Rue

Here is in my personal opinion an excellent legal synopsis of Bill C-31; http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/dnlsc-31.html. With due respect Dance, Bill 31 has many flaws. That said, the concept of "wardship" you seem to be saying it changed it did not. The criticism presented in this article is based on problems associated with legal fundamentalism when it comes to defining who an aboriginal is. Much of the criticism in this article has already been conceded by the people who drafted it. The problem with looking at such amendments is in trying to understand they are a snap-shot in time in terms of where we are progressing legally. We in fact are moving away from Bill C-31 and towards another more equitable method to define the collective identity of aboriginals. Bill C 31 reflects the thought by non aboriginals that concepts of sexual equality should be superimposed into aboriginal conception of collective identity using a Western feminist legal perspective. In so doing it made defective assumptions about how aboriginals conceive gender when defining collective rights. It is this continuing assumption that Canada needs to create law to tell aboriginal people how to ceonceive of themselves is absurd. It is precisely because it assumes they are in need of such direction that leads aboriginal peoples to experience themselves still being treated as wards of the state or children of the state or inferiors who need to be told when and how to think. I think Bill C-31's intention of trying to assure how aboriginals define themselves conforms with the Charter of Rights concept of sexual equality may have been well intentioned but was poorly conceived and did not properly consider the practical implications of trying to impose one set of cultural values over another rather than trying to conceive a formula that allowed them both to co-exist for specific applications of the law when it comes to defining aboriginal collective rights.

I would agree it is crass and inopportune.

Simply put, this thread is a pretext for a handful of men to lecture women on what these women are entitled to when it comes to their health needs using the male obsession with penis size as a reference point.

????????????????????????????????? I really do try to follow such responses but I have no idea what they mean. I prefer my duck analogy. Anyways the point is de facto possession in law is considered a legitimate act to confirm one's intent to maintain rights over land and not relinquish them. So this has nothing to do with what Jennie says and everything to do what is demonstrated through the collective action of people considered a nation within a nation and entitled by law to self-determination and the expression of their collective rights to land rights they never reqlinquished. Legally I repeat, they have the legal right to do what they do, i.e., occupy, and no in law it is not considered illegal or trespass in this case and that is precisely why there is a stalemate. Just because you don't like it doesn't negate it legally. Then again, it seems the law only is referred by you selectively and is mixed with subjective political feelings you express as to when the law should be applied and for who. As a lawyer I must engage in logic and so have to follow the law which sats there are two conflicting sets of legal rights to the land and the law does not assume one has less worth then the other at this point although I suspect in law if a compromise can not be reached to everyone's satisfaction the aboriginal set of legal rights would prevail to allow them far greater rights then they have asked for to date which I of course find ironic. Legally they are only doing what they are entitled to do by law. Pretending that las that give them this right does not exist won't make them go away. Sorry to disappoint but again, Jennie's point is legally right on the point. She is not saying anything political, she is in fact stating legal doctrine as to how one goes about protecting their established rights. She did not create that method of protecting collective rights, but she and her people have inherited them and the rights that go with them. Or better said, some of us see law as a fluid notion-it flows and it mutates and changes in shape and size and variation as it flows. Its not a brittle piece of glass. Its not ice. Its flexible not solid and so when it finds itself at an impasse blocked by a conflict it does what water does, create a third path or route to get around the blockage. You can not block the inevitable movement of water or legal fairness in this case.

Sorry Riverwind I was not ignoring you. Just reading all the other posts. To answer your question, which I thought I did-the declaration's application is a non issue because it doesn't say anything specific and what it does say the Supreme Court of Canada and many case decisions have already conceded. So in one word, NO. One other thing, I have no idea the reasoning you use to say that because native peoples seek remedy to treaties that were breached that this is racist for them to do or that the notion they be considered as a nation of nations is racist or for that matter the notion they have collective rights is racist. How is it racist? I think you are confusing a people's legal right to be self-determined with your own personal subjective view that because they seek self-determination this discriminates against you. More the point you miss the legal point. The Magna Carta Act and many other doctrines and legal precedents not to mention the Supreme Court of Canada have made it clear that legally the concept of native people having collective rights and a right to be self-determined is not racist but historic rights that LOGICALLY flow from previously recognized legal relationships. If you are asking is their precedent for peoples or identifiable groups to be recognized as having collective rights that can be expressed through self-determination, I would simply say, yes that is what the Charter of Rghts enshrines and from a purely constititutional perspective it also flows from doctrine that is mroe accurately described as unwritten custom that always formed part of the Canadian constitution. In addition to our Charter and Constitution Act there are numerous unwritten doctrines that form part of our constitutionality or constitutionalism and some of those unwritten doctrine deal with the recognition of native peoples as a collective entity when negotiating with the government. That was then repeated in cases. This concept is not about being racist on the contrary it is about preventing racism-it is about conceptualizing legally that native peoples and their nations prior to the formation of Canada in 1967 are considered equals. If it was racist, then the native peoples would not be considered a collective concept and as you wish, simply be ignored as a distinct people with rights that preceded the creation of Canada and did not extinguish simply because Canada was created in 1867.

See you used the word cock. Walked into that too! LOL. Sorry.

Again as a lawyer, I would again state your comments are legally correct as usual. I find it unfortunate this debate always ends up with personal attacks against aborignal peoples' culture and spiritual values and does not limit itself to a discussion on the law. As for you Jennie, and those references to your past identities, I can only imagine how many shapes you can take! I hope one day I can get to your level. For now though I am having a good laugh as I learn to make less noise when I run. I have flat feet. ever seen a wolf with flat feet! Hah. I want to be a wolf. Right now I am more like a duck.

Its always interesting read the words of a person quick to judge others as delusional. Of course you are an expert on delusions? Does it suprise me you belittle people you do not understand? No. I am not delusional. Er at least in regards to that last point.

Nothing wrong with the tradition of British Queens; Elizabeth, Elton,George Michael, Boy George, Prince Eddy, Lord Mountbatten, T.E. Lawrence, Oscar Wilde, Larry Olivier, etc. Definition of a British man-Margaret Thatcher. You walked into that.

Hey Sharkie John Wayne was gay.

Its a non issue. Breat enhancement like breast reduction and re-creation is covered by OHIP if non cosmetic. With due respect and I say this as a man, only a man would sit around thinking this is a real issue or source of debate. Typical example of we men projecting our own preconceptions as to the importance of breast size and its implications on the nation.

Its a non issue. OHIP already covers it for non cosmetic reasons and does not cover cosmetic surgeries for obvious reasons. OHIP and for that matter medicare has obvious financial limitations and has never claimed or attempted to provide anything anyone wants as long as it makes them feel good for obvious reasons.

That Scriblett is an interesting point. Interestingly, I have read 10 different legal opinions as to whether such a declaration as you said would have or would not have legal relevance internally within Canada. I tend to lean towards your stated opnion that it would have relevance but to what extent I am not sure. I mean we have seen such declarations say in regards to refugee law go from declarations to international law to then be incorporated into domestic immigration law so there is no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen here. That said Scriblett I think that is the real reason Harper did not sign it or at least that is what he was advised by his so called legal experts. For me though, what is it really establishing as a legal precedent? That is the question to ask if you believe it does set a legal precedent...when I ask that question for now all I can answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THE LAW HASN'T ALREADY CONCEDED IN CANADA IN COURT JUDGEMENTS. In my opinion which I concede is only that, the legal question really isn't whether aboriginals have rights which is all the declaration really says-its how those rights are to be enforced or applied which this declaration is totally silent on. So that is why I say it probably helps solidify or enshrine the concept that the rights exist but then what? We already know that. The formulas for compensation for past breached treaties, or revenue sharing of exploitation of land in the future, or how land is to be accessed and used or controlled-those are all huge question marks and in the short term this may only seem to be an aboriginal issue affecting aboriginal rights but to me the very same things aboriginals seek will protect all of us aboriginal or not from unecessary or dangerous exploitation. I also think Scriblett that aboriginal interest groups and large corporations are a lot more sophisticated then we often give them credit for when it comes to establishing agreements of mutual benefit. We do already have precedent for some very creative fair working relationships. There are some progressive companies that have recognized the need for aboriginal liaisons who work with them and aboriginal communities establishing mutually beneficial relationships. It has been done. There is absolutely no reason it can't form the pith and substance of future developmental policies that benefit all of us indigenous and non indigenous.

Interestingly in the end JBG at the UN vote it was the US, Can, Australia and New Zealand who voted against. I thought for sure Brazil, Indonesia, might, maybe even Finland or Russia and certainly China. This lends me to believe a lot of countries that have the exact same concerns as Canada as to not being able to exploit natural resources and avoud indigenous claism felt the declaration we are talking about is legally meaningless otherwise they would not have signed it-either that or they just don't give a rat's ass about human rights anyways. Getting back to your issue-I on the one hand hear you loud and clear. The UN does have a huge credibility issue no doubt about it for the reasons you stated and many others. That said, I still think such declarations even from a jaded corupted world organization are at least a start. Believe it or not although I diagree with Harper at least I think he is clear and upfront and direct about his agenda unlike the Liberals who for years have pretended to care about aboriginal rights but whose agenda hasn't been any different. But that is just my personal opinion.

I find your comments in regards to the law always dead on and I find your writing style takes complex legal concepts as to land rights and explains them in very comprehensive yet easy to understand terms and I learn a lot from your comments. I appreciate your explanations. They help me learn. There is a dignity in how you express your thoughts that I truly enjoy as well. The spirit in you in my opinion makes your words not just informative but healing for peole like me trying to reconcile law with many things.

Thanlks again. I do not believe or have ever read anything from Buffy that makes me believe she condones terrorism. I disagree with much she has to say because of what I feel are unfair generalizations and subjective assumptions and biases but I would be the first to defend her as not being someone who comes on this forum to condone what terrorists have done.

I agree only personally I believe in Buffy's case its based on genuine intentions and is not being done intentionally in the sense of her tryng to hate or deliberately stereotype Jews or Israelis. I am hoping the continued debate can get her to say the same things but avoid the generalizations and look at both sides of the conflict as equals in their suffering, moral rights, and every other way.

I appreciate your comments Dancedude. They are very interesting and well presented. Here is my problem and I am not sure if it debates your positions or simply the ones you have reported; "Of course, as long as social norms remain monogamous, Canada's democracy will not fail if a few fundamentalist Mormons in B.C., or polygamous African immigrants in Toronto, are not prosecuted for violating the Criminal Code. " See the above kind of reasoning for me is selective but simplistic in its selectivity. It to me, makes it sound as if Mormons or African immigrants are a minor annyoyance that should be accommodated. Id on't understand that. It sounds patronizing. More to the point for me Dance, I am worried it misses the point. The problem with polygamy to me is the floodgates arguement. If you accommodate a few "mormons" here, or some "African immigrants" it sets a legal precedent. Law doesn't work by looking the other way on moral values such as this one, but by applying them equally to all. If you only selectively enforce it, it breaks down and becomes meaningless. I think as you know our family law that defines marriage as being with one person is based on the moral value one should be married to only one person and yes that probably is a cultural bias flowing from Judeo-Christian religious values that remains entrenched in our federal Divorce Law but I also think it reflects our modern values that consider women and men as equals and seeks to avoid the kinds of relationships we know would promote conflict. I suppose if the majority of society pushed politically its conceivable it could politically achieve polygamy. I personally think the only distinction in law now between the legal spouse and a common law spouse flows from inheritance and property issues. I think that is why it remains to try prevent hopeless conflicts legally in those two areas. I hear your points. I question thought the agenda behind this. Maybe I am too suspicious and like you say, there is no additional agenda. I must confess my agreement with Jennie's take comes down to my gut feeling which is probably far from rational but its there. As always you do an excellent job discussing the issue in a logical manner. That of course is not the issue.

With respect, I stand by Jennies comments and positions on this. She is not alone.

In response to Argus' comments; "Grow up. Discrimination exists throughout society at every level on every subject. " The above comment makes no sense. Because something is wide-spread does not make it acceptable or ideal or anything else, it just makes it widespread-it doesn't legitamize it and you know it. Your arguement is if something is widespread then its o.k. Nonsense. The fact that discrimination is so blatant in favour of only one religion is unacceptable and its time you and anyone else grow up if you think such a status quo must be accepted by anyone. Canada is coming of age and this means it is growing up and has grown out of this antiquated concept that any one religion should have preference or be promoted differently then others in its public school system. Its precisely because some of us are evolving or as you would say "growing up" we choose not to remain entrenched in antiquated beliefs and systems that try impose these beliefs on others. "The Catholic system works." Why? Because you make a subjective pronouncement it does? It doesn't work for me or many like me who think it isn't working and violates the Charter and flies in the face of basic democractic precepts. "It works better than the public system simply because those in charge of the public system are morons." Well then. At least we know what your pronouncements are based upon-subjective opinions. Of course for those of us who want to construct laws and constitutional rights based on fairness and equality, such subjective feelings or opinions of yours are problematic. Some of us believe rights as to freedom and equality have to be based on consistent neutral values and not simply those you like or do not like. "It does not ghettoize." Of course Catholic schools "ghetto-ize" in the sense that they are selective and necessarily impose specific religious values on its students that make it impossible for students without those same religious believes to be able to attend such schools. "You couldn't tell a Catholic school from a public school without someone telling you. " Again this is a silly comment and some of us do know what goes on in Catholic schools and how they differentiate from the other public schools. There is a reason Argus they are called Catholic. For you to pretend they do not incorporate specific Cathoic religious practices and beliefs in their day to day functions and curriculum is silly. "I am deeply suspicious of these smaller religious schools." I am deeply suspicious of ANY school that claims to be public and imposes religious values. I believe school is a public domain and therefore must be neutral and remain out of the religious equation just like the state should. From an academic perspective one teaches religion by comparing them all as equals in a curriculum that does not suggest one is better or more important then any other or has precedent over any other. " I've heard nothing good about them." From the sounds of it your hearing is selective. "On the contrary, what tales do emerge, as from the likes of Irshad Manji's, who attended a Muslim school in Canada, are of incompetent teachers preaching hate and religious fanaticism to impressionable young minds. " Like I said your hearing is selective. Interesting how you heard about the above but did not hear anything positive about Muslim schools. Should I be suprised? "Catholics in Canada are secular minded. To a certain extent so are Jews, but the rest are not. " Private Jewish schools are most certainly secular that is why they are private and Jewish. They specifically want to teach a Jewish religious agenda as a major part of the curriculum and inseperable from it, no different then what Catholic public schools do. What a private school does is not the issue. The fact that it is private gives it the right to teach what it wants in terms of religion. The only issue is when you go to the public to fund it, why should I a Jew or anyone else fund it? I do not think for a second its any non Jews responsibility to fund Jewish schools just as I would expect any Muslim or Catholic or Satanist or Wiccan etc., from not expecting the public fund their schools if they want to promote specific religious beliefs but not any others. "Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business.-Irshad Manji" Well that's a nice quote and the point? Let me help Argus. I grew up the only Jew on a street of Irish schooled in the Catholic School system where they were taught I personally killed Jesus and would be going to hell and I was reminded of this every Christmas and Easter and despite my attempts to assure my Irish neighbours I did not kill Jesus, there were many fist fights. I obviously survived and as you lectured me before I did grow up and learned discrimination flows from religions being taught in schools. Its precisely why I am suspicious of and do not think religious schools lend to democractic or pluralistic values but tend to make people feel they have to be different and look for differences in others. It is why for me I take on a more universal approach to religion and prefer to discuss and understand them all using the same objective model I apply to all of them. I believe sound academic curriculum does not promote one religious view over another, it presents them all as equals and in context to what they are faith systems created for and by humans who claim to have been inspired by God. Education should not be designed to impose a particular faith or way of thinking-it should teach us to be flexible and open minded and be able to see a pelthora of possibilities not just one. That is why I and so many others whether we are Catholic, Jewish, etc., might believe no religion belongs in a school as does the current Catholic one, if it is publically funded. I repeat again, if you believe your children as a part of the education curriculum need to learn one religion more then any other because you feel that is your religious and cultural need that can not be compromised, don't expect the state to fund it. The only reason we are having this debate is for 2 reasons; i-no politician will alienate the majority of voters in Ontario who like the majority of the population are Catholic and disband the Catholic public school system and stop violating the Charter of Rights; ii-no politician has the guts to say, its wrong to fund Catholic schools publically if we don't fund all other religions in public schools equally, but since funding all religions in public schools equally is impossible, we must be fair and do away with ANY OR ALL Catholic public schools. This is not an issue as to whether you believe in Catholicism or any other religion. This is an issue as to what should be the state's role and how it maintains fairness and equality to all not just some groups. It is also a matter of understanding the limitations of a state and once and for all understanding institutions can't be all things to all people so they have to accept such reality and avoid trying to be all things, and just concentrate on one thing that all can embrace regardless of religious values. The true test of public access is whether it does not make it possible for only some to have access and no its not possible for me as a Jew to send my child to a public Catholic school so know tax money should not be sent there just as public tax money should not be sent to Jewish schools or Muslim schools because it would be absurd to believe non believers would send children to such schools. Grow up? I have. I no longer cling to the antiquated outmoded belief systems of an era that believed we should impose religion on people because otherwise they would go to hell. The Catholic religion does not have a track record of tolerance in its school system in the past and while I do not doubt many Catholics are well intentioned and understand their desire for continuing the status quo, I truly believe they know they are receiving favoured status and that is just not fair. However as a law abiding person I also understand to change the system it will require a political not legal process.

Don't forget the Satanists and those two guys that look like ZZ Top that smoke Marijhuana and believe it is their religion and have run for office. I would like to see legally how a religion will bedefined to become eligible for funding. RELIGIOUS ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING ACT OF ONTARIO Statutes of Ontario, 2008, C. 587 Preamble Whereas it is the intention of the Province of Ontario to fund public shcools of a religious nature it is necessary to define the criteria for religious eligibility for funding. Definitions "religion" a thought or thoughts held by more then one person as to the creation or meaning of existence "eligibility" anyone constituting a thought or thoughts concerning the meaning of existence desiring funding by the Ministry of Education, of the Province of Ontario "'circumscized" a possible indication of religious predeliction "naked" a state associated with specific religious beliefs". "satanist" one who openly supports the Toronto Maple Leafs

Yoh Dance Dude his words were taken out of context. They were never intended in the way some are spinning them and I personally believe people are not that stupid nor will think anything of what he said. All he said was he saw no reason the creationist theory could not be taught. He didn't say present it as a swcientific concept. He simply meant like any view it could be discussed with an open mind and why shouldn't it? In a proper curriculum it has a place in study ALL religions and in understanding what some people still believe and how it is an example of how some people do not believe in science but prefer such theories. That is all he was saying. The fact that this theory is contraversial was not the issue nor is he saying he agreed with it. He was just saying teaching ideas requires an open mind and flexible approach. Its a tempest in a tea-pot I think. Me Dancedude you know where I stand. I personally believe NO school should be religious. I think it is dead wrong to have a seperate Catholic publically funded school system. That is blatant religious discrimination in favour of Catholics and against all other peoples and it is wrong and was wrong and the only reason it was passed was because Premier Davis a good Catholic felt it his religious duty to pass it. Dalton McGuinty is a prize hippocrate saying no other schools should be funded but the Catholic one should particularly since his wife teaches in a Catholic school and he went to one. Talk about a bias conflict of interest. The point is NO one should have funding for their religious views whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan what-ever. No the solution isn't trying to fund hundreds of religions. Where will it end? Who next? Satanists? No the point is Ontario has to do away with all religious affiliation and have one public school system that is neutral. It then should have a curriculum that teaches theology but presents ALL religions and compares them and when explaining them explains creationism. It is all about context. If people want to send their kids to special religious or heritage programs that is their private responsibility. The state only has an obligation by the way to teach English and French. It then hopefully can offer other language instruction such as Spanish or German if it can find the proper teachers but this would be optional and based on languages not preference to one person's culture over another. The problem is no politician has the guts to alienate the majority Catholics in the province. Tory took a smarmy way out. This way he can monopolize his sensitivity to minority religions and make himself look more Liberal then McGuinty. As a Jew I resent being stereotyped as someone who needs his religion funded in a public school. Absolute horse shit. My religious and cultural heritage is my private responsibility just as it is for Scots, Greeks, Italians, etc. No good comes of mixing religion with public taxes. OK Dancing Dude I have had my say. Back to you and the others.

I must agree with you. There are many other countries with indigenous peoples and resource issues that are also on the side of Russia and Canada including the US, Australia and New Zealand, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Inmdonesia, China and the Philippines to name a few....not that it makes their position any more acceptable but I do think its misleading to suggest its only Canada, Columbia and Russia. Wherever you see mass destruction of forests, wetlands and widespread mineral excavation there's a country at odds with its native peoples. What makes Canada so reluctant today is two things. One Harper is of course doing a 360 degree policy flip flop to distance himself from the fact the policy comes from the Chretiens Liberals and is something Paul Martin holds dearly. So on one level its about ego. But on another level it is quite simply the sad reality of "the melting North". Now that there is a rush by the US, Russia, Denmark and Norway as well as Canada to try dominate the North and its potential ability to provide timber, minerals, gas, oil, of course federal governments including Denmark's Norway's and Finland's (yes Finland still has huge battles with its Laplanders over property rights) suddenly will be thinking, if we give indigenous peoples rights, we may end up having to share the profit or worse still maybe these people will not agree to exploit the land on the scale these goevrnments will want to. So of course it comes down to profit sharing issues that flow from conflicting claims to the land and yes even non binding international treaties have the capability of setting legal precedents even though they don't start off that way. Any non binding international agreement that is followed for a solid period of time without disruption, can become enforceable. I do think it is absolute nonsense to depict indigenous peoples as the ones acting unfairly. That is an absolute misrepresentation of their legal rights and the actual historic facts leading to the breach of treaties and who is to blame for them. People who lump all indigenous people into this stereotypical category that they are asking for things they are not entitled to, do so because its the intellectual lazy way out-by demonizing indigenous peoples, they do not have to bother to find out just what rights have been violated and who violated them. Its easier to demonize people then take the time to read about who they are, where they come from, and why they find themselves in the situations they are in. It is interesting to see some of you unable to resist smeering all indigenous peoples simply because theymay have interest groups seeking to have their treaties enforced while you remain deliberately silent with the breaches committed by governments and large corporations. Talk about a double standard. A leader has to be visionary. Right now with due respect, I believe Mr. Harper is avoiding constructing any long term vision with aboriginals and I believe he has the intellectual capacity to do so but is reluctant to venture outside his comfort zone. I personally think he is simply doing what a Social Credit leader who calls himself a Conservative or former Reformist but is truly a recycled Social Credit leader does-he lives in the moment and caters tp short term implications-he's not worried about the state of Canada 5, 10, 20 years from now let alone 100 years from now. What we know about Mr. Harper is he thinks in the present tense and he thinks by doing so this is common sense and the key to good government. I think he does this with honest intentions. I think he looks at facilitating the immediate economic needs of large business because he believes that is the best thing you can do as a goivernment for the economy. The evironment and long term consequence do not appear to be his primary concerns-assuring business can obtain profit is. when you read his theories on the economy, he comes from the school of thought that believes first and foremost to serve the most important need of a state a government must assist business in generating profit which in turn he believes trickles down in a ripple to benefit we the uneducated otherwise unemployed, unproductive masses. Gold old social credit theory. Real Couette and WAC Bennet would be proud of him. So would Preston Manning's daddy. Me I tend to be a modernist on this topic. I think if Canada is to properly exploit the North it can not do so my permanently damaging or polluting the North and has to have politicians willing to forgo short term benefits by ignoring environmental concernsto assure long term benefits by honouring environmental concerns. Of course not living in the here and now and generating huge profit and jobs does not get you votes. I also believe the indigenous peoples if shut out of the exploitation process, will eventually turn on these governments and sabotage their efforts. If big business thinks it can police and protect its operations and shut out the indigenous peoples good luck to them thinking they can. Without an alliance with the indigenous peoples, they don't stand a chance. The key to exploiting natural resources is to honour the rules of nature not try ignore them. Its possible to use the planet without causing it permanent damage. The question is, are politicians so interested in short term gain, willing to listen to indigenous peoples who are far more advanced in their understanding of the environment and the rules of nature then the alleged scientists and researchers behind these corporations. Does anyone not believe there will be an oil spill off the coast of Saint John's once Hebron is in full operation? Yah right, the operations are iceberg proof. Yah yah. Seen that. Hated the movie with Leo DeCapprio. My wife made me watch it three times. That Celine Dion music was torture.

I appreciate the support southern. I really do. Many have been supportive of me on this forum and I appreciate it and it humbles me. I may sound like I am picking on Buffy but I actually blast her precisely because I happen to respect her idealism and caring about the suffering of people and do not think she is intentionally being anti-semitic at all.

Actually having travelled a bit I find it very hard to criticize what I have in Canada after seeing what others don't outside Canada. I mean KP did a good job. Me I would criticize our environmental policies, also oe inability to settle the aboriginal claims and get our relations with our native peoples fair and straight once and for all, and like KP says our bloody complacency at allowing everyone to come into the country and buy up all our natural resources or the fact that Canadians are loath to invest in their own country....but its the kind of criticism said with appreciation that its precisely only this I criticize. My only real heavy duty criticism is this trait I believe many Canadians have that we are entitled to what we now have. What do I mean? Well I was at the CNE. I went over to the armed forces exhibit. I was listening to a young man on the phone saying " I am over at the military thing...you know the military thing-um what you call it like the people with guns and stuff". This was a guy who looked in his late twenties wearing a beret and he had hair chin with no mustache. Probably a University of Toronto student! He wasn't stoned enough to be from Mt. Allison or Trent and certainly not drunk enough to be from Queen's or Waterloo. Could have even been heaven forbid I say it...a CBC employee. I fear many of us born in the country and take all it offers for granted have no idea the price being paid to allow us to be so soft and complacent. You know like having to carry guns n stuff.