Rue

Lol yah I also know black people that refer to themselves as n..ggers but thanks I will pass on the word for the same reason. And no you may not call me my Hebrew brutha. I save that for Billy Crystal when we run into each other at Cannes.

Why anyone would piss off a man chopping meat is beyond me. That pisses me off how stupid that is. Actually for me its Bell Canada. I defy anyone to try deal with them. Its impossible. Also I hate all gasoline stations and car manufacturers and spam, huge people sitting next to me on airplanes or babies on airplanes or someone who insists on standing in the airplane and shoving their buttox in my face or anything to do with Air Canada who are rude pricks. I also hate Mats Sundin, Maple Leafs fans after hockey games because they walk around like zombies from the night of the living dead and Tyra Banks who has a head like a pencil eraser and makes me puke. I also hate Paula Abdul and Kati Couric and the guy who got fat on law and order because he always talks with his head sideways which is stupid. I also can not stand it when David Caruso must start every friggin show of his on one knee asking Frank what do we have hear when he knows its a f..cking dead body because he has been doing the same tv show and script for how many f..king years. Also curling. That is a dumb sport. I also hate diet coke or diet pepsi. Either give me sugar and let me die from diabetes or stop with that fake metallic crap they put in it. Also I hate Burger King French fries. I ate them once. They taste like toe nails. I hate the Mandarin restaurant and their stupid racist ads with a guy from Tibet they try pose as Chinese and have him wear a yamacha with a pony tail.. All it does is serve people MSG and watch them hyperventilate from it. I also hate anything made in China. Anything. Hate it all. I also hate and I use the word hate in regards to cold coffee. It takes like spit. I am done.

Because he has not gone over the line. Its not easy drawing that line. There's a fine line between things we find unacceptable and censoring freedom of speech. It comes down to a judgement call sometimes. I may not agree with where the line is drawn sometimes, but I respect how difficult it is to draw the line and our emotions sometimes cloud our ability to draw that line. I would prefer to debate someone whenever possible then censor them. I appreciate that sometimes it becomes impossible to allow words to continue because the words become too abusive and can only incite hurtful words back. How to keep people on track is the tough exercise. I do not envy the moderators on this task. As for you moderators, shut up. You are wrong. I always wanted to say that.

I apreciate the idealism behind your notion and respect your idealism but I am afraid the practical reality Wild Bill talks of is pretty much my reaction-not because I disagree with your intent, but because of the concern it just may not be realistic. I think this notion we can be all things to all people by tinkering and bringing in people that we think may agree with us to challenge other people we don't agree with is impractical.For starters the law does not favour one group over the other. Secondly it reminds me of what humans do when they meddle. We bring in a bug to kill a bug. Problem is it over-produces and has no natural predator that eats it and instead of rectifying a problem causes another problem. Sometimes we think we are solving a problem but all we do is create another. The solution is dealing with all Canadians here and now not indirectly hiding behind people we bring in to try confront those people we disagree with but won't say we disagree with them. To me its a passive aggerssive exercise of manipulation because we won't deal directly with an issue. Seems to me if someone wants to practice ANY belief that violates criminal laws or abuses women, we don't need to import anyone. We just say its not acceptable and all agree to that. Pure and simple. That's why we have a criminal code because we don't stone people or marry 4 women. Its not racist. Its just certain standards we abide by. You don't agree with them, suffer the consequences. Some things are just not negotiable. No its not acceptable to marry more then one women. No you can't stone people. You want to wear a wood knit cap, be my guest. You want to grow a beard without a mustache, be my guest-just don't tell me marrying 4 women is your right. Why? Because I draw a line at some things. For example, you want to have sex with a child-then you are a criminal. Call me crazy but I believe certain things are obvious. As well I think any man with a beard should be arrested. They are up to no good the whole lot of them. Also women with beards. I am not sexist.

I am going to respond to Who's Doing What's comments; "Nativer feel they own and are entitled to the entire country. Pathetic. " No what is pathetic is you make no effort to find out what the basis of their legal claims are to understand them or make an effort to understand they don't feel they "own" the entire country or land. If you don't make an effort to understand just what it is they believe and just what it is their legal claims are based on, you will continue to make the above statement which does nothing but reflect your own ignorance. " BS. I have heard the natives talk about the "whiteman" so don't give me any of your garbage." The only B.S. is you trying to suggest you know what all aboriginals think and feel and you can then generalize as to all of their opinions and thoughts, and then lecture others to engage in the same generalizations you engage in. From your first comment it is evident you have never spoken to an aboriginal in your life. I doubt you heard anything. Even if you did "hear" just what did you hear and what makes you think that gives you the right to assume all aboriginals think and feel the exact same way as what you think you "heard"? "ANd yes, it is "White-man" technology, if you are so upset about our society then go and live in a bloody tipi and hunt with your bow and arrow." Now you lower yourself to ignorant bigoted slurs. Once again you have no clue what aboriginals speak about and engage in racist stereotypes based on what-pathetic hollywood movies, the extent of your exposure to the subject you think you speak of. Chances are from the words you use, there are very many aboriginals far superior to you in many things and not just technology. " Quit sucking tax dollars out of my pocket and then tell me how terrible this country is to you. " Do you even work? I doubt it. You sound like yet another unemployed, marginalized person who blames others for your lack of success. You also painfully demonstrate you have no idea where your tax money actually goes-but somehow I doubt you pay taxes in the first place. Do you? " Hmmmm.... programs which are put in place on the reserves." Again you show your ignorance as to what is actually on reserves. Programs? What programs? Care to share what these programs are? "Employees who are there to service natives, and budgets which spend all their money on only native innitiatives." Again you engage in simplistic stereotyping and generalization as to what the federal Ministry of Indian Affairs actually does. You evidence you haven't a clue what it does otherwise you would not make the above comments. More to the point, explain to us all why the government doesn't service you and in fact more then it does any aboriginal. Are you capable of grasping what how money is collected through revenue and what it is spent on? "Education grants no one esle is entitled to. Tax free status. C'mon, wake up. " Woe is me. Aboriginals get things you think you want. Isn't that the whole point of all your comments-its not fair, aboriginals have things you want but don't have. Now that is pathetic. You have no idea what it is aboriginals actually have for if you did you would not whine like some spoiled child who thinks the child next to him has more cookies. "The laws are not equal. A native can fish and hunt when I would get arrested. How the hell is that equal?" You make a statement, then give an example that contradicts your statement, then ask a question that you would not need to ask if you made an effort to read and understand what it is you talk about before you come on this post to engage in racial slurs against natives. Laws are neither equal or unequal. They are inanimate. The issue is, how do we apply laws fairly. What you are oblivious to is the f act that the legal rights that entitle aboriginals to access to land to hunt and fish preceded confederation and were inherited by the legal system in Canada and are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and enshrined in all our laws and simply recognize not anything extra or special, just existing laws we always agreed to. "See you yourself call them "pre-existing rights". If they had rights before everyoneelse, how is that equality?" Why don't you try make an effort to find out how that equalizes things. Have you a clue what we did after 1867? Have you any clue of how we took hundreds of thousands of aboriginals and forced them against their will off their land and took that land illegally and to this day owe them compensation for it but won't compensate them? Have you any clue as to the number of agreements were entered into then deliberately violated? Have you any clue as to the treaties we signed and then broke? How is asking us to honour aboriginals as equals as we promised in our treaties asking to be treated unequally? Sound logical to you? If I entered into a contract with you and then breached it and you sued me to enforce it, how would you feel if I then said, its not fair you are asking the contract be enforced, that makes you more equal then me. What kind of bullshit reasoning is that? "They are a group of militants who are using violent occupation to further a political agenda." Is is possible for someone who engages in negative racist slurs to not use the word "they'? How about you. What would you say if I referred to you as a "they" and stated all white people are racist and ignorant because of what you say? "Call BS all you want, doesn't change the fact it is true." You have not provided one fact to base your comments. That is a fact. "I have heard first hand details of natives blocking access to a reserve during a police pursuit." Again you seem to base all your beliefs on what you hear. So how does anyone know what you heard or if you even heard anything? Do you hear voices in your head or just one aboriginal voice? Do you drink when you hear these things? Unless you have seen it with your own eyes, all you do is engage in unsubstantiated gossip. You are no better then some giggly teenager speculating on what so and so said about so and so. At least teenagers make no pretenses as to the fact that they engage in trash talk. "I talked to one of the guys in the car being chased. The cops stopped at the edge of the reserve and would not enter." Well then you have it all figured out. You are a real field reporter. How do you know there was a pursuit? Did you see it? Did you speak to the police? How do we know you even spoke to anyone in any car? What I can tell you is your story makes zero sense. If someone was committing a crime, t hey don't magically become saved as soon as they go into a reservation. That sounds like something you have invented based on your misconception of how criminal law and federal law pertaining to aboriginals on reservations works. You stated. "Really? So the lawsuit my acquaintance has been telling me about for years, that he is spearheading, is just a figment of his imagination." Yes it is. "Aquaintance"? Is that anything like the good friend who always serves as a source for the information in the National Inquirer for the inside scoop on Britanny Spear's sexual practices? For anyone who wants to deal with reality and not your slurred racist remarks they can go to http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/brintro.htm to get specific responses to each and every point the above person stated to find out why he is absolutely wrong in everything he has stated and in my personal opinion sounds like he has made it up based on the amount of beer he drank before he wrote it.

I would concede Equality Rights can ignite or I suppose the better word is incite disputes as much as its designed to resolve them. I must concede that point. I also concede your classic position as to culture not necessarily flowing from language. In fact you have stated your side of the cultural assimilation position very clearly and logically and so I have not debated with your points because I concede they are legitimate points you are making to counter the ones I would make on the other side and I actually enjoy it when you debate logically. I learn from it. But for me Leafless I believe it all depends on moderation. I believe your points are relevant if we go to extreme with multi-culturalism. Being extremely tolerant of course can morph into intolerance. I think the beauty of our laws is that they give us the potential to not be extreme and remain moderate. I tend to look at the middle point in all this ideology-not too much interference by government, not too little-just the right amount needed to keep us on track and not colliding into one another. The challenge is in defining this Canadian identity. We know what the aboriginal one is. We know what the British and French ones are. I am not sure though what we are doing with the remaining component of others. I do think however that whether we like it or not, the aboriginal context of a collective of collectives was embraced in our 1967 Canadian identity when we deliberately chose to have a nation of nations. Did that condemn us to perpetual civil war or dysfunction Leafless? Some say yes. I say it has set the stage for a continuous and evolving process of identity formation and yes maybe some of it is dysfunctional but surely isome of it is also functional. I believe the aboriginal collective concept of nationhood meshes well with the British parliamentary system. The aboriginal world may be a collective of nations but its cultures from these many nations-well some survive and some face extinction and maybe that is all that is happening with the rest of us-some of our traditions are being swallowed up and made extinct by global realities. I mean Leafless if the world continues, is it not reasonable to believe all of North America becomes one nation? Are we not now? Is the stuff we call cultural autonomy just a pacifying illusion used to control us through divide and conquer?

You guys are hilarious. It also explains my clogged arteries and liver failure.

Actually it may not be the case. See on one level that is what you hear and what many would like you to believe. But there is another level of political reality. It is the one where young Muslims are influenced by Coke and Nike, and Rap Music and American concepts of democracy and its not going away and it perculates in their universities and in the underground. For example there are many Iranians who do not hate America or its culture. They can't exactly say that out loud at the moment for obvious reasons. This concept where all Muslims uniformly hate Americans is too simplistlc. The world is not that easy to divide into black and whites. Do not underestimate the power of satellite radio, television, the web, and people travelling and sending money back home. Its not all American evil being sent back through these avenues. A lot of it is positive. Coke is not just about dental decay. It symbolizes something else that is infiltrating Eastern culture and causing turmoil and the older generation trying to resist Western culture but how long do you think that can go on. The reason why it now has to be maintained by terror and secret police in these countries is precisely because its not popular. If Muslim countries did not have oppressive police forces and armies and brutal regimes, you think half of what you see would be going on? I say this from speaking with Muslims who came to Canada to get away from such shit. They are not all screaming anti-Americans nor do they hate me because I am Jewish. They are just shmucks like me trying to make a living in peace.

That is precisely the point. If the US was such a Borg empire, it wouldn't be paying out the wazoo for its oil. If the US is evil then so are the rest of us for the exact same reasons.

Agreed Topaz about the US, but so has Russia, China, France, etc. Your point? If it was just the US I might have a different response. To me there are so many nations interfering with others for their own political needs I must ask, why is it when the US does it, its different and requires a different standard? Its just a question out there Topaz and not necessarily directed at you. I may be on the other side of the debate with you but I concede your comments above. They are fact, up to a point. Its not every country-just those the US felt strategically necessary to involve itself with the same reason China, Russia and everyone else does-to advance self-interests. Is it wrong? Imagine a world with no country interfering with another. Is that possible?

I think the best way to deal with freedom of expression disputes is openly outside government involvement when possible.

Lol-he called you pretty. Needs glasses. You pretty? Oy. On a more serious note, I personally believe no one will say anything concrete about Sudan, because of course China takes 95% of its oil and China has enough economic clout now to shut everyone up whether it be about Tibet or Sudan. Its a travesty the genocide in Sudan can continue.

No you do not have the right to prosecute someone in Canada for denying the holocaust. You are wrong. Prosecutre refers to a criminal code proceeding. It is not a criminal act to deny the holocaust. It might be a criminal act to use any words in a context to encourage others to engage in an assault or battery, property vandalism or other criminal consequence. Just stating something contraversial does not make it criminal. Criminal law requires the Crown to show there was a deliberate intent to commit a crime or assist in the committing of a crime and that is why the criminal code is very rarely used in hate crimes prosecutions. More to the point someone denying the holocaust and someone drawing a political cartoon are NOT the same thing at all. One is a denial of a fact that may offend some, the other an act of political expression that does not deny a fact, but also may offend some. Even more to the point, this is not about allowing people to censor others because they don't agree with them. The point Levant was making as a Canadian citizen and NOT A JEW is that censoring anyone's political views, including Nazis or racists, may not be the appropriate way to do it. That was the point. You reduce it to the feelings of some Muslims. Its not about feelings. The law is about maintaining a set of rules that can not acknowledge one group's feelings at the expense of another's but has to walk a fine line and try allow everyone the same right to express feelings. As a Jew I do not think censoring Nazis through a Human Rights Commission is the way to do it. I don't think censoring them is the way to do it at all. In the case of Jim Keegstra teaching holocaust denial in schools, yes that had to be stopped because its not appropriate in a school. If he wanted to preach that crap outside school it would be a different story. With Ernst Zundel, he disseminated hate messages on the telephone through his answering machine, and on the inter-net which made it federal jurisdiction. The feds stepped in reluctantly because it was shown he was also involved inciting physical attacks against persons, vandalizing property and engaging in criminal activities and the encouraging of criminal activities and technically he was not a citizen of Canada and so was violating Immigration laws. The on-going legal case against the aboriginal chief in Saskatchewan in my opinion as a lawyer was deliberately anti-semitic but he did not encourage people to commit a crime, he just stated ignorance and hatred. The best way to deal with that is to openly challenge him and call him out on it. Its not a criminal matter. It would be a criminal matter if he had said at the end of his speech go out and beat up Jews. Its a fine line. Some people believe his words automatically can be inferred to say that. The problem is, what if in another case we are wrong with the inference? if we can use presumed inferences to prove a crime, that becomes subjective and for a law to work it can not be subjective it must remain objective and not based on emotional reaction but logical reasoning. My attitude is if you can't handle a political cartoon don't read it and openly debate it. When Levant produced these cartoons it was in a clear context of challenging freedom of speech and the human rights tribunals and was not done to encourage hatred. If some idiot newspaper wants to produce anti-semite cartoons, and many have over Israel, then I have the choice to debate them openly and write editorials to the paper and hell go out on the street with a placard and have a tantrum and ask people to not buy the paper. That is how freedom works. This isn't even about Muslims and their religion as far as I am concerned. That cartoon could have been about any one. The principles remain the same regardless. My comments are made in general and not specifically to the poster I am responding to-I am just talking rhetorically. I respect the poster's opinion.

Just hut up Buffy. No I was joking Buffy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!All kidding aside, Shady some of us can be a bit biting. But in regards to the need to put down Americans, I think you will find it a human tendency to assign negative attributes to many perceived groups during political discussions. Stereotyping is unfortunately very much a common human tendency and its often done in my opinion by trendy leftists as much as it is done by what we think are more typical bigots. As for Buffy, she is a dirty commie anyways. I am joking Buffy. Uniting people is quite something. Ever seen cats in heat? I believe the anology is the same with humans.

XUL I totally disagree with your opinions on Tibet and will debate you very strongly on them, but you are not a liar. You are honest and argue your opinions as honestly as you can. I disagree with you but I respect you. You are not a liar. You say exactly what you think.

Leafless you know I am on the other side of this debate. However I most certainly notice in this set of posts, you made a point to present your views without being disparaging to other cultures. In so doing I think it makes you credible. Just because I disgree with you does not mean I can not hear and respect your opinion and I can precisely because you chose this time to avoid anything disparaging. I think whatever side of the arguement we are on, we all know, that for any nation including Canada to exist, we must have some sort of common unified vision. That I think we all agree on. So just what is that common vision? Me personally I believe 1/4 of it is aboriginal, 1/4 Frenh, 1/4 Anglo-Saxon British, and the other 1/4 a mix of all kinds of things raning from Sikh, Chinese, Jewish, Irish, Italian, etc., etc. I think the identity is emerging slowly. I think it is a mistake to think the Canadian identity is not already Aboriginal-English-French. The three may clash and collide, but they have managed to co-exist in our nation and willl be the backbone of our vision which then can enable that remaining 1/4 other ingredients to mix in. Leafless I do not disagree with you in the sense that a country can't be build if people do not assimilate to some sort of degree. To think we can all come to a country and not be unified and remain islated from one another does not build a nation if that is your point. All my point is assimilation can happen in a healthy, gradual manner although again I am sure we all agree no there are just certain values we can not compromise on, and either we all agree to follow them or being a citizen is not possible, i.e.., this notion you can be a Canadian citizen but ignore those laws you don't like, to me is bullshit. I also think this notion you are a Canadian citizen but are more loyal to another nation first, is also bullshit. That is just me personally. If someone asks me as a Jew, would you choose Canada or Israel, the answer without hesitation is Canada. If I can't say that, then with due respect to me, I should not live here. I would think most minorities like me feel the same way regardless of our other ethnic or cultural or religious beliefs. We put Canada first, and so in that respect, Leafless there is no disagreement. Where the real discussion is-or debate, is in how we assimilate. I for one believe the British parliamentary system is a necessary ingredient of this nation tokeep it glued together. I personally would not be interested in an American style democratic electoral process. As for religions, I personally believe they should be seperated from the state apperatus or school apperatus. I believe all social institutions should remain neutral to all religions. However that said, on a purely one on one level, I think it is absurd trying to get rid of Christmas references or freaking out over the Lord's prayer or people who put mayonaisse on bagels. I strongly believe however all Canadians should be taught Gary Gettman is evil and is a demon.

XUL you stated: "I don't think those mobs in Tibet were "general" killing people. They did these for political "reason", didn't they? Biologists can compare a man with a dog for both of them have two eyes, one mouth and four limbs, etc. And some men such as terrorists might attack innocent people to relieve their anger like a mad dog." I think the greatest tragedy is that you come from a civilization that offered us Lao Tsu, Confucius, Taoist doctrine, and yet yor education prevented you from leaning it and simply brought you up to believe the government dictates, and everyone must obey and so you have no clue between the difference in freedom of expression and terrorism as reflected in your above comments. Lao Tsu stated; " a mad man has no sense to be able to understand his pain, an angry man does..". COnfucious stated, " an oppressive man things uses anger as both a pretense and an excuse..an oppressed man expresses anger without pretense or excuse..". A mad dog XUL, acts out not to relieve itself of anything-the action is involuntary. In your analogy you suggest the dog is mad yet is rational and so lashes out to relief anger. No XUL a genuinely mad dog isn't angry, it simply manifests involuntary actions. It's not angry. Its brain is possessed by a virus or bacteria, tumour, or is having a seizure or malfunction. What you do is project your subjective opinions that since you disagree with others opinions, those others since they don't agree with you are insane. No they are not. They simply disagree with you. They are angry because you disrespect them and send in your army and secret police to insult their traditions, control their beliefs and physical movement, beat up and disrespect their learned elders and flood their country with your people in a deliberate exercise of ethnic cleansing. Terrorism? Just where is it? Show me the suicide bombers, the missiles being shot into your country, the people disguised as civilians going into your country and killing innocent civilians....it doesn't exist and you know it. Your attempts to suggest political disagreement of Tibetans expressed openly is terrorism is bullshit, pure bullshit and you know it. It is not the same. Terrorism is when humans choose deliberately to use violence as a method to express political opinion. That violence is not just marching and talking out loud and protesting, it goes the next step and includes killing innocent people. Tibetans have not ever engaged in any terror campaigns. Was their vandalism of property inappropriate, yes. Technically property vandalism is wrong just as assaulting anyone is wrong. But there is a huge difference between throwing yak meat through a window and engaging in suicide bombings and your attempt to equate the two as one and the same is not credible. May I respectfully suggest you duck if someone throws Yak meat at your head and as COnfucius said; " A wise man knows which bedroom he belongs in if he wishes to remain free of projectiles." You might want to go back and read some of your philosophers your regime censors from the masses.

This is in response to XUL; 1.You sttaed; " I have never remembered any western politicians had ever pressed Israel to "talk" to Arafat just several days after Hamas mobs killed tens of Israeli civilians in the street." Could it be you have a selective memory? Where have you been. The European Union and for that matter the United Nations have continuously since terrorism began in the Middle East blamed it on Israel and Israel's refusal to negotiate with terrorists and to this day continue to do so. Your selective memory of what the Eiropean Union and United Nations have been saying NOT TO MENTION China and the Soviety Union, sorry its hard to fathom. 2. You stated: :Its fanny to find the similarity between Arafat and Dalai Lama." You again show a remarkable lack of cresdibility with due respect. Here let's try help you out a bit. The Dalai Lama has never stated violence is an acceptable means of political exprfession. The Dalai Lama unlike Arafat did not create his original power base smuggling heroin and hash-hish through Afghanistan and Iran through Lerbanon and Syria to Marseille, France, then making deals with the French government to bank his money in France and have the French look the other way as the heroin went on to New York City. The Dalai never called on his people to wipe out all Chinese across the world and take over China like Arafat did with Jews, and the state of Israel. The Dalai Lama didn't state to the Western Press one thing and to his own people something else. When the Dalai Lama settled in India he did not try overthrow the Indian government or use it as a base for terror operations. 3.You stated; "Arafat alleged he disagreed Hamas' way to attact Israeli civilians..." No, Arafat stated on numerous occassions that attacking civilians was a legitimate means of achieving political will. There are thousands of speeches and manifestoes he issued where he stated this. Where you have been is anyone's guess. 4. You stated; " Dalai lama alleged he disagreed violence, but he also refused to renunciate with his tribal mob "protesters". Now one has to wonder if you are just selective with your memory or deliebrately disineguine. Just four days agaon the Dalai Lama denounced violence by his people and stated he would resign if the violence contined. Where you were I do not know. More to the point you seem like the Chinese government to be unable to tell the difference between people protesting in the streets and expressing their political desire for independence with terrorism. You equate protests by people in the streets with Hamas missile attacks or suicide bomb attacks. Then again from what I can hear the Chinese government which you are obviously a shrill for, considers any expression of democracy and difference of opinion, terrorist and routinely tortures, and kills people for such displays. You think we all do not know the millions of were mass killed by Mao Tse Tung and the millions who have been continuously killed, tortured and left to die in your prisons not because of violence or terro9r but simply because they dared question Chinese goovernment policies in the open with words and peaceful demonstrations. 5. You stated; " Let's eliminate those political "writers' " nonsense, both from China government and some Western organizations.." Excuse me in this country we are democratic and try not to murder or journalists...its called freedom of speech... 6. You stated; "Though I agree everyone have the rights to express his willing of independence on peaceful way"... now isn't that interesting since you just finished stating you want to eliminate people you disagree with. 7.You stated; "even if he is a lama who lives a in a temple in Canada and he thinks his temple have rights to independent because most lamas lived in this temple want independence for they disgust Canadian politician's anti-kids-brain-manipulating law " Hmmm, you are the same person that just stated you think people have the right to their opinion but now refer to our laws which protect freedom of expression as " anti-kids brain manipulating laws".... hey now there's a concept our Charter of Rights is anti-kinds brain manipulation. 8. You stated; "and they are the majority residents in the temple's yard and they have different "cultrue" in this yard. but I also agree Canadian government have the rights to act against his temple to be a country except the majority of Canadian agree this temple being a country.." Try this on. In Canada we don't go into people's temples and tell them to stop praying. So how long you worked for the Chinese government in Canada? Do you even carry the little Red Book anymore or has that been replaced my a manual on predatory economic pricing and marketing strategies? Hey XUL the lead paint toys, tire exporting, anti-freeze in the toothpaste, exploding extension cords, come on man, you want us to be your allies and cruss the Tibetans with you, at least have the decency when you flood our markets to sell us things that don't give us cancer and go boom. Me I am now boycotting anything made in China until you behave.

Drea give me a second. I think you would find most Jewish people probably would agree with you, that telling you not to ask questions about the holocaust is stupid, dumb, what-ever...how else can anyone learn if they do not ask. That point you are making which I know is what you are saying, surely we all agree with. But that is not really the issue we are talking about. Questioning what happened is a good thing. But questioning what happened is different then someone who isn't questioning but in fact playing semantic games, word games to couch the fact he is denying. You Drea are a direct person. You don't mince your words. But some do. Someone like you will say, hey I have questions, I want some answers. However soem others, aren't really asking questions. They seek to take something that happened and deny it for a political agenda. Hey Drea no I don't want to go down that slippery rope of censoring people particularly people we think are deliberately being hateful. Look how hard it is when the moderators have to do it on this forum. But here is what I am getting at and I believe its what others on this set of posts and White Door are getting at. You want to question-question-but if you want to deny something or say it aint so, then you have to do more then simply deny and demand others prove...you have to make an effort to find out what it is you are talking about. Now those laws about the holocaust Drea are not what many think they are. The laws in Germany and France, and you really have to read them, and see how they are applied in their courts-they are actually not used because someone asks questions the holocaust. They are used in exceptional circumstances when someone is engaging in deliberate, provocative denial in a context designed to incite hatred against Jews or Romanoes. The closest analogy I can think of is how the moderators on this post have to decide when to let something go and when to stop it. Its a very fine line. That is why Germany and France have such laws. In both countries race hate mongers have used the holocaust as a pretense to engage in race riots. They are not questioning how the holocaust happened, they deny it ever happened and they go further and call Jews liars which means all the people who died because of Nazis also didn't die. In Canada, the U.S. and Britain as well as Australia and New Zealand, our laws on hate have not been used to punish people for questioning about the holocaust. They have been rarely invoked when the holocaust was being denied. The two most famous cases are the Jim Keegstra case in New Brunswick where a teacher taught his students the holocaust was a lie and the Ernst Zundel case. In the Keegstra case, he violated the school curriculum and openly made hateful comments that incited high school students to call Jews liars. I was there. I saw it first hand as a law student. In the case of Zundel, his web-site and group of people engaged in vandalism, assault and batteries, drug selling and their words on their answering machine messages and on the web-site contained numerous references to Jews being liars. So it wasn't a matter of questioning what happened and not just denying the holocaust but using the denial one step further to incite violence. Surely we all have to work to answer anyone's question on the holocaust or steer them to an information web site, if they want to genuinely find out as well as Darfur, the Ukrainian mass murders, Holikidor) the Armenian genocide, etc. we have to learn about them all if we are to stop them from happening again. Its also not an accident you often get military men who answer holocaust deniers. They may not be Jewish but it is no different to them then when we deny what they went through. They know when someone is jerking memories around and trying to make a fool out of others sufferings. Its like denying what they had to go through. War Vets are no different then holocaust survivors or other genocide survivors. They suffer the exact same problems. I had an Uncle who was a psychiatrist in the US Army that liberated a camp. I also met American and British soldiers who were there. As a Jew I had relatives who lived in it but it meant something when ex-soldiers explained it-these were men trained to follow a code of honour and were genuinely humiliated by their role as liberators. Their humility as to what happened that is the most powerful history lesson there is. They don't even say much. It's just the tear in their eye or the lack of words. They had to see hell in the war in one sense, and then this other hell which explained why they went through their hell. It is an awful lot to ask anyone to try understand. It of course overwhelmed them and they were never the same, ever, justa s every war vet is never the same-they literally lose part of their soul-a chunk of it is taken out. Steven Spielberg created a living testament by survivors precisely so when people question it, they have somewhere to go to. Drea anyone can go to the Spielberg site or visit the holocaust museum in Washington or visit many other sites to find out what happened. Lol Drea this is not about you or anyone else wanting questioning things, its about how some NOT ALL have no interest at all in questioning and are only interested in making a statement. I never met anyone from the holocaust who claims to fully understand it or know what went on. So many of their questions will never be answered. So don't get me wrong Drea, I learned from them when we stop asking, it may mean if we weer not the victims we no longer care and hopefully if we are the victims we have learned to let it go.

Unlike some others WildBill, I listen very carefully to your criticisms because you base them on what you have seen. Is it any different though then what non aboriginal contractors do to procure contracts? Lol. We both know what is done and said to procure contracts. I think the stuff you are talking about actually would not be a problem for someone like you to deal with. It wouldn't take long for someone doing business with you to know you don't f..ck around and what you say is what you mean. People like you end up shaking anyone's hand and having a beer-its just a matter of time. People like you are not the problem. The crap you are talking about is as a result of crap good people whether aboriginal or non aboriginal both agree is bullshit. Direct, blunt, in your face, say it like it is people, are not what is causing this problem. Yah I have sat at tables with people slipping and sliding-you know exactly what happens WildB-they play their games, but eventually no one will work with them-whether they be native or non native for the exact same reasons. Again call me naive, but I think you might find the reaction you would get in negotiations far differen then others. Sincere people transcend this shit and there are still business men you can shake hands with and their word means something-I know many and no amount of lawyers or politicians can change that.

Once again Keng engages in sweeping negative generalized slurs this time, "because their own countries are stink-holes that have corrupt tyrannical governments..." As far as I am concerned anyone who has to go through life engaging in the above has zero I repeat zero credibility. Not only has Keng professed he is capable of defining all individuals as inferior who do not follow his personal beliefs, but now he writes off entire nations-stink holes...so which one of you would like to tell me he is a good Christian again? Sound like someone about to become a missionary and travel to a "stink hole" to save the smelly from the corupt tyrants? Or does it sound simply like someone who hates and likes to throw out insults to make himself feel superior to others?

The legal system in Canada, including our Charter and constitutional doctrine both written and unwritten guarantee this. When Canada was created in 1867, it expressly recognized the aboriginal nations as a collective of nations who had pre-existing legal rights the nation inherited. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed this and so has the Charter of Rights. Its a legal given. It operates parallael and equal to the federal government and no provincial or municipal government operates directly with it or is at its level. In regards to someone claiming its corupt, etc., sure its easy to be racist and call aboriginals corupt and suggest they can't run a government but this usually is the kind of comment from people who conveniently ignore their own legacy and the fact that there non aboriginal governments have been more corupt or screwed up or immoral then any one they can point to in the aboriginal councils. The last time I looked aboriginal councils were not ordering their people to order en masse allnon aboriginals into open air confinements forcefully kidnap their children and try assimilate them or engage in war. Instead of getting opinions on it, go travel to a reservation and speak with the people who live there. Better still go talk to someone aboriginal. That is the only way you can really understand what it means. You want to understand them, go talk to them. They are great teachers if you want to learn from them.

I bet you Army Guy people would be quite suprised if we were able to list all the times the US Armed Forces has engaged in rescue operations for Canadians or vice versa. I totally forgot about Winnipeg until you mentioned it. I remember as a kid on the Quebec Vermont border, US reserves working with Quebec provincial police and Vermont State police, etc. looking for a lost kid. I guess we forget just how many stories like this there are. We only remember guys in uniform during a crisis I guess....human nature? But then that is another issue.

I understand your point. I know you are not trying to justify terrorism and simply say there is a cause and effect relationship between terrorism and foreign policies. Its actually basic counter-intelligence theory. When I debate that no terrorism is ever justified, I appreciate that is debated in a different context to the one you are now stating. In the context I raise it, I mean morally justified. In the context you raise it, which is far different, it is a basic one of understanding how perceptions to political policies can lead to terrorist reactions. I wish their was a way we could just talk to each other and not trigger all this violence. I also understand in the context you intended it when you might say the US or Canada has it coming it DID NOT MEAN Canada or the US deserves it coming and you are not morally justify any terrorist responses. If you had written with the words, " its reasonable to assume certain foreign policies may trigger terrorist reactions" it would have not been misunderstood. You are talking about a difficult intelligence concept-risk probability and prediction of particular responses to particular stimuli. Funny when intelligence people or risk analysts talk about it, they tend to use more math, so they don't get misunderstood like you have been. I actually thought you did a good job trying to state it the way you did carefully clarifying you were not talking about moral justification of terror. I guess you just can't win on some these threads but I appreciate you raised a tough topic.

With due respect Scrib and you know I respect you and its a minor disagreement because I know what you meant, in my opinion Canada was not founded on any Judeo values at all. In fact the Canada you refer to of 1867 was founded on Anglican and Catholic traditions which I believe then discriminated against the founding peoples of Canada and their faith-the aboriginal peoples and for many years discriminated against non Christians other then aboriginals as well as gays, atheists and agnostics. Judaism's mystic traditions in the Kabal are very similiar to many of the belief systems of the aboriginal collective. We certainly do not believe in conversion nor would we consider aboriginals or non Jews heathen. If anything pure Jewish tradition would consider the aboriginal peoples to be spiritual elders to look to for understanding of the creation and creator. A shayman and a mystical Jew would have much in common. This country was for many years one of institutionalized discrimination and prejudice done in the name of Jesus Christ and its precisely the kind of world Keng wants back and that was simply the purpose of his original post and what Drea responded to. That said Scrib, It was because of enlightened Christians as well as non Christians we are now able to change tintolerance. Many Christians taught me to be tolerant precisely because they rejected the intolerance in their own religion as not being Christian. What I know about Drea is he may not believe in religion as many define it but he is as spiritual and tolerant as they come. People mistake believing in God with automatically being spiritual or tolerant. All you have to do is read Keng's posts to know believing in God and professing you are righteous doesn't make it so and in fact often establishes the opposite as is the case with Keng who time and time again shows disrespect to anyone for having views he does not agree with. Drea's posts time and time again have shown tolerance and an open mind to those he disagrees with. I have no idea how we get to the point where someone as tolerant as Drea has to justify himself for his comment. Thanks but if I have a choice its Drea living next door. At least when he has a bonfire, he won't burn a cross and will share his marshmellows which may not be kosher but what the hell.