Rue

I hear you and appreciate your comments above.

buffy you ask; "Why the laws for specifically 'denial' (definition please) of the 'Holocaust'?" If you refer specifically to the law in Germany, 1- because it happened and to deny it happened is painful to the memory of Jews and non jews in Germany who suffered and still live in Germany and must live their remaining days in a country that constantly reminds them of it; 2-because to deny it makes it easier to do it again; 3-because to deny it, will fuel the sentiment of those seeking a new agenda against the next targetted group, which in the case of Germany would probably be either its 3 million Muslims or its visible minorities from Africa. Do you ask this Buffy because you really do not know or because what you are really doing is stating in a back-handed way you think people should be able to deny the holocaust? You started off misrepresenting the German law saying they do not permit asking about the holocaust and questioning what happened. Now when called upon that, you not I changed the subject with a denial as to your original point I challenged, and raise a new issue, should the holocaust be denied. Germany is not Canada. The impact of such comments has a different and more direct physical and mental health consequence then where you live and where you take for granted you can say anything and everyone should be able to do the same. Me personally Buffy, I know the only hope to preventing a holocaust again is to challenge people like you openly on public forums not censor you. However even in Canada if you engage in denial of the holocaust as part of a series of communications intended to incite hatred and intolerance, yes the criminal code and provincial and federal human rights code provide similiar protections in their laws as does this German Law and no freedom of speech in the Charter of Rights is not absolute. If you cry fire in a crowded theatre and people die as a result and there was no fire, yes there is both criminal and civil culpability. Words Buffy can be as dangerous and as wounding as any weapon and I think you know that. "I think, what bothers some is the overwhelming focus on the terrible fate of Jews under the Hitler regime, often left out are others - despite what YOU have to say." Nothing I stated denied or rejected the concept that some are concerned that they feel left out of the holocaust. You again change the subject. Your original comments suggested JEWS were only concerned with their own memories and have excluded others. I carefully showed you with fullsome documentation and I state it again, no Jew teaching the holocaust ignores the suffering of non Jews that perished side by side with them. It is an integral part of remembering the holocaust. More to the point Buffy, when Jews are involved in outreach programs as to the holocaust its used not in isolation but as part of a greater education process about racism and intolerance and these curriculums make a point to relate it to other genocides such as the Armanian one, the Stalin mass genocide of Ukrainians, Darfur, Rwanda and Burundi, the killing fields of Kampuchea, etc. Its precisely why the state of Israel took in 3,000 Albanian Muslim refugees during the Yugoslav civil war while also remembering the Serbians were one of the few East European peoples who fought side by side with them against Nazi collaborators. Its what makes it so difficult for Jews to balance remembering Ukrainians who have died in genocide with those Ukrainians who participated with Nazis in autrocities against them as well. Its not black and white and no Jews do not use the holocaust to feel superior to others. You stated; "Now and again an article will include that the progroms included 'others' and name a few - like the Roma and Homosexuals - but usually it's only the one group. " Come on Buffy. Read the above. Its silly. You are now generalizing and claiming you are an expert on holocaust literature and can make the above evaluation. What you say is absurd. You are not in the position to make such a sweeping generalization and if you really are serious Buffy and challenged yourself to push through your preconceived resistance and conviction I am wrong and you are right and simply surf the sites I gave you you would know what you are saying is just not true. Or better still why don't you ask Romanoes and Gays how Jews have discussed the holocaust with them and shared their experiences. See what is sad Buffy is that for many Romanoes and Gays or 7th Day Adventists or Jehova's Witnesses, is that they feel what we Jews do and depend on us to remember them because they know people like you when you try down-play the holocaust and use it to depict Jews as selfish about the holocaust make it easier to write off the holocaust and dismiss what happened to these people as well. No Buffy your subjective attempt at trying to create an image of Jews ignoring these others to try drive a wedge and get these others to resent Jews who remember the holocaust is sad and ridiculous with due respect and its not proving anything Buffy other then you have some agenda now to try use the holocaust as a way to criticize Jews collectively for how they remember it. You stated; "Yet, within history many other groups have been genocided in equally awful ways - yet this one event - this one - has certain laws protecting it from further investigations. I find that odd." The above words Buffy say it all. Suffering and violence is not equal and to say it is, does what Buffy? In your context it is used to suggest the holocaust is NOT unique and should be downplayed and that Buffy is sad. Each genocide is unique. None is equal. Its not some generic category and you lump them all in one definition and say they are all equal. When you do that Buffy it may make it convenient for you and suit your agenda to criticize Jews and downplay the holocaust but your attempt to signle this out as unfair treatment in favour of Jews is simply you ttrying to turn victims of the holocaust into victimizers. You now try twist the holocaust as if it is something to resent because it gives Jews superior powers of morality and righteousness over others. That is pure bullshit Buffy and you know it. This is not about equality. This is about many peoples who may have experienced genocide and each one is as unique as a snowflake or fingerprint. Yes they have certain things in common, but the pain is unique to the people targetted in these groups for the genocides-something you have completely missed and by so doing you do not only insult Jews but the memories of all these other peoples you claim are equal. Enough with the simplistic black and whites Buffy. Challenge your rigid delineations. In suffering there is universal pain but there are also unique pains and no you trying to expoloit it and suggest Jews manipulate it for unfair legal advantage is bullshit and you are fully aware Buffy that the laws as to hate crime in Canada, the U.S., Britain, Germany, etc., are not unique to Jews and apply equally to protect any minority group if someone deliberately says something designed to provoke and incite hatred. Your pretending its only used for Jews and the holocaust is bullshit. The specific legislation about the holocaust in Germany does not preclude other Germans from equal protection-it specifies the holocaust not because it discriminates but because it acknowledges the specific physical site connection of where the holocaust happened and why it still has impact. You stated; "To be quite forthright - I would really love to know exactly why my family members were sent to concentration camps, I would like to know what became of them while there - how did they die there? " Then transcend what is blinding you Buffy. Go visit the B'Nai B'Rith or speak with any Rabbiah anywhere and ask them where you should start. The fact you are not a Jew will not mean they won't answer you and they can if you are really interested help you find your own answers. Continue to demonize Jews as your enemy and you will continue to alienate the very people you need to speak with to understand what happened. Its tragic you are so blinded by your rigid rights and wrongs you can not see that and you see yourself in a competition with Jews as to whose memory is more genuine. You stated? "Was it disease? Or were they deliberately murdered? If they were - why? Were they part of the resistance? Were they communists? Sadly - I will never know." The above is absolute nonsense and Buffy I am calling you out and saying its juvenile melodrama trying to make you sound like a poor little victim. Horeshit. You are not the victim and if you genuyinely want to know what happened you know damn well where you can find out what happened. There are thousands upon thousands of historic archives and carefully documented and researched documents. You stated; " Just for accuracy sake - my ancestors who perished were a mix of Jews and Catholics and a few athiests thrown in as well. All family, all gone. " If that is the case Buffy then you should bloody well know the Catholic Church particularly with its last Pope made genuine efforts to be blatant about its role and failures in the holocaust and yes there was open friction in Poland between a group of nuns and not just Jews but the Romanies, Gays, 7th Day Adventists, Communists, Jehova's Witnesses and families of the Roman Catholic priests who died there who did not want the site used by anyone for a religious mission and yes there has been friction but good friction and considerable work between the Catholic Church and many Israeli historic groups as to remembering the holocaust. If what you say is true Buffy you have to be able to transcend the black and whites and see the holocaust from the perspective of Jews, atheists, Catholics, etc. How can you do that as long as you engage in these comments that generalize and demonize Jews' motives for remembering its uniqueness to them or trying to pit them against other victims as if we are ignoring them? I deliberately gave you the Righteous Gentiles list to show you, when a Jew remembers, they do not just remember Jews-but maybe you need to start with remembering what it means to Jews, before you can then understand why it would mean something unique and different to Catholics or Communists, etc. and the fact that its different doesn't mean its a pissing contest of who is more important or better.

Shut up! (sorry I was just trying to feel what it would be if I were not Canadian) (felt strange) p.s. yes we will all line up in one line and wait for the same cashier when 8 are open and empty. p.s.s. yes as pedestrians we stand at red lights when the intersection is completely empty at 5 a.m. p.s.s.s. oh its true we do say thank you when an American pushes in front of us in line

The Bible is full of references in both the New and old Testament as to the exact same sexist references you point out in the Koran. That is the point you completely missed and still miss in your above response. No one is denying the Koran has many passages that have been used to condone violence and intolerance of women and non Muslims. But perhaps you need to do some research to understand the Koran is far from unique in that regard and the fact that it says what it does does not make all Muslims evil wife beaters just as it does not mean you have to be a sexist to be a true Christian just because the Bible is full of sexist references. By the way, maybe you should check out just how many groups in North America that advocate violence claim to be Christian. Sorry but I do not divide the world into simple black and white generalizations.

Buffy you know this Zionist state you question and the essays you read denying the holocaust happened or it was exaggerated it to justify Zionism-you buy into that, then if you did have relatives that perished you dishonour their memory. Here go to this Israel government site if you want to know how Jews remember non Jews who saved them during the holocaust: http://www.israel.org/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...20the%20Nations You want a short cut go to Wikepedia-Righteous Among Nation which is a synoposis of main article for Righteous Among the Nations the title awarded to non Jews for saving Jews in the holocaust. Please Buffy think. Do you really believe Jews do not remember the death of non Jews whether they persished in the camps or died trying to save them? Come on Buffy. Challenge yourself to look past such rhetoric and use the memory of the holocaust to prevent intolerance not promote justification for a political agenda to try portray a certain group as bad. · Righteous Among the Nations · List of Righteous Among the Nations by countryA· Khaled Abdelwahhab · Viorica Agarici · André Troeme · Joseph André · Per Anger · Vilmos Apor · Saide ArifovaB· Karl Barth · Władysław Bartoszewski · Albert Battel · Princess Alice of Battenberg · Albert Bedane · Victor Bodson · Marc Boegner · Corrie ten Boom · Dirk Boonstra · Friedrich BornC· Chinese Righteous Among the Nations · Józef Zwonarz · Charles Coward · Croatian Righteous Among the NationsD· Archbishop Damaskinos · Danish resistance movement · Luiz Martins de Souza Dantas · Jan Dobraczyński · Hans von Dohnanyi · Žarko Dolinar · Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz · Dutch resistanceE· Gottfried von Einem · Elisabeth of Bavaria (1876-1965)F· Vincenzo Fagiolo · Per Faye-Hansen · Maria Fedecka · Harald Feller · Mieczysław Fogg F cont.· Frank Foley · Varian FryG· Andree Geulen-Herscovici · Miep Gies · Elsa Gindler · Karl Gröger · Paul Grüninger · Irene Gut OpdykeH· Robert Havemann · Helen of Greece and Denmark · Feng-Shan HoI· Henryk IwańskiJ· Jean-Baptiste Janssens · Pope John XXIIIK· Aleksander Kamiński · Constantin Karadja · Jan Karski · Necdet Kent · Béla Király · Stefan Korboński · Zofia Kossak-SzczuckaL· Valdemar Langlet · Latvian resistance movement · Le Chambon-sur-Lignon · Jerzy Jan Lerski · Bernhard Lichtenberg · Jānis Lipke · List of people who assisted Jews during the Holocaust · Carl LutzM· Hermann Maas · Père Marie-Benoît · Áron Márton · Uku Masing · Andrzej Miłosz · Czesław MiłoszN· Dorothea Neff · Yvonne Nevéjean · Nieuwlande · Algoth Niska P· Giovanni Palatucci · Pietro Palazzini · Pan Jun Shun · Tadeusz Pankiewicz · Giorgio Perlasca · Dimitar Peshev · Frits Philips · Karl Plagge · Traian PopoviciR· Paul Ramadier · Henri Reynders · Angelo Rotta · Konrad RudnickiS· Sára Salkaházi · Ángel Sanz Briz · Oskar Schindler · Anton Schmid · Irena Sendler · Martha Sharp · Henryk Sławik · Raoul Şorban · Aristides de Sousa Mendes · Suzanne Spaak · Chiune Sugihara · Jerzy SzackiT· Pierre-Marie Théas · André Trocmé · Magda TrocméU· Selâhattin ÜlkümenW· Raoul Wallenberg · Armin T. Wegner · Johan Hendrik Weidner · Rudolf Weigl · Joop Westerweel · Henryk WolińskiZ· Jerzy ZagórskiŻ· Jan Żabiński

http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/ http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/1994-ely-abir.html In regards to your suggesting holocaust education focuses only on Jews Buffy I offer you just these sites but there are quite literally hundreds thats how in each and every holocaust studies program is examination and discussion of what happened to non Jews and how the holocaust is related to other genocides and racism. Under the ushmm I gave you deliberate specific references to non Jews that are typical of how Jewish academics when teaching the holocaust refer to non Jews. The Simon Weisenthal Centre makes very clear and specific reference to non Jews go look on their web-site. I have enclosed the B'nai B'Rith and Asper Foundation web-sites-why don't you go and look for yourself how Jews deal with the holocaust and non Jews. I gave you the Yad Vashem site and a site listing all the holocaust study programs in the world. With due respect Buffy to inger Jews only discuss ourselves when discussing the holocaust is your subjective feeling based on some b.s. you are being filled by people with an anti-Zionist agenda-the same people who deny the holocaust happened and then argue the holocaust is used to justify dishonestly Zionism and a state for Israel. I gave you the Nurmerberg site Buffy. Here it is pure and simple Buffy-you want to question the holocaust-then ask questions-use it as a political platform to for a political agenda that is hidden, then you get challenged. The evidence for the holocaust has been deliberately preserved precisely because people like you will be manipulated to forget and revise history and enable it to happen again but hopefully others will not make such presumptions until they try read outside their comfort zone or preconceived beliefs. Will you do that? Do you expect me to believe you have family that died in Aushwitz and you believe Jews only talk of themselves when they discuss the holocaust? Get real Buffy. Try that on someone else. You know I know better. You know I know that comment was an aside and you don't really believe it. Am I wrong? http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/will/ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=...duleId=10005378 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=...duleId=10007271 http://facultystaff.vwc.edu/~dgraf/holocaus.htm http://humanrights.asperfoundation.com/site/index.html http://www.bnaibrith.ca/league/hh-teachers/educan04.html http://www1.yadvashem.org/education/task/home_task.html http://www.libraries.iub.edu/index.php?pageId=4389

Oh Buffy in response; "I think that discussion of the events leading up to and surrounding the Holocaust shouldn't be illegal to discuss - ie truth needs no laws to support it. " Totally agree with you and so does the law we are talking about. It doesn't forbid discussion of the holocaust. You stated; "What isn't clear is exactly how many (of all groups - not just those of Jewish ethnic origins) were actually murdered in the ways described. " It is Buffy. I will try answer that in another post. I am doing it with utmost respect. I know you are saying something genuine and I really want to make an effort to give you a good answer to think about. Yous tated; "I also find it rather crass that virtually never are the other victims even spoken about - it's all about the Jews. " Again Buffy with due respect the above is just not true. The holocaust memorials in Washington, D.C. and in Israel (Yad Vashem) and the holocaust studies courses in every university you want to discuss, particularly those created and drafted by Jews, make it a deliberate point to discuss what happened to gays, communists, 7th Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, Romanoes, and those Christians (specific Catholics, Lutherans and other Christians) who were killed in camps. It is a crucial part of the holocaust experience to Jews just as is celebrating and remembering the "righteous gentiles" who saved Jews. Your above statement is a subjective one and with due respect Buffy I think it comes from the same place as you having the impression the holocaust was exaggerated or you can not believe it happened as you think Jews state it. What of the others? Were any reparations made to them? Are they even mantioned, acknowledged and mourned with equal fervour? Sadly, no. Add to that the Soviet death tolls that make Hitler's folly look mild by comparison - yet again nary a word. I guess some genocides are more 'special' than others eh Rue? You stated; "Now before your head explodes, let me state that my own family tree was well represented in the Auschwitz records - having lost a good number of my own extended family to the concentration camps and the effects of WW2." No its precisely why my head won't explode Buffy. Because if as you say some of your family were killed in Auschwitz you would know for a fact that your comments about Jews only discussing Jews in the holocaust is not true. What I do think is you are being influenced by those with a specific political agenda and I will take the time in the next response to provide you some sites and all I ask is before you buy into what you are now buying into you take the time, and find out truthfully if what you are saying is accurate. Think about it Buffy. To make a generalized statement that Jews are not remembering non Jews in the holocaust is one issue, the other is your doubting whether 6 million really died and whether its been exaggerated. If as you say you had family that died in Aushwitz then maybe you need to go to the memorial in Washington, D.C. or Yad Vashem and see for yourself rather what is being said and remembered. As far as those third generation Germans who are not aware - horsehooey!! They are all quite aware of what a certain leader of their country did 70 odd years ago - and in many ways - even though they weren't even born then - are still paying for it. Nonsense. The Jewish community in Germany is doing quite well thanks, in fact immigration to Germany by Jews has been rising over the last years - yep lots of Israeli Jews are reclaiming their German citizenship and leaving - for living in Germany for them is preferrable to living in Israel. (I also have friends who have done this - made aliyah then woke up and went back!!!). Also, this isn't about 'hate' speech - there are laws already for incitement to violence - a far cry from asking pertinent questions about the start of the cleansing and genocide. Rue, as the story goes - once there were 'gas chambers' all over, then when it was unconfirmable in the lands of Germany, the camps which were the 'death' camps were all on outside territory - esp Poland. Even the numbers at Auschwitz have been reduced from 4 million down to just over a million (Jews and non-Jews alike). To even mention this is a crime - why??? It begs the question - why??? Does asking these questions diminish the horror of the Holocaust? Of course not! How can it? Does it suddenly turn Hitler et al into good guys? Of course not! Don't be silly. So, I would wager given your full support of these anti-speech and anti-thought laws that you wouldn't have a problem with banning any kind of research into the genocide of North American Natives eh? Since it might offend them in some way? How about a nice law banning the denial of the existance of Christ? That's a good one! Hey - lets make a good little law which will stop all research into the Ukranian Holodomar while we're at it. See where this is going? (Of course a good little law criminalising any research into the historical accuracy of the Crusades might also be on the agenda!!). Do you see a problem here?? *If* they are inciting hatred then charge them with that - fine. However - simply denying that something happened the way it is presented is, IMO not inciting hatred, but simply asking a rather tasteless question. There is also a problem with defense - since these laws prohibit the discussion of the events and proof of conspiracy to liquidate a population, the defence council cannot present evidence. This is flawed - while the intention may be sound - the result will no doubltedly cause a backlash - which it is already doing.

Angus I do not deny the above nor do I condone it. What I am challenging is trying to use it as a rationalization for making negative generalizations against an entire people and suggesting their cultural values promote this. What the statistics show is that this violence flows from very clear, measurable social issues related to poverty and unemployment caused by non aboriginal laws and cultures that were forced upon aboriginals leading to this disaster. The alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty, violence, is not because of their cultural values. That was and remains my point-and no I do not condone domestic violence nor do I romanticize or glorify aboriginals, just talk about them witht he same respect you would expect if I was handling a domestic crisis in your family. Would you take me seriously if I told you the reason why you have a problem is because you are white trash? That is all I am saying. Please don't mistake respect with naivite. I have been attacked by crazies in my line of work from many cultures. Lol. They all hurt when they connect. See as a mediator, when I see people in Caledonia or anywhere else lashing out at each other, I see no right or wrong people, just angry potentially dangerous people. My first concern is to seperate them and assure they do not hit each other. It is that simple. At this initial level I have no time to morally judge. At the next level I then try work on helping each side develop a language to communicate where each side does not make assumptions about the other or refer to them in a negative way. I am not trying to do anything that you would not expect of someone who is supposed to be trained in the law and to help people use reason over violence to resolve issues. DOn't you find it strange that these discussions always revert to name calling? Why? What is it that humans can't resist the negative words about each other?

No this is not about kissing children. Its refraining from crude hateful statements that depict people as demons which is what Keng constantly does and what makes it hideous when he's called on it, he tries to claim he is a victim and being persecuted for his Christian beliefs. No one, least of all aboriginals denies they have problems in their communities but to use it as a platform to inspire hatred is what I challenge, I also state it again, the crisis in aboriginal communities is directly related to a cultural and legal imperative unilaterally imposed upon them that created the conditions-in fact, if one is going to be objective and fair and make comparisons, then they must make an effort to understand what aboriginal cultural really said about its families and women and not engage in the kind of viciousness Keng does. I do not deny or condone violence but I report it without demonizing an entire people as Keng does. I also know when aboriginal communities are allowed to take control and deal with their conflicts using traditional methods, they do not have the kinds of domestic problems we are talking of-I have seen it with my own eyes in clinics and healing centres and some of our best domestic violence containment strategies come from aboriginal traditions and healing principles. No its far more then burning sweet grass and the anger and violence you talk about at Caledonia is repulsive-I do not condone violence of any kind but its part of a larger conflict, its not an isolated phenomena and to defuse it we all need to refrain from demonizing each other and as Keng has done in past posts and the last one, try depict aboriginals in a deliberately hateful way he knows is insulting and hurtful. I know some have this built in sentiment that they are superior to or feel hard done by, because aboriginals will not give up their culture and collective rights, I do not. Some of us who are not aboriginal look to the elders in their community as spiritual teachers and guides and we see the anger in some of their children we know it is similiar to the anger in our children. We all want to learn to make sure all children do not have to be angry. Now that may sound quant or stupid Jefferiah, but when you mediate violence it really is that that simple- your role is to try help defuse violence in homes-hoping you canfind alternatives to expressing anger or violence to to interupt and circumvent cycles or legacies of violence that flow from people being intolerant of one other.

I am not sure about whether he's expressing anti-YankieImperialistGoHome as much as he is a very popular belief that terrorism (bad things) only happen to bad people (Israelis, Americans) and terrorists have no animosity for anyone else. To me its nothing more then trying to rationalize chaos and terror as logical and rational and if you close your eyes to it, it goes away. To many people. since 9-11 penetrated close to home and killed white people and is not far away in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or the West Bank or some dusty corner in Sudan or some other third world country with someone different then them, it now is too close, so this wishful thinking that it can go away and remain with the savages elsewhere if we just ignore it, kicks in. Interestingly I find the same people that just don't want to get involved and think if you leave terrorists alone they will ignore you also are blissfully ignorant of the fact that as long as they consume energy and fossel fuels and demand the lifestyle they do, these terrorists will necessarily exist. They do not see any relationship between their lifestyle and world conflict and it is of course very Canadian to think we are good guys and no one hates us its only the Americans or Israelis that terrorists hate. Yah right. But your people do need to learn to buy more Canadian products, keep their hands off the North, and remember the world's most beautiful woman, Halle Berry couldn't be satisfied until she found herself a Canadian. Fool. She should have held out for moi.

Look I do not like the idea of seperate schools at all. However to answer your question the colour of skin would not be the qualification to be a student-anyone of any colour would be allowed to attend this school but presumably it would appeal to a certain element of the black community who feel their children would benefit from it. From what I understand the parents who want this school do not presume to exclude anyone but do wish to have "African" culture play a very strong central role. They are basing their arguement on the same one that was used to set up seperate schools for gays experiencing tension and hostility or alternative schools for "problem" children not doing well in the mainstream schools. From what I understand the majority of black people are not expected to want to use this system and it would start of with one school as an experiment. My concern is if you do this for "African" culture, then would you not need to do one for every other "culture" where numbers (parents) demand it because they feel their children are not doing well since the public school system is not supposed to favour any one group or ethnicity? I personally believe the idea is flawed precisely for that reason-because it expects an institution which is supposed to be neutral, play favourites. This is the kind of idea that belongs with a private school funded by a non profit organization or charity or with an after-school cultural or community organization. With due respect I believe public schools should be neutral to all cultures and races, etc. and teach tolerance and diversity for them all. To me the key is to assure all children going to public school be taught to tolerate one another, and black heritage or any other heritage has to be taught in a neutral equal manner. If parents feel their children are failing and not assimilating to maintstream values and think they need to get back to their cultural roots, then with due respect that is a private issue to be done after school within their cultural communities using their own volunteers through churches, charities, recreation and community centres, etc. I believe it is important from the get go children learn diversity not isolation and exclusivity from one another. That said, I believe the public school is not the tool to repair a community in despair-it has to come outside the school in the community by committed members of that community willing to volunteer and work in volunteer and recreation and community centres. Trying to have the public school take on this role is wishful thinking and quite frankly it sounds to me like angry parents doing what angry parents do, trying to delegate their parental responsibilities to see their children suceed to an institution they do not have to pay for or contribute to-their problem becomes someone else's fault and responsibility. I think a child whose parent blames society for their children's problems is enabling their child to fail and condoning their failures and setting them up for future failure by encouraging them to believe they are victims in need of help from others. I do not believe a public school can replace the need for a community's citizens to be directly involved in the education of their young with cultural or religious issues. That is not what a public school was designed to do. It is to equip people to survive in a society of many cultures. We parents and our communities if we want our children to be proud of their culture or religion can not expect society to do it for us-we have to take that role on as parents after school and working with each other as a network not simply demanding the government do it. No the school board can not simply give anything to anyone simply because they raise their voice at meetings and claim to be a victim. I just could not see Martin Luther King if he was alive condoning or encouraging this. I also think placing children in gay or alternative schools while done based on liberal and well meaning intentions simply postpones the inevitable and creates an unrealistic artificial environment rather then deal with the discrimination in the mainstream school when it happens. Segregating people because they feel different or persecuted does what other than reinforce victimhood and entrench it? I say all the above with due respect to people who strongly believe in the above because I know the people who support the above idea only want what they think is best for their children. I respect that and what they are trying to do. I just disagree with it.

You are absolutely wrong. Dead wrong. Provide the reference for the second paragraph. Your claim that women were expected to do all of the medial labour is false. Your comment that male warriors lazed around when not hunting is false. You have once again engaged in fabricated racist stereotypes. Provide the source for them Keng. Each and every time you try pass of your hatred as a statement I am going to call you on it Keng as I am now and say you are wrong and because you do this repeatedely, i.e., provide these remarks with no reference point, they are evidence they are deliberate and I again state you make them knowing they will incite hatred. Well Keng once again you come on this forum posing as an expert only this time on domestic violence within aboriginal society and once again you provide zero references. Unlike you Keng I am not a self-professed expert nor to I proclaim myself as righteous and holier then others. I am a simple man full of humility and it is precisely why for me to be able to mediate domestic violence I can not do so through moral judgement. I have been mediating family and domestic violence issues for over 20 years and I do not come on this post to judge and smear aboriginals as you do but to once again provide a counter-balance to you trying to exploit this issue for your own hateful agenda. What I do know Keng because I do not come on this board to make things up as I go along issuing racist slurs, is that traditional Aboriginal society experienced did not have high rates of family breakdown. In fact in their traditions, husbands and wives are expected to respect and honour one another, and care for one another and be honest and kind to each other. So now Keng. You came on this forum and stated that matriarchal societies featured women who sexually deceive and manipulate men and that is why they are sinfu. What I also know is that for example in Mohawk nation, like many or most aboriginal nations, they have a matriarchal society where women are honoured for their wisdom and their vision and creativity-what I also was taught by aboriginals is that the gift of life a woman carries (and the Chinese call the valley of life) is a gift from the creato. What I know is in traditional aboriginal cultures, contrary to what you may think, men and women were equal in spiritual power and each although different is part of the same spiritual whole. The creator has both female and male energy or spiritual elements. I am aware of Ojibway and Cree stories where a woman was said to have come to the earth ( a living element which we live on ) to care for the earth. I am no expert but I know Nokomis, a wise woman is said to have humankind about healing and knowledge. I have watched Ojibway people pray, and I saw them acknowledging the Mother Earth as part of a ceremony with a pipe. I know to many aboriginal nations the earth is considered woman, and sweetgrass they burn in ceremonies is a symbol for her hair. What I also know is much of what we domestic violence mediators and therapists incorporate in our practice is based on aboriginal healing principles as well as many other mystical traditions similiar to there one and which can be found in many ways of life, i.e., Wiccan, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Gnostic Christianity, Hinduism, Buddism, Taoism, etc. to name but a few. Now you want to talk about rates of violence and suggest they are hirer in aboriginal communities fine, but no you can not use it to infer aboriginal people are more violent or their culture condones this. That is absolute fabrication based on your need to insult them and smeer them. The rates are disproportionately hirer then in mainstream society not because their cultural values condone it or fuel it but precisely because it continues to be caused by Western culture being imposed upon their culture and preventing its people from being allowed to celebrate and follow their own traditions. The violence you refer to is inter-connected to drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment, forced abduction of their children, and policies that robbed them of their land, split up their families and ignored, violated their families, and violated their rights. You want to point yoru finger of moral contempt Keng I suggest you start with your own values and the words you have used when referring to women on this forum. You are in no position to lecture or condemn anyone.

No what is ignorant is you trying to pass yourself off as an authority on the New Testament and now trying to suggest the New Testament does not contain sexist passages that continue to be used by Christian fundamentalists to rationalize violence or sexism against women. Of course there are numerous references in the New Testament that have been used by Christian fundamentalists to argue a “Christian” women’s role is subordinate to a man’s and justify violence against women including; 1-Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. -- I Corinthians 11:9 2-Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? -- I Corinthians 14:34-36 3-The head of the woman is the man, just as the head of man is Christ. -Corinthians 11:3 - 4-The wife should obey her husband as the church should obey Christ. Ephesians 5:22-24 - 5-Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. -- Ephesians 5:23-24 4-Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Colossians 3:18 5-Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. -- I Timothy 2:11-14. 6-Women should be subject to their husbands as Sarah was to Abraham. - Peter 3:1,5,6 and Tit. 2:5; Col. 3:18 7- She must obey her husband even if he is not serving God. A wife may think she can disobey her husband if he commits sin, but God says she must still obey. –Peter 3:1 8- Then of course there is reference in Acts 5:20 that a woman can only disobey a man if the husband asks her to commit a sin. 9-There is also reference in 2 Peter 2:19-21 that the Bible is a divine book written by God to men. Then of course there is Timothy 2:8-15 and Corinthians 11:2-18 that state women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men and cover their heads in worship. It is my opinion Keng you use the New Testament as a pathogen/cover/pretext to express your personal subjective feelings about sexuality and women among other things. I would argue this is why Keng you have made references to women being sexually manipulative and coercive in matriarchal societies or made a crude remark about their sexual position in response to the homicide of a young woman. In my opinion, it appears because you pretext it with a reference to Christianity, you think you are able to then argue its not your own personal psycho-sexual feelings but religious ones. To me, you are precisely an example of how an individual man, with specific issues as to how he perceives women can easily use the Bible or ANY book of religion to express and fuel his individual psycho-sexual attitudes including violence. That was the point and you continue to demonstrate it in your subsequent post to another reader as to what you perceive is the role of women. I would contend an abusive man who engages in violence of a woman is a weak and sickly man desperately trying to compensate for his feelings of inferiority.

I second that comment!

Argus I am deadly serious about the pee pee comments. It may sound simplistic but I am one of those who subscribe to political psychology theories that much of the violence we see is inter-connected to sexual dysfunction and the aberrated or side-tracked or repressed sexual drive of males. I am sure you would disagree but to me much violence can be explainedand understood and prevented in my opinion using modern psycho-analystic models which analyze behaviour on an individual level as being inter-connected to one's dna, biological and genetic traits, environmental factors, learned behaviour and exposure to certain kinds of behaviour and chemicals, etc. I personally see us men as primative apes who have not yet learned to develop our intelligence to a level where we can evolve past indiscriminate violence, killing and hatred. I believe we are still primative baboons who have not progressed too far from learning how to use a stick to bash in brains. Now before I insult baboons I would also point out that baboons, chimpanzees, guerillas and orango-tans ( and I suspect Sasquatch) are far less violent then we humans. Much of what I see in human behaviour is alpha male pack behaviour and alpha male baboons trying to be the head of the pack. I sound sexist to you because I believe the statistics we do have on homicide and violence clearly shows the vast majority of murders and violent killings and crimes are done by men suggesting a strong co-relation to our testosterone and primative instinct to hunt and kill. So do I believe men are inferior to women-no, just more violent and prone to killings and violence. So it doesn't make me sexist because I do not see men as inferior to women per se, just more vulnerable to diseases and behaviours that flow from being violent, including premature death. That said my daughters and wife are of course superior to me and as well I concede any other woman on this forum is smarter then me. And yes God is a woman. I have no problems conceding such points. There is an old Yiddish expression-"any man who thinks he is smarter than a woman dies alone without a legacy or a clean bottom". Now for me, since I may need someone to reach for my urine bag and I don't like male nurses ( o.k. I am sexist!) because I find them too hairy, I prefer to concede now.

Argus you stated; "You seem determined not to make moral judgements regardless of how morally repugnant some behaviour is." Actually you are dead on about that. Why? Because I believe if we are to denounce violence of ANY kind it must be done objectively because none of us can claim we are not violent. To me its an issue as to credibility. The same standards I see must apply to all. So don't mistake that for me being "afraid" or not wanting to condemn any religious wack job. "You appear to believe this is the right way to go. I, on the other hand, have no difficulty in judgeging a group's behaviour - as a group - and finding that behaviour wanting." I actually respect that in your position Argus and understand it. I say the same about JBG's position which is the same as yours. I personally do not think it will be effective. If you want someone to stop engaging in violence the approach to contain them must come by using very precise logical methods of containment not subjective angry reactions. At least that is what I think. Is their morality in any law of course Argus I concede that point. My arguement goes to the application of the law-its the ancient arguement of applying the law without being arbitrary. Its why for example I believe laws do not work if they simply knee jerk react to the anger of a crowd wanting someone burned at the stake. You stated; "Challenge it where you find it, but don't gloss over cultural and religiously inspired violence because you're afraid of condemning minorities." Your last point I hear loud and clear. My arguements should never be used to justify avoiding condemning ANYONE simply because they are a minority. I agree in the sense that NO ONE should get a free pass based on a race or religious or ethnic card. The law is to be applied to all equally. It should not be about a political propriety contest. In that classic sense we are both on the same wave length.

Guyser call me crazy but I am not sure albinos would agree with Leafless.

The Danceman believes in economic use of words to prove a point-something I am not capable of doing!!! Don't let the brevity fool you. Wise men say very little. Then again some of us like to be comedians so we prattle on.

Oh Leafless you state... "Nothing surpasses your intelligence as your failure to understand the simple rules of this forum proves it, relating to personal attacks or maybe you are just an imbecile and simply don't understand." Say now that's a good technique. You engage in a personal attack to point out I should not engage in the very thing you do. Say now, are you the kind of parent that drinks and smokes and then tells your children they should not. It reminds me of my favourite expression-shut up and be tolerant. My tonque in cheek comment Leafless unlike yours did not suggest you were an imbecile nor do I do as you do and dismiss what anyone says you disagree with as drivel. I was deadly serious in my remark. Do you really think as you age and get sick and find yourself confined to an institution it will matter what skin colour, or culture, or religion the nurse has? I am deadly serious Leafless. What you think you are fighting to preserve is in my opinion pettiness, superficial, petty insecurity as to anxiety that others are different then you. That was my point. Its not an insult. Its a laughable fate we are all headed for and if you can't get a chuckle out of that fact you really do need to learn to find your humour quickly because believe me that nurse may not be as tender as you wish she/he to be. Now you stated; "Anyways Rue, the Liberals and Quebec have always been one and are totally responsible for the implementation of undemocratic, anti-Canadian policies relating to the ROC and cater specifically to French Quebec and their nationalistic and cultural demands." Well now Leafless, as long as you engage in such simplistic, sweeping negative generalizations that seek to blame and scapegoat, its clear you don't want to debate or see someone else's view of the same conflict-you simply want to say you are right and everyone else is wrong PLUS everyone else is to blame if you do not have what you think you should have. See Leafless, when I deal with an angry youth who blames the entire world for his problems or an alcoholic who blames the world for the reason he drinks, I tell them what I tell you-as long as you avoid individual responsibility for how your own actions put you where you find yourself in life, as long as you externalize it and seek to assign such responsibility to others, you are condemned to this blame game and no, no one is listening except the very same bleeding hearts like me who will not give up until we convince you its o.k. to joing the table and play poker with the seperatist and perhaps share urine bags with him.

Traditional Sharia, much like traditional Rabbinical law and most other fundamentalist religious laws, are incompatible with today's family and criminal laws in certain aspects and when they are, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear, Canadian laws will prevail and there is no opting out. I personally believe orthodox Jewish rabbinical law, Sharia law, certain Hindu laws, fundamentalist Christian beliefs all have value systems that could be used to justify violence, etc., against women and so must be questioned openly taking care not to insult an entire people or its entire religion BUT THOSE aspects of it we find questionable with intelligent, well reasoned logic and decisions such as those enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada which make it clear what our laws are without insulting anyone's belief system.

If it was in fact an honour killing (yet to be proven) which it very much looks like, then that is what must be confronted and questioned including the role any organized religion or cultural values inter-related to it.

Here is specifically what I challenge in Argus' reasoning as he states; "I wish people like you would stop whining about "peaceful muslims" and "moderate muslims". According to the polls almost all Muslims are, by our secular standards, religious fanatics who are not particularly moderate at all. " Of course there are no such polls. It is absurd to suggest an accurate poll of every single Muslim on this planet could be taken to prove "almost all" are fanatical. What Argus is doing is engaging in a negative generalization of millions upon millions of people he does not know claiming they all can be assigned the same simplistic generalized negative category. I argue the above is intellectually disingenuine. It attempts to state a subjective assumption as an objective fact when clearly it is not. He also stated; "When we talk about the problems of violence coming from Muslims..... we're not discussing a tiny aberrant group which is shunned by the whole... we're talking about the cultural value system shared by the majority of Muslims...." Now see I do not have a problem if Argus' statement read, " it would appear from what I read or have seen in the media, violence against women in Muslim societies is widespread...."that would clearly indicate he is making a subjective opinion. What I challenge is the statement that there is one monolithic value system shared by a majority of Muslims. I do not doubt in many Muslim societities fundamentalism is a fact, an every day fact and that fuels the kind of violene JBG refers to or Argus is now referring to including violence against females. That is not the issue. Discussing it in a way that does not assume every single Muslim is an evil violent fanatic is the issue. There is a way to speak openly about problems in ANY society without condemning an entire people. I find such categorization simplistic, inaccurate, and simply inciting hatred and the rationalization for demonizing an entire people. I use this exact same criticism when I see people slur Jews, Christians, gays or anyone else, not just Muslims. No I will not assume "almost all" Muslims are fanatics. Based on what? Because I watch the North American media which will show negative Muslim stories but not ones of typical every day boring peaceful Muslims? Am I to stereotype an entire people based on the negative some of its people do? Why? How will I reach out to moderate Muslims and forge hopefully peaceful contacts and networks of tolerance if I do as AQrgus says and simply lump them "almost all" as fanatics. Using Argus' reasoning we may as well go to war now and kill them all. That is no different then the very fundamentalist mentality of the Muslims Argus criticizes. They same the same thing about us-i.e., we are all savages and infidel. So Argus you want to get into a pissing contest with a Muslim fanatic as to whose pee pee is bigger be my guest. Me I would prefer to sit down with the next generation of Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, whoever and encourage them to ignore the generation before them precisely because of this need to kill and point pee pees at one another. I would prefer to spend my time with young women teaching them regardless of what culture or religion they come from, anything to do with their body, begins and ends with them as an individual decision and no man in the name of any God or political belief or moral belief has the right to touch them or tell them how to carry their bodies or how to manage their bodies, minds or spirits and even if it is their father or brother, etc., such advise can be stated-but IN THE END it is up to each women to decide how she will use her body and carry herself and define her identity and it should not be predicated on obtaining the approval of men but from within themselves. I would also say to young men, while my generation is busy destroying the planet with petty ignorance, moral indignation, civil wars and terrorism over pure bull shit pride precisely because of men who have pee pee anxiety or who are busy destroying the planet with toxic waste because once again we humans don't acknowledge anything but our own needs, the next generation must distance itself from us and find ways to get along if it is to preserve what is left of this planet. See the point is Argus you will be in an old age home soon but what about the next generation? While you raise bloody hell in the home over Mohamed not respecting your ham, maybe just maybe your grandchildren and his have far more serious things they will have to deal with and rely on each other for help to resolve. There will be clashes as old and new values meet, but the next generations will synthesize them as yours did and those did before yours. Every generation thinks it is the only one where past and future clash in the present but its been going on since humans decided to start f..cking each other and reproduce. Lol. Yah I know. Liberal b.s.

Why would I argus? Have you seen me engage in any remark where I make negative generalizations about an entire group of people and assign them negative general characterizations based on my subjective preconceptions? My point remains, violence is present against women in all societities. When men use Islam as a pretext to engage in it they should be exposed and challenged virgoursly and the role of organized Islam in relation to female violence must be brought out in the open. But I say the same of any religion and its role to influencing how men treat women. Its precisely because I would not suggest all Amish are perverts because some engage in incest is exactly the same reason I won't smeer an entire Islam religion because extremists within one of its societies hang women, etc. If I were to engage in the generalization you want me to make against all Muslims I would have to assume all Christians are violent perverts as well-you think that is helpful for such discourse? You think using such violence to lump millions of people in one negative characteristic is helpful? Did it ever dawn on you not all Christians are evil and perverted just because they burned people at stakes, tortured them when they would not convert and engaged in blood rituals for centuries? Should I condemn all Christians because Keng claims to be a true Christian? Come on Argus the point was to challenge such thinking in regards to ALL people not just some.

Leafless you stated in response to my comments: "And how do you know that? How do you know what is not reported? How do you know the majority of Muslims don't abide by Islam in a manner that is unnaturally strict and abnormal? You don't Rue and are off the mark again to-day." That is precisely why I made my remark Leafless-please read them again. Its precisely because you and I are not in the position to know, I argue we can not assume when we criticize Islam or ANY OTHER religion we know what every follower believes and practices and its precisely why I argue we need to use the same objective criteria when taking about ANY religion or society and take care not to make assumptions based on information we do not have-its got nothing to do with thinking societites are equal. You stated; "It is offense that you consider all nationalities to be on the same level of civilized behavior as the modern, democratic countries of the world relating to oppression leading to domestic violenc." Read it again Leafless. I at no time stated all nationalities are on the same level of civilized behaviour. I make no claims to even being able to define what "civilized" behaviour really is. That is precisely why I argue we must use the same objective criteria to criticize all societies. Unlike you I do not assume a country that claims ot be "democratic" or "modern" automatically is civilized. I am arguing a basic anthropological precept of examining all societies using the same criteria to avoid distorting what we analyze based on bias assumptions that our culture or way of life is superior. And yes Leafless there is a difference between domestic violence and political violence. You can have very "modern" "civilized" "democratic" societies and not have political violence but still have sexual violence. That was the point. It's too easy to generalize all these issues with simplistic labels against an entire society, And yes Leafless I know many Muslims who condone violence of any kind and stay silent precisely because they do not believe people like you will take the time to acknowledge this and distinguish them from extremists or fundamentalists. Yah I am well aware of the media vision of bearded angry men running down the streets burning and pillaging. All I know is I treat people as I want them to treat me. I do not appreciate people stereotyping me and my beliefs anymore then anyone else does. I will criticize those parts of the religion I believe promote intolerance but I will not use that to justify intolerance towards people that follow that religion. That is what I am arguing. And by the way thanks for saying I think like Trudeau. Lol. And you remind me of either John Birch or McKenzie King.