Rue

This asking questions which also provide the answers and are based on your subjective opinions their point? Instead of imposing simplistic black and white, Hamas good and Israel bad labels to the negotiations going on do you think before you state your personal opinions which are completely one sided, that you actually find out what Israel has said and what their position is before you act as if you know what it is and continue to mistate it as you have. In fact you are as usual completely and utterly not even remotely close to reporting what Israel actually said. The Israeli position is if Hamas states it recognizes the right of Israel to exist and will not engage in terror it will talk. Not what you erroneously misrepresented because of your bias. The point is your original post was not true. Hamas never agreed to recognize Israel and still hasn't. What it has said and you will not make an effort to ascertain because you believe you already know the truth and so do not need to go verify is that it made it clear in Arabic to the Arab press that it does not and will never recognize the right of Israel to exist and it considers it legitimate to say what ever it has to say to achieve those ends. It in fact said the treaty is just a pause in the war to liberate Israel and Jordan to give it a chance to re-arm. Of course in your world you selectively block that out right because Jimmy Carter has been told something he wants to hear. Jimmy Carter is a laughing stock precisely because when he goes into talks posing as a mediator he is not-he like you has a preconceived idea of right and wrong and he hears what he wants to hear and repeats what he wants to repeat. Hamas ridicules him as a dupe in the Arab press. Where were you Buffy when Arafat sat at Oslo and was offered 97% of the land he asked for and at the last second stood up and said-are you crazy, I was joking. This is just a game. I will never stop until all of Israel is given back. Where were you? Do you bother to read what he said and why all the talks leading up to Oslo were a just a game? Were you there when he said one thing to the Western Press while at the very same timesaying the exact opposite to the Arab press no differently then Hamas is now? You think this is only a matter between Israel and Hamas? It is not. It directly involves Jordan as well. It directly involves Egypt. Egypt and Jordan are just as much an obstacle as you try paint Israel when it comes to negotiating with Hamas for the exact same reasons. You know all you arm chair experts sitting in Canada where no missiles are shot at your ass and a suicide bomber is not a street away from blowing you up, its easy for you who have zero idea how Hamas operates, why no one, not even Hamas take what they say literally. What they say is just words. Its their actions on the ground. The words are rhetoric for consumption with people like you who believe the world is defined in two neat terms-good and bad. The bottom line is this situation is absolutely no different then the one in Ireland where before Tony Blair could sit down and negotiate the IRA had to disagree to disarm. No different. This constant attempt by you or anyone else to suggest someone should sit down with a terrorist who will not publically agree to a disarmament is idiotic and naive. Right. In the real world Buffy and not the cozy comfy world of Canada where some of us are so damn righteous and love to point the finger and lecture like they are some Christian misisonary telling a savage Jew they are going to hell because they won't believe in Jesus-in the real world where you do not have your deeply entrenched Christian cultural bias of thinking you can lecture Jews on morality (and that is all it is)-in the real world, Israel could give a shit what people like you say. It will do what is right to protect and keep its people safe. If and when Hamas agrees to recognize Israel, neither you nor any other arm chair expert will understand what else also has to happen behind the scenes to assure such words mean something and not just to Israel, but Abbas, Jordan and Egypt. Tell me which one of you arm chair experts believes you can sit down with Paul Bernardo and have him understand what he did was wrong? Well? That right now is what you experts are suggesting is possible. That's nice. Some of us know when you sit with a sociopath you first assure he has no weapons of any kind and then we know what they say is not something that can be taken literally. In the real world, a sociopath is not someone who cares about truth and falsehood they do and say what they think gets them what they need. That is all a terrorist is despite your trying to romanticize them as people we sit and have tea with and make kissy poo with. As for those who say Israel won't give back the West Bank if they can be assured there would be no terrorist attacks-such comments are your subjective opinions reflecting your biases and do not reflect what the ISraeli government and its people have said and want. I do believe the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace and if there was a referendum by Palestinians that expressed this, Hamas would honour it. What I do not know and no one knows is whether Hamas would sabotage such a referendum to make sure no popular vote in favour of peaceful co-existence could come about. Hamas is full of cells of people who feel it is legitimate to deceive and lie as a means to liberate Israel. That is something most of you are oblivious to. Average Palestinians are not. If Hamas was genuinely interested in what Palestinians wanted it would not have destroyed the infrastructure, the roads, schools, mosques, green-houses that came about because of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. They would not have and continue to threaten to kill any Palestinian who says they want peace with Israel. That is the real world right now not this fairy tale one of Hamas being some romantic boy scout movement full of nobility for its people. This is a group that feels killing its people and placing them in the line of fire is a legitimate means to expres its political will.

You know Amerc Gal, for me when we hear of these things, that is what always gets me, the neighbours never knew, the wife never knew, no one ever knows. Its amazing just how much depravity goes on and we are oblivious to it. I mean am I to believe the guy two doors down from me could be another Paul Bernardo? Would I know? Would I know if he is raping his wife? I mean I just don't know anymore.

This is without a doubt one of the most shocking examples of depravity I have seen and just when I think I have seen it all. To lock a women in a basement for over 20 years and forcefully rape her into 7 or whatever incestuous child offspring all trapped with her I mean holy cow. There are no words for it. None.

Also try Japan, both Chinas, Ireland, Norway, Belgium, Moldova, the Czech Rep., Slovakian Rep., Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, India, Bulgaria, Austria, Germany to name but a few. Actually the law of citizenship granted to someone of a particular ethnicity because of who they are related to is quite common and part of this bullshit double standard is that people like Socred pretend only Israel does it. Then there is Jordan which has a law of return for Palestinians and enshrines in its constitutions that no jew is allowed citizenship. Then there are all Muslim countries who practice sharia law which forbids anyone but a Muslim from applying for citizenship and does not differentiate the Islamic religion from the state apperatus and promulgates dhimmitude a delberate system of apartheid where Jews and Christians not only are not entitled to the same degree of citizenship as Muslims but have inferior legal status to the point they can't own real estate and have to have a Muslim testify on their behalf in court since they are infidel and do not know how to tell the truth. The Law of Return in Israel which came into force in 1950 was in direct response to a few things but primarily the holocaust. The State of Israel realized it had a moral responsibility to be a sanctuary for Jews from anywhere in the world fleeing persecution or other hardships. The Law of Return was in direct response to that reality, the reality of the holocaust and the 2000 years leading up to it in Europe where all the nations were at one point Christian and it was precisely because of that Christian connection, Jews could not own land or be equal citizens and caused them to wander and be segregated and like the Romanoes easy targets. The forced expulsion or extermination of Jews in Christian nations I suppose is something Socred conveniently skips over. Ironically in Spain, there is still a law today that guarantees Sephardic Jews who can show Spanish ancestry Spanish citizenship and jews fleeing Sarajevo during the Bosnian-Serbian war exercised the Spanish option. Spain even with pro-Hitler Franco in charge, ironically allowed that law to prevail and take in certain jews during the holocaust. In the 50's what Socred also conveniently skips over is more Jews then Palestinians were forcefully removed from the Arab League Nations forcing 700,000 thousand of 900,000 thousand of them to have to flee to Israel and so even had there been no law of return one would have to have been drafted for these people. The Law of Return to Israel is far from unique and while it does allow fast tracking for citizenship to Jews, those jews once citizens are not given any rights a Muslim or Christian Israeli doesn't also have and the spouse of child or parent of a non jewish Israeli citizen has the exact same right to naturalization as a Jew. But why let facts and reality get in the way. As for Socreds comment that Jews brought their problems on themselves because they were bad tenants, you note he provides no examples-he just utters the deliberately anti-semitic cannard suggesting Jews are not victims just evil people who bring bad things onto themselves. Yes Lord knows, Jews are bad people. Wherever we settle we have forced standup comedy, delicatessens and Billy Crystal on people. Its what we do. We force you non Jews to eat smoked meat. We are tyrants. I also find it completely lacking in any credibility that you Socred would not have known just how many nations out their institutionalize Christianity as their state religion or have the audacity to suggest since it was done in the past we just forget that past and pretend it never had any role in why Israel is what it is today. I am the first to admit, had Christians not openly persecuted Jews in the past and had there been no holocaust, no you would not see today's Israel-it would have remained a vague religious reference. For me I am the first to admit it came about because of historic events that forced its necessity no different then today it forces the necessity for a second Palestinian state and a need to disarm Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. This friggin double standard where we ignore any other country with a law of return and ignore the reality of Sharia law, well it depends on you not reading and buying into stereotypes built on false assumptions. The point is, for me anyways, in an ideal world, none of us would need a nation. We would all leave peacefully without the need of nations. But we all know humans are tribal because are are primates and primates live in troops. So to pretend Jews are the only Baboon pack out their is for me just plain stupid. There are no shortage of baboon troops in many colours and variatons. The true thing we all have in common is our inflammed red buttoxes and the propensity to squawk and show our fangs and prance up and down when another pack comes into our territory. We are primates and live up to that tradition. Only unlike baboons who accept their inflammed red buttoxes, we think such things are political statements that rationalize our national identities. Bah. Its just red buttoxes thrust in our faces. I prefer what whales and porpoises do. Their pods are peaceful.

From a purely good faith negotiation perspective, no union leader should ever take an offer back to his union if he has ANY reason, ANY reason at all to believe it could be rejected before he makes it clear, look I will go back with it, I myself support it, but guys I honestly have to tell you I have poor control and it may not fly. There have been union leaders that have taken offers back that have been rejected but the difference is they negotiate in good faith, i.e., they let management know its not slam dunk, that way Management doesn't go to the press. What happened here was nasty and it was deliberate not accidental. Kinnear told management it was as good as done and he leaked the story as much as management did. He never should have done that. Had he told Miller he would go back but he would not guarantee it, Miller would have never spoken to the press. Miller was made deliberately to look like an ass by Kinnear. It was a deliberate attempt to embarass Miller. This was a nasty personal jab. I don't like Miller. I think he has a big fat head but fair is fair. It was nasty because Kinnear told Zamboni machine the TTC Commissioner who still has not finished puberty, that it was as good as done. This alleged rejection is bullshit. Kinnear sabotaged it the moment he left. He now in effect has shown he has no credibility and has to be removed. Think about it. Why would anyone neegotiate with him now. Isn't he the one who said he agreed with the settlement and now plays the game of oh its not me its my union members. Oh well. No it does not work that way in collective bargaining precisely because if it did, then all that would happen is management would bid against itself at the table. This is why when you sit with a union guy, he doesn't f..ck around with you that way. If he wants to get anywhere with you there are certain rules. Real union negotiators do not mislead like that. They just don't. They will be upfront and say I will take your stinking offer to the boys but don't expect me to dance-and if they really like it, they will first make sure they know it can pass before they say they will take it back-they know-they know the pulse of their own guys at all times-they are not stupid and they aren't stupid enough to make themselves look like they have no control especially if that is the case. If Kinnear was really out of control, the last thing he would have done is take the deal back. In fact that is how you know he was in control, the fact that he thought he could pull such a stunt. Kinnear is a wiesel. What he has done is f..ck his own union. Now no one will ever negotiate with him again thinking he is a liar and there is no guarantee anything he says can be trusted. Not only that he is an absolute liar. He came back with issues, such as an arguement over wages that wasn't even in dispute at the original negotiations. I am a neutral guy. I have mediated loads of these kinds of disputes. I believe in the collective bargaining process, but it requires a certain level of good faith by both sides for it to work. My personal feeling is that with essential services, which the public very much likes precisely because it prevents stoppages of vital services, yes they shouldn't be allowed to go on walk outs, but it can cost more in the long run, because it is true, when arbitrators rule on these things they tend to have a built in bias for workers precisely because they can't strike . All one has to do is look at the results of numerous essential service arbitrations to see that. So me personally, while I think yes, we need essential service legislation for such vital services as the TTC or police, fire, ambulance, garbage, we should all realize its not cheap and it does take some bargaining power away from management. There is a price paid for that security. Now in regards to workers, I know people resent them. We tend to look at them and say, they are spoiled, lucky, ungrateful. Those kinds of subjective perceptions are to me asirrational and make no more sense then assuming all management level people are also spoiled, dishonest and make too much money. Shits come on both sides of the collective bargaining table as do good people. We all are just trying to do what is best for our families and struggle along. Sorry if I do not point the finger at some guy just trying to make a buck. I don't resent it when people in suits do it, so I will not resent it when people in dirty covered uniforms do it. Say what you want about the TTC union, and I loath this guy Kinnear and think he is as slimy as they get, but fair is fair, TTC Management also is filled top to bottom with dinosaurs whose ideas of management haven't been updated since dinosaurs became extinct. It aint all union caused shit. A lot of it is management stupidity. There is one clear issue though I would point out where I believe the union is just dead wrong on. If you buy new equipment it comes with a warranty. That is because of exposure to law suits for manufacturer's liability that could expose a city to multi-millions if the product failed, so these pieces of equipment now must come with warrantees to protect against such legal exposure. The union has to be absolutely idiotic to think if that warranty provides free maintenance, the city will exclude itself from warranty coverage and protect itself from liability if the equipment causes injuries, by not honouring the warrantees which is what the union wants them to do and no you don't use maintenance people for a warranty service covered under the warranty. That is ridiculous not just because of it vitiating the warranty coverage but because it creates a redundant layer of labour. That would be fiscally idiotic and irresponsible and the union knows it. What this union should be doing instead of acting like reactionary idiots and trying to cling to outmoded jobs let the old jobs die out through attrition and find new jobs for their union people by retraining them. The gradual introduction of warrantied maintenance can be done working with a graduated phase out by attrition of existing maintenance workers and my providing retraining to certain TTC employees too young to retire. Instead this short sighted union thinks it is losing power and control in future years. This idea where people can be guaranteed antiquated work is stupid. You either keep uo with technology and learn to adapt or you get replaced by millions of Borgs in China who can do your labour at an 1/8th of the price and where human rights and guaranteed wages and health conditions are a friggin joke. That is the world we live in. The world has shrunk to the point where unionized labour can not compete with third world labour that is now easily accessible. The best thing unions can do is wake up and try retrain their workers to keep up with the changes. This idea you can have zero education and enjoy the kind of standard of living others who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in toget the same standard is also interesting. Look its Ijust not realistic. All of us whether we like it or not are not going to be able to live as well as we want to without some sort of sacrifice whether that be educational, vocational, or some thing else. Do I think I am superior to someone who fixes a subway with tools because I have 5 university degrees. No. If anything all those degrees do is establish I am a jack ass. The point though is I worked hard to get those degrees and it is what makes me credible (hard as that is to believe) in certain subject areas. That is the point. We all struggle to become good at something. What gets us what we are due, is sacrifice, not automatic entitlement. That is the only point I am making. I am not one of these guys who assumes its better to be rich. But I am also not one of those guys who resents people for being rich either. Hey I know people who others are jealous of because they think they are rich. Those same rich people work 14 hours a day and go through incredible stress. That people don't see. I say that the same reason I appreciate some of these blue collar jobs are stressful as well and no I do not think these guys are lazy and get too much money just as I do not believe that rich guy does. Everyone has worth. How we define it is the issue. All I am saying is none of us has automatic entitlements anyway you slice it. Kinnear is a wiesel. David Miller has a big ugly ballon head. Adam Zamboni machine needs to for heaven's sake up date his wardrobe. He is a collosal geek. The man needs to do something with that greco-nerd hair cut a la Frankenstein and get someone gay on the council to dress him for f..ck's sake. The funniest one though drunk Mr. Ford the progressive feminist on city council who on cue Monday mprning was quoting Ronald Reagan and uttering the brilliant words fire them all. Lets start with you fat boy.

You sound like my wife when I forget to take out the garbage or break something or make a mess. Oy I have been married too long. Actually if political history shows us anything it is that humans do not do a good job of learning from past mistakes. I really can't think of any country that can claim it has no skeletons in its closet. Now mind you some have bigger skeletons don't get me wrong but I guess my point is the one Angus T was making-if you are looking for perfection, not sure any country if its being honest can get too full of itself. I think in the specific case of Canada, this current exercise of trying to villify aboriginals is laughable. If the intent is to suggest aboriginals are bad bad people all I do is look at the people criticizing their form of government as corupt and ask, gee look at these accusers-such righteous darlings. None of them have done a dishonest thing in their life. None of them are fuck ups. In their society, there is no coruption and they are not part of it. Oh the garbage, the pollution, the fake insurance claims, the bullshit business transactions, nah they are all angels. Everyone of them tells the truth on their income tax returns. Lol. Reminds me of the expression-nothing funnier then someone who claims to be religious telling another they are going to hell. Had no idea how many Jimmy Swaggarts were on this forum.

I am a Zionist swine and I love falafel not just bagels and lox. I am multi-functional. I fear fundamentalists of any religion for the reasons stated above and which was AmerWoman's point. How we are going to resolve these essentially cultural clashes between the West and The East remains to be seen. I believe an understimated factor is what I call the Big mac syndrome. I do not doubt it appears in the East there are more radical fundamentalist Muslims who appear threatening to the West and appear to be multiplying and are going to "take over" the West through floods of migratory movement where they will become the majority in once Christian states and try turn the tide in their favour. That is a wide spread fear and to me it is necessarily a phenomena that has resulted from the world shrinking and movement of peoples becoming more possible. However in addition to the above phenomena is the Big Mac syndrome. Satellite t.v. and the web has brought as much if not more persuasive Western cultural values to the East as Muslim immigrants might be bringing to the West. Part of the rise of Eastern fundamentalism in the Muslim world is of course a direct reaction to and an attempt to block out the Big Macs and Cokes and hip hop music, etc. The same alleged Muslim terrorists wear adidas and are into hip hop and love big macs. They may be imitating their elders for now, but they are showing the signs of turning to and becoming Western and the Taliban and Osama and all the mullahs know this. In the end what will prevail in my opinion is the Big Mac and Coke it provides immediate gratification something a Muslim society built on repressing this primal instinct ins unable to counter no matter how many bombs and missles it sends or how many times it blames Israel or the US military-its failures are its own inability to adapt and become more humane, less judging, less rigid, and more compassionate let alone creative. Its precisely what defeated the Soviet Communist system and has permanently corupted the once mighty Maoist vision of socialism and rendered that country the biggest exploiter of human beings the world has ever known-its called material coruption. Its a disease no one is immune to and can not be stopped unless you plan to shut down the International Monetary Fund and all the multi-nationals behind it. Do not understimate the power of coca cola and big macs.

We all know what the problem is and what the solution is. We just don't want to deal with the obvious. The obvious is, it is unrealistic to think any citizen should believe they have an unlimited right to natural resources and the consumption thereof -we all know that but we are sure as hell not going to do anything about lowering our expectations and consumer habits until we have no choice. Its human nature-its called complacency. Revolt? You think anyone in the suburbs with their suv's are going to revolt? Look around. All our highways are choked with l person alone in a car driving. Everyone does it. Car pooling? This isn't Cuba where the government has a guy flag you down and order the public into your car until tis filled right up. Energy efficient vehicles hah. How do you make money off of that? Build a large vehicle so it can break down and gurggle gas. Its good economics. Its all about the short term profit gain. Revolt? Can you see people walking, using a bike, the bus, or car pooling? They could. Nothing has stopped anyone from doing it. People won't because they do not yet feel forced to. We have grown up believing its our right to drive everywhere. Pur suburbs are designed for cares not people. The entire facade of the suburbs assumes the parking lot first, then everything else. Mass transit? Hah. Revolutions don't start simply because people are angry they can't continue to be lazy jack-asses. Revolutions don't start because of negativity. What you really are talking about is group hysteria. Revolutionary thinking is supposed to be positive not negative. Its not supposed to be a tantrum on a collective level. Its simply supposed to be innovative and something easy anyone can do and makes them feel good-that's what makes it catch on. Revolutionary thought is as simple as walking to the corner store instead of driving. Unfortunately what we are talking about are self-destructive habits that have arisen from years of rampant consumerism we think we are hooked on and can not do without. Is it any different then someone hooked on cigarettes or booze or big macs? No. But you can't address a problem unless you admit you have one. We do not think we have a problem. We believe the government has a problem. Its not us on an individual level. is the government, or the greedy capitalist oil consortiums, etc. Its always someone else who created the problem and who we blame. Me I look at my own fat ass and walk and take a bike as much as I can now. It may seem like sweet f..all but its a start. Yes I drive my bike to work and try take mass transit. No I am not righteous. I am still a polluting jack ass and a fat head and feel the best way to deal with this is on an individual level. I can control my own actions. Others, I doubt I can control. If and when there are rations and there will be, we can buy horses. The Amish got it figured out.

S.15 of the Charter in regards to equality rights, makes it possible for someone to argue that being poor, places them in a specific group with specific characteristics which is the first test of entitlement to a legal claim for equal rights. It could be in theory used to define that group as "the poor". The complaintant could then go on and argue that the federal or provincial governments, or companies, or public access discriminates against the poor in a way it doesn't discriminate in regards to the non poor and therefore the law or service doing that must address the inequity caused. So it would definitely be raised and argeud by poverty interest groups contesting privatizing health care or attempts by provincial governments to create different tiers of hospital care based on what you pay for. It would probably be raised if a province tried to do away with welfare or assisted housing. So in that sense, it could be argued to gurantee certain services not be taken away from the poor. In theory it could also be argued to justify giving certain services to the poor that others don't get, i.e., free dental care. If someone argued for example its unfair the poor get free dental care in Ontario but they don't, it probably would be argued under s.15 as being allowed or justified differential treatment since it addresses a greater inequality. In terms of guaranteeing all people make a certain amount of money-no. In terms of guaranteeing all people have a job, no. It probably can be invoked to preserve certain government services or minimum standards of care for the poor but it gets very limited after that. Some of the responses you have had do not understand the Charter or how the Equality section works. They assume it confers automatic rights to the poor it does not give to others. It doesn't. any right it would guarantee a poor person it would also guarantee everyone else. Some people believe Welfare is unfair and provides a service to the poor others don't get and so its unfair and creates inequality. It most certainly on one theoretic level creates preferential treatment for those who qualify it. But what is that preferential treatment? Its the kind of basic, minimum services that are intended to keep people from committing crimes of desperation. Its primarily a safety net to prevent crime. Secondarily it is a social exercise to relieve people of feeling guilty that some people are poor and others aren't. It makes humanity seem caring and compassionate which is an intangible value many on this board would laugh at or do the usual Macho Red Neck routine to laugh at, but it very much influences politicians who would never risk doing away with it and alienating their voters. Very few people actually when polled, think we should do awaty with welfare. They want compassion and some sort of service for the poor. What they get pissed off at is not the concept of welfare, but welfare ABUSE an entirely different issue. This is why politicians will focus on welfare abuse when they speak. When Mike Harris and Stephen Harper deliberately pandered to people by involving the spectre of welfare abuse-while they made sure never to argue against welfare but only welfare abuse in their words, their actual references did not distinguish between the poor and those poor who might abuse welfare. Now you can live in a society where we do not believe the government has any role in looking after the poor, or we can live in a society where we feel society has some sort of minimal moral obligation to protect its most vulnerable. To me those concepts do not have anything to do with socialism. There is another misconception that the moment one feels there is a moral obligation by society for the poor or most vlunerable that is socialist since it means government involvement and any social service is socialist. No. The actual concept of feeling morally obliged to look after the poor or most vulnerable in society can be held by classic conservatives (followers of Edmund Burke) as much as it can be by classic Liberals ( Benthamites ). Libertarians reject this concept and many assume Libertarians are necessarily conservatives. No they are people who believe there should be no government role. You could still be a Libertarian and be very compassionate to the poor and believe they need help but the best way to do it would be through non profit organizations not government ministries. Likewise conservatives and liberals could feel the same way. Or the fact that a conservative or liberal might believe government is the best way to provide some basic services for the poor, could be based on law and order concerns and not necessarily socialist believes. Its too complex an issue to simply dismiss as socialist if people feel society has some sort of moral obligation for its most vulnerable. The fact is in all societies, there will be inequality due to human nature. If nothing else biological differences in humans will make some more disposed to be unable to work and fend for themselves as others due lower iq's or perhaps chronic disabilities, inability to afford school, self-destructive behaviour more common in some groups then others due to socio-economic factors, religious or lack of religious values, diet, on and on. The Charter today is used to identify alleged barriers that prevent equality and then suggest methods to alleviate the inequality the barriers cause. Yes it has created an infinite variation of possible social victims or interest groups seeking assistance, one only has to look at the court system and the thousands of charter equality cases. Whether its actually alleviating inequality or simply creating new forms of inequality and simply changing the hierarchy as to who is privileged and who is not, is a philosophical question ultimately not a legal one. In the law, attempts to address inequality look at a snap shot in the overall evolution of humans-laws at best provide temporal relief for a perceived inequality but soon become outmoded and in need of changing as human behaviour and conditions keep changing.

With due respect I do not have a problem with your position that you challenge aboriginal rights. Where I jump on you is when you engage in the name calling, the patronization, it belittles the very positions you are trying to make and does nothing but turn you into a baiter or taunter. That is why I was sarcastic back to you-I am being tongue in cheek. Surely there's a way to debate this legal conflict without it turning personal and an excuse to insult people otherwise it becomes absurd like some of the comments I made to you. I do not agree with many things Charter says but why insult aboriginal people or pretend the law is not what it is. I am sorry but as a lawyer I can't ignore the law. The constitution guarantees aboriginal rights and says they superceded confederation and run parallel to our existing legal system and are to be honoured. The fact is the federal government breached the treaties it signed and the Supreme Court said it now must make restitution for the treaties it breached. You can insult aboriginals all you want but it does not change that fact and the fact that if we claim to be civilized, that is what we do-admit when we breach agreements we entered into-not argue that we can now ignore them because its not convenient. Let's get something clear. The federal legislative powers can not pass laws that violate the Charter and in particular the applicable sections guaranteeing equality and aboriginal rights. Its not going to happen. No democratically elected government is going to pass a law that tries to violate the charter. If they do they will be found unenforceable. There is no way the federal parliament can pass legislation absolving the federal government of having to provide resitution for the treaties it breached. The only issue is what form they will take, not whether they will be provided and the government can keep stalling but its a fait accompli. Until you make an effort to read what the aboriginal positions have been during negotiations you will continue to stereotype them as being unreasonable. Nothing could be further then the truth. if you take the time to see how they have been negotiating. Its been the federal government, not the aboriginal collective dragging its feet and if you won't make an effort to find that out by looking at the actual negotiations, I can't convince you what you are saying is just anger and that is not how to solve this. A solution is not that hard. Its already being done. It consists of recognizing aboriginal access to land for hunting and fishing and providing them a percentage of any revenues derived therefrom when exploited. Its not rocket science. Its quid pro quo. Resenting aboriginals because they have legitimate legal rights is horseshit. You have a problem go back and complain to King John when he came up with the Magna Carta Act. This is nonsense to say, someone lost a war so you can seize their world and not recognize their existence-that is precisely why the world is so fucked with so many tribal wars across the world. Extremists on either side are not going to derail the process. Its emerging slowly. Caledonia is purely the result of the federal government refusing to do what it has to do and that is resolve a breached treaty and try work with all the people affected by that breach in a fair manner. I am tempted to volunteer to send Wild Bill and Angus T. in to settle it once and for all. They could very easily if this stupid government wasn't so damn afraid of its own shadow.

I agree with you W-Bill.

The Big Whoop comment you refer to as well as the comment on a 6 hour wait being normal for the bread line in Poland is supposed to make him sound tough. Some of us men to try show how tough we are make such comments. Kind of like burping or farting and not saying excuse me or scratching our scrotums and spitting. People do seem to forget, men are primates and we still exhibit primal traits. Now please don't ask me about masterbating in public when we are bored. Too touchy a topic. Getting back to this one, what this entire sorry episode shows is if you do not train your police officers properly in the use of weapons, they will kill people, in this case needlessly and unintentionally. Police officers need better training in handling such situations and the taser is a very dangerous and inappropriate weapon. Most martial arts experts I know say its far safer to teach police how to use their batons and enage in certain holds. Or there are two better restrain weapons i- the net gun and ii- the foam gun. The net gun shoots a net onto the person to restrain them and the foam gun sprays a quick acting foam that encases the arms and legs and prevents the person from hurting themselves or others. Those two weapons are much more preferable then a taser which is inherently dangerous and will kill because humans are not designed to absorb electricity like that and precisely because police officers do not know who has a heart condiiton and who does not or what kinds of medication someone is on that when mixed with electricity could kill them. To turn this episode into an opportunity to ridicule the dead man is a cheap shot. Its as inappropriate as it is to call all cops pigs and brutal or get personal and accuse these cops in this incident of brutality. They had no intention of killing this man. What you see is a classic case of inadequate training. Its a shameful preventable death that could have happened to any of us. Excuse me, but anyone trapped in an airport for 6 hours and being completely ignored will lose it. What is also absolutely inexcusable is the airline did not call on the loudspeaker for someone who could speak Polish to come and talk to the man as happens all the time in airports with confused travellers, or they could have called the telephone operator and asked for a Polish translator and speak to this person through the translator. The airline chose to completely ignore this man and make no effort to converse with him in his language. They took his money knowing he's from Poland and knowing he spoke Polish, but couldn't be bothered to provide the most basic service. I blame the airline and the airport as much as I do the police.

Next you will call Richard Nixon's secretary a liar. Stop it.

Oh Mr. Fortin you stated; "To be true to the traditions of their heritage they are supposed to live off the land not my tax dollars. " No one is living off your tax dollars. All this comment does is establish you resent aboriginal peoples and are trying to rationalize your resentment with this fallacy that its because they live off of you. They do not. If anything you live off of them. "They are to live in harmony with nature..." There's a good one, Mr. Fortin now feels he is in the position to lecture aboriginals on how to live. Why? Because of course Mr.l Fortin is an expert....and of course his patronizing comes about because he is superior and can talk down... And this comment; "This so called quest for equality is little more than discrimination against the victors by the vanquished." Love that reasoning. How dare some rapist ask for a law to put someone in jail who raped her. How unfair is that. Brilliant logic. I love it. The person you rob discriminates if they ask you to be arrested and charged with theft. Brilliant. "Never before in history have such demands such as those put forward by the defeated peoples ever come to pass." Damn them. We rob them and they demand their property back. Never. Never has a victim of crime been given restitution. Ever. What criminal compensation board you say? Never. SUe someone in civil court for damages? Never. Worker's compensation for injuries never! Never before in history have our laws allowed compensation for those whose legal rigfhts have been breached. Never. Brilliant. "Nor should they, because they are unreasonable and delusional." Yah and listen up, if you get injured at work and your arm is sawed off just shut the f..ck up you delusional punk. You get butkus for that arm. I smash your car going through a red light and permanently paralyze youy, so the f..ck what...you are delusional and unreasonable if you think I am responsible! "The once proud race of native culture in North America was destroyed by the Europeans, that is true. " How benevolent and tolerant of you to say. Psst here is a little hint, the word "proud" is a pathetic racist stereotype. Get over it. Enough with these idiot John Wayne cliches. All they do is render you a bafoon for using them. Next, the last time I looked, native culture is still in existence. Who did you say was delusional again? "It is as true as the demise of the mammoth and the Great Plains Buffalo. They now cease to exist. " Uh yah delusional. Aboriginals, Buffalo, all gone bye bye. Who wants to tell Mr. Fortin whether its Buffalo or aboriginal peoples whatever he is referring to, they both still exist. "Lets leave the world of fantasy alone for the purpose of debate." Yah lets not get delusional shall we. "The First Nations peoples are going to come up against a wall of public resentment if they are not careful." Are going to? Ahahahahah. Get serious. There we go again with that delusional stuff. Since confederation began they have been resented. Where have you been? Hello someone home? "Excessive demands are confrontational and are truely detrimental to the best interests of the people of the First Nations." Ah there goes the partonizing lecture again. Of course Mr. Fortin you know what is good for these people right. You know. You are the great one who tells them what is. "A more realistic goal is to seek a true reserve of land somewhere in which they can maintain their true culture and heritage and live in the old ways." Yes. According to Mr. Fortin Patron of the Aboriginals, he says, listen up native peoples-agree to be confined and remain in a segregated seperated ghetto. Know your place. Off with you now tot he bantu land where you can make trinkets and sell them to tourists. No cigarettes now. "It would be realistic to add the modern advents of education and health care, but to the extent that their culture was preserved and protected." Yes and if you are nice we will send you some aspirin. "These things western culture could not deny, but to threaten the very nature of our society with crippling penalties for the sins of our fathers is tantamount to the threat of war or at least violent reaction. That is simply foolish and counter-productive." No idea what the above means but I would suggest to aboriginals if its as a result of medicine, don't take what ever he's taking. "Let the harsh reality of cold reason light the darkness of errors from the past. Let the heart of the people live in the warmth of traditional values. Let the vision of peace and the contentment of prosperity reach the very souls of the people through their own effort. Now is the time to walk forward using what is behind us as a guide to where we wish to go." For a second it sounded like Charleton Heston had come back from the dead. "We need to improve the situation of ALL of the peoples of this land, not merely those of the natives." Of course the entire comments could have been simply stated in the last sentence which of course states; " to hell with natives...I don't care about natives...they lost I tell you they lost!" Now then with this kind of contribution to the debate we should have this conflict resolved in no time. Back tot he reservations we go with some aspirin and all will be well.

What you state is 100% legal fact. But hey why let legal facts get in the way of this.

Then read it again. You misunderstand what land its referring to.

Probably went over his head. Let me translate. Morality is an ideal we strive towards. It has degrees. Morality is not something you either completely have, or do not have at all. Its not like saying you are either pregnant or not pregnant. Its more like saying, how smelly are you. Morality is a fluid, relative, variable. Oh that helped.

Actually criminal negligence, but close enough. Lol.

I was going to say yes certain drag queens yes. That said, I believe the best way to teach people is with positive processes not ones based on fear or negativity. I think there is a way to talk frankly about what we do not like or agree with and see as a problem in our own or other societies without turning it into hate mongering.

Getting back to the original topic, I think a lot of this PC debate of course was triggered by the Charter of Rights. The wording in s.15 describing Equality rights was drafted deliberately and to differentiate Canadian constitutional rights from American ones. Read s.15. In the states, in their constitution, you are guaranteed freedom of speech as the paramount and overiding right over all other rights. The US politically is a melting pot where all cultures are expected to assimilate and place being American first and what-ever else they are second and that includes all languages other then English. In Canada we did not do that either in 1867 or when the Charter was invoked. What our legusislators did before and after the Charter was to guarantee freedom of speech, but also guarantee the right be free from discrimination because of gender, race, culture-ethnicity, religion, or disability. The wording used in s.15 is supposed to protect all these groups in the event freedom of speech is used to discriminate against them-so its a bit different then in the US where its not set out that way. In the US the emphasis on America first is why they did not give as much wording or attention to placing the right to be in the groups I mentioned above at a same level of importance as freedom of speech. And so in Canada, this approach necessarily generates legal conflicts that generate human rights complaints and legal cases questioning whether certain statements or actions violate s.15. So we balance one's right to say what we want with the rights of all these groups to be free of unfair treatment or harassment and so, this politically correct debate arises. Some feel the courts have become too intrusive in deciding what we can and can not see and feel that should only the role of legislators not Judges and as many of you feel, shouldn't even be the concern of legislators. Others feel and quite strongly, that they have the right under s.15, to challenge any comment, remark, behaviour they feel discriminates, etc. We have a criminal code, but its hate sections really are not intended to enforce s.15 and are more designed to prevent words that serve as an accessory to commiting a crime, i.e., the words can be directly linked to enabling the crime. Its very contextual. You can call someone a dirty.....and it might be done by a comedian doing a stand up routine-no problem. Say it in a crowd which then triggers violence, then it may be a crime in that it could be shown to have caused the riots. Of course to prove its a crime you have to show beyond doubt the person who uttered it intended to cause a riot or violence. In civil law, to show words that are politically incorrect damage you and therefore you are entitled to receive compensation, you have to show on the balance of probabilities your injury directly resulted from the words. It comes out indirectly in unfair dismissal law suits, or legal battles over accommodation of disability or perceived disability at work, or actions of intolerance at work or restrictions to services others enjoy. What many of you are concerned about are two things-what appears to be too much reliance on human rights complaints to dispute things said and/or the righteousness of the complainers. In regards to the first, all I can say personally is I don't think its the words, I think its the context they are used in that determines whether they are criminal or anything else. Me personally I would prefer to err on the side that protects freedom of speech and where-ever possible debate any allegedely offensive comments openly. I think it is far more beneficial and constructive to challenge offensive comments in candid debate then placing someone in jail for being offensive otherwise we all end up in jail. Its a slippery slope. In Canada we have had two decisions R. v. Keegstra and the Zundel fiasco which are the only two blatant cases where politically offensive comments were not protected and contained. In keegstra's case he was not presenting personal opinions privately, he was bring them to a school and teaching them to students contrary to his school's curriculum. It was a specific case. In the Zundel case there were also two things that made it like the Keegstra case exceptional. First of all he was not a Canadian citizen and that is a crucial distinction. He was arguing he should be protected by a state while at the same time insulting that state's citizens. But put that aside. It was not just his words. It was the fact that he went so far with his words to call all Jews liars and use words that clearly encouraged people to hate them which then led to his followers physically attacking Jews, blacks, Muslims, gays, on the street and vandalizing property. There was a link between the words and criminal acts. As well his followers sold drugs to finance their activities which was another link to crime. As well he left messages on an answering machine and through the web which automatically involve federal legislation as to what can be broadcast. If the contents of those broadcasts is considered to incite hatred or interefere with s.15 rights, outside the criminal law, and human rights complaint process or the civil process for any person actually assaulted or who had their property damaged, there were federal broadcast regulations that were violated. The link to crimes and federal broadcast regulation violations led to his deportation not the actual words. It was how the words were used not the words themselves. Another person could still say exactly what Zundel said but not run into the trouble Zundel did if they choose not to use the web site or telephone to broadcast certain words and choose not to use words that suggest to people they go out and hurt people. It is a fine line. In the case of David Akinahew, I think they jumped the gun. Yes he said hateful words to the press, but he did not accumulate the kind of behaviour Zundel had over a prolonged period of time that could be shown to have incited crimes, nor did he teach what he said at a school. What was also crucial was that the aboriginal community immediately denounced what he said and took proactive measures to meet with Jewish leaders publically. As far as I am concerned they did the best thing, have the community as a whole deal with the issue and condone the words. He was also stripped of his Order of Canada and lambasted by his peers. Putting him in jail will not change what he said nor rehabilitate him. If anything it will make a martyr and victim out of him and enforce his views not discourage them. I think we have to be careful not to make martyrs out of hate mongers and turn them into victims. In his case it does not belong in court. If it could be shown his comments caused beatings of other crimes against Jews, then maybe if the Crown felt there was a sufficient link in cause and effect between the words and crimes. That was not the case here. Sometimes to protect freedom of speech we have to let people say hateful things because if we over-react, that same process we use to over-react can be used to shut up good people as well. I say freedom of speech should be curtailed in only exceptional circumstances, i.e., violent pornography, child pronography, or words that can directly be shown to calling on people to commit a crime. To me human rights complaints were contemplated to challenge restricted access to government or other services, not shutting people up, and they are now used as a political tool to try shut people up which may not be what they were intended for.

I always appreciate when the Angus' of the world remind me that we live in a different time where Jews need not be afraid of Christians or anyone else. That is why I took the time to provide the detailed responses to Socred. I would have done the exact same if someone said the same kinds of things about the holikidoe (Ukrainian massacre) or Armanian or any other massacre and its the same reason I do not say one of them makes the other less unique. They all have unique meaning not just to their survivors and the people of the groups targetted for extermination or persecution, but to all of us.

Socred asked the forum to show him where he has engaged in an anti-Jewish agenda. I specifically ask you to read back the comments I have listed from Socred which deliberately fuse and make ambiguous the distinction between Jews as a people and the ideology of Zionism. I believe it is this fusion of the concept of the suffering of Jews with Zionism that demonstrates an anti-Jewish agenda by engaging in the promulgation of the corresponding stereotypes I believe are the intent of the comments. After listing these comments and what I believe are there corresponding stereotypes, I will then specifically point out why they are either false or misrepresentations of facts and do not as Socred said promote the “truth” but in fact his own personal feelings towards Jews. “1-It's also a fact that the biggest single event which helped to establish the state of Israel is the "holocaust", so there is no doubt that Zionist interests have a vested interest in stifling all debate on the subject.(deliberate attempt to link Nazism to agenda of Zionism) 2-Seems the Nazis were interested in Zionism as well: Eichmann was then assigned to investigate possible "solutions to the Jewish question." He visited Palestine in 1937 to discuss the possibility of large scale immigration of Jews to the Middle East with Arab leaders. British authorities, however, ordered him out of the country. (false statement of fact) 3-One could argue that the best thing to ever happen to further the Zionist cause was the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the extermination of Jews in Europe. The state of Israel was formed shortly after. (intellectually dishonest attempt to link the holocaust and pain and suffering of victims to Zionist agenda) 4-The fact is that the Stern Gang allied themselves with the Nazis… Seems to me that the Nazis were the best thing that ever happened in favour of the Zionist cause. (equating the suffering with Jews as a positive thing that Zionists support) (killing Jews makes Zionists rejoice with joy) 5-If Eichmann went before, then this demonstrates that the Nazis had Zionist aims before the war. (fallacious reasoning) 6-…the Stern gang collaborated with them (Nazis) in order to further Zionist goal. (statement of false fact) 7… Nazis sought to establish a Jewish state in Israel prior to the start of WWII? (statement of false fact) 8…Stern gang collaborated with the Nazis (repeated statement of false fact) 9.. Nazis were the best thing that ever happened to the Zionist cause. 10-There is a Zionist conspiracy to establish a Jewish state in Israel. Anyone but a retard would agree with me.(Zionists conspire) (anyone who does not use the word conspire when describing the creation of the state of Israel is a retard) 11- If you are a Jew, maybe you'll answer my question. What is a Jew? If converts to Judaism are Jews, what connection do they have to the land in Palestine? (converted Jews can’t have a religious connection to the state of Israel) 12-The point is that Jews are given citizenship in Israel based solely upon their religion. This citizenship is not granted to any other religion. (only a Jew can apply for citizenship in Israel) 13-What connection do those who practice Judaism have with the land in Israel that any other followers of the faiths of Abraham (Christianity and Islam) do not have? And why was a nation given to the practictioners of Judaism? And why do the practictioners of Judaism have preferential treatment in becoming a citizen of Israel?..(Jews are given preferential treatment in Israel) 14-Yes, the Nazis thought that Jews were a race, which also makes them similar to Zionists in another way. (Zionists are Nazis, Zionism is Nazism) 15-You will not get an honest debate on this issue, especially by those who believe they have a vested interest in protecting the state of Israel. (anyone who supports the existence of the State of Israel is a liar) You want an honest debate Socred, tell me I am not trying to provide one. In regards to statements 2,5 and 7 which suggest because Eichman went to Israel in 1937, the Nazis and Eichman were pro-Zionist and wanted to create a Jewish state, let us first start off with the obvious. Eichman’s role was to KILL as many Jews as efficiently as possible. What Socred attempts to do is revise history to suggest Eichman was benevolent to Jews and was a Zionist and only was prevented from Zionist goals because of the British. This is absolutely false and for Socred to go to a web-site, lift a sentence out of context with no further reference and then pass off as fact his unsunstantiated, unreferenced, baseless and subjective conclusions from it, is intellectually dishonest. It is intellectually dishonest I would contend to try pass off as fact one’s subjective opinion. The source for the above false statement of facts is based on an article by Dr. Imad Mahmud Habib under the title : "The Zionist Nazi Alliance-Facts and Goals". Which argued that Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust by the Nazis upon requests by the Zionist leadership. . He argued that since 1933 an alliance was formed between Hitler and the Zionist movement in order to strengthen the Zionist foothold in Palestine and conspire against the Arabs. He contended a system of Nazi-Zionist cooperation allowed thousands of Jews to immigrate to Palestine and transfer more than DM 150 million there and that the Nazis transferred to different Zionist organizations blue prints for the production of machine guns, hand grenades etc. He goes so far as to state Arabs were killed by Zionists armed by Hitler and Himmler. It is in this article he refers to the Eichman visit to Palestine in 1937 and then claimed that later during his trial in Jerusalem, Eichman was instructed to remain silent on the nature of his contacts with the Zionist leaders.He also claims In 1939, Nazis provided military training to Jewish youth in Austria on their way to Palestine. This is in fact what Socred is referring to and in my opinion couching and trying to pass off as fact. He did not reference the source of his alleged statement facts of Eichman’s intentions because to do so would lead us to the above article where they originated before they recirculated on Stormfront,the KKK, and other hate sites as well as the Hamas and Hezbollah web-sites and mainstream media in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc., where this story has been run over and over again in papers, radio presentations and on t.v. and is often quoted in Iran. For someone who claims he is interested in pursuing the truth then why doesn’t Socred come clean and admit where he got his conclusions from and where the Zionist-Nazi link comes from. As for what actually happened Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was eichman’s close friend and ardent supporter of Hitler and stayed as his guest through-out World War Two- Eichman did meet with one Haganah member but there was no alliance, no conspiracy, a simple brief encounter at which time Eichman tried to find out how many Jews were in Palestine. In fact he travelled there to discuss assisting the Mufti to support an Arab movement against the Jews. Immediately after Eichman left, a prolonged and organized campaign against Jews in Palestine was implemented by the Mufti with full support of the Nazis. Eichman was sent packing by the British not because he was collaborating with Zionists but because he deliberately was forming an alliance with Arabs to fight the British and French in the Middle East and of course the Mufti felt his mutual hatred of Jews would provide an excellent alliance with the Nazis. In regards to statements 1,3 and 9 what Socred does is advance what I call an odious and discapable insinuation that Zionists are grateful 6 million Jews were slaughtered and that for the last 2,000 years Jews were persecuted because without such suffering they could not have created Israel. Israel came about because of tragedy not opportunity and for Socred to suggest such is an ancient anti-semite canard which infers Jews benefit from anyone’s suffering even their own people’s. He can deny the connection and canard all he wants but you and I know saying the holocaust forced the Jews to Israel is one thing-saying it was a good thing for them, is another and absolutely despicable. I can tell you right now, if Jews had a choice from living in freedom in Europe with no holocaust instead of Israel they would probably say yes but that would not be a bad thing nor would it necessarily have stopped a natural evolution of Jews to Palestine to start their own country. To suggest Zionists should be grateful to Nazis for slaughtering 6 million Jews is deliberately hateful and taunts why Jews escaped to Israel and their motive for wanting to be free. Its as despicable as stating as fact that Nazis collaborated with Zionists when they never did, only now there is a positive mutual relationship between Zionists and Nazis through the suffering of the holocaust., In regards to Socred’s comments in 4 and 6 that the Stern Gang collaborated with the Nazis, this is absolutely and utterly false and comes from the same Nazi-Zionist link and article I mentioned above with Eichman. What in fact happened was Stern the leader of the Lehi movement did discuss with a Nazi representative an alliance against Britain. Lehi which was a very small organization and admired Mussolini’s version of fascism was far from mainstream. It had about 42 members one who was Yithak Shamir who became Prime Minister of Israel. To suggest it was representative of all Zionists which Socred has attempted to infer to advance the insinuation that Nazis collaborated with Zionists is bullshit. Not only was there no alliance but during World War Two, the Stern Gang openly fought against Nazis in the Middle East as well as the British and anyone else. Anyone who would attempt to suggest because an extreme gang of right wingers represents Zionism and its mainstream activities is deliberately revising history and misrepresenting facts not to mention there was never any collaboration or alliance. Socred again tries to pass off as fact that the Stern gang allied themselves with the Nazis as fact. That is a complete and utter false statement. They never did and Socred relies on your ignorance to pass off his subjective remark as fact. You note he provides no reference to it just like he provides no reference to the alleged Eichman connection and collaboration. So I now say unequivocally, Socred has passed off subjective remarks as facts-why? Why? What is the motive for someone to pretend a subjective remark is a substantiated fact? You tell me what the motive is. I personally believe it is to incite hatred towards Jews and those who escaped the holocaust to Israel. Comments 12 and 13 fuse religious concepts of Judaism with the law of return and are not true in any way shape or form. To start with, Zionism has nothing to do with race. The Zionism is Nazism is racism canard is old and its unoriginal and the only people who continue to rely on it are the usual ani-Jewish hate sites.Zionism does not define Jews as a race. All Zionism is, is the political movement of universal sufferage for Jews. It is the political belief Jews should have a federal state which institutionalizes Judaism as a state religion. Let’s deal with the other false comments Socred promulgated that it confers unfair status to Jews. It does not. Muslims or Christians who are citizens of Israel have the identical legal rights as Jews. What he mixes up and erroneously presents is the law of return and internal laws of Israel. They are not the same. The Law of Return which allows Jews to apply for citizenship is not automatic precisely because there is a debate on who is a Jew and who is not. More to the point the state of Jordan has the identical law of return for Palestinians. Socred can pretend all he wants that Jews are the only people with a state religious connection but that is an utter falsehood. Sharia Law creates all Muslim states as just that Islamic states and defines anyone who is NOT a Muslim as not being allowed to own property and condemned to live as second class citizens in the apartheid system of dhimmitude. In Israel which Socred would have us believe is racist, Muslims in Israel, unlike Jews in Islamic countries have full rights. All anyone has to do is compare the standard of living and legal rights of Islamic Israelis to Jews living in Muslim countries. You think Socred would do that? I would contend Socred lost any credibility when he stated and I quote; “Christians don't have a country of their own. “ I am sure the Queen of England, head of the Church of England will find that interesting as would the link between Hindus and their government in India, all the Muslim states and their religion, the spiritual connection between the Tibetan peoples and their state and religion, and of course the many Orthodox Christian states such as Greece and Macedonia and Serbia to name but a few. Socred made one other deliberately misleading comment when he stated “ This is absolutely false. Show me one nation on earth were you are granted citizenship based upon the sole fact that you are a Christian.” No one stated that. What was stated was that there is a link between Christianity and state institutions and Islam and state institutions or the Hindu faith and the Indian state institution just as there is one in Israel so the question remains-why does Socred deny the obvious and attempt to state only Israel has a religion and state connection? Why? Why would he try deny the obvious? For what purpose? For what agenda does he single out Jews? Read the above question. Socred deliberately twisted what was said to suggest and infer that you become Israeli only because you are Jewish. Even with the law of return, even if my being defined as a Jew expedites the citizenship acceptance process and fast tracks a Jew, it is not the sole criteria for citizenship. What Socred also deliberately ignores is Jews were NEVER allowed citizenship in many European countries precisely because they were not Christian and that exclusion of not being Christian prevented them from escaping the holocaust and coming to Canada and the U.S. Socred should look at the history of how Christian nations, and the lack of separation between Christianity and its states led to the massacre and repeated genocide of aboriginals, and was used as a pretence to use non Jews as cheap labour. Lectures from Socred as to the legacy and history of the role of Christianity in state run institutions is greatly lacking for someone in pursuit of truth.

Well you know I appreciate that Angus but then coming from you I have come to expect it if you know what I mean.

Socred asked this forum what makes his thoughts despicable. To answer that question I provide this quote from him; “And again, no I do not thing that the persecution of Jews is "unique in the history of man". There have been many people persecuted over the course of the history of man, but I'm sure many Jews want us to believe that it is unique to them. “ The above comments I would contend are despicable in that their context is to assign negative motivations to Jews and single them out for resentment if they remember their pain and suffering. Socred can respond to me and say he did not use the word “all” but it does not change the content or intent of his comments which are in my opinion despicable because they suggest someone who is a victim of persecution is evil if they point it out. Jews who talk of the holocaust and explain its link to many thousands of years of persecution do not do so because they believe they are the only people who suffered. To suggest that is nothing but hateful and bigoted and deliberately intended to incite resentment. I find it also completely dispicable that Socred came on this Forum and said he says what he says because he pursues the truth. How does insulting Jews and belittling their suffering in any way pursue truth or motivate anyone to pursue truth? Socred asks what is a Jew? Perhaps he should ask, who is he and start with himself and look in the mirror.

I am now going to take great care and detail to respond to Socred because I believe he has not engaged in sincerity or intellectual honesty in his comments on the holocaust. Specifically Socred asked this forum these questions which I quote from his own words; 1-“What clear anti-Jewish agenda? Specifically, show me something that is "anti Jewish"?” 2- “LMFAO What "anti-semitic slur"?” I will respond to the above by providing the specific and deliberate anti-semitic comments Socred made and then evidence what he has done since he came on this particular thread-deliberately engage in anti-Jewish comments, then deny he has. In my next post I will point out how he has deliberately and with great care inter-mixed attacks on Jews using anti-Zionism as a pretence and by so doing incites hatred against all Jews and assigns negative motives to all Jews while claiming he is only referring to Zionists. The specific anti-semitic comments he uttered and then attempts to laugh off are as follows and all anyone has to do is go back and read what he wrote, all the below comments are direct quotes from his previous posts on this thread; i-By the way, who are "your people" and what is a "Jew"? ii-There have been many people persecuted over the course of the history of man, but I'm sure many Jews want us to believe that it is unique to them. iii- If Jews disagree with you, they claim you are an "anti-semite". iv-What the Jews want to do is silence all debate on this subject. Are you referring to my statement "What the Jews want to do is silence all debate on this subject."? I didn't say "all Jews". Socreds words are clear. He assigned negative characteristics or slurs to all Jews. He then in my personal opinion mocks this forum when called out on it by trying to trivialize with sarcasitic comments like “ I didn’t say all” which I would contend are transparent and show his lack of sincerity in being frank and candid with what his agenda is. I wish to make clear when I call out Socred on his anti-semitic comments, you will note I am being crystal clear as to the words he has used. Why? Because it is my personal opinion Socred is being manipulative and when someone calls him out on negative comments that slur all Jews by assigning them a negative characteristic, he claims he is criticized for questioning the holocaust or didn't use the word "all". I also personally believe he has been intellectually dishonest in cultivating an ambiguity between the difference in denying an event and questioning it. In my opinion he has incited the impression that denying the holocaust and questioning it are one and the same. They are not. One denies it ever happened, the other asks how it happened. It is a crucial distinction particularly in Socred's case since he has described Ernst Zundel as a political prisoner and someone who questioned the holocaust. Ernst Zundel did not question the holocaust, he denied it happened. He called the victims of the holocaust liars. He instructed people on recorded telephone messages and on his inter-net that Jews are evil and liars. He and his followers engaged in physical assault and batteries of innocent people and engaged in illegal drug activities. Mr. Zundel was a man full of hatred and putrid thoughts but he was deported not for his thoughts but for his insistence in vandalizing private property and engaging in words that counselled people to engage in violence and openly accused a visible group of all being liars. Mr. Zundel was not deported because he questioned the holocaust. He was deported because he encouraged violence and criminal acts. Had he not called all Jews liars, had he not engaged in physical assaults and batteries and plan and carry out damage to cemeteries and synagogues or engage in race baiting against blacks and Muslims-if all he did was engage in debate as to the holocaust, he would still be here and Socred is well aware of that. Socred asked whether Nazis should be placed in jail. Yes if they encourage people to break laws. Our political opinions do not give us an excuse or pretence to break the law.