Rue

"Democracy trumps all claims of native title. If the majority of people living on land are not native and do not feel they are part of any native 'nation' then that land no longer belongs to the native 'nation'. No treaty or legal document is required - it is simply the practical and legal reality in Canadian and International law. Negotiations with native groups only apply to land that is not currently occupied. Well now. Which international law are you referring to. You certainly are not referring to Canadian law because the Supreme Court of Canada has already made it very clear that native rights and compensation for past violations of treaties with natives are not dependent on their currently occupying land. As for international law, I know of know international law that states the moment you occupy land the former persons from whom you took the land lose their rights automatically. I think it is a bit more complex then that and I think you are misunderstanding the law of adversarial possession let alone the legal meaning and application of treaties with the natives of Canada. I will say it again, you can not simply snap your finger and the legal rights of natives vanish because you say so or are physically on land that they are not on. Its far more complex then that and neither international law or domestic Canadian law, say what you have stated.

"more along the lines that Europe's collective guilt over the Nazi holocaust has caused Europe to embrace multiculturalism to an absurd degree" "What's positive that the Muslim immigrant community has brought to Canada? I mean, I know that "stupidity, ignorance, and intolerance" isn't a fair description of the Muslim community as a whole (although it certainly descrivbes an element within that community) but at the same time I'm not sure of anything Muslims have contributed to Canada that shows how "multiculturalism makes us all richer" either.' Kimmy my take on Europe is that it has never embraced multi-culturalism in spite of the holocaust and precisely for that reason Germany and France felt compelled to pass laws forbidding citizens from denying the holocaust. But I would agree in many countries its attempts to be multi-cultural have in fact created reverse racism and bred intolerance. I am thinking specifically of certain laws in Austria as I say that designed to accommoodate Muslims in public swimming pools that allow them only to swim with each other, but are creating a back-lash. However I also think Europe (if I must generalize for the sake of discussion) has never come to grips yet with its inherent racist nature from its colonial days. I think today racism is still wide spread in France and in most European countries when it comes to Turks and Muslims and gypsies and Africans. I am of course generalizing for the sake of discussion but I base my comments on analyzing the number of race based crimes or acts reported and recorded by groups like amnesty and Human Righs Watch, etc. I think Europeans always have been and always will be distrustful of non Europeans and in particular people not native to their particualr countries. In Holland for example, The Dutch would be the first to admit their experience with Molluccans has been problematic from the get go and race riots in France are a self-explanatory phenomena. And please do not get me wrong. if I have to generalize I would say the Dutch are as cool and liberal as you get. Its not meant to slur anyone. Its based onw hat I saw and what they told me in my travels. Now the next issue you bring up whether it be in Canada or Europe is of course the issue as to whether immigrants bring intolerance on themselves by refusing to assimilate. That is of course the age old debate of multi-culturalism. If one chooses to come to Europe or Canada but retain their culture, do they risk alienating themselves from the mainstream and is it possible to retain one's culture but not be alienated by the mainstream. I personally think that while in Europe there is inherent racism carried over from their colonial days, I personally think in Canada, the multi-culturalism we see yes is partially as a result of the anti-semitic policies of McKenzie King but also very much a unique Canadian phenomena that came about in the Trudea era as a method to negate seperatism and also eveolved from the fact that Canada has always been reluctant to be a melting pot and define a common vision to buy into. To this day there is a reluctance to be Canadian first and thus all the hyphenated Canadians, dual citizens and demands by so many interest groups to be treated as "equals". The demand for equality to me is another way of demanding one need not assimilate and still be able to retain certain values. All of the above is my personal subjective opinion not based on objective data. I admit that. For me I think Canada and all Canadians have to get to the point where we realize we have to put Canada first and what-ever else we are second for Canada to continue to function. There is a balance between intolerance and multi-culturalism. Now when we get into discussions about Muslims I personally do not like to generalize all Muslims. I think we forget Muslims like all other visible minoroty groups have a wide range of cutlural, religious and political views. I think we have a tendency to assume most Muslims are fundamentalist in religious belief and do not want to assimilate and are hostile to Canadian values. I don't assume that the same reason I detest it when certain pin heads write into this forum and make racial slurs about Jews or make generalizations about gays or anyone else. However I think you have the right to criticize me as a Jew, or someone else as a Muslim or what-ever, if we allow such values to compromise the general well being, safety and sovereignty of Canada. if I say to you I am a Jewish Canadian but I will side with Israel before Canada, then you in my opinion have the right to criticize that and say -you can't have your cake and eat it to. At least that is what I think and I would go so far as to say I think most Jews and Muslims and new Canadians would agree. Here is the next point. I don't care whose religion it is or what religion it is, I would say, if you want to enjoy the rights of Canadian citizenship then you must understand one thing is NOT subject to compromise and that is when you practice your religion in Canada, it must be done with the full respect and tolerance of other religious beliefs and so we all must practice the Golden Rule and understand in public places, schools, we treat each other with respect and do not take sides. So to me at Christmas time that means, if a Christian wants to celebrate Christmas I smile and welcome it and I do not take it personally as offensive just because I am Jewish. That is b.s. am I that insecure I need to demand Christians stop smiling as well? On the other hand if someone in the name of Christianity said only Christmas can be celebrated, then I would have a problem and say to them, hey that is going to far. In my life I never had a Christian tell me not to celebrate Hanukah because they found it offensive. If I did get into a discussion with a Christian who told me I am going to hell unless I convert and repent, I would politely move along. That is what one does in a democracy where I am guaranteed to walk the street and enjoy the same rights as that Christian who may feel I am damned. What I see today are being being intolerance in the name of tolerance! That is why I criticize people who in the name of religion want law legislated to discriminate against people who do not have the same religious views. On the otjher hand, me personally I say to fundamentalists of all religions, your values are a private matter for you inside your houses of worship. I won't come in their and tell you hwo to pray, but don't cme outside and expect the law to allow you to impose your views on me. Now when a Muslim women says to me she wants to remain 100% covered from head to toe I put it this way-I say-that is fine, but if you want a driver's license taken show your face or you don't get a license. You can't have it both ways. If for security reasons your face needs to be visible then flex your values or learn to walk away and not have your cake and eat it to. I say to fundamentalists of any religion, you don't want to marry gays or enagge in certain religious beliefs about marriage that's fine, that is your business, but understand there are still laws that supercede yours by the state governing marriage that you can't opt out of or violate. So I say to a Catholic who finds it impossible to reconcile gay marriage-don't--that is your personal religion it is not the state's concern. However go the next step and ask the State to impose your beliefs on gays ouside your church, then I have a problem. An dI ay to Gays, if you go inside the church and are not accepted, that is a private matter between you and your church the state can not get involved in. However outside the church, your right to be married civilly is of course a different issue. And I also say, start your own church too or fight inside the church but understand when the state intervenes and when it does not. I say to Muslims or Jews who want to follow their religious laws as to marriage and divorce, fine, but if you violate Canadian divorce laws or marriage laws, then they are not enforceable or recognized by the state. Canada is not a menu of convenience where you only select the things you like and break the remainder of the laws you don't like. I personally like to think of myself as a Liberal in a cultural sense, but I fail to see why even as a cultural Liberal I should not expect to have to be willing to honour and conform to Canadian law and certain Canadian values. For me Christmas may be Christian for Christians, but it also gives me an opportunity to enjoy a holiday with Christians that makes them feel good and I get days off as well. I don't see how sucha duality is problematic. I do question on the other-hand why people feel they can have divided loyalty over certain things. I would say to stephane Dion for example, no stephane it is b.s. for you to accept election to an elected office and tell people you see nothing wrong with having dual citizenship. That is pure b.s. Either you swear an allegiance just to Canada, or don't run for office until you do. This is b.s. to say, I only give up my French citizenship if I am elected. That is crass opportunism and shows everything wrong in my opinion with dual citizenship. Think about it. France disagrees with Canada on where to place its soldiers in Afghanistan. As a result it can be argued Canadian soldiers die, because French foreign policy assures that French soldiers do not share the same liability exposure thereby placing more death exposure on Canadian soldiers. That is not just the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is a real conflict of interest. To me in civil or private law, just the appearance of conflict of interest has to be prevented and yet with citizenship we think nothing wrong with conflict of interest. Sorry I don't buy it. Its precisely why I say, I may be a supporter of Israel's right to exist and it may have special meaning to me as a Jew, but I am a Canadian first and foremost and if I can not put Canada first, then I have to become an Israeli citizen. I can but will not have dual Israeli Canadian citizenship because I personally do not think you can be both. To me its like being a little but pregnant or trying to be both genders at once. I know with today's technology its possible to be both genders at once but I also know you either pee one way or the other and on certain basic things you can't have it both ways. Excuse the pun but I don't see it as being penalized for putting Canada first.

There is, of course, a profound difference that renders the comparison invalid. Muslim immigration to Europe has been a reality for less than 100 years. In contrast, the Jews of Europe, until the 1930's, had been ensconced there since medieval times: time to establish enclaves, cement their role in society and grow with Europe. Despite their continued marginalization and oppression they were European. Thus the comparison seems more than a bit skewed. Absolutely. Its like comparing apples to oranges. Not a fair comaprison at all.

When there is no legal need to distinguish between "dog" and "cat" then the law uses a word which applies to both. For example, if the government passes a law forbidding cruelty to animals, should they distinguish between cruelty to dogs vs cruelty to cats? Obviously not. I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge to you to demonstrate the legal difference between OSM and SSM. I suspect you have no adequate response and so you choose to ignore the challenge. If you are going to let the state define the term for legal purposes, they you are at their whim when they choose to redefine it according to societal norms. Renegade the deeafening silence is typical of anyone who wants to define morality and claims their personal moral beliefs are "legal" when others agree with them. In this case "legal" all along has been a code word for those who have the same moral values as Leafless. Thus the silence.

Arabic. Farsi is what they speak in Iran. Anyway, glad you made it back in one piece. Shiite Mulsims in the South do speak Farsi. I know Iraqis who speak Farsi.

Tibet has no oil.

Hear Hear! All we have is about 80 short years to live on this beautiful earth, we should all make the most of it and quit worrying about what may or may not happen after we die. I also applaud what Cyper said. JB with due respect, can you see how your opinion can be twisted around by people who genuinely do not like you because of your being Jewish and make themselves sound self-righteous? Us against them, is one way to define an equation but I know you are an intelligent and passionate man and know there is so much grey not just black and white. I also know you know the colour blood is red whether it is an Israeli's or a Palestinian's. Terrorists and anti-semites want you to buy into the us against them mentality. Once they have you thinking like that, you place yourself in a self-limiting ghetto. Don't. Remember Warsaw. Remember our history. Jews could not have made it this far if we did not reach out to non Jews for help. Don't let the terrorists and anti-semites cause you to lose faith. Don't let the terrorists cause you to lose your humanity and give up on the goodness in people.

DO NOT call me "boy". JBG he didn't put the three letters and hyphen before the word because in my opinion he would prefer to use code words. What do you expect. Laugh it off. We know what is behind the sentiment. Don't know about you, but if there is one thing I have learned, there are always going to be certain people who are cowards and hide behind words and run screaming for help when they don't like what someone says to them, but be equally as quick to dish out abusive dirt. The difference is you and I can be men and take it and consider it for what it is and who it comes from. JBG my only problem with your thread is I don't like Jews being used in a way to insult Muslims. I don't like to see the memory of our suffering used indirectly by anyone to put down Muslims. That aint right. Muslims went to Europe the same reason we did-looking for work. They are trying their best. You know there are many good Muslims working hard and trying to do what is best for their families and we Jews understand that and applaud it. My problem is that it gives ammunition for people who do not like Jews to respond in the same manner only escalating things. The challenge in trying to educate non Jews about Jewish history is using methods of communication that can't be twisted back to engage in hatred of others. Immigrants are the same. They just want what's best for their families.

You have brought up many interesting issues. You are obviously passionate about Israel. I am not so passionate, and my concern about Israel is Israel=US and US=Israel to most of the world. Canada gets a pass. Germany gets a pass, and on and on. For that reason, I agree with Carter that there should be debate, just as you have done, debate him (Carter). I see nothing on TV about why this or how did that happen. Perhaps Al Jazerra should be broadcast into the US. Perhaps there would be a fuller debate of the how and why of the conflict. I do not like Carter, thought he was a bad President, and only agree with him on this issue that there should be debate. Further, there should be debate as to where is the rest of the world when it comes to this IS/PA problem. Truth is, I am concerned that there will never be peace over there, and the problem keeps getting worse year after year. Even if it is not the cause of xyz problem, it is used as the excuse for the cause., and again the "=" sign. In addition, I do not see Israel as strategicly or economically important to the US, Because I am a US citizen I believe I have a stake in what happens over there because of the '=' factor. Finally, cut and run has got to be an option sometime in the future, or/and let Europe guarantee Israeli security. Some think France gave them the atomic bomb, perhaps they will have to use it to make a point. I am all for the US stop acting as a policeman. There is no real benefit to it, only pain, expense, and death. The above comments I appreciate. At least I can see genuine opinions now that I may not agree with but certainly respect. Now that you are American I would say this. I do not doubt for a second what is fueling the US-Israel foreign policy relationship is the military-industrial complex. I of course am open and honest about my passion for Israel but no in a million years I never saw Israel becoming basically a giantic lab that tests the latest US military technology which in turn can then be sold to other countries. The so called special relationship Israel has, is in fact a military development relationship where it can be used to test billions of dollars worth of technology. So when people say it simply benefits Israel and is because Israel controls the US to me that is racist b.s. I look at it and say what I say about all conflicts, a military industrial complex making money off of selling weapons is ultimately what is benefitting. Yes Israel gets military equipment but the real benefactors are the US military manufacturers. It is a tax sheltered trading system that enables them to develop technology without it being taxed-pure and simple. As well if people stopped and looked at Israel's debt to the US, they would realize the only portion of it forgiven was for specific military equipment purchases that directly benefitted the manufacturers. That said, without the U.S. Israel does not exist and never could have existed. It is that simple. The U.S. has been Israel's one true ally despite their numerous foreign relations disputes. I happen to think aside from the military industrial relationship complex, not withstanding that and not withstanding the simplistic ignorant people of the world who like to stereotype Jews because they have a predisposition to hate them, that America supported Israel because it believes in democracy and it genuinely wanted to help. Some people can not stand the idea that anyone could actually be supportive or admire Israel, or Jews for that matter. When I read these posts with the conspiracy theories and Jews of New York, etc., I don't see discussions on anything but racist stereotypes, racist generalizations based on negative assumptions. From some of the posters on this forum it does not suprise me. When I read it from a former President who made a post career out of being a mediator I am shocked. I personally think the Carter book is an attack on Bill Clinton's Middle East record and that suprises me because Clinton's approach to the Middle East was the same as Reagan's. The real difference is with the Bush's who make no secret of their loyalty to the Saudi Royal family and the oil industry and of course Bush's current relationship with a certain group of evangelists who truly believe there must be a world war for Jesus to return. In any event this line of posts has been fun. I can not believe some of the responses.

Oh yeah. What are they gonna do Rue? Launch missiles at me from helicopters? Cheat me out of my cab fare? Ship me to Syria? But thanks for the stalker warning, Rue. A new light on your mentality to be sure, and an interesting angle on the methods of the Israelite community in general. By the way Rue, I am treating this as a threat, and I have reported it as such. Interesting how you respond to obvioys tonque in cheek with racist slurs. Love it.

Oh Higgly. Do be a dear and read up on the Middle East today. Dhimmitude continues. Sorry to burst your bubble. As for why is a Jewish conspiracy in Canada US relations? You tell me. I believe the thesis is Jews control Canada and the US. I personally think this line of posts should go to another forum. The one with the white supremicists or perhaps Lydon Larouche's web site or the KKK's or the President of Iran's. He has a lovely web site. And I wouldn't visit New York this Christmas Higgly. I have put the word out. They are waiting for you.

http://imusblog.com/imus-cbs-jewish-manage...he-handicapped/ Imus is Jewish, I believe. O.k. a couple of things. Firstly thanks for sharing the news that among other things the Jews controlling CBS hate handicapped people. Now me, clearly in communicating with you show at least one infidel Zionist is trying to dialogue with the handicapped and show my deep sensitivity and caring. Secondly Imus is Jewiosh?. Uh hello. Some of the most ardent anti-Zionists and anti-Israelis are "Jews" just like not all Palestinians are anti-Israeli and some Muslims such as Salim Mansurwrite articles in support of Israel. Your point? I suppose you feel it is important you label people and then make assumptions from the labels it immediately makes them credible, i.e. if a Jew says something anti-Israeli it automatically is true..er wait...they could be simply manipulating you into thinking that is what they think..they are after Jews...and you know how Jews conspire. To trust a Jew or not? That be the question. If a Jew says what we agree with, then quote him, otherwise, label him a Zionist conspirator and dismiss him. Yah. Been there. Done that. Now Niagra would you find it appropo tI have assumed you are handicapped iven the calibre of your responses and have assum,ed you are intellectually delayed? Tsssk. Heaven forbid we should make such generalizations. Now on a more serious note. I am just overwhelmed with joy that you feel empowered by James Earl Carter Jr. Politics makes such strange bed-fellows. I actually have read his book. A lot of us Jews especially those of us conspiring to take over the world read. What I find interesting is he sure has put a hole in Lyndon Larouche's theories. I mean Mr. Carter was supposed to be involved in a conspiracy with the Rockefellers and the homo-sexual Kissinger (Laourche says he is a homo-sexual) and Zionists to take over the world, now he's gone and written an anti-Israel book. Tssk Tssk. He probably wrote his anti-Israel book as a cover to make you think he is anti-Zionist, careful it could be a plot. Here is the point and I will try use small non Jewish, non Zionist words..... His book is merely an opinion piece. It has no data.He has given subjective opinion statements that the Oslo accord favoured Israel but offers no reason. What is also strange is that anyone who read the Oslo accord, sees it gave the PLO 96% of what they asked for. So why he is challenging Oslo at this time? Gosh do you think he is upset with Bill Clinton for rejecting his advise over Oslo? Could it possibly be his nose is out of joint that Clinton did not use him and ignored his advise and arrived at Oslo without him? That said he essay completely ignored all the events of the Palestinian conflict except one, the decision of the Israeli government to allow settlers on the West Bank. He stated the settlers on the West Bank are the SOLE reason there is a conflict. Oh. OOOOHHHHH. Gosh. And for a second I thought there were some other factors. Hello Niagra you still there. Have I lost you? Follow me. Assuming the obvious, that the settlements on the West Bank are an obstacle in any over-all peace plan and made matters worse and fueled tension- why the selectivity and decision to choose to ignore every other factor and in particular the decision by Hamas, Hezbollah and many other factions to believe that violence is legitimate and the destruction of Israel and the removal of the Israeli state is a reasonable vision to pursue through violence? Why the silence on everything but the West Bank settlements?. Kind of like analyzing what's wrong with the Toronto Maple Leafs and making no comment they have no scoring power. .... its incomplete and ridiculously so. He is quick to state he feels putting up walls is an obstacle to peace, but completely silent on how he would prevent terrorists from attacking Israel. Why? Why the selectivity? He says there need to be two states (awful Christian of him) and says terrorism is bad, but he makes zero comment on how Israel shouldto defend itself against terrorists. Why? He uses words like apartheid to describe Israel's decision to want its own country but makes no comment of dhimmitude or the segregation within Muslim society between its many sects of Muslims and between Muslims and Christians let alone Muslims and Jews. Why? He makes no mention of the intolerance and apartheid within Muslim society when discussing the over-all conflict. Why? Carter was silent on Palestinian society's continuing rejection of Israel as a state and the wide spread anti-semitism and links to holocaust denial many of its politicians and all its terrorist organizations and many of its civilians engage in. Why? He also ignored and makes no mention of the peace offers and withdrawals Israel did make. Why? Why did he remain completely silent on former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's peace initiatives at Camp David in 2000? why? Why did he remain silent and not comment on Bill Clinton's statements that Arafat lied and ripped up an agreement Clinton and Barak and he agreed to? Why? Why is it Clinton claims Israel offered Arafat 96% of what he wanted only at the last second to see Arafat rip it up, and yet Jimmy who was not there, when analyzing Oslo says it is one sided in favour of Israel? Why did he ignore Prime Minister Ariel Sharon'ss disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's campaign pledge to withdraw from the West Bank? Why no reference to these two developments? Why when he did discuss examples of conflicts that cause Palestinians great problems, did he omit any mention of how these conflicts evolved othger then to opine a vague subjective comment that it was caused by Israel but no other explanation? Why did Carter not discuss co-relation of Palestinian terrorism to the conflict?. Why did he ignore the economic problems brought on Palestinians not by Israel but the PLO and its wide spread coruption? Why did Carter ignore Marabark of Egypt, Hussein of Jordan, the UN, The European Union, The Kings of Spain and Norway, and yes even the Saudis who all supported Oslo? So Niagra. Your buddy Jimmy Carter certainly made a comment that there is Jewish control of American policy, but of course he provided no data to explain how he arrived at this conclusion. Yes Jimmy said and I quote; "There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories." Yah think? Yes all Americans are idiots. They haven't a clue, and those Israelis just control the congress and capitol hill. O.k. Niagra. Let's just suppose you can actually spell Niagra Falls and know that there are two of them one in New York and one in Canada. O.k. if you can do that then surely you can also ask yourself, how is it Jimmy Carter made no mention of the military-industrial complex's role in the Middle East and how thousands upon thousands of US industries tied to the military-industrial complex have direct vested financial interest in what goes on not just in the Middle East but every other conflict zone of the world? How is it he ignored any mention of the Chinese foreign policy lobby which in fact when he was in power has now been shown was able to become a major contributor to the Democratic party and was able to influence his decision to open up US markets to Chinese one sided predatory pricing collapsing many US companies that could not afford to compete with the cheaper Chinese labour? Why no mention of how the Chinese foreign policy impacts on the Middle East since China must get all its oil from Iran and can not get its oil from Saudi Arabia or the UAE and so necessarily must side with a regime that finances Hamas and Hezbollah? Why is it Jimmy made no mention of the role of the oil industry lobby and there role in the Middle East and in particular foreign policy relations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Iraq or the US alliance with Egypt? Why? Why did he ignore the role of the Russians, Turkey, Germany, France, OPEC, the European Union, Nato, and the UN, as well when examining what influences US foreign policy in the Middle East? Why? Jimmy Carter knows that when it comes to world politics, the military-industrial complexes of not just the US but Britain, France, China, and Russia and then other military manufacturers like Belgium, Germany, former East European countries and North Korea and Japan have all had crucial roles in the Middle East not to mention the oil industry and the need for pipelines to be built. Jimmy completely ignored the role and influence of the petro-chemical industry and the US's need to secure moderate allies to be able to place safe pipe-lines to get natural gas and oil. Why? How could Jimmy also completely ignore the fall-out from 9-11, the war in Afghanistan, developments in Pakistan and the fundamentalists threatening to topple Jordan, Syria and Egypt when discussing the Palestinian conflict? Why? Do you think anyone will take Jimmy seriously when he has completely ignored all of that and tries to poryry it as simply Israel controlling Us foreign policy? Jimmy has done what many have done. He has expressed his subjective feelings but he has done himself a great diservice. This is a man who prided himself in being a moderate, a mediator, a man who did not choose to take sides in conflicts-but in this case, he has chosen not only to take one side, but not explain why. Had he taken time to research his opinions and provide a basis for his opinions I might take it more seriously. Now read my lips. Yes Israel did not help matters allowing settlers on to the West Bank. It fueled the conflict. Btu for Jimmy to say Israel simply wants to expand and that is what the problem is-is embarassing. Its embarassing because to make such a comment you have to completely suspend Israeli foreign policy statements, and the actions of Sharon and the IDF and the continuing statements of its leaders who say that if terrorists can be prevented from attacking Israel proper, they are gone-they are out of Gaza and the West Bank and have no interest in going anywhere else. See Niagra, I am the first to say, Israel has made some serious errors, and not simply say it is perfect just as I say the fact that there is wide spread anti-semitism and terrorists dedicated to destroying Israel getting elected to lead the Palestinian government-does not mean all Palestinians are terrorists. Both sides have serious obstacles and hatred and fear that needs to be addressed but excuse me if I spit snot at anyone who does the Israel bad, Palestine good speech. Its boring. Its simplistic. Its the manifestation of lazy minds that won't challenge themselves to understand in any conflict there is a mosaic of complex inter-relationships at play. Now hurry and hide before I find your children and make matzoh out of them.

As long as it is done in a private place, which it was, its nobody's business but theirs. Simple as that. Now as for the person who went up to Mrs. Bob Rae and told her not to vote for Bob because he was married to a Jew, etc., again I say, its Canada, we love you and tolerate everyone-please come, share with us and share your love and tolerance for us as we do you. My point is this-some people seem to think they can manipulate the freedoms they have in this country and insist on it being applied to them but not on others. I think that is what is sometimes picked up by all of us-we se people demanding and expecting respect, but not practicing it themselves. In the case of Muslims, I think many of us have a problem distinguishing between Muslims who go somewhere quiet to pray, and other Muslims who may be engaging in the politics of racism and intolerance. For some of us, its hard to tell who is who. I believe there are bigots and racists in all groups and it is not exclusive to Muslims but here is my point-if you think fundamentalists of any kind will not bring hatred and exclusivity to politics, you are dreaming. For me I see people bringing their religion to the political arena as a problematic phenomena. Religion and politics do not mix well - it always ends up in war and intolerance when the two are mixed. I myself loath the mixing of any religion with politics. In this case though we must differentiate between people praying in private and people trying to use their religion in a political way to justify hatred and discrimination when selecting a leader or pursuing political policies. Two different things I admit, but I see plenty of opportunity for confusion. Now think of it. If a politician suddenly in the middle of the convention decided to go and pray with Christians - I guarantee you he would be labelled a nut case or extremist.

Its interesting how the messenger is being attacked. Let's face it. She was just the mouth piece for a botched up environmental policy. Blaming her is I guess what we do in politics, slew the mouth-piece. I think the point is, if you really study the issue the Liberals and NDP are no better then the Tories on this issue. How Stephane Dion has been able to portray himself as a great Environment Minister is beyond me. The Liberal government may have supported Kyoto, but bent over backwords to assist industry pollute and violate the agreement. The agreement itself is flawed precisely because of the loopholes it allows for industry to purchase credits to get out of having to conform to emission controls. I think all three parties really need to sit down and get real. If Stephane Dion wants to portray himself as a champion of the environment, then fair is fair, he has to take the heat for his government's failures with Kyoto as well. As for Harper, I think this is one issue his party was unprepared for and needs to seriously re-visit. I also think its very interesting to watch Dalton McGuinty on this issue. Talk about a two faced hippocrate. If Kyoto is properly enforced, the first province in deep doodoo is Ontario. Ontario next to Texas, is the biggest air polluter in North America. If Dion pushes the envelope on this, he necessarily conflicts with Ontario on emissions standards.

You say 'of course' Jews rallied round the tree, yet the judge in the case seems to be Jewish ? Are you saying that they're rallying around this tree idea out of fear rather than good sense ? I don't see where the 'of course' part is. I did say "...unlike that Toronto judge." I don't think Jews and Muslims are rallying around the trees because of fear but I do think that they're motivated by what's in their best interests. For example, if Christian symbols can be displayed, so can their symbols. And if you want the dominant religious culture to support you in times of need, you'd better support the wishes of the dominant group. If I had religious beliefs of any sort and they weren't Christian, I'd want the Christians to display their trees so that I could display my symbols if I were so motivated. Trust me, I am Jewish and like many non Christians, the religion of the Judge is not germaine to the issue. she does not speak for minorities, especially Jews on this issue.

Yes. Its not even a Christian symbol!!! Well if it makes any difference-I am Jewish and I can not imagine a Christmas display or tree being offensive. The only thing offensive about Christians is when they try put mayonaisse on bagels. Not only is a tree symbolic of a holiday for everyone (come on we all get Christmas off) it is just meant to cheer people up, especially in that Jarvis court house which if you have ever been in it, is the most depressing place to walk into particularly at Christmas time when there are so many custody disputes. Its just ridiculous. I mean how does anyone expect anyone to be tolerant if we are this intolerant!!!! For cying out loud Christians wanting to be happy and celebrate is infectious. That is precisely the point. Why can't we share in their joy at this time of year? I was brought up to respect peoples' beliefs and especially when they are feeling good about something. This is nutso. As my father used to say, shut up and be tolerant!

There's that weird rhetoric again. The UN doesn't refuse. The UN is neither willing or unwilling. And it doesn't make decisions. Those are all choices the member states make collectively. Blaming the institution for being what the members make it simply doesn't make any sense. Thanks for that clarification. For a second I thought Hamas was responsible for the actions of its members. For a second I thought Stephen Harper's government was responsible for the actions of his members of Parliament. Thanks for making sense of that, Next time some street gang murders someone in a drive by I will remember, the gang itself is not responsible for its members. You know I have no idea what made me think the UN had an elected body like any other institution and institutions by their very definition and raison d'existence are created to promote the idea fo collective responsibility as symbolized through the office of the instiution or institutions in question. No. Of course not. How could I possibly criticize the Supreme Court of Canada for the decisions its Judges might make. Silly. Silly. The U.S. Military has no collective responsibility for the actions of its soldiers when they violate their military code of conduct. The Catholic Church has no collective responsibility when its Priests molest children. Yes I can see it all so clearly now.

Put them at risk of what? Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk. Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions. Wait, wait-Youre's saying that someone is not putting civilians in danger from missiles being launched from civilian apartment balconies, hospitals, schools, and being transported in red cross ambulances. So I want you to state who isn't placing these civilians in danger by doing this. Good grief. Its like foreplay with Paris Hilton.

Put them at risk of what? Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk. Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions. O.k. now that you have shared with us you are having cognitive processing issues, how do I explain it Figleaf; 1-a man with a beard and Shiite fundamentalist beliefs joins with other bearded men with Shiite fundamentalist beliefs 2-they joing a group called Hezbollah, say it with me Fig leaf, HEZ BOW LA 3-follow me so far, o.k. now these men in Hezbolla believe Israel should not exist at all and that all Jews worldwide are part of a Zionist conspiracy to control the world through the State of Israel and so all must be stopped and war must continue until not only all Jews are removed from Israel but a larger religious war can be engaged in resulting in the destruction of Jewish society since it is a defective religion full of infidels who are evil 4- these same Hezbollah also believe the same about Christians, gays, and Sunni Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, Bahaiis and Americans 5-follow me? so these members of Hezbollah decide they should launch missiles into Israel 6- before they launched missiles into Israel they also decided two go into Israel and kidnap two Israeli soldiers 7- before that Hezbollah said they were liberating Lebanon from Israelis, but now that Israelis were no longer in Lebanon they decided to mass along the South so they could continue fighting Israel-this is all there for you in their journals and papers 8-prior to the most recent kidnapping a man called Samir Kuntar and other Hezbollah went into Israel late on night-they took a man and his son and tortured them, then urinated and defecated on them and left them mutilated on a beech-the man's wife and daughter had to hide and the wife smothered her daughter to death preventing her from crying to alert Hezbollah 9-this same Mr. Kuntar is described by Hezbollah as a hero and the Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped were to be used as barter to get Mr.Kuntar returned have I confused you yet Figleaf? read slowly so you can get it all 10-after Hezbollah launchs their missiles Israelis die and their buildings are smashed 11-when Hezbollah fires their rockets, they do so from mobile launchers, the launchers are set up in civilian apartment buildings on the balconies, next to hospitals, schools, and they are even transported in red cross ambulances 12-so can you figure it out Figleaf, I know its hard, try now, if I take my missile launcher, and shoot it from a civilian's apartment, what do you think happens Figleaf Since in your fantasy world Figleaf, when terrorists shoot from civilian sites and use those sites as cover, you play stupid when Israel shoots back at the last coordinates from where the missile is shot and say-well it is Israel's fault. You completely ignore the obvious, that had Hezbollah not fired from a civilian site and placed those civilians in harms way, they would not get hurt. Fig if I shoot a gun at you then grab a woman and hide behind her and keep shooting at you, will you simply wait to be killed or will you try survive and shoot back? In your fantasy world when someone shoots at me, and then hides behind a woman, and I shoot back, the person who initiated the shooting does not exist, only me. I am the only one causing a problem. You see Figleaf this is why I am convinced you either have cognitive processing issues, or are convinced that terrorists can hide behind civilians but their actions have no reprecussions. Just Monday night Higgly Hamas killed innocent civilians. During a drive by shooting of Fatah they killed children. Open your hippocritical mouth Figleaf and talk about Hamas. Explain to us all how Hamas is to blame. I will say this one last time and never will I respond to the issue with you again-you have no credibility when you pretend Hezbollah, Hamas or any other terrorist organization that hides behind civilians, is not morally responsible for their deaths. In your fantasy world, Israel is to do nothing while its citizens die. I have met people like you Figleaf. They talk a big talk because they have never had a missile come at them or seen a bomb blow up and kill innocent people. As my Ne Year's resolution I will not respond to you again. It is hard for me to respect someone and debate them when they are so disingenuous.

The term "experience rating" means rates based on insurers' experience, not mine. So your contention is that insurers' experience is that straights have a more "conservative lifestyle" over gays and this affects their driving risk. Also you contend that by allowing gays to be married, it would increase the overall risk of the "married" group of drivers. Did I get that right? So if it is really their "gayness" which impacts their driving risk, why is it that insurance companies do not provide differentiated rates based upon whether you are gay or straight, regardless of if you are married or not? Well I would think gay men would be better at handling stick shift and so would be better driving standard vehicles then straights. Sorry couldn't resist.

Agreed 100%. Nash would be the first to agree as well.

"be steeled against this..." I guess this is something like "forcible confiscation" that banks engage in? "And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. Exodus 7:14 "Figleaf there is no doubt in my mind you are a religious role model for me. I think it is wonderful you now quote the Old Testament.

This thread is about is there a Jewish conspiracy, and Carter's book and op-ed seem to go along with that, an information conspiracy. It is thought by some that the media is controled by Jewish people. Carter feels that there is an abnormally strange absence of Israel debate in the American media. One plus one would indicate a Jewish conspiracy, at least according to Jimmy Carter. This all leads to a thought, is the American military independent, or just an auxillary to the Israeli military? That is not what he said. You are misquoting him. Oh but do go on. I know you know the truth and will save us all from the Jewish conspiracy. Thank you. Thank you so much.

In a pervious post you reference where you post on Canadian forums about Israel. Israel Israel. You are leading a campain. No actually it is me. When I am not engaged in controlling Hollywood or running the world banking system, I engage in conspiracies with the Rockefellers, trilateral commission, Peurto Rican impotent homo-sexuals (oh please do read Lydon Larouche will you) and others I try dominate this web site. I am the one you want. I am suprised you aren't in Tehran and the symposium. You would like it. I think you will like the part about how I make matzoh from the blood of not just Muslim children but Christian children and engage in the trafficking of the eyes of Palestinian children. You know I have a busy day what with all my conspiracies and activities trying to take down the world, but yes you are right I am conspiring to take over the post and I will get you and watch it I may try circumsize you.

Really ? How much money did they make last year ? How much went to the CFR ? What is the CFR doing ? How come they get all these tax writeoffs for the foundations - why shouldn't the American people have access to what they are doing in these foundations ? - since they are using what should be tax dollars to fund them. CFR stands for Council On Foreign Relations and its existence used to be written off as another conspiracy until people woke up to the fact that it has a big building and a street addess in New York. It was founded by David Rockefeller as all these other secret foundations being used to dismantle the USA and other Western countries. This is pathetic Lyndon Larouche conspiracy theory. This is an old theory commenced by Lyndon Larouche claiming there was a Rockefeller-Jimmy Carter conspiracy to take over the world with sinister world conspiring Jews. Give it a rest. One day your hero worshipping of Lydon Larouche is going to come to a crashing halt when you come to your senses and realize he was yet another paranoid, failure of a human being who found it easier to create conspiracy theories to justify hating, then dealing with the reflection coming back from his mirror. For heaven's sake-wake up and challenge your blanket support of Lydon Larouche and try read and open your mind to something other then what Lyndon Larouche believes.