. "Methinks you are missing the point that the Mayoral Swearing In Ceremony - a long standing traditional ceremony, paid for by the City of Toronto - is as cultural event you will get." No me thinks you missed the point. The City of Toronto swearing in ceremony is not a cultural event. It is a political event celebrating the election of the Mayor. He can choose whoever he wants to speak. The fact that Don Cherry chose to use the event to make some off colour political jokes is an issue however. I could see it would deeply upset you given he used the word pinko. This is why I conceded his using the word pinko and I believe making a derogatory reference to people who drive bicycles or hug trees was deeply upsetting to you. I acknowledge the trauma it caused. However for you to try suggest what Don Cherry did is the same as what the anti-Zionist group did at gay pride day is hilarious. If you think its the same well then you go with that arguement. Lol. By the way when you do understand you are in fact arguing two wrongs make a right to justify what the anti Zionist group did and you are suggesting the Mayor knowingly set up the swearing in to engage in attacks on pinkos, tree huggers and bicycle riders. What I said is the Mayor didn't vent Don Cherry's speech and to stretch the issue to suggest he was aware ahead of time what the agenda of Don's comments would be is hilarious. Then to suggest Don's pinko comment at the swearing in ceremony seized and tainted the ceremony in a manner similiar to the anti Zionists at the gay pride day parade-well golly then-I guess you established my point we should keep these things non partisan. So tell you what-I will tell Don not to show up at any more swearing in ceremonies and you tell Black Dog's anti Zionist friends to save their rants for their own rallies against Israel and we can call it even. As for your trauma induced by Don's comments about calling you a pinko how about you write him a letter and say he wears ridiculous clothes and has a fat Ford like face. You stated: " Seriously, not a "cultural event?" Are you even from Canada?" Seriously you call a swearing in ceremony non partisan politics and purely cultural? Lol. Right. You are not exactly doing B-dog any favours trying to push the tangent as you are. Its not even germaine to his arguements. But do continue. Lol. You stated: "And, by the way, the QUIAA "script" was not drafted by Pride Toronto." Never said it was. But it was known to Pride Toronto. They were well aware of QUIAA's agenda as was B-Dog. So for B-Dog to ask me what their agenda was is b.s. and for you to suggest since Gay Pride organizers didn't write the script they wouldn't know what it is, is also nonsensical. You stated: "No, it's likely a stroke, so you have an excuse for being completely out of touch. But you should have the tingling checked out anyways." Tsk. Is that politically proper? I mean there you go poking fun of the disabled. Say now for a trendy leftist that is not very nice. Shame on thou.

Dude man is that the extent of your historic knowledge? Dude man can you please determine who Elenor Roosevelt was and what she did, and then Dude man get back to me? Dude man the UN had nothing to do with Israel's creation, she single handedly did and had to fight the predecessor to the UN, the then UN which abandon Jews in Palestine, the US State Department and the US Joint chiefs of Staff and a reluctant Harry Truman as well as the Arab League and Britain. Dude man is it that hard to go find out what happened. Does your generation read dude man? Due man it was Czechoslovakia and Russian Jews allowed out of Stalinist Russia as well as a rag tag assortment of Jews that survived the holocaust and some crazy Christians and Jews from the U.S., Canada, Australia, Argentina, Mexico, Britain that assured Israel's existence not the UN. I am sure though that Elenor Roosevelt will be pleased to know there is a new generation of people like you dude manning yourself through life oblivious to what she did. But hey why let facts get in your way dude man.

Lol, Point taken. Actually all kidding aside he knows I respect him.

Right. Simply trotting that out and trying to smeer all Falangists now as well as Israelis-that's supposed to make your contention more credible? Your attempts to revise history and trot out the Israelis are Nazis smeer speaks for itself. Your attempt to try switch the focus of this topic to a new one and one which whitewashes the Nazi origins of the present day Palestinian terrorists speaks for itself as well. For those of us who do not live in fantasy land we have read the Mufti's own words in his memoirs: "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours." We also have read the testimony of Eichman's assistant Dieter Wislicency and his description of the role the Mufti played in the holocaust, i.e., "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures." Save it Bud. All you do is render yourself an absurdity on this forum.

Lol Jack yah the gonad reference is not something you should try at home. Only people skilled in yoga might want to consider it. I hear certain politicians have mastered it though. Not that I am saying Jack Layton has I mean I don't make that kind of political cheap shot. I have more class that then that.

Oh go one. Tell me you your favourite movie is NOT Lawrence of Arabia. Puhleeze. You know you think you are T.E. Laurence. For that matter jack is Joe Friday from Dragnet and Bob is Gen. Sharon. Oleg is Ryan Seacrest by the way. Me-kind of obvious-Tzipi Levni's secret lover.

Is it time for a group hug yet? No not you Oleg! I meant Buddy, Bobby and Jackie. You'll just make them all nervous.

You do have a way of getting to the point very quickly. Personally yes I have a concern with fundamentalist Islam's spead. Of course. Exact same reason I have concerns about fundamentalist Jews in my own community or fundamentalists in ANY religion. All I know is they all tend to grow beards and scream and burn things and have a bad attitude about me, sex, women, gays, humanists,people who use contraceptives or get abortions, not to mention Steve Tyler, but not necessarily in that order.

Shut up Jack. I would still buy you and Bob a beer. But I get to sit next to American Woman. You 2 louts will have to allow moi to show you how to charm her. As for Bud, I think we need to wait for him to have his bar mitvah before I can explain to him how to hold the door or chair for American Woman. Its a tad early yet. Yegads without American Woman I would have no hope for humanity. We men just can't seem to figure out how to unwind our political testacles so to speak.(that was an Oleg Bachian type analogy) Here is the point. The headline for this thread is inflammatory. It suggests Israel woke up and said, oh lets go kill civilians. They did not. This is what peeyisses some of us off-Israel is portrayed as acting in a vacuum and acting for no reason, and deliberately killing civilians. That is what the head line infers and that is the tactic used by those who are against Israel's existence on this forum. They ignore Hamas' precipitating actions or the fact that the IDF was in fact responding directly to Hamas not civilians. Instead Hamas is conveniently ignored and Israel is simply accused of for no reason-deciding to deliberately target civilians. Heard it a million times. Its easy to call an Israeli an extremist when Hamas is trying to kill them and they need to stay alive. Its also easy to call a Palestinian an extremist after their innocent child caught in the return fire is killed and they scream for revenge. I am loath to judge either. I judge Hamas as being morally culpable for initiating the deaths and I plead again for the IDF to be as careful as possible when returning fire. If I have any criticism, it is of arm chair security experts far from the conflict zone judging either Palestinians or Israelis. My contempt is reserved for Hamas. The fools on this forum who think Hamas is benevolent and want to look the other way and suggest Israeli do nothing-they aint even worth the energy any more.

How about before you share any more gems from history you quite while you are ahead. You might also want to read back the above. Trying to stand and sit at the same time is like trying to speak with your head up yer butt. Not sure if its possible. Careful. The Mufti was abundantly clear he detested Jews and wanted Jews wiped off the face of the earth not just out of Palestine. He was 100% in support of the final solution and pushed for its implementation. Let me restate that-he was a principle player in demanding and pressuring that the mass genocide of Jews be implemented. So for you to suggest he was simply a mutual ally fighting Britain is a total and utter crock and an insult to anyone who actually takes the time to read history. You want to come on thos firm and engage in the stale Israel is poo poo ka ka comments knock yourself out-try revise history and I will be the first to ridicule and challenge your sordid efforts.

Suddenly I have this urge to bark....bow wowowwowowowowow.

I genuinely believe that. I criticize some of your comments but I genuinely respect you. I believe the above.

Oleg that was way out of line even for you. Oleg I don't know how this thread got derailed but your decision to put the holocaust against the mass starvation of Ukrainians and suggest Jews get special favours or more attention for the holocaust than Ukrainians get over the massacre by Stalin is b.s. Both are dispicable acts of mass murder. Both are specific and unique. They can not and should not be compared or used in a pissing match or used to spit out resentment of Jews for talking about the holocaust, etc.

Oh Oleg. My esteemed colleague may I respectfully point out that yes there are PRIVATE schools for Jews, Muslims, Christians, but they are not publically funded. Therein lies the huge difference for me. If black people want to send their children to a private school they pay for that is Afro centre, all power to them. Where I object is when they ask the government to pay for it. My problem is using a public school to cater to ANY one group. I am dead against the double standard of using public money for funding CATHOLIC schools the same reason I am against using public money to fund Jewish or Muslim or any other religious or culture schools. You want cultureor specific religion-pay for it yourself or do it as an after school optional religious.cultural program or better still develop your communities and get your community members to offer the programs and stop asking the government to do all these things. Therein lies my problem expecting the government to single out and provide favours for specific groups when these groups should be doing it on their own. Now that said, I am a bit mixed on this issue. I have great sympathy and compassion for gay students who started a few alternative schools to try address their being beaten up and harassed and providing them safe places to go to school. I also have great sympathy for aboriginal students who like the gays created alternative schools to help them stay in school and not drop out. In both cases there has been strong precedent that they have worked in positive ways to help high risk students from dropping out of school. So now of course certain blacks say, we want the same. Where this will end I do not know. Who is next? It could go on forever. At last count there were over 80 different ethnic groups and 124 languages spoken in the GTA and it continues to grow. I am trying to be open minded about this and acknowledge it started off with positive intentions and addressed specific needs but now its threatening to get out of control and we should not be suprised. For me it's a classic example of why schools need to remain neutral. One you open the door to cater to one group's needs, all groups demand the same treatment and why do we allow it for only a few and who determines who those few should be-a handful of angry people who yell the loudest-because at this point that is what the school board does-cater to the parents that prove to be the rudest and loudest. I personally being a minority share in common what all minorities have learned in this counrty regardless of our skin colour or language or ethnicity or religion and that is-discrimination is a fact of life and trying to hide from it is not the solution-the solution is to meet it head on and deal with it head on-sheltering ourselves in ghettoes from it won't make it go away or help us-it simply postpones the inevitable life lessons that must be dealt with sooner or later. To me all public schools should be neutral and not favour any one group but teach respect for all. Growing up as one of a few Jews in a Christian anti-semitic school, yah I fought a lot and experienced a lot of b.s. So did others of many groups. All of us have experienced it. That adversity helped us build our characters and self respect. I was no victim. I never allowed myself to feel like I was a victim and I cringe when I hear loud mouth angry parents screaming how society is unfair to them and victimizes them. To me that is self-defeating. All that said, the issue of treatment of aboriginal peoples in Canadian schools I think is a special category and exception to the above for specific legal reasons and past treatment of aboriginals inflicted by the Canadian government and so I do not include them in all my above comments. There are certain legal issues that still have to be resolved with the aboriginal peoples and their communities of which education is one component and can not be considered part of the above because of outstanding legal compensation claims and violations that have to be addressed. I am also a bit reluctant to say shut the few gay schools because the few there are were only meant to be limited and came about out of direct necessity due to life threatening and physically violent situations. However I realize that logically, once you favour one group or two, all want the same treatment and it creates an unfair double standard. I also think it could be argued that unlike gays, blacks are dropping out not because of direct violence against them, i.e., physical attacks and beatings. In the case of CERTAIN blacks, not all, their issues of dropping out and failure like ALL OTHER minorities can be traced to lack of employment, solid families, solid community ties,lack of stable academic and character role models, sufficient recreational facilities-things token schools will not and can not address. At best all an Africancentric school is appease a small group of screamers. It does not address real issues it simply appeases or placates parents who teach their children that playing victim and demanding special treatment and blaming society is the way to get things done. I also think the majority of people of minority groups including most blacks like me will have nothing to do with this b.s. tokenism. We know our kids will have to try and be twice as good. So that is the challenge.We don't hide from it. We face it with them. We do not teach our children they need special treatment. The tough issues like poverty, unemployment, lack of family structure, lack of community, let's deal with those issues and stop pretending throwing a token school in Oakville is the panacea for them. Its not. You want kids to stay in school-give them two strong responsible parents who take a strong role in their life assuring they do their homework and stay out of trouble. Create community sites for kids to do their homework, learn different cultures and therefore tolerance, engage in group sports and activities so they learn to interact with people of different groups. These measures no one wants to do. No one wants to commit to this because its hard work. Its easier to demand the government do it then do it ourselves at the grass roots level through ngo's and volunteer groups.

I do and I urge people to hold Hamas morally culpable for their decision to place civilians in harms way and get them injured and killed. However I also strongly believe it is a basic precept of Zionism and therefore equally as valid for the IDF and Israelis and those of us who support Israel's right to exist and fight terror to speak up when necessary and protect the humanitarian and ethical principles and codes of the IDF and Zionism and so question, challenge and hold IDF soldiers accountable for unecessary or inhumane practices and to strive at all times to try prevent the unecessary suffering of civilians. The point is the Israel legal system and its IDF and its press and its numerous humanitarian organizations hold it accountable and will continue to hold it accountable because that is precisely how Israel and Zionism works. The point is the IDF carried out over 400 investigations and takes the unecessary killing of civilians seriously because its legal and military systems demand it. The point is certain IDF soldiers came back from Gaza and filed complaints against fellow soldiers they felt acted inappropriately and violated the IDF code of ethics. The point is Israel has never asked people to just pay attention to the terrorists and look the other way with them. The IDF has never hidden from criticism. It did not prevent its soldiers from speaking critically to the media nor did it say it was perfect or unaccountable or ever argue the point that everything it does is excused because it fights terrorists. The point is the IDF did not just say, look at Hamas. It said, criticize us-just don't ignore Hamas. The IDF and Israel has never asked for a white wash or a cover up-just to be held to the same standard as everyone else by the UN.

Goldstone's original mission was to engage in admitting as evidence unsubstantiated, second, third and fourth hand evidence and to make conclusions about state and military policy decisions he claimed Israel initiated, without seeking consultation with them. So why would they set out to help Goldstone engage in such a flawed exercise, particulary since he announced that was his intention and would be his method of operation? Love the logic. Its too bad Israel didn't bend over and welcome Goldstone shoving his hand up their collective buttox. Too bad? What a joke. Too bad Israel didn't agree to do a hatchet job on itself. Right. p.s. Naomi, Bud, Dub, lol. The harder you try hide what you are the more obvious it becomes. Regards, Jackie Mason er I mean Wil Smith no I mean Tom cruise no no I mean Jackie Chan no I mean Charlie Sheen