Rue

Lol. You suddenly concerned for the rights of New York's Jews? Sorry. You left yourself wide open.

"I saw the clip and laughed my ass off. It's comedy!" Uh hello. Anyone there. When Richards said what he said he was not engaging in comedy, it was not part of his routine, and he was not trying to improvise. You laughed your ass off? You think its hilarious calling someone a n..gger in a burst of anger? I guess you find burning crosses a laugh riot as well? Get real. As for the original poster and you, I disagree with your contention that he was responding to racist comments with racist comments to make a point or be funny. He was not and said he was not. Interesting how you and the original poster give Richards motives for what he has clearly indicated were not what were his intentions or motives. As for the comment that there hasn't been slavery for a long time so what's the big deal, will someone try get the original poster to read and find out what is going on in the world today-assuming he can read. And why is it I think the original poster or you the guy laughing his head off at the ngger word-would be the first to lose it and attack someone if they called you a racist name. Double standard> Yah right. You two just let the insults bounce off you no problem. Yuk yuk. You just laugh it off. Give me a break.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone. What it says is "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right. Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT. Leafless your response makes no legal sense. For something to be interperated specifically it has to read specifically. Nowhere in the legislation you are failing to understand does it state with words marriage must be to the opposite sex. Unless it does, you can not simply assume that is what it means. Ambiguity when interperating statues can not be construed to create a specific menaing. So You are with due respect just dead wrong. Leafless you should also try to understand international human rights before you make such comments. For example are you even aware in April 2003, the Brazilian delegation to the UN CHR introduced a resolution on “human rights and sexual orientation” ? They wouldn't have been able to do that if it wasn't an international human right. With due respect, this resolution affirmed the universality of human rights and the basic principle that lesbians, gays and bisexuals were entitled to the same human rights protection as other human beings. The resolution was co-sponsored by many states, i.e., Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone. What it says is "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right. Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT. Leafless your response makes no legal sense. For something to be interperated specifically it has to read specifically. Nowhere in the legislation you are failing to understand does it limit marriage to opposite sex marriage. You are reading that interperatation into it. So you are with due respect just dead wrong. Please don't practice law.

Myata I hear you and Geoffrey on this. All I can add is I believe that what this guy did borders on fraud or could possibly even be fraud which is of course criminal. I don't think it is just a matter of a typical sheltered civil service not accountable wasting money, I think he went further and deliberately misappropriated money in a pre-meditated manner. He knew he was taking money under false pretenses. He should end up having to pay every penny back he was not entitled to and be forced to run naked around an outdoor stadium during the Grey Cup.

Monsieur Geffrey, being a bilingual Torontonian former Montrealer I can assure you Stephane Dion speaks far superior English then Mr. Kennedy does French. Now bare with my useless take on this. With due respect to Mr. Kennedy he is a light weight. His sole credentials are running a food bank and he never completed a university. Now I know a lot of idiots graduate from university but his failing to complete it shows me someone who does not finish what he starts-just like how he walked out on his Ministry of Education without paying his dues as a provincial minister and barely having been elected as an MPP. This is a man who demonstrates he does not finish what he starts. It is a sign not of amibition, but immaturity and sorry it is a serious character flaw. I also think he does not have the experience to simply jump from a food bank director to the Prime Minister of a country. It is completely arrogant of him to think he can just run and is entitled to it without paying his dues and developing executive skills let alone say get a master's in business administration or some sort of technological degree to assist him with the expertise needed to run a government in this day and age. His inability to speak French is the least of his problems. I believe Bob Rae has the backing of all the Chretien supporters and will suprise people and maybe even win but I think he would be a disaster. He would lose valuable seats in Ontario and has far too much baggage and has shown quite clearly what he is- a rich boy intellect with soft hands out of touch with how the real world works-he's great as an opposition critic but a disaster as a leader as he proved when he refused to take anyone's advise and made a disaster out of Ontario. Sorry as far as I am concerned its not good enough to smile like a goof and tell everyone you WERE a loser but since you were a loser you now won't be one. And another thing-the man needs braces to fix that oevr-bite. He looks like Bugs Bunny. At least Gerard Kennedy has a good smile. O.k. so that leaves us with who? Iggnatieff? Oh please. The man has proven he is the largest twat to come to Ottawa that ever was a twat and I use the word twat because I borrowed the letters from Ottawa. Why is he a twat you ask? Well how can you ask? What has he done that would indicate anything other then being a large twat. The flip flop on Israel and Lebanon, the sheer idiocy of trying to reopen the constitutional debate simply to try get Quebec votes, his arrogant behaviour including walking right by Jean Augustine yesterday at the convention as if she did not exist (this is the mp who vacated her seat to let this jack-ass run) and his complete lack of experience in the real world. I mean why would anyone think a man who has been out of Canada for 30 years and whose sole experience comes from lecturing in an antiseptic artificial environment like Harvard, believe he belongs in the real world. What could this rich boy intellect possibly understand about the common person saddled with taxes. Just what we need-another elitist invory tower wat. Thanks but he is a complete disaster loser. Stephane Dion? He is my reluctant choice if I had to pick someone on the final ballot. His English is not as bad as you think. He has a Ph.d in Sociology which is as useful as Iggy's Ph.d in Human Rights-mroe ivory tower b.s. but he has a brilliant mind, has proven he can handle complex ministries and policy issues and he is the only candidate who truly grasps the inter-governmental issues and environmental ones. He is also someone who is similiar to Stephen Harper in that he is not one of those politicians who feels phony enough to b.s. the press or small talk and smile through his teeth. His major weakness is he is brittle-he gets angered too easily when questioned but he is respected internationally. I honestly think of all the people debating Harper from the Liberals Dione is the most capable. Harper will laugh off Ignatieff as an inexperienced intellect, laugh off Rae as the loser from Ontario, laugh off Kennedy as the boy who never finishes what he starts - and with Dione will only be able to go after him over being a Chretien loyalist but come up very weak when it comes to the environment which I believe concerns many Canadians. That said I think the most decent is Ken Dryden. The problem is he is so long winded a Parliamentary session would never come to an end and he would never be able to make a decision and he is awful fat these days. So there you have it. And please, anyone who says Justin Trudeau is cute and should run I will track you down and force you to listen to Celine Dion singing the Air Canada song over and over until you die.

Let's respond to Higgly's attempts to twist the responses I have made. I stated that under international law, Israel has the right to defensible borders and Higgly responded it does not. Well again like history he tries to revise, he is now trying to rewrite what international law states. The point is under international law and the very conventions Higgly likes to quote, Israel has the right under international law to create defensible borders. So in answer to his question where should the borders go-that is precisely why there is a dispute and if he bothered to try read and make an effort to try understand anything I stated or read for himself he would understand the border between Jordan and Israel HAS NEVER been defined and how it will be defined will be based on the international doctrine of defensible borders. Higgly again can pretend all he wants that the law will not exist but it does. Now Higgly then tried to bring up another unrelated topic to the international law doctrine of defensible borders and suggest that the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank are in contravention to the Geneva convention. If he bothered to read what I wrote, he would have read that I stated that Israel's legal arguement to a defensible border and the settlement of 400,000 settlers within the West Bank will probably be seen as unrelated and the settlers will lose any legal arguement they have to land. Higgly is trying to twist my responses into suggesting I am arguing the settlements are part of Israel's arguement for defensible borders. I did not state this or suggest this and for Higgly to try twist it is intellectually dishinest. I will state it again, the 400,000 settlers on the West Bank will be sent back to Israel as part of a compehensive peace deal. Its a moot point. The Israeli government has already stated its desire for safe and defensible borders will NOT be based on keeping those settlements and in fact its putting up defence walls make that clear. Now I brought up legal opinions raised by two civilians to show that there are respected NEUTRAL legal jurists who have at times defended both Palestinian and Israeli land claims and do not take sides, to show that the law is NOT black and white. Higgly twisted this around and responded to me that one of the legal experts I quoted was wrong because the Geneva convention has been violated. Once again, Higgly missed the point entirely. The legal opinions I was raising and they raised has nothing to do with whether the Israeli settlements are legal based on defensible borders. No one said they would be legal based on a defensible border international arguement. What these jurists did state and maybe its too difficult for Higgly to grasp, is that there are also other legal doctrines to that cloud title to ownership outside the spectrum of international law. That was the point I tried to make. I will state this one last time-Higgly does not understand international law and chooses to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with his need to depict Israel as an occupier bad guy. I choose to discuss the law not engage in name calling and simplistic Israel bad Palestine Good name calling. Finally I will directly respond to Higgly's comment that the IDF will find a reason to attack Palestinians even if there is no terrorism. It is no different then the kind of comment Higgly has made about Jews in New York or comparing the holocaust to the Ukrainian genocide in ann effort to down play it. He does so to denigrate and insult through name calling. To name call and simply state the IDF attacks for the sake of attacking and will attack Palestinians even if there is no terrorism summarizes what this debate has come down to-Higgly simply name calling because he is prejudice. Now Black Dog you don't want me to call him anti-semitic-well when he denigrates the IDF and name calls them, no that is not anti-semitic. However when he makes comments about Jews in New York or brings in the holocaust -then I call him for what he is. What I would say is Higgly has allowed his prejudice for Jews to colour his feelings for Israel and it has come out in these debates. Now White Door asked me-why bother with Higgly. Well I will tell you why White Door- I think it is important someone who engages in alleged debates about Israel but uses snide comments and insults about all Jews is exposed. This started when Higgly awhile back made a comment that he was sick and tired of the truth being distorted about the Middle East. I am sick and tired of people like him using debates about Israel as a cover for his snide comments that are based on prejudice. I have been very careful when I respond never to insult Palestinians but make it clear it is Hamas and their terrorism I attack. On the other side of the equation we are left with Higgly name calling the IDF and suggesting they attack and will attack Palestinians for no reason. Higgly has constantly tried to revise what has been happening and ignore Hamas initiates terrorist attacks that involve Palestinian civilians that then get injured when the IDF as is its absolute right under international law to protect its citizens and respond to protect its civilians and prevent further attacks. At no time did I argue the IDFD should simply attack and kill Palestinians for no reason. More to the point I have told Higgly time and time again to prove with facts when the IDF has attacked Palestinian civilians for no reason at all. He has never responded because he can't. One last thing. Higgly made a comment he had been to the Middle East and I called him on that and said he had never been there. I will repeat again why I know Higgly has never been to the Middle East. He made a comment when discussing the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank that are Jewish that Israel built a city the size of Guelph and his inference was that it was not as early warning posts against terrorism -simply expansion. That is how he responded to me when I stated the settlers went in there at first as early warning posts. For Higgly to make his usual sarcastic comments and suggest it is ridiculous to say these settlers were sent in as early warning posts is because he has never been to the West Bank. He has no clue how close the West Bank is to Israel and just how small the land is. If he did he would not make such ridiculous comments that the settlers are the size of Guelph. He has no clue as to the actual size and population density. He also has no clue of how the settlement posts were set up and the fact that many of these settlers did in fact get shot at and killed by terrorists and also engaged in shoot outs with Hamas and other terrorist organizations. I have stated time and time again the Israeli settlers should not be there and they are anobstacle to peace. However I wish to make it clear that when those settlers went in, the Israeli government did not stop them not because they wanted to expand-that is the propaganda b.s. myth that Jews want to take over the world starting with the Middle East and then spread. Its b.s. and the kind of b.s.accusing Israel of being expansionist that even the PLO knows is not true given the Oslo accord which gave all of the West Bank back and has and will enable the PLO to argue the Jewish settlers must be sent back. Higgly should take his prejudice butt to the West Bank and speak to both Palestinians and Israelis and find out who these settlers are and what and why some of them were placed where they were.Its easy for Higgly to suggest its bull to want to use settlement posts as anti-terrorist bufer zones precisely because he has never been there and understands why Israel would have resorted to this unable to continue going in with tanks and ground troops for risk of killing even more civilians. It is a war of attrition and Higgly has no clue as to the extent of terrorist attacks and never will beacause from the safety and comfort of his terrorist free home he can be an expert and make snide comments about Jews in New York, how bad the Ukraine massacre was and how the IDF will look for excuses to kill. Pathetic.

Higgly let me spell it out do you directly. What you said is ignorant. The way your words come out the first sentence can be inferred to be sacrastic and the second sentence about summarizes when your heart is at. With respect to the first sentence, Rue, I was damned serious. I consider the Holocaust to be a dreadful blot on human nature. Six million people were murdered by a gang of psycopaths. There is nothing less than pure evil in that. With respect to the second sentence, Rue, your response is typical of that of the pro-Israel community whenever Ukrainians try to get recognition for what Stalin did to them in 1932. The guy murdered over ten million people, for crying out loud. When the Ukrainian community tried to get recognition for this, there were actually people in the pro-Israel community who accused them of 'issue envy'. What is wrong with you? You know what is wrong with me? We are discussing the West Bank and you throw out the Ukrainian famine in comparison to the holocaust. You brought it up with the intent to suggest that the holocaust was not unique. Why else would you bring it up in a discussion about the West Bank. Thgepurpose was clear to down-grade the historic relevance of the holocaust as but one of many genocides. Here is the point. The Ukrainian genocide ( it was defined just today as a genocide) is to be discussed independent of and not in comparison to the holocaust or any other genocide. Each genocide is unique and should not be compared and used in an arguement such as yours to suggest that the holocaust is not unique and not special but just another genocide. What is the matter with me? Probably what is the matter with many Jews when they see the holocaust raied in a West Bank dispute discussion in an off-handed way that down-plays its uniqueness. As for the Ukrainian famine, it was a horrible genocide but it is a far different historic phenomena then the holocaust and has no relation at all to the West Bank conflict and the origins of Israel. More to the point Ukraines now have their own country or did you not notice.

I think this is a bit more complicated then simply saying its a matter of disagreeing with the majority. The five permanent members of the Security Council, Russia, China, the U.S., France and Britain, coincidentally all are the leading military suppliers of the world. The countries that complain the most about other countries violating human rights are doing the same. The UN failed miserably in Rwanda, the Middle East and now in Darfur, because it has no authority, its allowed this majority rule as you call it, completely compromise any credibility it had. The UN required a strong leader willing to stand up to ALL nations and speak out for a world vision. It has not had one. The UN opts for the kind of person who is a technician, someone with no vision, who will simply do nothing and placate everyone and in fact avoid leading. For the UN to have any meaning it has to take concrete actions against civil wars like Darfur. Had the UN done what it was supposed to, it would have disarmed Hezbollah and enabled Lebanon to have free elections. If it had done what it was supposed to do, it would have sent in troops to prevent Arab terrorists, created a second nation in the West Bank and Gaza and disarmed Arab Terrorists,making the IDF a moot point. The UN remained silent when China invaded Tibet. It did nothing when thousands were killed in Cambodia/Kampuchea. It has looked the other way when human rights violations are committed by third world leaders, especially Africans. Where is the UN with Robert Mugabe today? On and on it goes. I think it is more then simply the majority of countries aren't doing what the US or Canada wants. Its a question of having no vision-no reason to exist-no role to play in preventing terrorism and promoting peace-allowing itself to be compromised so it just pays lip service to the environment or AIDS.

"That is not the point, Rue. The point is that they have no jurisdiction and that they are recused on the grounds of conflict of interest." Once again you missed the point Higgly,. The legal sources I quoted were speaking as private citizens expressing legal opinions. They have no conflict of interest because they are not servinga s Judges determining who owns the land. Their comments were as to legal concepts not specific cases. "Well fine Rue. Take this up with Peace Now, then." Why would I do that, I am a member of Peace Now! More to the point Higgly if you bother to read what I take the time to respond with you would see I personally agree that legally, private Israelis will lose if they try argue for ownership of certain West Bank lands. "The principle of occupying land for self-defence only applies until the threat is mitigated. It does not give anyone permission to build major permanent civilian population centres." Again you are trying to suggest arguements I never made. I never argued in favour of permanent civilian population centres nor did I ever state the doctrine of self-defence could justify permanent civilian population centres. What I have stated and will state again, is that Israel can invoke the right of self-defence if the threat of terrorism can not be mitigated-what the form of that self-defence takes is not black and white. International law allows Israel to establish safe and defensible borders. That is the whole point Higgly trying to decide what is safe and defensible. It becomes easier on innocent Palestinians in the West Bank to enjoy ownership of the land if there is no terrorim to justify the IDF going in. That is the point. I have already stated quite a few times that placing settlements in the West Bank as early warning sites for terrorism was a disaster and only made matters worse and legally is not sound and probably not defensible even under Israeli law (which would not apply-in such a case, most probably the international court would have the last say. The only legal arguement I have is that for the international courts to say the walls Israel are building are illegal, they also have to find there is no reason for them-in fact the same international courts that have hinted or madepreliminary rulings that the walls are illegal did NOT deny Hamas still constitutes a threat which means this contradicted or vitiated their findings and makes them appealable or non binding. Its a complicated issue. It is not black and white. Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else.

Your excursion into the Antarctic and other various nether regions of the world aside, this is not true. The Ottoman Empire lasted for 600 years. With all due respect, do we really have to go back to the March of the Penguins? What was the point of the above comment. When I describe such comments as "playing the fool" you complain to the moderator, but what would you call the above? What was the point of your comment? The Ottoman Empre's duration and length of time has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the West Bank is a stateless land and became stateless because the transfer from the Ottoman Empire to Britain of Palestinian land, was never done legally and completely and the Leage of Nations and UN Charter made it clear that some of the land was to be for Jewish homelands and some for Arab homelands. That was the point Higgly. When the British and French rested the lands from the Ottomans by war, it created legal anomolies and gaps and holes and any one who understands history and international law can understand this. It is not a joke. It has nothing to do with penquins. It has to do with international law and how land ownership is transferred and what happens is if the transfer is done illegally which is what Britain did when it created Trans Jordan. It has to do with international law allowing Israel to create safe and defensible borders once the Arab League refused to follow the UN Charter. You can make all the dim witted comments you want Higgly about penquins but all it shows is your ignorance. When people try to discuss international law and the concept of "occupation" and statelessness, all you can do is reduce it to the above comments. That is what I call playing the fool, and I do not appreciate it. If you do not want to discuss the concept of statelessness and how it affects international law, then just refrain. Also for your information, what is going on now in the Antartic has direct legal implications on how stateless land is given status. Rather then turn it into something to laugh at, try read about it and understand it.

Which is why I gave you three simple questions up front. What really makes debate impossible is when people ignore what is said. Please answer my first two questions since they both call into question major arguments that you have been making in this thread. Here they are again: 1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)? 2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)? As for the third question, which you did answer... BK as a lawyer I can answer one question. If we do pass laws to legislate discriminating against homo-sexuals because the majority want to and belief it is religiously the right thing to do and morally the right thing to do, no it does not end there. Next its abortion, euthenasia, prayers in schools, prayers in the work place, what movies are allowed, what books we should read in school, creationism in the class-rooms instead of science, legislation to prevent other religions from practicing their marriages and religions, and so on. The name and identified group changes, but the exercise remains constant-to try use majority rule to impose beliefs on everyone in the name of religion. This is precisely why I am against using politics and laws to promote religion. I do not believe majority rule establishes what is morally acceptable. I believe majority rule without respect for minority rights is doomed to failure-it becomes nothing but tyranny and disguised mob mentality.

Truly a blot on human nature. Are you familiar with what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukrainians in 1932? Higgly let me spell it out do you directly. What you said is ignorant. The way your words come out the first sentence can be inferred to be sacrastic and the second sentence about summarizes when your heart is at. You belittle one tragedy by raising another. You know why you did it. The inference is there and it is dispicable. Are we to believe that somehow the holocaust somehow has no signifigance because there have been other slaughters? Does this somehow take away its meaning and role in the creation of Israel. More to the point Higgly are you that ignorant of history you do not undertand the difference between the forced famine by Stalin and the holocaust? The holocaust was not the result of one leader and one era. It was the culmination of thousands of years of similiar actions that evolved into the holocaust. The forced starvation of the Ukrainians is not even remotely close in historic origin or cause and effect as was the holocaust. It is in fact similiar to say the Irish famine. You made the above comment you did as most ignorant people like you do-for one reason and one reason only-to denigrate the holocaust and suggest it is nothing special and but one of many massacres. You not only insult all Jews and people who died in the holocaust but you insult Ukrainians using their tragedy as a pissing match to denigrate the holocaust. Well Higgly you have finally shown your true colours and I suggest its time you take a rest. You have managed to do what people like you do best, take a debate on land ownership and the origins of Israel and turn it into a pretense to denigrate the holocaust and make racial slurs against Jews. You can huff and puff your way out of it but your words are already written. Your insult against the holocaust and your racial slur against Jews and New York are on the record.

Yes, well one could just as well argue that there is already a Jewish state. It's called New York, Eliot Spitzer, leader. It is a fact that Jordan or the former Trans Jordan is situated on 82% of what was Palestine. Your response merely indicates you are a bigot. You may think what you said was funny but it is basic anti-semitism and you show your true colours. If you can't debate without making slurs at Jews who live in New York do us all a favour and crawl back in your hole of intolerance. What you stated is no different then if you came out and referred to New York as Hymie Town. Now that your true colours have come out, I think it is safe to say if this is what you feel is witty then let me be clear with you it aint-its pathetic. Unlike you Higgly I won't go running to the moderator. I accept your comments for what they are ignorant and racist.

Does that mean that despite President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase the US, from the Mississippi River to the Continental Divide (excepting Texas and points west of Texas) is still French? Does that mean that Alaska is still Russian? That is utter nonesense and you know it. Utter and absolutely incredible nonsense it is. Those were treaties between states. These are deals between private individuals. Now you should be able to see the difference? It's as if someone from e.g. Italy bought a cottage in NB and declared it to be italian territory. On a positive side, all hope isn't lost for the region: Olmert calls for talks with Palestinians. Not that anyone wants to use logical and common sense but land does not have nationality, people do. You are mixing apples and oranges. People's right to land is through a soverign nation that grants them ownership in land-if that sovereign nation does not exist, the ability to grant the land does not necessarily exist. What I have said and neither Higgly or you understand is the land registry that comes from the Ottoman Empire, and I will say it one last time, does not and can not properly establish legal ownership to land for many reasons the most obvious of which; i-it did not properly register who owned and purchased land ii-it was circumvented and corupted by absentee landlords iii-it is not accurate as it was never based on anything but word of mouth, i.e., no one actually visibly surveyed the land coordinates and placed them on title' iv-all titles to land conferred by the Sultan of Oman were then illegally taken over by the British who then changed them and altered the records and in fact forcefully seized most of the land and gave it to Jordan taking it away from poor Arab farmers whose rights to this day have never been registered v-one last time-the point I made was that even if you could establish through uninterupted ownership and use (which is the way all of land titleship today has to be established in the West Bank since the beloved land register you talk about is not recognized by the PLO or Jordan) that can still be altered by international law superceding on individual rights. I am not sure how many times I can repeat the same points over and over. You can deny them until doomsday but it doesn't change what the registry is or how international law can supercede individual rights, and how individual land ownership does not confer nationality, citizenship laws do.One does not get awarded their nationality through ownership of land UNLESS there is another law of citizenship that says so. This is basic law. Even in the Muslim world where nationality or status comes not from land ownership but religious belief or citizenship conferred from place of birth.

To answer your question, you were of course exactly dead on about Antartica and that also includes disputes with the Southern Ocean. The most currrent listing of territorial disputes which provides an excellent synopsis is the CIA worldbook. However it is actually quite difficult to find territorial disputes where the territory or land in dispute is stateless. Most disputes are between nations over land that was under a state prior to the dispute. The closest analogy to West Bank is the Western Sahara dispute. Basically what was called Spanish Sahara, a vast desert below Morrocco was technically a Spanish colony/protectorate. It basically is a large desert with minimal natural resources. Technically Western Sahara was and is a non self-governing territory. When the Spanish withdrew it was really left with no succession plan. There was a lot of confusion. Morrocco unilaterally invaded in 1975 and has been there ever since but technically its a non-self governing territory and Morrocco is not referred to as an occupier although unlike Israel in the West Bank, went in, not to stop a war or defend itself, but to make a claim for the territory. Technically there are areas of land on the Afghani-Pakistan-India-China borders that have been under constant dispute between the nations and technically are areas that are stateless because prior to these countries no other colonial power acting established control over them-so they are in dispute now but are technically stateless regions. A similiar analogy could be said with land disputes between Saudi Arabia and Yemen and United Arab Emirates adn Saudi Arabia because the land in question was never really occuped by the British or anyone else when they were colonial powers and basically was empty and ungoverned. To this date the borders between Saudi Arabia, Yemen and United Arab Emirates are under dispute as to who has control to which portion of these empty stateless regions. East Timor is close but not quite. Technically East Timor was not stateless it was a Portugese colony, but when Portugal left, it was technically stateless as it was planning to become an independent nation when of course Indonesia invaded it and seized it. Again all the stateless region disputes I have mentioned do not consist of a country going in for self-defence but they went in to establish claims of sovereignty. Under international law, forced seizure of land constitutes ownership if it goes uninterupted or challenged for a consectuive period of time, i.e., 40 years. Now up in Northern Canada, all along the Artic regions, the United States does NOT recognize Canadian sovereignty and considers this area stateless or subject to use of all nations. Cyprus is another state that to this day is technically a mess because prior to the Greek and Turkish attempts at conquering it and turning it into a colony (it is currently occupied by Turkey) it could be argued to have been stateless. Now today we do actually have a country that is stateless and that is Somalia. It legally has no real government. It is run by competing war lords and even the feudal lord who claims to be the sovereign is NOT legally although the U.S. may be more sympathetic to him then Al Quaeda pro-militias that now claim to run Mogadishu. Technically Somalia is a stateless state. It has no official government or any services or any tax collection system. So if Ethiopia goes into Somalia to prevent terrorist attacks against Ethiopia we might have an analogy to the West Bank although its forcing it. Likewise the Republic of Congo and Liberia could be argued to have been or are stateless, although there are clear colonial borders that can be referred to. The actual border between Chad and Libya deals with areas delineated by the French and British but may be in fact inexact and never properly established as the areas in question contained no one and were never properly visited in the first place. Certainly you could argue Afghanistan's Taliban regime was not legal when it did exist and was in fact a defacto but not a de jure government. The West Bank is unique in that that it is a small chunk of Palestine (Jordan, Israel, Gaza) that fell between the cracks. The Palestinian area was NOT and was never a state. Turkey administered it but was an absent land-lord and the Ottoman Empire did not set up elaborate government administration systems like say the British or French. Palestine was basically a barren place of malaria filled swamps, desert and mostly empty. Beduin Arabs travelled through it as they have for centuries but Beduins do not attach to land. They are like the wind. They move with the wind. They are drifters not establishing permanency. The Muslim and Jewish and Christian people that did establish themselves through-out Palestine were really squatters. The land registry system Higgly keeps referring to was meaningless. It was used by absentee business people from Turkey to claim ownership to huge amounts of land they never saw. Then poor Muslims would squat on the land and as long as they paid rent no one said anything. So its hard to know how many of these poor Muslim farmers really hand land ownership because it may have never been properly recognized or registered which was my point in the first place. We do know Jews bought land ownership because they made a point of following the laws in place when they bought the land although historic records now bring even that into dispute and claim there was Jewish property not properly registered similiar to improper registry of Muslim owned lands. Keep in mind the Turks didn't go out and delineate boundaries and do surveys. Its not a land registry system like it was in Canada. It was simply a book saying who should be paying taxes to the Sultan and basically listing people's names which was then used as a source to try draft people into the Sultan's army. When Britain and France went into the Middle East to fight Turkey in World War One, they basically ignored the land titles and did what-ever they wanted. When Britain created Trans Jordan it did so illegally violating its pledge under the League of Nations and seizing 80% of Palestinian and placing it under the Hashemite Kingdom monarchy. This in effect stole land from Muslim Arabs and gave it to the British puppet king. Neither Palestinian Arabs or Palestinian Jews were allowed to claim ownership of land or citizenship in Jordan. So in fact, Britain created a puppet regime that seized 80% of it. The remaining parcel of land in what is known as 1949-1967 Israel was under a British mandate but it was a mandate awarded the British through the League of Nations. This same League of Nations guaranteed a Jewish homeland before the British arbitrarily acted to seize and take 80% of Palestine away so it could never be considered as part of Jewish homeland. The remaining portion was then proposed to be divided into two enclaves one for Palestinians and one for Jews. It ignored the 80% of Palestine now turned into Trans Jordan because the British forced everyone's hand. It is similiar to the way Britain marched into Iraq and created a country there or how France unilaterally decided to turn Lebanon into a state. They simly imposed their will. For that matter when Turkey ran things as the Ottoman Empire it did the same. The difference was though the Ottoman Empire did not keep clear records of borders and boundaries while the British and French were very careful in what borders they carved up. While Higgly goes off on a tangent about the land registry what he fails to understand is the land registry means zilch if colonial powers come in and start artificially marking borders removing land from one country and placing it in another-that over-rides any land registry and that is the major flaw with Higgly's arguement. He fails to understand how much land was arbitrarily seized NOT by Israel but by Britain and France rendering the land registry meaningless and causing for example the British to reinvent the land registry to justify Trans Jordan. The West Bank was a forgotten chunk of land. It technically was envisioned in the Jewish homeland that the League of Nations recognized. What then happened was in 1948-49, when the British mandate expires, and the Jewish people in Palestine invoked pursuant to the international law of the time and the UN Charter their right to create a nation-it was immediately rejected by the Arab League who chose war instead. So technically the borders of the Israeli state could not be created peacefully because war broke out making that impossible. The 1949-1967 border of Israel was established by a war. International law recognized that border as what was created as a self-defence action by Jews to protect themselves from being killed by the Arab League. The 1949 Israel border was a de facto border that then over time became recognized de jure. The West Bank was in fact seized by the Jordanian Army and it stayed occupied by Jordan until 1967 but Jordan never administered it like colony. Jordan simply would not allow Israel to claim it. The border between Israel and Jordan was NOT an international border. It was a demarcation line pursuant to a military truce and Jordan never recognized it as an international border. The Arab League never recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. So Higgly can keep referring to an antiquated Turkish land registry system that did not properly register poor Muslim farmer land rights, but it becomes a moot point of Jordan's army occupied it and there was no government in the West Bank as part of Jordan's state. It wasn't until Israel established a treaty with the PLO pursuant to Oslo that the West Bank was then to be administered by the Palestinian Authority. From 1967 to he Oslo accord argreement, it was administered by an Israeli military administrator but what Higgly does not understand, the IDF, was not interested in the land for anything but security operations. The Jewish settlers that went into the West Bank did so mostly illegally. What happened was the Israel government felt this settlers would be a good forward warning posts that could se4rve to tip of the IDF of incoming terrorist attacks. Of course that did not happen. Instead the Palestinians in the West Bank simply went to war with the Israeli settlers and they lived in protracted tensions with sporadic killings or attacks but relatively peaceful UNTIL the PLO and then Hamas created the intifadah. Israel can easily under international law make some sort of claim to portions of the West Bank to protct itself against terrorism. What it would lose on, is if it tries to establish private citizenship ownership of the lands for the simple reason even the domestic real estate laws of Israel may not recognize some of the land title transfers. There is arguement that West Bank Muslim farmers have sold their land legally and without coercion to Israeli settlers and that should be distiguished but the reality is the West Bank will be the major area of the Palestine nation and even if Jewish Israelis could establish land ownership it will be used for a Palestinian state making that a moot point. The real point is, all civilian claims to land can not be looked at in isolation from military and counter-terrorist considerations. Individuals who own land being used to launch terrorist attacks, lose their rights to land ownership under international law by a superceding right of a nation to protect its citizens from crimes being launched from that land. That may be unfair, but as I have continually stated, the best way to assure fairness, is to make sure there are no terrorists, then the IDF does not have any need to be on the land or put up a wall dividing the land or cutting it off and the whole thing becomes a moot point.

Certainly one could never accuse an Israeli Supreme Court justice of having any sort of bias in a land dispute of this type . On the other hand, there was in fact an ousted sovereign authority - the Turks, who were ousted by the Brits. The Brits recognized the land titles issued by the Turks. The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that occupying powers must honour the land registry and must not transfer their own citizens to the occupied land. It is not Israel that gets to decide whether the Geneva Conventions apply. This is a matter of international law that can only be resolved in an international court. Otherwise, what is the point of having international law? Israel's refusal to recignize and abide by the Geneva Convetions makes it a rogue state that needs to be brought into line with the rest of the world. The same can be said of its continued refusal to enter into a Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Yeah, Kashmir's a real good example. What you fail to grasp Rue, is that the land registry transcends occupations. A country can be occupied and re-occupied many times, but the people who hold title to the land still have those titles and the law says that those titles must be recognized. Which is why Palestinians so often see Israel seizing land for 'security reasons' only then to see an Israeli settlement pop up on their seized property. This is just plain bureaucratic thuggery that shows Israel is well aware of the fact that it is violating international law and is trying to get around it with legal hocus-pocus. Hmmm. A pro-Israeli statement coming from a Jewish-American State Department official. Now there's a shocker. When they signed a peace treaty, I guess that all ended, didn't it? In any case, Rue, you continue to ignore the central precept of the Geneva Convention which clearly says the land registry transcends and survives these sorts of circumstances. This is why Israel passed the abandonment laws on 1950 which illegally confiscated lands from the owners it had forcefully driven off of the land and then refused to allow back into the country. Having seen he broad acceptance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it knew it had no legal basis for what it was about to do and had to drum one up out of whole cloth. The rest of your post is simply a square dance around this central point. The only authorities you are able to quote who reject that are either Israelis or Americans, and both are self-serving in the extreme. Your debating style of accusing someone of being bias but not taking what they say and debating it, merely summarily rejecting it by calling them bias without any proof they are bias or more important that their bias vitiates what they have said - is well quite frankly tiresome. The Supreme Court Judge of Israel you summarily dismissed found many land title judgements in favour of Arab Israelis-bit you are so busy calling him names without knowing who he is and what he stands for that you missed that. Likewise the American legal advisor you dismissed as bias also has presented papers and positions favouring Arabs in many land disputes-but again you are so busy labeling this man you wouldn't know that. As for your repeated reference to a land registry, that land registry can not establish proper claim to title of land for many Palestinians or Arabs because it never registered their claims. You are arguing about a land registry that was never accurate and was used to rob land from poor Arabs as the method to prove their title. Do you not understand that the very registry you are trying to quote to base Arab land claims does them injustice and does not properly establish their claim? If anything if you bothered to look at that land claim registry, read it, understand its origins, understand how it was used, understand who used it and who reported title to property in it, you wouldn't toss it about like some sort of automatic holy grail that establishes your point. If anything it does the exact opposite. More to the point, what you again completely ignored is THAT EVEN IF Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank have titleship to land or some sort of legal rights to that land, it all becomes a moot point of Hamas uses that land as a site to launch terrorist attacks. That is the point you completely ignore. These innocent Palestinian Arabs whose land is used as missile launch sites or bases to launch Hamas attacks get caught up in a war of attrition. If they are not innocent and deliberately allowing their land to be used to launch attacks, then excuse me if I have no sympathy for the IDF seizing them to protect Israelis. I think what I have said all along is that if Israel does not need to go onto any land in the West Bank to defend itself it should not and is attempting to extricate itself from the West Bank and this issue you have raised is a moot point. The settlers who are on the West Bank will as part of an over-all peace compromise have to leave and Sharon demonstrated his willingness to remove them before his stroke. Just last night, there has been a very fragile treaty established between Hamas and the IDF in Gaza. Hamas has given Abbas 6 months to negotiate with Israel as to the Gaza. It is a precarious deal because Israel has told Abbas, we won't go back in Gaza if they do not launch missile attacks or terrorists against us-but if they do we will have to go back in. Abbas is now on the hot seat trying to balance things. If he can achieve a mutual detente in Gaza it necessarily will assist in the West Bank dispute.

Here is the way I see it. If If my wife asks me if she is fat of course I say no. If a transvestite comes up to me and wants me to call him a woman, it doesn't bother me for one second. We both know what he really is. Who does it harm? Too many people are portraying Quebec as a transvestite pretending to be a woman to trick the rest of innocent Canada into bed to screw them. Come on-who you kidding. You that dumb? Just check out Quebec's hands and adam's apple and stay calm. A little perspective, sensitivity and humour is all you need when it comes to Quebec or any other aging transvestite. No more. No less. Come on you have to laugh at how fast Gilles Duceppes has changed his dresses in the last four days. More to the point, you don't see Harper going home with Gilles at night. He still prefers Belinda. Relax.

You are confusing two separate issue's. You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything." What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals. For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then? I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision. No what I am clearly stating unlike you is I do not believe either of us has the right in the name of what we think is morally acceptable or ethical to impose those beliefs on others. I am arguing moral relativity, no more no less. I reject your attempts to claim you know what is moral and ethical and what is universal truth. I reject your arguement that the majority of society thinks like you do. I reject your arguement that you represent mainstream Christianity for that matter and in fact represent a fundamentalist approach more and more of your own Christians have rejected and continue to reject. Using your arguement for a second, I would suggest the majority of society already elected politicians that represented their views and made it clear they do not want people going to jail for being gay nor do they want gays treated as second class citizens. It seems you Sir, now claim you in fact represent the real majority and want things changed to your liking. Here is why I have a problem with this idea that if the majority decides something is acceptable ethically or morally then it automatically is. I have a problem with that because it wasn't too long ago Christians in the name of morality and ethics engaged in wide spread torture and persecution of Jews. They also burned witches and the stake for being evil. Excuse me if I am a tad cynical with anyone invoking the name of Christianity to claim what is right and wrong and why it should be imposed on all of us. I have heard it over and over again not just as to homo-sexuality, but abortion, euthenasia, what constitutes pornography, etc. I have a major problem with any human being telling me what is right or wrong and claiming they should be able to use government to shove it down my throat or else I go to jail or get stoned, put on the wrack, lit on fire, etc. Been there. Done that. All it does is culminate in massacres, programs, mass slaughters, war and was the cause of the holocaust and so many other religious mass murders. No I don't need people who feel they have a monopoly on moral truth telling me that they should be able to vote on whether gays can be married or not. To me this preoccupation with what two consenting adults do and feel the need to turn it into an issue to discuss in parliament and vote on is absurd. With due respect what next? No I am a moral relativist and if you read what I write I am not trying to impose my beliefs on you at all or say what is right or wrong and just want you to leave me and gays alone -it is you coming at me with your version of what is right or wrong, making references to how you represent the majority of society and of course the majority of Christians. I have a problem with what people do in public just like you do. Just like you do not want two gays in public getting married or probably kissing one another I don't want to have to go in public and have your version of religion imposed on me thank you very much. I have a problem with religion no being seperated from state precisely because of people like you who honestly believe you know what is good and bad for people and want such views imposed on us all. What is clearly happening is society is evolving and your views are being left behind and you are clininging to them and resisting change desperately wanting to turn back the clock to when everything was safe and the same and everyone thought the same. Got news for you. Those days were never that safe. It may seem like there were good old days but there were not. Even in the good old days when everyone went to church and wore cardigans and women stayed at home and simply made babies and we didn't question mama and papa and went to church every Sunday, there were still gays, there were still abortions, prostitutes, people killing themselves rather then continue to live in pain, people making movies with full frontal views of genitilia, etc. The only difference was in those days, it was repressed from your sight and sound. Now it is not. You see it everywhere. Damn that Elton John on t.v. Damn it every time we turn on a t.v. show there are more gays kissing or in open relationships. Gee what do you know. You really think you can turn back the clock and repress this all. Here is what I am saying. You retain your views and opinions and I will do the same. Respect my rights and I will respect yours. Try tred on my rights and impose laws on me that discriminate against me in the name of your God or what you think is right, and yes I will fight you all the way. Your attempts to turn back the legal clock are too little and too late. You might find your energy better spent on helping the poor rather then obsessing on two consenting adults of the same sex who want to be married. No one says you have to go to their wedding. No one is forcing anything on you so don't do it in reverse.

You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything." What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals. For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then? I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision. No what I am seeing is that NEITHER you nor I let alone society, should be asked what we think is morally acceptable or not acceptable between two consenting adults. Clearly I am arging the standard moral relativist position that I personally do not believe like you, that what the majority deems acceptable or what your version of the Christian religion deems acceptable is universal moral truth. What I am arguing is that when it comes to acts between consenting adults that are not violent, do not hurt anyone else, it really is none of your business and what you or people who think like you believe is irrelevant. Now I am not trying to be rude. Nothing personal. I am arguing that any of our beliefs, perspectives, ethno-centric values, are no more valid than another's. From a legal perspective I am arguing the criminal code states what acts are considered crimes against society. I suppose of legislators wanted to place homo-sexual behaviour into the criminal code, they could and at one point people were arrested for being gay. What I am saying is using your arguements, society then decided to criminalize being gay so if I followed your arguements, since the majority of society accepted homo-sexuality was not a crime, let alone a mental illness, we shouldn't have to revisit the issue because you feel it should be revisited because you feel you represent the majority of society's feelings as to homo-sexuality. To me I do not look at ethics or morality as a popularity concept to be socided by the prevailing desires of society at any given time. I don't because at one point Witches were burned at the stake in the name of Christrianity ad so were Jews and it was all done based on morality and ethics and good Christians feeling it was ethical and moral to sone and kill witches, Jews, etc. The place I am coming from is prgmatic and realistic. I argue that humans as soon as they get into discussions on what is moral, ethical, appropriate, normal, abnormal, necessarily are stating subjective personal feelings and no one's personal opinions or feelings in my opinion and with due respect, have any more merit then anyone else's. In my personal opinion criminal laws enact codes to prevent behaviour that endangers humans. So I can perfectly well understand laws against child sex, laws against sexual violence, laws that regulate sex to protect the public from disease. These are all laws I can understand from a pragmatic and realistic point of view to protect people. What I do have a problem with is when someone says, I don't like two men having sex so we should out-law it. Why? How is that a danger to you? If they are having sex in public, then yes we have municipal by-laws that regulate the time and place for sex. But for you to say, I think its morally unacceptable, let us make it illegal, well that brings us to the next point-do you want your laws based on majority rule-because if you do-then society has already spoken about this issue and it seems you are now deviating from the norms of what society now wants. I would prefer to argue it this way-you practice your type of religion in the sanctity of your church and in your home, gays can do the same, and when you are both in neutral or public places, both of you have the same right to privacy and government services and benefits precisely because neither of you are right or wrong. I have a major problem with the fundamentalist Christian concept that it uses government as a tool to impose its religious beliefs. I have the same problem with Islam, or any other religion that wants to impose religious morality. This is why for example I have an on-going battle with Jewish Rabbinical courts on who they define as a Jew and do not subscrive to Orthodox Jewish religious laws as to homo-sexuality or sexuality in general. I do not believe religion should be mixed with government and I do not believe anyone should have the right to use government as a religious weapon to impose its views or else place people in jail or of course stone them, lash them or cut off their arms. I believe we have evolved past the point where we call people mentally ill or mentally incompetent or vicious or an anomoly because we don't like who they are or what they do. I would like to think we have evolved to the point where we won't kill each other or feel the need to imprison people when they are different then us unless and until it harms children or promotes violence or constitutes an actual physical imposition on another without their consent. The major weakness in your arguement is in the belief that when two consensting same sex couples have sex you feel it is an imposition on you. It is not and has never been and is no more an imposition then on you having consenting sex with a female. If I followed your logic, if the majority of society and Christians of your belief decided women with black hair should not have sex because its unethical and immoral, then we would all have to go along with it. Sorry, what's next? What would you morally legislate next? Oh I know, abortion, euthenasia, on and on. I believe how people control their bodies and what they do with their bodies is an individual decision and thank you I do not need your version of Christianity lecturing to me or telling me what is appropriate. We have had enough religious massacres, pograms, and injustice, thank you very much.

The conflict over ownership of West Bank lands is complicated. As you are aware Jordan captured the territory in the War of Independance, (1948-49) and then annexed and kept it for 19 years. In the War of 1967, Israel went into the West Bank and Gaza and remained for security reasons to prevent the Gaza and West Bank being used as sites to launch terrorist attacks which they had been used continuously for, prior to 1967. The West Bank has NO international status as it is not a country. It is disputed territory. Palestinians who live there may have legal rights to the land but the land does not yet form part of any nation. So let us be clear and state these Palestinians are Arabs who live in the territory without any sovereign rights but I would concede legally have rights of some sort. How we define them or call them is a difficult issue. There is one line of legal arguement that says it is incorrect to refer to the West Bank as "occupied" because it does not come under the terms of any international treaties dealing with military occupation. The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, Meir Shamgar argued (back in the 1970s) that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories because the convention is based on the legal assumption that there has been a legitimate sovereign who has been ousted. This is NOT the case with the West Bank and yet to this day most people treat the West Bank using the term "occupation" when you can only "occupy" a land when it was previously a legitimate sovereign nation. Most people do not understand intenational law and the concept of occupation so use the word incorrectly. The situation of Israel in Jordan is equivalent to when Morrocco went into the Spanish Sahara. Interestingly in that legal dispute between Spain and Morrocco, no one accused Morroco of occupying the Spanish Sahara. Likewise in the Kashmir, no one uses the word "occupying" Kashmir. In fact a proper legal example of an occupation would be China in Tibet. Before 1967, Jordan militarily took over the West Bank as a result of their unilateral invasion in 1948, which was in fact illegal because it was in direct in defiance of the UN Security Council. When Jordan then formally annexed the West Bank in 1950, of course its creator Britain recognized the annexation of the West Bank excluding the annexation of Jerusalem which Britain felt it shouldn't have done. Pakistan was in fact the only Muslim country or any other country that recognized the annexation. The Arab League did NOT recognize the annexation. It was as a result of Jordan insisting on it, that the 1949 Armistice Line which created the 1949 to 1967 Israel border, was never a recognized by it to be an international border but only a demarcation line separating their armies. The Armistice Agreement stated very clearly: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations." Here is where it gets complicated. Under international law, if you take over land in self-defence as opposed to taking it over not as an act of self-defence but simply as an act of aggression, the law treats the status of the seizure differently. A former U.S. State Department lawyer, Stephen Schwebel, who went on to head the International Court of Justice in the Hague, stated in 1970 and I quote directly; "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Now when we go back to the actual events on June 5, 1967, history shows, Israel only entered the West Bank after continuous Jordanian artillery fire and movement of Jordanian troops across the armistice lines. In fact to be specific, Jordan's military attacks commenced at 10:00 a.m. and then Israel sent a warning to Jordan via the UN at 11:00 a.m. asking them to stop. Jordan of course ignored this and continued attacking and then at 12.45 p.m. the Israeli military responded. It should also be noted that Iraqi military forces had already crossed Jordanian territory and in the process of entering the West Bank. This meant Jordan hand obviously abandoned any pretense of continuing to hour the "temporary" armistice boundaries that had lasted from 1949 to this time. So when Israel then reacted and went in, clearly, from a military and legal perspective, it did not initiate the invasion but merely responded to Jordan beginning to attack it and Iraq preparing to attack it. My point time and time again when we discuss the Middle East is that people either unaware of what actually happened or know what happened and want to revise history, ignore the origins of these conflicts such as this one in the West Bank and change the terms of history and therefore inappropriately use legal terms that should not be applied such as the term "occupation". Israel went in to Jordan as a defensive military action. It didn't initiate the invasion just as it has never initiated attacks against the PLO or Hamas but has been involved in continuous responses to their initiated actions. Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 242 dated November 22, 1967 which went on to serve as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles, Israel was expected to withdraw "from territories" to and I quote "secure and recognized boundaries" . It did NOT state or use the words withdraw from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. There is a reason why such words were used. There was a huge protacted legal arguement over what words to use. Israel argued that it had a right to protect itself and could only withdraw on a basis that would not leave it vulnerable to continued attacks. In fact the Soviets argued for the use of the words full withdrawal and Lord Caradon, then the British UN Ambassador came up with the above words which the UN Security Council then unanimously accepted. Inerestingly, when we listen to the discussions as to the dispute over the West Bank, the fact that the UN Security Council in fact recognized Israel's entitlement to part of the territories for defensible borders is completely ignored as if it doesn't exist. It still does. As well Article 80 of the UN Charter also applies. It states that nothing in the UN Charter can be and I quote "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." Israel's rights in fact given to it by the League of Nations to form a nation were in legal fact, NOT affected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947, ( the Partition Plan). That partion plan ended up being rejected by the Arab League in any event. In light of the above stated international law, Israel does in fact possess legal rights with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The extent and nature of those rights remain in dispute. Now what I am saying clearly is that Israel had/has some sort of right to create borders to protect itself and that did not make it an occupying force. This all became moot however as a result of the Oslo Accord. Pursuant to that accord, Israel transferred powers from its military government in the West Bank and Gaza to the newly created Palestinian Authority. Once the Oslo II Interim Agreement was concluded in September 1995, Palestinian administration was extended to the rest of the West Bank cities. Let's be clear. The Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is already under Palestinian jurisdiction. Israel in fact transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority, as well as responsibility for security and public order, to the Palestinian Authority. What it did do, was retain powers for Israel's external security and the security of Israeli citizens and that is where the conflict is arising. The crux of the problem today is Hamas and other terrorist groups in the West Bank. Each time Israel deployments its military in direct response to terrorism, on the West Bank, it doesn't do so to occupy it does so to prevent terrorist attacks. This is precisely why Israel is building a huge wall. It wants out and feels the only way it can prevent attacks from the West Bank is a wall, because the other option means it has to keep going back into the West Bank after Hamas. I personally believe it can not be argued that placing Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal. I think it can be legally argued that the military can be in the West Bank provided it is to defend against terrorist attacks, but the actual arguement as to who owns the land must be settled in a practical way. The Palestinians of the West Bank need that for a country and Israel knows this. It used settlement posts as early warning zones to spy against in-coming terrorist attacks but all this did was inflame Palestinians on the West Bank and Sharon was in the process of disbanding them when more terrorist attacks arose delaying their abandonment. Eventually all this land that is in dispute which Peace Now is claiming is illegally possessed by Israelis will be given back because Israel has no intention militarily of protecting it or defending it - the IDF i s only intersted in stopping the West Bank being used as a terrorist launching site-it is not interested in the land otherwise and time and time again Israel has indicated the same thing. The remaining Israeli settlers on the West Bank will be removed making this article Higgly selected a moot point. What is important to understand however, is that the West Bank was and still remains an uncategorized area of land and how fast Israel withdraws depends on the anti-terrorist measures that can be put in place so that attacks from the West Bank can not happen. It is no different then the problem with Gaza. Israel left the Gaza when terrorist attacks subsided. The moment it left, Hamas resumed its attacks and now Israel is left asking itself, should they have left Gaza in the first place because all that has happened is once they left, the violence resumes. This is why huge walls are going up. Israel now believes the only solution is to place barriers between itself and the terrorist groups. These walls in the West Bank will necessarily cause disputes as to where they will traverse but the only other option is what? Well the option is Palestinians saying NO to terrorism. If they did this then Israel's presence in the West Bank or Gaza disappears. So simple yet so difficult given the charter of Hamas and Hezbollah and othe terrorist groups which call for continued war until all of Israel is wiped off the map.

This thread started out as, "homosexuality is an anomaly", which I agreed with. This means pertaining to homosexuals, that they lack the usual or ethical STANDARDS pertaining to Canadian society. In turn Canadian society is 70% Christian making it a majority Christian society. Personally I am not even a moderate Christian, but I am a principled individual and think homosexuality is wrong and morally destructive. I think Christianity, morals and the ten commandments for instance help form the basis concerning a positive outlook, to respect the laws of the country and shape the mind to help become mentally principled to be able to recognize when society goes astray. You for instance defend homosexuals in an unprincipled way pertaining to a code of conduct that does not protect the natural interest of society. Your use of the word "unprincipled" and "ethical" is probably not accurate but reflects your own subjective views as to what principles or ethics you feel are appropriate. To me it is unprincipled and unethical to discriminate against gay people, call them vicious, anomolies, mentally defficient etc. It sounds like you feel you have a monoply on understanding what is ethical or principled. Sorry you don't. How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything. It only is unethical not because you don't approve of it, but if it entails one adult using violence, a power imbalance, duress or coercion or misrepresentation/illegal means/drugs/booze to induce the other side to consent. As for your quoting the ten commandments if you want to get religious, the stoning references to homo-sexuality come out of Leviticus. Do you subsribe to those as well? The Bible also said deaf people should not marry because they were not able to understand marriage vows. You still agree with that?

But they (gov't or society or whomever you are talking about) more or less do or try to treat everyone as equal with respect to the stated aims and values of the government... I think. The fact that certain groups in society are treated differently than some others has to do, if I am not mistaken, with the fact that in order ensure a basic level of equality some groups require that special requirements be met in order to ensure that society is able to grant that equality. All concerns that this kind of equality promotes a rather commonplace and disgusting brand of equality (read as mediocrity) aside, this kind of thinking serves certain purposes. For example, retards and handicapped (sorry to anyone that belongs to one of these groups... I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was encouraging special rights for certain groups with regard to their right to be called whatever they want) people require that certain priveleges and aids be extended by society in order to ensure that they can excercise basic rights like taking a shit in a public washroom or filling out tax forms, etc. I am NOT saying that homosexuality is qualitatively like a mental or physical diability, however all three states of existence mark out those who live these existences as different in some way from the majority of canadians, in some more or less banal way. With regard to SSM, the government as the elected body that is supposed to be representative of canadians, all Canadians not just the majority of canadians (this is the part that is supposed to be about the equality of all canadians as you desire), is extending the same legal rights to homosexuals... the rights that are currently extended to the largest canadian special interest group--white hetero judeo-christians. It occurs to me that one way to solve your little "definition of marriage" problem would be to take legal marriage off the books entirely. Everyone would then have an equal right to nothing in the strictly legal sense. Then your various churches that claim access to divinely inspired definitions of marriage could just marry whomever they see fit since it is not the mandate of the religious to treat all canadians equally... would this satisfy you?? Its actually quite logical and makes sense legally. You would have to ruin this debate with logic and common sense!

Taxpayers don't subsidize public insurance. Ratepayers pay for it and they pay less, on average, than private. I'm a middle-age white guy with a good driving record. I drive a 1999 4Runner. Urban/rural doesn't make a difference in Manitoba. Yoh Bubba just for your curiousity underwriting was/is based on age, no. of years in Canada, rural/urban, size and type of vehicle, your driving record, gender, but not race or believe it or not your health status not for driving anyways. As a general rule it should be much cheaper to insure a car in Manitoba even in Winnipeg then compared to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver as the more condened your population gets, and the large your population gets, the more the law of averages says you will get hit or hit someone. What most certainly effects your rates whether in communist Manitoba or the Republic of Ontario is speeding tickets and no. of claims. I have been advised by aboriginal people that they have had problems getting car insurance and suspect race issues and I checked one out and I believe the broker was being discriminatory but it had nothing to do with the insurance company just the broker making a negative assumption as to drinking and driving. The guy in question did not drink or for that matter smoke but he was a native. I had him go to a direct insurer. His rate was then only influenced by the kind of truck he had-which was newer so more expensive to insure. Hey I hear you guys in Manitoba smash into Moose all the time!!!

Higgly you lost any credibility you had in this debate by simply reverting to Zionist name calling and not countering with statistics of objective facts to repudiate what I presented. All you are doing now is responding with name calling. For example, you simply dismissed the statistics I provided analyzing the actual deaths simply by stating the Institute I quoted was a propaganda organization because its director was the head of Mossad. I note you didn't go out and prove the statistics they used were fabricated or in fact even bothered to point out why you came to the conclusion its methodology for gathering statistics was wrong, you merely called it a name. The methodology this institute uses to gather its statistics are well disclosed and even though you feel you can simply dismiss the organization simly because its members are Israelis. Here is its public disclosure of its methodology; "The greatest care and effort in carrying out this project has been spent in gathering and evaluating enough information on each fatal incident to enable accurate classification of each claimed fatality. Reliable and detailed data on Israeli casualties of the al-Aqsa conflict has been relatively easy to find, as this information is extensively reported in Israeli and foreign newspapers, as well as various official and unofficial websites. Palestinian Arab fatalities present much greater difficulty, for several reasons: Arab names are often long and complex; in many cases different sources give different casualty names for the same incident, and it is difficult to ascertain whether the different names in fact refer to the same person. Detailed reports of Palestinian casualties are generally provided by Palestinian organizations and individuals; in some cases these reports are “slanted” or even fraudulent, due to pressures to paint Israel in as negative a light as possible. The Israel Defense Forces do not keep a precise record (or at least have not so far provided such a record to us) of every time, place, and circumstance where weapons have been used; thus, certain Palestinian reports of fatalities due to Israeli fire cannot be confirmed or refuted. In many cases, we have given the Palestinian account of events the benefit of the doubt, even though the casualties may have resulted from Palestinian actions, rather than Israeli actions. In cases where the cause of death as reported by Palestinian sources is very much open to question, we have assigned a Low confidence Level to that particular casualty. We have made extensive use of mainstream media outlets, both in Israel and abroad, for the details of al-Aqsa conflict incidents. Information on Palestinian casualties has been gathered from Arabic-language newspapers, cross-correlated with reports from human-rights organizations in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, these sources generally disagree on many significant details, including the name, age, and circumstances of death of victims. It should be noted that, since no Israeli official body has been keeping records of Israeli actions and their results, the information reported by the Western media has come almost exclusively from Palestinian sources. " To make a long story short, the statistics it uses are the SAME statistics the PLO use. So your trying to dismiss the analysis by name calling has no credibility and as I said again if you are prepared to show where this methodology is deffective-I would like to know. Now finally, in response to your repeated name calling of Israel you have repeated yet again another type of myth that is common in people like you who feel that Israel is BAD, Palestine is GOOD. The myth repeats that the Palestinians are attached by Israel, and that is the only reason Hamas does what it does. It is only acting defensively and it is Israel initiating the attacks. This is of course a deliberate twisting of the facts. What Hamas does is to say to the West, that it will stop shooting missiles at Israel if they agree not to fight back. People like you Higgly pick up on this and then make a simplistic conclusion that if Israel were to stop so would Hamas. You do so because you live in Canada, completely removed from the actual theatre of conflict and oblivious to what Hamas is doing while it tells the West the above. What you describe as a lull where Israel continues to attack for no reason is based on your lack of understanding that Hamas does not simply turn into boy-scouts when it is not launching missiles. Israel continues to assassinate its leaders even while you think there is a lull for one basic reason-these leaders during the lull are preparing more attacks whether they be suicide bombings or missile attacks. They are not simply becoming peaceful law abiding citizens who if only not provoked would be nice and calm and benevolent. That is the b.s. you believe based on assuming what they are because you do not know who they are. I repeat you have no clue who Hamas is otherwise you or for that matter Black Dog would not summarily dismiss Hamas time and time again as victims or innocent people who only attack when provoked. I challenge you to tell us when you actually went to the Gaza, West Bank, or anywhere in Israel as you inferred you did. Because if you did your perspective on Hamas and what they do during these lulls would not be the same. May I respectfully ask you to read their charter and please understand that this is not an organization that is peaceful or will simply stop its terrorism if Israel stops. For those of us who have engaged in direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis we know there are certain people and groups that would consider peace but others who never will and that is something you just keep selectively ignoring. Read their charter. Read the articles they write to each other about not stopping until all Jews (not just Israelis are killed). Before you try depict them as a peaceful organization that is merely defending its people make the effort to read its charter. Here are but a few of the charter's words; "Article Twenty-Eight: The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine. As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do. We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women." Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep." Article Thirty-One: The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts. Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that. It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact. "They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand." (The Emigration - verse 14). Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people's rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. "For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday." "As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly." (The Tried - verse 8). The Attempt to Isolate the Palestinian People: Article Thirty-Two: World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, try through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only. Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle, through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. They are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements and to bring them outside the circle of struggle. The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that. "for whoso shall turn his back unto them on that day, unless he turneth aside to fight, or retreateth to another party of the faithful, shall draw on himself the indignation of Allah, and his abode shall be hell; an ill journey shall it be thither." (The Spoils - verse 16). There is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion. " The next time you and BlackDog tell anyone how easy it is to just ignore the above-think about who it is you are talking about. Read. This is an organization that incites hate in the name of Islam and refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a source for its beliefs. Surely even you are aware the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was fiction drafted by the Czar of Russia's secret police as a deliberate attempt to scapegoat Jews in Russia to take re-direct peoples'n attention away from the collapsing economy. This is an organization whose charter continually quotes the Koran to justify its hatred. The Koran was quite clear that no Muslim should attack women, children, the elderly or any religious figure or involve them in war, and yet Hamas' charter calls on women and children to fight and be used as weapons. Read it. These are people whoa re fundamentalist Muslims who want all of the Middle East returned to a Muslim theocracy. These are not innocent freedom fighters as you try depict them as. If you had been through the Gaza or the West Bank you would also know many Palestinians do not agree with their beliefs but are powerless to stop them right now and won't be able to until neutral third parties contain them and in so doing, take away Israel's need to keep fighting them. If and when the Muslim world finds the courage to distance itself from its fellow Muslims who use the Koran to justify hilling and hatred-then will it be able to reach out to Jews and Christians who have already done the same thing with their religions.