Rue

If all Christians were like you Jeffriah I would agree with you I would not be afraid. Truth is there are nut cases claiming to represent all religions and they all in one sense make me vigilant. I am with Atherm on this one. Its just dumb and dumber. Its deliberately provocative and intended to incite anger and so anyone reacting with anger as well as these people intiating it are dumb and dumber. If someone wants to make Moses cookies and eat them or King David cookies and eat them, or Adam Sandler cookies and eat them, please go for it. While I can not speak on behalf of the gay community if you want to make a cookie of Tom Cruise and eat him I am sure they won't mind. I am not sure about the Scientologists though. Since my God is Halle Berry I don't want to make a cookie and eat her. Um no wait. Oh never mind.

O.k. Jean. Yes one type of incest could be pedophile incest while the other if between adults would not be pedophile incest. Where I respectfully disagree with you (and I understand your position is based on the principle of allowing consenting adults free choice) is that I believe it is not possible to come to the decision of incest based on free thought. I believe necessarily incest is connected to a relationship that preceded it becoming sexual and that preceding relationship necessarily because it is familial deals with trust and with trust there is power and this trust and power from the preceding relationship necessarily distorts the ability to make a free choice when it moves to a sexual one. If you are close to someone in your family it is based necessrarily on trust. To cross the line and turn it sexual necessarily alters the trust. Nothing healthy can come from an incestuous relationship because sooner then later issues from the preceding relationship come out and they lead to feelings of guilt, resentment, anger, betrayal. I can not thing of a single instance in societities where incest was not a taboo (i.e., Pacific Island societies) where the incest did not lead to social instability and serious health issues. I agree with you that a forced incestuous relationship is in a different category then a consensual one. True. But I also believe even the consensual ones, while they may not immediately seem to be causing harm, are and in fact may be a cover for repressed feelings or confused feelings unrelated to the actual sexual relationship. I would go so far as to argue that if I have been in any relationship where someone trusted me to give them guidance and they looked up to me and felt safe with me, and then for what-ever reason I choose to turn that relationship into a sexual one, even on consent-the longer I was in a position of trust, the more likely the sexual relationship will break apart with anger and resentment because the love was not based on natural equality but authority. Sex and authority is a lethal mix. It leads to abuse. I do appreciate some believe that what two consenting adults do is their business and for the most part I agree. But I think incest like violence is a reason for society to have a law prohibiting it. Sure I do not doubt an adult may consent to another beating them during sex. It doesn't mean society should remain silent. Certain behaviours have consequences to all of society. No I do nto want to go around preaching morality. I am a corupt bastard. I am in no position to claim what is right. But on this one, I do think we all should say NO, its not acceptable for any of us just like murder is not.

On this one Joan I respectfully disagree but not because of your specific comments but an over-all principle. I believe and I concede its only a personal opinion that these "special" schools to not solve the problem just make it easier to avoid dealing with the problem by simplifying it and throwing a token gesture at it. I personally believe that aboriginal culture and history because it is such a vital part of what Canada's history and origins are about should be taught in our history classes and in a comparitive faith class. In regards to the specific issues dealing with aboriginal children, to me we have to go to the roots, the extreme poverty, the lack of community and recreational services, the health issues but I personally do not want it made easy to isolate such problems and throw a token gesture at them to make people feel good. The cultural issues particular to aboriginal people, i.e., preservation of languages, traditions, customs, laws, yes of course they have specific meaning and problems to aboriginals which may not apply to others, but to me a segregated school just is another reserve. Does anyone really believe a special school for black kids does anything but throw a token symbol at what is perceived to be their weaknesses? Just what does African-centric mean? The last time I looked there was a huge variable range of culturals and beliefs in the black community and people who love these buzz words like African-centric haven't a clue what it means but think if they wear kinte cloth or have dread-locks bam its part of their culture. I often found the people using that word have a very narrow definition of what it means and want all black people to conform to it. I think being proud of one's culture and ethnicity is crucial in developing their self-esteem yes but I think the place and time to develop such pride and awareness is with the family-it starts in the home with your own family and then in the community through community organizations, churches, etc. I think what we see are people trying to replace the vital role of family and community which our society has broken down and places no importance on, with this one size fits all, special school that is supposed to fill the role of family and family pride and heritage, weak community support and facilities and lack of faith. Growing up a Jew in an Irish neighbourhood and going to a British private school in a climate of conflict between English and French I encountered many perspectives, the Christ-killer in the Irish neighbourgood fighting Irish Catholics and Protestants usually at Christmas and Easter and then the rest of the year being the intermediary between them, the Jew in the British school in an era of no other minorities in that school, and in many situations and summer camps and schools where English and French kids squared off and I went to a camps in both cultures. My parent and grandparents escaped the persecution of Europe to Shanghai, China. My other side of the family fled pogroms from Russia. My father like many minorities of his time joined the air force very young. all these perspectives taught me to be very existential and relativistic, i.e., when you feel caught in the twilight zone outside so many dominant cultures, you develop a specific outlook. So I concede a lot of what I say is based on personal experience and if I was born in severe poverty or hatred I may not have grown up so liberalistic. But I do believe from having to stand up and fight everyone but also living with so many different people, that to me I just don't think it would have been right for me to hide in a ghetto and avoid the conflicts I did. I learned a lot of things not just from people who liked me but the people who hated me. I lived on a street with 2 Christian clergymen who were part of the people who taught me to never apologize for who I was and to not hide from conflict and find a way to avoid violence when faced with it. The only aboriginals I knew were Mohawks and they were either in the US Marines or what I liked to call sky walkers because they worked high rise in New York. All I know from them is people called them a lot of hateful names but they made me feel proud of who I was. The black people I knew were like all the minorities I knew, just like me-trying to do well and when people taunted us, to try rise above it. I distinctly remember Martin Luther King coming to our temple and being embraced for everything he stood for. Years later Trudeau did the same thing. He didn't show token gestures. He genuinely showed respect for intelligence no matter where it came from and he showed the same tough guy stuff to all of us no matter who we were if he disagered. I know a lot of WASPS who were anti-semites and yet others who were kind and caring. I used to think all the fights I had after being called a dirty Jew were a bad thing and maybe at the time they were, but it taught me self-respect and that the blood from our noses was the same colour and the fight most times came about because the other side was afraid of me being better then them. So me I never taught my children to stay in the ghetto. I taught them know your heritage but you better know everyone else's. Know your own culture but know others and look for the same themes in them. So me Joan I just don't like this idea. I just think the way to help children underachieving will not come from labeling them as in need of help and then creating a victim centre for them. To me they have to stand their ground right in the environment they encounter the failures and learn to deal with the ignorance and hatred not by avoiding it but by dealing with it head on through sports, art, music, education, community involvement, and by looking within themselves and not to the people they think hate them for their acceptance. I know its corny but I believe that. I do not believe social problems get solved by placing these problems in quarrantine. I do not see diaffected youth as needing quarrantine. I see them needing to stay right in the environment of crisis and dealing with it. How do you ride a horse if you fall off it and then someone says, oh come here-instead of riding that horse, here let's give you a pony. No Sir. If someone tried to simplify me with idiot cultural labels I would spit in their face. To me a black person is first and foremost a human whose failures are human failures if they exist not black ones. Their culture to me is not the real issue-its the behaviour patterns they have adapted. I never met a black person who I thought I could throw a label at like Afro-Canadian just like I never met aboriginals who I would simply label "aboriginals". At least, at the very least I know being aboriginal or black, or anything else, means so many things. I applaud any person after school in cultural centres, community centres or within their families and religious organizations cultivating this component of them but no, using a school to try do all that and water it down into simplistic token gesticulation, no Sir not for me. The ghetto is not for me. I am a bush wolf. I do not belong anywhere. I just follow the moon and keep a step ahead of the two legged ones burning everything.

Beg your pardon. I misunderstood.

The definition of incest used by the conventional medical and psychological communities is sexual intercourse or relations of any form of sexual activity between closely related persons, especially within the nuclear family. So in the above definition the close relationship does not just have to be a blood tie, it could be through adoption as well. For example, a child raped by an adopted father with this therapeutic model is considered to suffer the same emotional and mental and physical injuries as would a blood child. The criminal code deliberately defines incest as occuring between "closely related" individuals precisely because it follows the above concept, i.e., that for their to be incest, it does not have to solely be based on blood lines. In law an adopted child or a biological child are not distinguished. They are considered the same.

Here are the Canadian Criminal code sections for incest. (also to be read in conjunction with sexual assault, s.273, domestic violence, s.264,5, consent, s.153(2) and 3 and the other sections in the code as to general child abuse-all these sections tend to be inter-related) 151 Sexual Interference - Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. 152 Invitation to Sexual Touching - Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. 153(1) Sexual Exploitation - Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who (a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or ( for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. 153(2) Definition of "young person" - In this section, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years. Incest is another form of child sexual abuse. Incest is sexual abuse of a child by an adult that is closely related to the child. 155(1) Incest - Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person. 155(2) Punishment - Every one who commits incest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. 155(4) "brother", "sister" - In this section, "brother" and "sister", respectively, include half-brother and half-sister.

You would go and make an excellent point. Enjoyed it. Not an easy issue.

Truthfully Drea in Tommy Boy's case I do/did because its the Church of Scientology showing that tape as a recruitment tool. Its an image they think is a good one and obviously they think he serves as a positive role model that will encourage others to join. I would imagine the Church of S sees his display as enthusiastic, idealistic and positive otherwise they would not use it as a recruitment tool. To me he looked like he was about to go postal. If I was Katie I would have a trnaquilizer gun and taser on me at all times.

It has nothing to do with Liberalism. That is a misunderstanding of the concept of Liberalism. The last thing liberalism advocates is creating ghettoes. It advocates the exact opposite. What we have here is a classic example of tokenism. Rather then address an issue, a token gesture is created that does not address the issue. Then certain people feel good about themselves and now can rationalize not doing anything about the issue. That is all it is tokenism. So they create a "black" school. What does it achieve? It creates a ghetto. That is all it does. It sends the message to black students to retreat to the ghetto when they think things are not going their way. What kind of b.s. is that? It is predicated on the belief blacks are victims and weak and in need of shelter. It is patronizing and insulting to all black people and all visible minority people who face racism each and every day and do not hide and stand their ground and prevail. That is who it really is insulting to. So now there will be this token ghetto school. Whoopee. Nothing will change. All it will do is spit out some young people unprepared to deal with the real world where its a rainbow of colours, cultures and shades. You want to deal with ignorance- you don't run from it you meet it head on. If you do not stand up to it head on, all you do is run from it and all this sugar coating will not change that fact. This isn't liberalism, this is intellectual laziness and dishonesty. It takes a complex issue and tries to brush it under the carpet to placate what? Who is it placacting? It placates a minority of a minority who want to delegate individual responsibility for their fate onto others. It turns a public school into a private exclusive one. The problem is not skin colour. Its the self-defeating behaviour of a minority of people who want the easy way out. This is an insult to all minorities who bust our butts off to stand our ground and not be bullied. It is of particular insult to the hundreds of thousands of black people who do not see themselves as weak and victims that need shelter but proud independent people who will stand and be counted and have met adversity head on with excellence and dignity. This school will solve nothing. It will be the trend for some young blacks who feel peer pressure to go. Then soon other minority groups will want the same thing. Then what? A school system of specialized ghettoes, one for blacks, one for Sri Lankans, one for Chinese, and so on and son. There's a positive way to build an inclusive community.

Man this Iranian navy post ended up with blaming the US for Hitler. Makes sense. I think Iran is a wonderful role model for Canada and our Canadian Navy should attack the Americans with speed boats to protect the Northern passages. We should also send people with Anne Murray and Celine Dion cd's to the US and strategically plant them bombarding Americans with their songs. You want terrorism, that is how you do it.

Just a point of legal clarification. The government did not act on behalf of the Six Nations. It acted unilaterally and in direct violation of its legal obligation to the Six Nations. It had no legal authority or right to take the land and re-sell it. This is why we have a legal dispute today. In fact the federal government lawyers have conceded as much and what is holding things up is the fact that the aboriginals have a legal right recognized by the Charter, constitution and Supreme Court of Canada as to that land.

Lets go back and clarify the actual legal issues that have resulted in the current issues to then understand how they can be resolved. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized and guaranteed aboriginal rights including land rights. Canadian courts have held this proclamation has the same force as a legal statute that has never been repealed. When federal and provincial governments over the years ignored it they in fact did so illegally as they had no authority to ignore it which they did. Legally it is absurd to think the aboriginal nations will not refer to this proclamation as part of their legal argument in each and every claim they have and the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear it can not pretend this proclamation does not exist and will not. It is this proclamation that defined aboriginal peoples as protected under the Crown’s sovereign powers and it is based on the assumption that aboriginals retain their collective rights to unceded lands in their possession. This proclamation forbid the federal or provincial governments from granting away aboriginal lands and also prohibited settlement on aboriginal laws and both the federal and provincial governments deliberately violated these provisions repeatedly. All these legal violations will not and can not be ignored in any legal resolution. The Constitution Act of 1982 then serves to enshrine the legal concept that aboriginal nations preceded the Canadian federation and the Canadian federation legally inherited signed treaties between the aboriginals and the Crown prior to confederation. That is precisely why S.35 recognizes aboriginal treaties and rights and made a point of clarifying in 35(s) that treaty rights includes rights that exist by way of land claims agreements. S.35(4) states that the constitution only recognizes aboriginal rights which continued in existence on April 17, 1982. It does not recognize aboriginal rights extinguished prior to 1982. Some people feel the constitution did this so that Canada is not obliged to remedy or rectify any of its illegalities, i.e., illegal extinguishing of aboriginal rights prior to 1982. However the more probable explanation of this is a deliberate attempt to keep the constitution neutral and silent as to any extinguished rights prior to 1982 so as to allow them to be further negotiated without the constitution forbidding such negotiation. It does NOT force aboriginals to agree to any illegal extinguished rights prior to 1982 but allows them to consent to give up such rights as part of any future negotiations. Aboriginal rights can not be extinguished unless aboriginals consent to that-you have to go back to 35(3) which clearly states land claims agreements are part of aboriginal rights. All this does is give aboriginals an option when negotiating. Otherwise they would not be allowed by the constitution to negotiate on past illegal actions of the federal government and seek if possible practical resolutions. Under the Charter, while s.15 does guarantee all individuals be treated as equals under the law without discrimination and many posters love to state aboriginals are trying to get extra rights and not be equal, it should be understood s.15(2) clearly states 15(l) does NOT preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged peoples. S.25 goes on to state quite clearly the Charter can not be construed as to take away aboriginal collective or treaty rights and it recognizes the rights and freedoms granted to the aboriginal peoples under the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Which brings us back full circle. This is why when aboriginals negotiate, they have NO legal obligation to deal with any municipal or provincial government as to land rights and it is an exclusively federal matter. This is why when aboriginals seek to discuss their collective rights, all they do is simply go back to the above laws which many of you just want the government to ignore. The fact is legally the federal government and the entire legal system which necessarily means the provincial and municipal courts as well-have to deal with aboriginal land claims as a collective right, not an individual right. In the non aboriginal word we define land rights on an individual basis but our law recognizes aboriginal rights which do not define land rights as individual rights but as collective ones. These aboriginal collective rights have been defined in our courts as meaning traditional harvesting activities, (hunting, fishing, trapping ). There is legal confusion in our courts how to define how aboriginal collective rights in regards to other surface and subsurface resource activities, i.e., mining, oil and natural has extraction. There have been difficulties defining the collective rights of aboriginals to water. Ironically when its ice and frozen the courts seem o.k., have it melt and the courts get confused. Collective aboriginal rights other then with land and resources, i.e., language, culture, religion, preservation and incorporation of customary aboriginal law into criminal law, etc., are actually working themselves through slowly, but they are being resolved to everyone’s agreement. The fact is our legal system is establishing methods that allow aboriginal peoples to live in a parallel culture compatible to the mainstream one which undermines neither culture or legal system in areas other then land and resources. So can it be done with land. Of course. The formula is not complex. We simply go back to the original treaty. We then define how it was breached by the federal and/or provincial government. We then define who now uses the land years later based on the illegal breach. We then define whether it is possible to compensate aboriginals by many methods and no its not always removing the people now on the land. Sometimes it is more beneficial for aboriginals to keep the people there and work out a compensation scheme where a percentage of profit is given to the aboriginal nation entitled to the collective rights as well as an agreement whereby one party can continue to use the land while aboriginals also access it for hunting, etc. That is possible. Its particularly feasible where the land is empty but large mineral companies want to exploit the land. In situations such as Caledonia they would not have arisen in the first place had the provincial and federal governments gotten their act together and not created a situation where non aboriginals depending on their governments invested in activities on the land. In such cases the federal government either has the obligation to compensate these non aboriginals and move then off, or negotiate to allow them to stay with financial compensation and other rights given to the aboriginals and no this will not bankrupt the nation. Compensation includes percentages of future profits which aboriginal nations need for future generations-they do not need the cash all up front. There have been some very creative resolutions which recognize the practical reality of moving people. The point is the solutions have to be negotiated on a case by case basis which the federal government has not done and continues to drag its feet on because it knows it has broken the law and its politicians don’t want to accept responsibility because it won’t get them re-elected. No there is no point blaming aboriginals over the fact our federal government has a legacy of lying, breaching treaties and failing to take responsibility for its actions. No there is no point getting mad at non aboriginals who no fault of their own have invested their life savings in activities relying on their government which said they could. If a finger is to be pointed, point it at the politicians of the past and present. Don’t point it at aboriginals the Canadian Armed Forces that did not ask to be the security front line or those people screwed by Caledonia who are not aboriginal. It comes back to people like me-those idiot lawyers you hate, who have to sit and engage in collaborative legal practice and mediate amicable resolutions.

My Jewishness is something I keep inside. I would feel uncomfortable bragging about it or acting boastful about it. Its something that makes me feel I am imperfect and should have humility and have an obligation to try heal the world and strive to be positive. So I would not go around showing pride-hopefully just a humiluty about it. I am not comfortable with displays of pride. I often find people full of pride actually compensating for not feeling good about themselves. I know pride is important to instill in young people who feel ashamed of themselves or people who have self-esteem issues or negative self-destructive behaviour and self-limiting behaviour but I think that kind of pride is not meant to get such people to feel arrogant, just good about themselves-you have to feel positive about yourself if you want to be healthy I think. But that kind of pride, I like to think of more as positive thinking not this screaming I am great stuff. I know who I am. Its part of me. I must live up to its legacy but it does not mean I goa round thinking I am better then anyone else or feel the need to compete and say I am superior to them-but the exact opposite, it means I should resist arrogance and when I hear people screaming out their pride, just be quiet and smile. Its what we do in our actions, not what we scream out that counts.

As usual you hit it smack dab on the head. That God for the old geezers on this board.

Actually Jefferiah if you read Cyber's stuff he would if when saying they were proud to be black they said hateful things about anyone else. From what I see Cyber (and myself) hate everyone equally when they are being bigoted.

I totally concur with your comments. I think understanding why people discriminate is important and how certain issues are of unique or particular interest to certain groups is important but I have to agree with you and I am not sure if it will ever change. But people like you and me see a human first and so that is what counts and maybe there are many more like us-more then we think. So maybe things are changing and this will become a moot point centuries from now.

I profusely apologize for side-tracking the post. Back to the issue. I just saw the video on My Tube of Tom Cruise. If you haven't seen it watch it. I have know idea what has happened to Tom Cruise other then he seems wound up and ready to snap. If his religious belief in Scientology is a beneficial thing to him as he appears to say, I am just curious why he is wound up and looks like he is ready to explode.

I knew it was only a matter of time AmericanIwillkickyerassifyoudon't watchitWoman. Lol. I have not bitten any American tourists. I came close with a New York Yankees fan though.

I appreciate your comment W-Bill. I appreciate to some of you I sound very naive. Problem is I know quite a few warriors and I know they are honourable people and respect the military and they do what they do based on what they feel is a moral obligation and they do not disrespect Canadian soldiers or the military code and many of them served in the US military and Canadian military and their link to these militaries is well known. Now as for the particular story I will just shaddup W-Bill. I know many people have their own agendas. Its just I do know some honourable people on both sides of the equation and they are both getting equally as screwed by the feds on this iz all I am saying.

Its as much a part of reality as it is for non aboriginals too. That is the point. The fact that this is happening means we need to deal with the neglect that has fermented it precisely so that this cycle of despair can be broken. I am not denying what you say. On the contrary I am saying its the exact reason we have to resolve this problem. Failures should not be an excuse to do nothing. Now I know I sound like a pollyanna to you. I appreciate you haven't told me to f..off. I actually take what you say seriously I just come to a different conclusion about its signigicance.I will shadd up now.

While Joan and Charter I deserve the wet blanket I still believe this does not reflect on the military. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes. Now I will shaddup I am just making matters worse when I am trying to assure a genuine soldier he has nothing but respect from me just as I respect you and Charter. I think you are all honourable. These things you talk of are not. The depraved hyena who giggles at you over it is another story.

Sorry to hear that. I did not know that.

Lol I am cliche but your welfare stereotype? What'z that? I am dead serious. When you get a chance why don't you check out some of the joint ventures between mining companies and aboriginals where aboriginal rights are being properly recognized and honoured and incorporated into the project activities. There is nothing cliche about protecting the environment and engaging in sustainable activities and fairly compensating people. By the way your stereotype applies equally to non aboriginals so the point? You suggesting only aboriginals have babies outside marriage? The last time I looked there were a lot of bastards running around in Canada but I am not so sure they are aboriginal.

I enjoyed reading both Char and Wild Bill's comments on these issues. My heart is with you Char but Wild Bill is just tired and wants to know who will be paying for dinner cause he's already cashed out. I'll get back to both of you on that after I have dinner with Steve. (hopefully Steve pays cuz he looks like he eats a lot)

The Supreme Court of Canada agrees with you so I would say the only issue now is how do we create a solution that properly acknpowledges and provides restitution for the breaches and enables a relationship in the future that is mutually beneficial. I think certain nations have in fact demonstrated they have been able to come up with some very progressive resolutions that fairly compensate and recognize aboriginal rights but allow aboriginals and non aboriginals to work in joint ventures. I think this is possible. I think as well because so much of Canada is about mineral rights and we have been so careless in selling those rights away to China and Japan and the US and been ridiculously short sighted on the environmental damage our extracting processes have caused-we have to understand the aboriginal component is not just about assuring aboriginal rights-it helps us assure we engage in practices that are harmonious with the rules of nature. Those mineral companies working with aboriginals in mutually beneficial agreements have not had their profit harmed in engaging in environmentally safe practices the aboriginal peoples were able to teach them how to incorporate into their extracting activities. The knowledge aboriginals have as to harmonious environmental practices are invaluable and ironically unlike some of the posters on this forum, these companies are deliberately turning to aboriginals for their knowledge. That to me is the way of the future. This is why I keep stating aboriginals whether some believe it or not represent the future not just the past.