Rue

Why Buffy you sound disappointed? Were you planning a trip with Keng to Germany? I am jealous!!!!!!!! On a more serious note, Germany has such laws for very real reasons. Precisely because of the holocaust the implications of people denying it cause very explosive consequences in this country. Ask Drea. Write him in private and ask him why the German constitution had to create this law. Germany is a nation trying very hard to accept moral responsibility for its past by institutionalizing certain laws and archives so that its past can not be repeated.... but its a painful past and no its not necessarily openly discussed and taught with ease. How do I know this? I take in exchange students (14-17) from Germany every year and I have been active in youth history echange groups in Germany and done some radio interviews there with young Germans. Many youth do not discuss the holocaust as their parents or grandparents or schools are reluctant to deal with it. So the government has tried to create a museum and curriculum but its been very difficult to find ways to discuss it. Germany is a complex nation of old timers still in denial with a very progressive next generation that have not shied away from it followed by a third generation that like our third generation is not necessarily aware of its past. Today's German youth like all European youth live in countries (in the case of Germany I believe 3 million Muslims) with many Muslims and visible minorities and there is a new tide of nationalism and resentment towards Muslims/Immigrants in Europe. Such laws try balance the need for freedom of speech with the kind of remarks that would not just be necessarily explosive to the Jewish community in Germany, or the non Jews of Germany who fought the Nazis or their next generation families but could also be used to fuel the kind of sentiments that incite hatred against Muslims or other groups. France has a similiar law precisely for the same reasons. Before the German government would proesecute you and place you in jail for such denial, the cases in the German courts make it clear they will use the same standard or test we use in the US and Canada as to incitement of hatred. Its not something they use lightly. As I also understand it the vast majority of Germans agree with this law and understand among other things it helps them deal with managing their angry disaffected youth who become vulnerable to neo-Nazi groups that go around beating new immigrants, etc. Ernst Zundel is in jail in Germany for this law. If you look who has been actually jailed under this law, it has been very few people for very blatant reasons.

I am sure he did not mean to disparage animals or people from Burma or India.

In response to Keng's latest rants; "That's right, because they believe that their God is only there God and everyone else isn't chosen. So there's really no point in a Jew telling someone like you what they think of your behaviour because according to their belief, well, it just doesn't change the way things are." Chosen in Judaism has nothing to do with a belief of being superior to others and believing Judaism is the only appropriate religion and God favours Jews. What Keng spews is a classic anti-semitic myth followed by a slur against all Jews based on his false assumptions and his belief that all Jews think the same and have the exact same beliefs and of course he understands these beliefs. In fact in Judaism all the concept of "chosen" refers to is the belief that God placed an obligation on Jews to honour God by following certain principles and for that matter in living in Israel which God allegedly promised to them as they fled from Egypt. No more, no less. Judaism forbids forced conversion or any notion that a Jew is superior to anyone from any other religion. Keng then preaches to the masses and states; "Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter; the prophesized Messiah has already come, and God's love and grace has been granted to all the peoples of the world who will sincerely recognize him and accept Jesus as their personal saviour. Which is why Christianity is a world-wide religion, while those who don't recognize Jesus continue to adhere to an exclusive, race-based notion of identity and religion. Funny how Christianity always gets knocked for being archaic, though." Interestingly Keng enggages once again in the exact same religious exercise he accuses other religions of doing-he creates a "chosen" people who be believes are the righteous while everyone else is a sinner. The test for whether you are part of Keng's exclusive chosen hinges on the following condition and that is whether you will "sincerely reognize him and accept Jesus" as he states. But as we know from previous posts from Keng, just because you recognize Jesus as your personal saviour doesn't make you a "true" Christian as Keng puts it. To be a "true" Christian you mus subscribe to Keng's belief system to be able to "soncerely" recognize Jesus and so qualify for his exclusive list of righteousness. The interesting thing of course is to this day,while Keng couches his hatred, intolerance, anti-semitic and other hate myths in references to Christianity, he won't disclose what Christian sect he is a member of and leaves his audience with cryptic references as to what Keng considers "sincere" recognition of Jesus. More to the point Keng's reference to race based identity is a couched reference to Judaism and again reflects another classic anti-semitic myth that Jews are a race of people. In fact Jews are of many races, including caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid and the religion does not in any way shape or form define Judaism based on race but in fact on observance to Jewish laws and precepts. In fact the notion of Jews as a race was used by the Nazis and then the Middle Eastern world and today's modern anti-Zionists when claiming Zionism is racism, precisely because they assume the motion of Jews desiring universal sufferage or expression of their identity through a state apperatus is based on race which it is not and in fact isn't even baed on Judaism but a political belief that sprung from the trade unions of Europe and oppressed second class people escaping pogroms and then the holocaust dreaming of a place where they would be left alone and would not be second class inferiors as they were in the Christian and Muslim worlds. Keng then just can't resist and states; "I find it interesting that you would consider Judaism the way to go if we had "one world religion" because that's what it essentially was intended to become with the coming of Jesus--yet all you do is mock and ridicule and deny." In fact the original remark was made to me by Drea and Drea is very well aware I do not consider Judaism as the only way or the superior way and would not take his comment literally but specifically in reference to the talmudic principle in Judaism that no one religion is superior to another. No sorry to diappoint you Keng, I have had my debates with Drea over many things, and he is not seeking conversion just giving me some much appreciated support in debating positions where we treat each other with equal respect. If Keng you bothered to read what Drea has actually written, he has never once ridiculed anyone's religion. You again criticism him when you do the exact same thing above in your alleged criticism of what you think Judaism is. You stated; "Moreover, your (Drea's criticisms of Christianity always seem to be based on Old Testament writings, which the Jews still consider sacred. Very curious, indeed." Again Keng you project. In your world Jews are the arch=enemy of Christians right so Drea flirts with Satan right? Sorry to burst your bubble but if you tried to actually read what he writes he makes references to many many sources. More to the point Keng both Drea and I and I would like to think most people who appreciate theology no trying to use the New Testament to contradict the Old Testament or vice versa may be a game you play but we don't. We consider all religious texts using the same critical reference points. All are criticized equally. Now run along before I have the Arch-angel Michael come and visit you and ask you for reference sources for your above diatribe. (note I make no reference to Santa)

So Leafless has spoken and he pronounces; "Are you thick or what. Get what? Whites run the show. The current government is dysfunctional and that is the only reason for cultural diverisity. Whites and their culture will always be at the head of the table but do have a minor inconvenience, namely the Liberals and Quebec." Well from the sounds if it any day now Leafless you will find yourself in an institution and I am not sure the nurse's skin colour will make too much difference as to who's running the show when she's through with you and your enema.

I do not deny or condone Islamic fundamentalists who use their religion to commit violence against women, etc. Yes it is a fact in many Muslim societies. All I am saying is its easy to point the finger at Muslims but we have problems in Canada as well. I will criticize it yes, but not from a position of moral superiority-but humility. Its not peaceful Muslims who are the problem and the problem is they get thrown in with the violent fundamentalists when we don't take the time to make it clear what it is we are criticizing.

Your above reference mixes political turmoil with domestic violence. Not the same thing. It plays to the stereotype of ALL Muslims having the same negative characteristics. Sure there is a lot of violence in the Muslim world motivated by people in the name of Islam but what about the millions you do not hear or see who are not violent? Its too easy to walk into these negative generalizations. Save them for the Kengs of the world.

The crime stats in Canada are public domain. You can go to stats can and see them for yourself. Violence against women arises in ALL religious fundemantalist groups. Its not particular to Islam. Its also not particular to race, ethnicity, social or economic class or for that matter just fundalementalists.

So let me get this straight-you actually hate Santa too? Man that list is getting bigger and bigger 1-gays 2-Jews 3-women 4-communists 5-liberals 6-idiots 7-untrue Christians including Lutherans, Catholics 8-almost everyone in Hollywoord 9-scientologists 10-any poster who has questioned you and challenged your religious beliefs 11-Muslims 12-atheists, humanists, moral relativists, biologists 13-Santa. Keng not only did I have no idea you are against believing in Santa, but I still have no idea what you believe in as you refuse to indicate what Christian sect you claim to be a member of. So Santa is a Pagan belief. O.k. then. Guess there are a lot of sinful children about. Will you forgive them or are they going to hell too with the rest of the above infidel heathen heretics?

Keng these attempts to try manipulate people by playing the role of a pesecuted, threatened martyr are transparent. Stick to the issues being debated. Your refereces to "threats" and "these people" and "certain group" and only add to your lack of credibility and lend to the appearance you are fabricating conspiracy theories. What is at issue are the words you have and continue to place on this forum. I for one will challenge you each and every time you say something that I believe is intended to incite hatred and prejudice. In this series of posts you made a sweeping statement that martriarchal societies feature women manipulating men with sex. Your comments are already posted Keng. Its what you do. Make sweeping generalized statements without any reference or basis that simply incite hatred against the people you utter your remarks against. Your negative generalizations about matriarchal societies, once again demonstrated you have no clue of anthropological studies of matriarchal societites but think if you come on this forum and disparage women and suggest they are evil and manipulate men with sex, you can couch it by saying you are referring to matriarchal societies. It was no different then when you chose earlier on to make a sexually disparaging comment about the sexual position of women during a thread about the murder of a young girl. The issue remains Keng you chose to use this topic to make disparaging sexual comments about women in response to a domestic violence murder and your now trying to play the victim doesn't change that. This topic is about men who use religion or fundamentalism or any rigid views to impose themselves on others and the disasterous results it can lead to-something you saw fit to ridicule and use as a platform to suggest to people Christianity allows Christians to limit women to particular roles and if women to not conform to these roles, they are sinners, not victims of violence.

That is the point. That no one religion, no one ethnic or religious group has a specific monpoly to violence against each other, women, etc.

Again your attempt to manipulate and try pose as a persecuted victim is transparent. The point I made and obviously you did not read what I posted because they did NOT refer simply to one incident, is that in ANY community that subscribes to religious fundamentalism there is the potential for domestic violence and sexual abuse using this fundamentalism as a pretext. That was the point. Nowhere in my response did I insult or suggest anything hateful about the Amish. Nothing in what I posted attacks or questions their beliefs. In fact the Amish despite their desire to be private and segregated and reluctant to seek help for internal sexual violence and domestic abuse victims have turned to the police and hospitals and particular dosctors who protect their privacy for assistance. All of us in every society face this issue. It was a point a few posters were making a while back. That when we discuss this issue its not particular to one religion but yes religions can fuel it, i.e.,incite intolerance if used in a particular manner. All religions must be criticized equally if they condone sexual violence, etc. Your attempt now to try hide behind them and make it seem you and they are together in this victimhood is hilarious. The Amish would want nothing to do with you. Having worked with them I can assure you Keng they would find your beliefs repugnant and terrifying.

Lol the evil Americans did it! The internal violence in Pakistan has gone on since its inception includingthe violent murder of its first Prime Minister, its continued military coups and violent assassinations of subsequent civilian and military junta rulers. The political instability within Pakistan is caused by many factors starting with the fact that the majority of its citizens are still dirt poor and subscrive to fundamentalist religious beliefs that condone violence and tribalism. Add to that a very wealthy and tiny elitist group of wealthy farm owners who use the military to preserve their power base and you have a fiefdom of a few privileged elite propped by a corupt military. True Pakistan in the last 15 years suddenly saw the emergence of a middle class but this middle class has failed to bring stability to a society known for its extremes between the rich and poor. Pakistan is also a country full of mountain ranges that make it impossible to patrol on the ground. It is impossible to govern as each village has its own leader with their own agenda. At best it is a constantly changing series of coalitions between village elders and corupt politicians and farm owners. The Taliban and Al Quaeda control most of its border regions with Afghanistan and there are equally as violent fundamentalist Muslim terror cells to its North. The US has been funding Pakistan at 11 billion per annum. Before you piss on the US consider this-had the US not funded it it could very well have been engaged in a nuclear catastrophe with India by now. Bhutto was killed but not by the US. On the contrary. Bhutto was being set up by the British and US as the next leader. She was towing an anti-terrorist hard line on Al Quaeda and Taliban and calling for their removal from Pakistan and the arrest of terrorists in her country. She was if anything perceived as a pro-Western US-British puppet on a string. To suggest the US killed her is therefore insane. What killed her was one of two obvious things-Musharaf ordering her taken out or one of many terror cells in Pakistan. Take your pick-she had enemies to the left and right and in between. Pakistan will continue to be a country of violence and blood-shed. It has never had an orderly election. Its leaders are either arrested or murdered. You want to point a finger-point it at Pakistanis within Pakistan and their failure to embrace peaceful methods of dialogue and the fact that many of it not most of its religious leaders have allowed their religion to be used to justify murder and violence and intolerance.

Lol. Point taken many moons ago!

kENG I made a comment for you to run along before I asked Santa to take back his coal. You then could no resist and tried to play the persecuted Christian with me and stated; "I suppose this is not supposed to be construed as a slur against my supposed beliefs? To me it's no different than me making a patronizing remark to you about "run[ning] along" and playing with your dradle. Just another example of your typical baiting. Some things just never change." To start with Santa Claus, is a fable. Nothing in what I said mocks you for being an alleged Christian or having Christian beliefs. More to the point Keng, before you portray yourself as a persecuted Christian at the hands of a Jew, feel free to make comments about dradles. What I am challenging you on Keng is not Santa Claus or dradles and you know it. No Keng you were wrong to assume I was talking about you and your need to hijack this post to bring attention to yourself to try portray yourself as a victim of me or others, was not and is not the issue. The issue is and remains how posters COUCH their words and ideologies and use Christianity or the defence of culture as pretexts for advocating beliefs and values that are exclusive and designed to exclude and put down and hate others. Keng its way past the point of you trying to cloak yourself as an innocent Christian preaching Christianity. More to the point Keng you did it again. The very comments you complain about have nothing to do with your religious beliefs. For that matter playing with dradles is not a religious belief. It would be something if you actually understood what a religious belief was.

In direct response to you Leafless or is it Keng-excuse me but I get confused who it is I am responding to but I am assuming it is Leafless; "And what subscribe to Liberal ideologies to wipe out English speakers of Canada and replace them with the French. Christianity and all of its denominations to be replaced with secularism, gays and foreign faiths. Jews to replace them with Muslims and Islam. Forget it. Canada is already spoken for and has a history. " Leafless I do not subscribe to a theory of wiping out or replacing anyone. You are projecting your fears that you are being threatened by anyone who is not like you. "Simple majority rule my friend, there is no other democratic way." The problem is Leafless the majority have ruled and that is precisely why you feel threatened and subscribe to theories that would turn back the clock. "Another communist with a socialistic State agenda to have every one else support powerless minorities." The fact I challenge your beliefs as elitist, racist, intolerant, etc., does not make me a communist or a socialist, in fact Leafless to me you remind me very much of a communist or any other totalitarian who wishes to rule by excluding others and setting up tiers of elitist privileged classes. If anything Leafless the irony is your beliefs are typical of what Stalin believed in. Not that it matters Leafless but my beliefs are transparent and I am far from a communist. I note you throw that word around when someone disagrees with you. Its not communist to disagree with you Leafless. Actually if you want to label me Leafless, the so called "liberalism" you think I am advocating is actually more close to what Edmond Burke subscribed to and he was a conservative. You want to label me Leafless, label me someone who subscribes to Ghandi and Martin Luther King and mArtin Buber and Budda and Lao Tzu and Confucius and Oscar Wilde and Hugh Hefner. Chew on that awhile.

Oops it slipped again. For a guy who was unaware of any laws favouring white English speaking Canadians he seems to have suddenly become aware.

Leafless is well aware of the history of Canada's laws in the past and its precisely what he would like to do, go back in time to when they existed and he could be living in a world where he had birth privileges.

So which name do you go by Leafless or Keng. Oopsy it slipped? Spit it out Keng-Leaf. What exclusionist belief system do I have? Show it. The quote you gave does NOT establish your accusation. Read what you quoted Keng. Point to a post I have written. Youa re full of allegations accusing me of being a racist and holding racist views but where is your proof? Show me anywhere in anything I have ever written where I have suggested I believe in creating an exclusive category for myself and then from that category put everyone else down? I asked you befpore Keng to put up or shut up and you simply repeat the same accusation with NO BASIS to your accusation. That Keng is what malicious is. Malicious is someone who comes on this forum, and tries to incite and provoke people with deliberately hateful comments. I edited the post Keng precisely because I know someone like you would try manipulate it but I stand by it. There is nothing malicious about it. I have even edited this one so the moderators do not have to tell me to cool it. I stand by my words in this forum each and every one of them particularly those in response to you Leafless Keng. My words are there Keng and so are yours. Trying to portray yourself as a victim of a racist is at this point absurd.

I think the word reverse racism is a misnomer myself. If someone is being racist, its racist, period. Violence is violence. Does violence provide a pretence to respond with equal violence? I mean that is the question you really are raising. Well in an ideal world we respond but we don't engage in the same violence-we use justifiable and reasonable force needed to protect ourselves and let the law deal with the rest. Right? The problem is if we become the very thing we are fighting we get caught in the cycle of never ending violence. Now mind you there are plenty of spectators judging the abused and telling them they should show restraint-that's what arm chairs and distorted safe distance from the conflict fuels. What I say is, somehow we need to find a way to intercede once the violence occurs to prevent it from happening again and preventing the need for the abused to have to fight back in the first place. Of course that's all ideal and in the real world people are left to fend to themselves as laws take too long and often bog down with technical rules that allow the abusers to evade responsibility for their actions. Solution? There is none of course but to me I think the best we can do is apply the same consistent standards to all situations and not set up excuses and rationalizations to allow some privileges others can not have. So then there is the arguement, what about the disabled or people who feel they need assistance since the playing field is not even? Well yah, that then becomes another issue because what we are really then talking about is how do people get judged on their merit not preconceived negative generalizations. To me the answer to that is in getting to children young enough before they set up their thinking processes that define people in preconceived negative general terms. The key-teach people to be flexible, open-minded and creative and not afraid to constantly question, challenge, change and adjust to situations. Yah I know, wishful thinking.

Lol. Considering half the posts on this forum are from Canadians criticizing US issues its absolutely ludicrous for someone to question you simply because you are American and the issue at hand happened in Canada. Using this logic only people from Brampton, Ontario should be able to comment? He obviously just does not get the point that violence against women is an issue without borders. The idea Canadians can't take criticism from Americans or anyone else is as snively as it gets. Trust me YankeeWoman some of us North of the US can handle it. A nation that is responsible for Celine Dionne must be accountable for its actions and the devastation her singing that friggin Titanic song over and over has caused throughout the world.

You made in my opinion an ignorant racist comment. Provide the reference for the above practice and prove it or issue an apology.

I wish to respond to Leafless's comments to Charter of Rights he stated; (quotation marks) "I know what makes a Canadian and their culture, but sure as hell you don't. But you, being part of a minority, you have to come up with excuses." The above simply evidence's Leafless' hatred towads those he perceives different then him. "Do you like to push little White guys around? Tit for tat, right." The above comment demonstrates a very common phenomena-the fact that the first thing someone does when they abuse another is to portray themselves as a victim as they engage in their abuse. "Why don't you go play cowboys and Indians with your friends, rather than post childish personal attacks and leave this forum for the more informed." Interesting Leafless engages in the exact same exercise he ridicules Charter of Rights for. Call me silly but I could have sworn for a second Leafless writes just like Keng. Lol.

Leafless I believe your above feigned lack of awareness is as transparent as your agenda. Leafless you can couch your agenda with references to preserving Christian/white culture but it fools no one. More to the point, even if you were able to segregate Canada and maintain your exclusive enclave of white Christians, you could not stop there. You would then need to create more tiers to exclude Catholics, East Europeans, anyone not from Scotland or England, gays, and so on. Even when you did create further tiers within your exclusive society you would still need to keep going to assure you were self-served and at the top of your ruling class because that is the agenda is it not Leafless? Please. All this is about, is you wanting to create a system of power and privilege for yourself at everyone else's expense. Excuse me Leafless,but your attempt to portray yourself as a cultural icon being threatened by other cultures is to me utter bullshit. Its simply you as an individual whining that he has no automatic entitlement to privileges and rights he thinks others have and only he should have,

1. I was not referring to you but I do find it of course interesting how insecure/paranoid you are and how dilued you are in thinking I constantly think of you and with every baited breath refer to you. A tad narcissistic are we? 2. You also made a statement assuming I adhere to an idelogy that excludes people based on race. Your assumption is not only incorrect but once again manifests what you do when you respond-you project onto others your own qualities and then accuse people of having such qualities when in fact you refer exactly to yourself and your ideology. If anyone were to read our posts on this forum Keng it would be easy to see which one of us is the one who has excluded anyone from his list who is not a true Christian including making hate statements about gays, Jews, women, untrue Christians, etc. Go on Keng go find one post of mine where I suggested I feel superior to anyone based on my race. For you Keng all we have to do is read ANY post from you. No go run along before I have Santa take back that coal he sent you.

I am inclined to agree with you to an extent. I think some couch their words and double speak and use deliberately coded words so they can play at being racist and deny it when confronted. I think some are just out and out white supremacists and then I think others are genuinely feeling threatened by cultures they think are challenging their culture and they feel threatens to change their culture from the dominant one to just one of many. Some others genuinely believe certain cultures will never be compatible with their own. Here is what I would have to say to you. Ask your questions to someone of a non dominant culture and you will most certainly get a different answer then someone from a dominant culture and I am sure you will know why. For example in Quebec, seperatists refer to themselves as nationalists and yet as one listens carefully to references to who is Purelaines, they soon realize its not just nationalism, its racism, its about being Purelaines and if you are not Purelaines you are a threat because you are from a nonPurelaines culture. So I would say its already a fact in Quebec and has been since Canada was created in that province and will always be a fact. Now if you are not a purelaines in Quebec you would see seperatism and Quebec nationalism as racist. If you were Quebecois purelaines you would see yourself as oppressed tryng to protect yourself from a larger hostile dominant culture. So it depends on whether you feel dominant in culture or submissive, i.e., part of a sub-culture not the mainstream one. Canada has had a history of racism towards Chinese, Sikhs, Japanese in the past. There was also a discrimination based on whether you were English-Scottish Protestant or anything else other then that, i.e., Jewish, Catholic, Irish. This country is made up of immigrants who were not English-Scottish Wasp and each experienced their own barriers as they came and worked there way into Canadian society. That discrimination was a mix of race, religion and/or culture. I would suggest the name of the dominant culture may chance, but the dynamics between different peoples remains the same and racism or discrimination or what-ever you want to call it constantly mutates as new networks or coalitions are formed between those who are established in society seeking to consolidate or preserve their power from those newer who they see as threatening competition. In the end I personally believe the vast majority of us are salivating peasants while a very small elite will not let go of the real power, not that I really care. I am not interested in being trapped in a mansion suspicious of anyone and everyone and constantly needing to be ruthless to maintain my power base. It would get quite boring and too inbred for my liking and all my children would end up looking like horses.