Rue

Goes back to what Leafless referred to. If you do not establish sovereignty by not allowing others passage and restricting their movement, under international law you may lose it forever. Technically under international law, if you do not demonstrate uninterupted control over your lands, the part of the lands you do not demonstrate uniterupted control over are up for grabs. We can legally argue that we have never willingingly abandon our land up north and the fact we do not have a huge military is not germaine. As long as we can argue one Inuit has lived up North continuously we have a solid arguement. The second part of the above is contesting disputed land. Even if we can establish we have uniterupted sovereign rights to the North- we can also be deemed to have given them up if it can be shown we did not protect them and contest them when challenged by others. Our silence is legal precedent that can be used against us to say we have given up our rights. The Americans know legally they will lose an international legal ruling after a very lengthy protracted battle. In the interim what they hope to do is pressure Canada into allowing them unimpeded access to all the North in return for them not pursuing it further. The Americans know they can't establish exclusive sovereignty for themselves and if they win their arguement against Canada then all their competitors have the same rights as them. That is the last thing they want. What they want is for all the other competitors to be shut out because of Canadian soveriegnty and then have an exclusive relationship with Canada giving them the only other country other then Canada access to the North. We are the least of the US's problem. Believe it or not Russia, China, Denmark, France, Norway and Britain are more of a problem to them right now then us. For Canada to protect its sovereignty it has to physically show control-it doesn't have to be anything huge but continuous navy movement in all seasons, and some civilian presence moving about at all times. Don't look now but Canada is in desperate need for its Inuit peoples to protect it up North. So imagine that. Canada needs its aboriginals to survive. Hey now. That is ironic. I myself would create a more pronounced mobile operations unit of Inuit Rangers and some RCMP and military forces patrolling the land, seas and air, combining its services for the Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Environment. I would deputize these personnel to enforce all three Ministry's laws and regulations as well as the criminal code and avoid overlapping jurisdictions working in duplication or cross purposes to one another. In this manner we employ Inuit in meaningful work where they protect the earth and provide a valuable component to the police-military-environmental protection, fisheries and natural resources functions. When establishing sovereignty an Inuit in a uniform on a kayak with a Canadian flag is just as valuable as a huge frigate or destroyer or jet fighter. As it is now the only way Canada knows what goes on in terms of the Royal Navy, US Navy and Russian Navy which regularly make a point of continually invading our Northern waters and travelling through them on purpose is through reports from Inuit hunters. Oh Canada, we do not stand on guard for thee at the moment until we figure away to give back what we stole and apologize to those people we lied to and figure a way to get them to help us. So which oen of you is calling Charter, Jennie or Joan and saying sorry...uh yah. I will not hold my breath. I have to them. It wasn't so bad. They said " that's nice" but until I get some more people to help remove the proverbial boot out of their collective bum bum while I mean well its hard for them to smile let alone stop standing up for their rights given the geometric positio of that boot. So I say let's pull out the boot, givem them some disinfectant creams and help them heal then form an alliance real quick before all of the North melts and we find all kinds of Chinese, Americans, Ruskies and Lord knows who else turning out North into another garbage dump like they have in Antartica.

Lol no. Very predictable but in this case for the first time I find Keng's response without beligerence and hatred and clearly stated without simply repeating his own hateful feelings. Now as for this ridiculous notion that engaging in a simplistic arguement that aboriginals did not "come to America " first can be used to justify their mistreatment, etc., is laughable. Many believe we all originate from Africa others somewhere in Persia and then spread out. How does that matter? The fact is aboriginals clearly migrated from the Mongolian planes and came across the ice from Russia and preceded the Spanish, Anglos and French. It's not rocket science. You want to get into a technical arguement as to whether some of us are caucasian, mongoloid or negroid be my guest. Those three racial sets are not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive. The fact is the dna within the three groups is no more then the same as it is with the other groups. The fact is we are all apes with 97% of our dna the same as a chimpanzees. All we are is apes that stand up-right and have lost fur and exhibit a unique form of behaviour-killing for the sake of killing. While our violence is no different then a chimp's our propensity to kill simply for the sake of killing makes us unique from all other sapiens and life forms on the planet. Some of us apes lived in places prior to others and history is replete with examples one pack of apes trying to fight another pack of apes for territory when there was plenty of room for everyone. That is what we do-kill for the sake of killing not out of necessity. Some of us apes still think when we gesticulate, jump up and down and bare our fangs in an effort to scare other apes away that this is intelligent discussion. No its pre-programmed genetic predisposition to showing anger and hostility. Now please excuse me I have to go eat fleas from my co-worker's hair. (I prefer grapefruit to bananas)

Oh Leafless you stated in regards to Jews some generalizations we do need to discuss; You stated; " Yes, and under their own conditions and thriving in an atmosphere of a segregated community away from the larger common culture with customs that greatly help personal careers." Actually if you did a balanced investigation into the history of Jews you would find Jews did not prosper in ghettos at all and in fact died out from disease or slaughter because their concentration caused disease or easy targets to wipe out and it was the ones that left the ghetto that survived and were able to send money back to those trapped in the ghetto and constantly kept moving and resisted bogging themselves down in ghettoes that survived. I am alive precisely for that reason. The disaspora Jews is what keeps Israel alive today and the Israeli state will tell you it could not survive unless there were Jews willing to support it who will not live in Israel. For that matter all ethnic groups and races and any life form that stagnates with in-breeding and/or staying in one location soon becomes extinct. One need only look to life forms to see which ones died out first-the ones with very specific diets who could only live in a specific environment. Jewish history proves the exact opposite of what you say. You stated; " Like many other cultures Jews have a bias preventing personal association with members of another culture.' No Leafless. First of all you generalize on behalf of all Jews. I would concede ultra-orthodox Jews, i.e., Hasidic Jews or orthodox Jews might, certainly not other Jews. In fact many Jews have a bias against each other more then they do non Jews. Its a lot more complex then you generalize it as. If you are talking about the fundamentalist Jewish movements, I absolutely agree with you and I have a funning feeling that is all you really meant/ You stated; "This is the problem with multiculturalism in general as it encourages a bias against groups that segregate themselves and disassociate themselves from the larger common culture of the general population and even minority cultures." I agree with you it can if its taken to its extreme. But I can make the exact same arguement about uni-culturalism for the exact same reason. The key is balance and moderation between one extreme and the other. You stated; "We have these serious problems and biases between cultures of other countries." I can say to you Leafless honestly I have had very intense debates with my fellow Jews who believe it is acceptable to distrust non Jews and think they are better Jews if they only stay with their own people. But then I know people of every colour, religion, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender preference, who have said the same to me about their groups. You stated and herein lies the paradox; "Why would we foolish enough to create these same conditions within a country with a single common culture with the inevitable result of destroying our primary culture?" Do you not see the paradox. If you genuinely believe a primary culture means all others should be subordinate to it are you not in fact creating a cultural ghetto, the very ghetto you criticized Jews for? I know you are convinced the "English/British" culture is the primary one all others should defer to. Personally the only genuine primary culture I know of in Canada is the aboriginal one, and it is not in their culture the last time I looked to want to exterminate me provided I don't try kill them or ignore their spiritual codes. Not so much to ask and in fact their holistic culture has made it easier for me to reconcile myself with Judaism which is also a holistic one but was side-tracked by schools of thought similiar to those in Christianity and now Islam, which turned spiritual holistic concepts into simplistic rigid inflexible doctrines. I again would argue, Canadian culture is first and foremost aboriginal, then Anglo and Franco, then a constantly changing mix of many other cultures and one can balance them all-one can remain on one level connected to their ethnicity and culture, while on another level a Canadian. I do not see things as rigid and delineated. I see culture or religion as fluid and able to take on infinite shape not just one mold. Its why I believe aboriginals are quite capable of maintaining their world while interacting with all of us in another. They don't have the problem with being flexible and fluid and seeing all things as forming a greater whole. It has been or Western doctrine that seems to have gone off on a tagent and fixated itself to materialist values that make things very rigid and inflexible. No I can respect the role of British law and culture in the creation of Canada, but it doesn't mean I have to consider any other subordinate to it or endangering it or vice versa. That is the only true point of contention between us and it is actually a minor one. We would both concede without certain laws we must all follow-it all becomes a moot point and we would descend into civil war and kill ourselves.

So to summarize; 1. size does not count 2. yes it does 3. men are horny pigs 4. women of all colours realize this. There that was easy.

Respectfully no. In its most common usage its used to refer to people who could claim deep heritage and history in the province BUT you have to go one step furtehr because the " pure laine " or " de souche" in fact refers to Quebecers, whose ancestors thread back to the first first French-speaking colonists who came to Quebec so you are part right. But why its racist is because it necessarily refers to blood ties to the first French colonialists. Now mind you its used in many different ways. Some use it today to describe anyone born in Quebec who believes Quebec should be independent, others believe it applies to only people born in Quebec who live there and speak French and are seperatist, others believe you have to be born there, speak French and have white skin, others like I said you have to be descended to the first French colonialists, but then it goes even further back from that as you can hear pure laine argue between themselves that some of their ancestors are Spanish or yegad Irish or English or from Belgium, and true pure laine must be traced to specific regions of France. So with due respect it most certainly has to do with blood lines back to the French of France and the first colonialists. It necessarily means white or caucasian people from France. Its a couched racist word and its why any French speaking non white is not considered pure laine and precisely why I tell such people to fuck me but in French of course. I am Canadian.

I think I know what you mean but we should clarify. As a caucasian in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada you could technically file a race complaint if you thought you could prove racism based on your caucasianism. In regards to your English language rights in Quebec as an Anglo-phone ( of any race or gender or gender preference) I would 100% agree with you. Interestingly our federal and provinvial laws have avoided defining Quebecers as a race but as a collective cultural group with French laguage commonality. While certain Quebec seperatists and/or nationalists have attempted to turn it into a race issue using the term "Purelaines" suggesting specific caucasian blood lines from France that concept has not been pushed when either the Quebec governments of seperatist or nationalist movements have challenged federality in the courts. They know better. It would violate the Charter and be unenforceable which is precisely why they couch their agenda and who they consider Quebecois and legal references to Quebecois define it as a collective cultural and/or linguistic phenomena. Race in Canada in the past has been used as a concept to define and discriminate against aboriginals, blacks, Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs) and Jews and now visible minorities, but race as an actual legal precept is defined in a context of discrimination against someone because of perceived physical characteristics to make it equally apply to people with visible disabilities, gender preference, obesity. Its become a fluid concept more dependent on perceived visible characteristics since its hard to define many people's races since they are mixed. Pretty much the same has happened in the states with its civil rights decisions. The simplistic black v.s. white concept of race has completely changed due to the world shrinking and the movement of so many different types of peoples not to mention the courts finally figuring out that the aboriginal collective is far more complex then defining it as a physical skin colour. As for Jews being a race which has always been an on-gong debate, what we are really talking about is someone's physical characteristics perceived to be Jewish by the disriminator. Like Muslims or Caucasians, etc., Jews may or may not look visibly distinct. In fact often the discrimination comes from their name not what they look like. Likewise with Muslims or anyone else. Quebecois in many peoples' minds means white Quebecois but interestingly the Levesque wing of the seperatist movement did not want it defined by race, just shared interest in French culture and language as being the primary ones in need of state protection. Rene Levesque was a seperatist but far from a racist and much of his experience was shaped as a world war two journalist who witnessed the holocaust first hand. He was anything but a racist. Lucien Bouchard who followed him also felt this way. Jacques Parizzeau of the other wing of the PQ was an out and out racist who continually used the word Purelaines, made openly anti-immigrant and anti-semitic concepts and made it clear he felt anyone who was not Purelaines was not a real Quebecer. Racism in Quebec has always been around as part of a legacy picked up from France's attitude towards non whites which they mimmicked and the Catholic Church helped promulgate which could be seen during World War Two when many prominent Quebec nationalists and the Catholic church openly supported Mussolini (couching their support for Hitler through Mussolini).

I would respectfullly disagree and would argue the American understanding of minority issues other then language is not any different. The constitution does entrench the right to French and English as official languages, but from a practical point of view all it means is where numebrs warrant it, there should be French and English schools. I would argue we legally have embraced embraced pretty much the same values JBG has stated other then with language. That vision of minority rights other then language has been used as legal precedents as US constitutional provisions for such issues are very similiar in wording to ours and so are actually helpful since British law does not have a specific constitution and is found in a range of statutes, case law precedent and unwritten protocol which is not helpful when trying to create rules of interpretation. Many legal reasons in the United States, particularly those of Felix Frankfurter have been used in Canada and you can see their influence in many decisions one of our leading constitutional Judges Bora Laskin when he formulated decisions. U.S. Supreme Court decisions from Thurgood Marshall can be seen referred to in certain constitutional decisions. The model proposed by Martin Luther King for social harmony is precisely the basis for our human rights codes. Much of the wording comes as a direct result of legal doctrine he helped create. Believe it or not another source for some of our concepts as to human rights comes from Ralph Nader and consumer rights legislation he initiated in the US which then were borrowed in the civil rights and human rights arenas, particularly in terms of defining public accountability, consistency in public standards, and ethical practices when dealing with the public. Our approach to multi-cultural policy "on the ground" is very different then the US one which emphasizes America first and what-ever else you are second while in Canada our policy has been you can be what-ever you are and that is considered Canadian. But this difference approach is not a legal one just a practical one. It is often assumed to be a legal one but when you read our constitutional decisions carefully, while multi-culturalism is encouraged and guaranteed none of our decisions say it supercedes federal power or the overall need for laws that will take precedent over such policies. All our cultural rights, even our language rights and race rights, are all subject to an over-ride clause that says the best interests of the nation as a whole comes first. So legally we are not different then the US, its just our practical application outside the legal arena and in the political arena may be different. This issue of specialized schools for designated groups is not a constitutional issue. It is clearly within the mandate of each province's education laws. It does not violate any federal laws or impede on federal law so its technically not unconstitutional. It is technically possible a parent of a child in a group who feels they should have their own special school and does not have one, could initiate a human rights complaint saying the creation of special schools for only some groups and not others discriminates and we could have a human rights litigation issue. That technically would not be a constitutional issue as no one is disputing the jurisdiction of the law just its contents. It might be a Charter issue but even then I doubt it since Charter rights are not absolute and if there is discrimination as a result of practical financial limitations of a government as to what it can do, Judges are not going to define that as discrimination just legitimate limitations as to what services can be provided.

http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm The above is an interesting article on genetically engineered food and suspected links to cancer, allergies, etc. Oy I am depressing.

If anyone is interested in what Melanie is getting at you can go to; http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemi...nical%20effects Here is a portion right on point to what she said; Nicotine in any form may be harmful to the fetus. Exposure to nicotine during the last trimester has been associated with a decrease in breathing movements. These effects may be the result of decreased placental perfusion caused by nicotine. One miscarriage during nicotine therapy has been reported. Studies of pregnant rhesus monkeys have shown that maternal nicotine administration produced acidosis, hypoxia and hypercarbia in the fetus. Nicotine has been shown to be teratogenic in mice treated cutaneously with 25 mg/kg, which is approximately 300 times the human oral dose. Studies in rats and monkeys have not demonstrated a teratogenic effect of nicotine in newborn which occur during cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is associated with impaired fetal growth and development. Breast feeding Nicotine passes freely into the breast milk in small quantities, which are not clinically significant, averaging 91ppb in one study. Heavy smoking (20-30 cigarettes per day) may alter the supply of milk and cause nausea and vomiting in the infant.

Lol. I would suspect Margrace and Melanie are fully aware men are apes ( even when we put the toilet seat down ).

Nicotine in many ways is a much harder addiction to treat then heroin believe it or not. The physical withdrawal is real that is not imagined. For some it literally paralyzes them and they can not function. I also share your concern about all this genetic manipulation.Lord knows what we are spawning.

Actually many would argue its the last thing you want since this "experience" you talk about is in fact corupted thought. Prostitutes can be very experienced at their craft but they still are prostitutes. All the experience does is give them more skin lesions.

Fine then. I was hoping for a state visit. I mean geez. Nick just married Ms. Bruni. I wanted to spice things up. Imagine Paris on the international circuit. Lindsay Lohan could be her Vice President and Brittany could be State Secretary and head of Manic Affairs (the replacement for Homeland Security). Listen I head rumours Celine Dion was running for office. Imagine her as Prime Minister. Personaly I think the most qualified would be Brent Butt. He's a genius.

Sorry for the tongue in cheek. I couldn't resist. But imagine. We have a man who truly is a symbol of reconciliation not in what he says but what he is, and people are worried about that? I don't get it. Not to mention he is one intelligent son of a bitch. Does that not count?

I have enjoyed the people on both sides of this debate. Its been one of the better ones I think with some very valid points on both sides discussed. I do wish to repsond to Hydra a bit. Hydra its precisely because of what you raise I just have this gut feeling that this is a racist solution to racism. We have to teach Aboriginal, British and French history as integral components of history and geography of Canada annd from a perspective of the aboriginal one preceding the other two and how the three have conflicted but our nation was designed supposedly to prevent conflict between the 3 and achieve a harmony and on-going place for the three to work out their conflicts and accommodate other cultures that would come along. I have always felt that and a comparative faith class teaching all religions are very practical, rudamentary givens to deal with racism and ignorance, that andetaching kids from different cultures to work together, i.e., in sports, art, music and other learning activities. I always have felt specific specialized cultural or religious education after that is up to the families after school and their ethnic communities. For me in the specific ase of aboriginals I see the issue as trying to find a way to address how our policies have directly destroyed their families and communities and how the two need to be restored for their communities to break the cycles of social despair. For other communities sure we need to have strong communities but we can't just build fragmented ghettoes we need to use such communities to builder a greater vision and not prevent us from developing that greater vision. I have nothing against multi-culturalism but it should not be confused with using it as an excuse not to build a greater collective vision called Canada. The aboriginal component, the British and French (and their Catholic and Protestant) components are reality not something to repress or ignore. They are what we are and when our other communities join them, we should not use any one experience to put down any other, and the entire combination creates Canada and but only if we put Canada first. This still allows the aboriginal dimension to thrive on its parallel level of existence and it allows the Anglo-French traditions to serve as a glue for all the other contributions. Nation building is about taking the fragmentation and building a greater whole and that ironically is an aboriginal concept-the concept that identity is holistic and collective, not just isolated and individual. Sure on one level I want all kids to be proud of who they are. Yes I know if you do not feel good about yourself you don't do well. I understand that. I just don't know though if that is what school is for. That feeling good about oneself has to also come from parents, communities, religions, cultures and I am not sure the schools can or should do that precisely because of the implication Hydra raises.

As a lawyer I find this very worrisome. To start with the delay lends to the appearance it was deliberate so that the police could get off. Whether that is true or not we do not know but the appearance is there. Secondly, there is just too much periphreal evidence, not specific to any one police officer but still indicating serious systemic issues in accountability. All your questions or the cynicism expressed by the other posters is the necessary and inevitable reaction of the public. The police have a special fiduciary duty to honour the very laws they are sworn to uphold and quite frankly this looks very bad. No I will not smeer or slur police officers and suggest they are all corupt, ignorant, sadistic, etc. That is ignorance. That stereotypes and assigns negative generalizations to an entire group because of the putrid actions of a few. On the other hand, this needs to be cleaned up and for that to happen an outside investigation needs to be conducted. What I suspect is there are many levels of alleged coruption. One is just outright coruption with the police officer on the take-pure and simple. How prevalent that is no one knows because of the very nature of the blue curtain and how hard it is to penetrate and the price a police officer would pay to go undercover and try expose it. Then there is another kind of coruption. In this one, the police officer breaks the law to enforce it. He sells drugs to make money to pay informants to go after big fish. The cop makes his money off off heroin addicts who will rob people anyways and this way they are kept controlled and serve as low level informants. I do not doubt their is planting of evidence to frame certain people who would otherwise get off. There is a very grey area of police enforcement where police will do what they have to do to get someone off the street but its usually with someone known to them and a repeat offender not a first timer. I am not sure what to say to the public. On the one hand its wrong to break the law for any reason and if we break it enforcing it, we become the very criminals we are sworn to protect society from. But there is this twilight zone this grey area where theory and reality do not meet and where obeying the law in fact enables it to be broken. It renders the moral landscape very confused and many a good cop gets caught trying to navigate their way through it. Me personally I believe methadone clinics should be instituted to give heroin addicts an alternative. I am a strong believer in therapeutic jurisprudence where non violent offenders are pulled from the main criminal system on their consent and agree to rehabilitation and alternative measures such as work projects and house arrest because they are treated for what they are drug addicts who resort to petty crime. The big time crime syndicates, well who is kidding who. They can afford the best lawyers, the best accountants and the best politicians and banks as their cover. They run entire countries and their political connections traverse the world and all governments. In this case, there is the obvious appearance of coruption and it will only get worse unless its lanced and drained and to do that there needs to be an inquiry and very thorough outside investigation not limited by special interest groups and politicians.

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, ( so was Bette Midler) to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas who then divorced when he was 2. His mother then re-married to Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim from Indonesia and when Obama was 6 , his family relocated to Indonesia. Obama went to school in Jakarta. Insight magazin claimed he went to a Wahabi madrassa in Jakarta but CNN claims it did an investigation and found he never went to a Whabi madrassa just a private school which had a lot of Muslim students. He also went to a Catholic school for 2 years. Obama joined Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ prior to his political career and claims he considers himself a black Christian. I would say the rumours or inferences he is a Muslim are pure bullshit. What his back-ground shows is he is someone who was brought up to understand both Islam and Christianity. Now imagine that. Someone who can bridge the misunderstanding between the Islamic world and Christian world and the black and white worlds. Right. Now who would suggest such a thing in this day and age to try resolve the friction between the Islamic and Western world. The point is if anything what he offers is an asset. If I didn't know any better I would say he is a cultivated CIA agent deliebrately designed for the task. The real question I need to know is this-is he circumsized. Also what I need to know is does this mean he does not eat pork? Oy gevalt. The man has curly hair and the same middle name as you know who and this is what upsets people? I would be more concerned as to whether Mr. Huckabee who made a point of calling him a Muslim repeatedly will get his teeth fixed and help Chuck Norris get a job. As for the Clinton camp which in the last month has raised the temp with strategically planted suggestions to democrats that he is only concerned about blacks (to Latinos) and is a Muslim (to Jews and Christians) I would suggest they concentrate on Hilary's involvement in the real estate scandal that led to someone's "suicide" and her own scandals. It would appear McCain's camp was the only Republican one that steered clear of the Muslim inneuendoes and even John Edwards before he dropped out was using code words he was the only white male candidate. I hate politics. It reduces everyone to a racist/gender stereotype. I think Americans should vote for Paris Hilton. She could do a world tour and screw everyone. In that sense her foreign policy would remain consistent with George's its just she would leave more smiling faces (and herpes) behind.

Prime Minister Jack Layton. Deputy Prime Minister Olivia Chow. Oy.

Charter you stated; "There is no such thing as a "Canadian view"... Maybe that is the problem Charter. Maybe its time we develop one-and how do youy develop one if you teach Canadians its acceptable to be fragmented? Canadian history is part aboriginal, part British, part French in terms of learning our roots. Then the fourth component is the constantly changing dynamic after these 3 components coming from all other cultures, i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Sikh, Irish, Ukrainian, Dukhabor, Jewish, Greek, Italian, East European, African, West Indian, South American and so on. When you talk "Afri" culture what does that mean? We have the black perspective of blacks who escaped slavery and settled in the Niagra Valley, and of course in Halifax and Yarmouth, and other Canadian sites you think calling such black Canadians Afri means the same as calling someone from Africa that? It could refer to the Caribbean migrants who came from the West Indies. It could mean Africans whose cultures are not the same at all including Nigerian, Kenyan, South African, Somali, Ghana, on and on. I mean does anyone really think you can take the diverse cultures of black peoples and slap an Afri label to them and poof they all have one culture? I would argue that "Afri" is in fact a code word for black kids at Jane and Finch in Toronto. Let's stop pretending what it means. Pretending it is culturel is bull shit. Its all about race. Its all about black kids at Jane and Finch.. Its not about African or black children anywhere else. Its not about black kids descended from the people whoe escaped slavery. Its about kids at Jane and Finch and most of them were BORN in Canada-they are Canadian with black skin. Their problems are Canadian. It has nothing to do with lack of being Afri. Someone is trying to play feel good good politics to avoid reality. The reality is these kids in trouble at Jane and Finch who the code word Afri really describes, have no Afri problems, i.e., homes with single parents and absent fathers and multiple extended families, little if any community services, no after school programming and no role models and a vicious cycle of unemployment precisely because kids from these environments can not read, write, add and sutract and control their anger and deal with authority. It has nothing to do with a lack of Afri culture and everything to do with the above in Canada. Reading, writing, math, anger control and respect for authority are not Afri. They are universal life skills all cultures equally define as the ones to cultivate. Teaching kids to dance or their culture means nothing if they can not become vital members of society because they have no positive role models, proper diet, and after school programs channeling their energy into positive endevours that teach them to work together with people of other cultures. Schools are designed to provide a common ground for all. They are a time and a place to share experience not exclude it. Excluding inclusivity is necessarily ignorant. Intelligence is about being flexible and taking on many experiences, not blocking out experiences and allowing only one. That is what a lazy, ignorant mind does. It makes the complex simple, it turns a meddly of colours into one tone of black. With due respect I have yet to hear someone define what Afri means other then the subjective tokenism of the person who expresses it based on their own beleifs. Let's stop couching what this is. Afri is a stereotype based on the notion that black kids at Jane and Finch can be labelled Afri and placed in a school where poof they will have no problems if there teachers throw token gestures at them. Those token gestures are meaningless if these children have to go back into the real world unable to read, write, spell, add, subtract and control their tempers. The time and place for specialized culture is after school not during school. It belongs with parents, role models, community leaders and members, community organizations and therein lies the problem. The people who should be parents, role models, community leaders and members of community organizations and churches, etc., will not do so-they look to the school to quick fix their own lack of involvement.

I agree with Leaflless' comment.

Absolutely! I mean the most blatant example with alcohol is fetal alcohol syndrome, but yes you can have much more subtle problems other then fetal alcohol syndrome and holy cow Melanie if people knew just how pervasive nicotine is as a chemical and how it can devestate the development of an embryo at any stage of development-they would never smoke. Also this thing about sugar. Refined sugar, i.e., bleached sugar, salt, msg, many other additives we put in food including food colouring, steroids, etc., of course they are all toxic and directly effect mood and behaviour. I have read some very clear well researched effects on how poor diet during pregnancy and during the first 5 years of a child's life does permanent brain damage that can not be repaired let alone in later life lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc. You know this talk of allergies? Why does it seem so prevalent? I would suspect much of what we call allergies are in fact immune defficiencies caused from compromise to the immunity system by these chemicals and pollutants as well as the shrinking ozone shield in the atomosphere. I mean do you need to be a genius to figure out children with asthma are more likely to be found in industrialized cities? Remember lead paint? There were specific studies that showed how lead from peeling paint was damaging children. This brings us back to what many modern psychiatrists will say. Contrary to what many think, they do not always suspect its a bad mother or father. Modern psychiatry is working much more closely with neurology and genetic medicine because so much of what we see today manifested as a psychiatric or psychological problem may be in fact directly related to a genetic one or one acquired from the environment and causing physical damage to the brain. I also read an interesting stufy that caffeine is another drug we take for granted that has major implications in regards to the development of the brain and should not be consumed by pregnant mothers. I also spent much time studying the effects of child neglect during a baby's first 6 months to 3 years of existence. You may have heard from what happened with Romanian babies being taken from state orphanages, but babies who are not held, talked to, sung to, interacted with and are left alone with no stimulation miss a very narrow window of opportunity to develop certain parts of the brain that will be needed to govern emotions, social interaction. At first psychiatrists thought this simply was emotional damage but through mri's and cat scans they found actual physical development of the brain did not occur and you can't get that back years later so many of these abandon or neglected children have a forum of autism like behaviour. As for autism, while some studies have been pretty much able to suggest one kind is a mutated gene, it does not explain the huge increase in the last twenty years suggesting its environmentally linked and I would suspect is as a result of the embryo during a particular stage of development having a certain growth component of its brain being compromised from something the mother is being exposed to. Man whatever happened to cherishing the sanctity of life, i.e., the woman's body? What chance to children have if our women's bodies are exposed to so much crap. I mean as we speak how many pregnant ladies do you know sitting in front of computers?

I do not think its up to Canada to tell the U.S. or any nation what to do with their citizens if the crime was committed in their countries. But then you see the debate going on now. Do we send Afghani terrrorists back to their own prisons? I myself do not like the idea of presuming to tell other nations what to do. I would prefer if we want to enforce or advocate universal values we do so through international treaties and convince other countries to sign those treaties and we achieve our understandings through these treaties.

I do not speak for Dancer but I would say for myself, in my personbal opinion yes I could equate race and faith as being synonomous. Religion, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender preference, race. physical status )(disability) all are fundamentally concepts that come from having or not having faith. For me while this school is designed for blacks the way alternative schools in the past were designed for gay students, or aboriginals, is techncially not based on religion but on "special needs". The problem is this. Fundamentally if you say black people have special needs, then how can you say other groups don't? I myself would differentiate the aboriginal issue from this as I believe its different because it is culture that preceded Canada and should have been properly honoured and never was. Its a different situation and no one claimed the aboriginal school was anything but symbolic and I still do not believe the way to address the problems with aboriginals or any other group is by "specialization" because other then aboriginals, it sets the precedent that anyone should be entitled to special treatment. I put it this way. Do we say to disabled children-you know what its too difficult to build ramps and extra wide doorways, we are just going to build one big disabled school and put you all there. Would anyone agree with that? Look I am o.k. if someone says this black school is not meant to be a solution just one testing ground for techniques that will then be brought back to the mainstream school system-but I do not see it as a solution. I say the same thing about alternative schools for gay students. I understand why they were created. But that is not a solution it only delays the problem and helps avoid it. The ignorance won't go away because you take the targets of hatred and warehouse them. All you do is encourage bigots to be bigots because they see the pragmatic results-when they bully people, the schoolboard won't confront them, it will just shuffle off their targets. I actuall dig what Oleg said in the sense that people who hate are the only ones we are helping when all is said and done. I want my children in school with blacks, and aboriginals and gays and everyone else. I want them to learn to live with these people and learn from these people. I am more concerned that when Oleg's child is being beaten up, we call it for what it is-violence and not give it fancy words and make excuses for it but say what it is-violence which comes from children not being taught respect for each other and property because they have not learned it at home or in their communities. Africentric? Talk about buzz words. Does anyone really know what that means? I heard some alleged intellects say it means when kids have lunch they sit in a circle and they are taught to respect their elders. That to me sounds like something all cultures should be equally teaching their children. Stop this bullshitting around and couching what the real problem is-children without faith-children who do not believe in themselves because the environment they grow up in is nothing but compromised in terms of faith values. Basics like reading, writing, math, physical health and hygiene, respect for others-these are the things all children need and no children who are taught when they hate others or have no respect for others they are victims or need special treatment is bull. Respect comes from being direct and honest and when people are rude and violent, calling them on it and holding them accountable for the behaviour and disciplining them with programs and measures that teach them why there are consequences. I say it again, take me back to the bully threatening me, and have me stand in front of him and force us both to see it through without violence.

I have to say Oleg you are an original, a genuine original. I never know where your reasoning will take you but it does get you there.