Rue

I would also warn Mr. Anthony his eye could get poked out by the point in the Pope's hat/head. I would advise him to avoid anyone who wears robes unless they look like Paris Hilton who I have decided should be everyone's God since she has no brain and has absolutely nothing to say about anything.

I believe what you have all established is that organized religion is nothing but hippocracy that creates and fuels intolerance and justifies the savage primal human instinct to kill. The irony is the Muslim reaction proved exactly the point the Pope was making.

I actually agree with Argus on some of his points. I think if we have to analyze it is fair to say that the common theme with such shooters is that they are young men who did not learn to channel their anger, aggression, frustration, what-ever you want to call it. Yes I do see it as a character flaw and deeply related to how we men see ourselves as men. Now the question is...how do you get a guy like this Gill early enough when he starts to begin to rot from the inside, and get him into an environment where he needs to learn to develop pride, self-esteem, discipline, dignity, learn there are things far greater then the individual. Learning to be disciplined and turn rejection and defeat into positive lessons is what we are talking about. All I can say is for me, what helped me as an agry teen-ager and I mean very angry and troubled, was organized sports, organized group activities where I had to look after animals or other people and didn't have time to dwell on myself, and some good teachers that did not judge me and simply accepted me at face value. I personally think young men need sports and organized activities to channel their anger and aggression. I personally learned how to use a rife but was never fascinated by them for the simple reason the person who taught me how to use one, hunted out of necessity. He made it clear it was an essential tool not a toy. As well my father's generation who were all in the military never talked about weapons like they were toys. This fascination with guns I do not get. I also agree with the poster who says it appears those first two cops at the scene were very cool under the circumstances and saved lives by not shooting too early. I couldn' t imagine being those first cops at the scene with everyone running trying to figure out when and how to take this guy down. Talk about a lousy job. I also throw this out to you guys. For me every time I hear someone say terrorism is an acceptable or understable reaction, i.e., in discussions about political conflicts whether it be in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, etc., I can't help but think-isn't this the kind of mentality condoning and encouraging the notion that violence is acceptable? Is this contributing to making some people feel that engaging in terror is somehow politically acceptable? I mean some of the idiot responses to this fool, seem to suggest they think he is some sort of political hero. Could it be the trend to portray terrorists as victims is helping fuel this? Now as for the comments why Montreal-some have theorized because Montreal likes to do things outside, i.e., cafes, a lot more areas where cars are not allowed, this may explain why such things happen. I think that is nonsense. Some people have pointed out Quebec has higher suicide rates with men then anywhere else in Canada and some have speculated this is tied to a group psyche that still has not yet accepted the defeat of the French by the English. I say nuts to all those theories. I say its a coincidence it has been in Montreal and not say Toronto and that it could happen anywhere at anytime. I tend to prefer Argus' comments that we have to look at this is an individual who failed to emotionally develop properly and while we can come up with all kinds of theories, it begins and ends with the individual and the kind of family upbringing he had and perhaps any genetic predisposition he had to a mental illness. Listening to his mother, I am beginning to wonder a bit. She said they knew he had guns but didn't see anything wrong with that. Now look. I don't want to pick on these parents, but please. Your kid has a machine gun and you think that is ok? Sorry but I think the parents were in denial long before their son went ballistic and I think they will have this guilt on their hands knowing they could have done something a lot earlier. I don't know about you but if my kid shows me a machine gun, shot-gun and hand gun and says not to worry its for taget practice, I would be just a tad more curious what they were up to.

Rue, you fail to mention that purely by chance, there was a police car with two cops parked in front of the college at the time this forcené entered the building. (The cops were there for a drug-related investigation. The entrance to the college is one of Montreal's several drug markets.) I know the building and from what I can gather, this guy didn't get very far and was followed by the police from the moment he started shooting. The short video filmed by a student inside with a cell phone shows the police pointing a gun inside and near the entrance to the college. I agree rue that this good fortune of the cops being there, combined with the policy of intervening immediately saved many lives. I am very curious to hear the story of these two cops and what they did. Students describe a situation where the cops and the shooter argued with each other. It appears that the cops shot him in the leg but that's not clear to me. The police I know (MPs in fact) always said to me that they would go for a head shot in such a situation. There's another point which intrigues me. The body shown lying beside a police car in front of the college was the shooter - it was eventually covered in yellow plastic. How did it get there? It seems that the police dragged the body out of the building and left it there. Although I have seen reports that the shooter tried to leave the building and fell there. This strikes me as odd. ----- Overall, I disagree that there is nothing to do in the face of such threats. You've pointed out how a change in policy can save lives. Perhaps arming and training security guards in places with high traffic is a good idea. The fact that this shooter was killed so quickly will deter other lunatics from doing the same. The WTC offers another similar lesson. In 1993, they learned how to evacuate the building. In 2001, many lives were saved because people knew how to evacuate quickly. There are lunatics, fanatics and crazy people in this world who do bad things. We should not throw up our hands and fatalistically accept this. Instead, we deal with it as best we can. Finally, you mention living in Israel with these threats. I agree completely. In my experience, it is important not to succomb to fear. Life is for the living. The reports now state the police shot him in the arm and he shot himself in the head which is what killed him. The reports seem to say what you said, the police were engaging him in dialogue (which they are trained to do) but some students said they couldn't shoot because of all the students running that could have got hit. Looks like they held off shooting ealier to avoid killing students. I have also been told by my friends who are police that as much as they may train with guns, they don't use them a lot at all, and so at the best of times, using a gun is unusual, and they tell me hand guns are not acccurate and to completely forget what we see on t.v. I was told its one thing to aim at someone, its another to actually hit them, especially if they are moving. I guess this will all be part of the reports the police will compile and decipher and again learn from.

Then following your logic, sinc we have to stop catering to special interest groups, in addition to gays we will also have to stop catering to you and the Pope as well. That suits me just fine. The last time I looked, gay people were not trying to impose anything on me, the Pope was. No gay person has demanded you think like them. All they have asked for is to be treated fairly. No one has asked you to go to any gay marriage. You don't like them, stay at home. I doubt you would be invited anyways. What you have failed to grasp is gays are not asking to impose their views on society. All they are asking is that society stop imposing their views on them. In a legal system, if it is to be fair, it doesn't take sides and only apply laws or allow rights for certain people as much as you would like that. More to the point you want to elect this man as PM? I suggest you read up on his role of covering up sex scandals and hiding pedophile priests after they were caught before you suggest anyone vote for him for elected office. We have enough dishonest misfits as it is.

I dunno..... I have absolutly no problem with religious people expressing their views but at the same time I deserve the right to express mine. As a liberal (small l) I believe in freedom of speech. There is nothing wrong with debating issues in public.... everyone has the right to criticize anything they want if they do it in a responsible manner (ie no hate speech allowed). The pope can go right ahead and scold Canada but I have the same right to point out his intolerance and bigotry and blind following of morals written in a book hundreds of years ago that show him to be an inferior intelligence. People of intelligence don't blindly follow anything, they question the logic of everything and expose it to rational thought. Lol. This means I have to stop checking out Paris Hilton's butt and listen to what comes out of her mouth? Sigh.

I think a lot of your questions have in fact been asked and answered by others in non violent dialogue. I say that because I have been at some of these inter-faith and inter-cultural meetings and I have seen people similiar to you with similiar land disputes ask aboriginals such questions. You know your question reminds me of Winston Churchill asking Jews after he offered them Uganda to settle in why they were insisting on Palestine and why wouldn't they want to live in Uganda which had much nicer land to grow things on! Most of the world thinks Jews are insane because they insist on living in Israel a piece of dirt. Why? Because of a spiritual connection. Why do aboriginals insist on certain land when there is so much-its not the land, it is the spiritual connection and tradition associated with it. It is not a fixation for a piece of land or intransigence, it simply a desire to follow a tradition. Now as I said if that tradition is attached to an area that now in modern times you purchased and live on two worlds collide and it is possible to find a compromise. Now you say you wouldn't vote for a government that would raise taxes to compensate aboriginals. I also am willing to wager, if I showed you it was cheaper to compensate aboriginals through a slight increase in taxes rather then engage in costly litigation which would cost even more and cause even higher tax increases, you might be willing to concede you would be willing to vote for a government that would save you taxes in the long run. What I am telling you, is through no fault of yours or the aboriginal peoples, your legal interests have collided. What I am telling you is that probably in a court of law, and when I say probably I really mean to say with great certainty, aboriginals have legal rights that will supercede yours and you will find yourself at the losing end of costly litigation. What I am saying is you should not have to defend yourself, go to court or fight for where you live. What I am saying is the legal system has to find a way to cushion you from any financial hardship if you had to move or if the aboriginals agreed on it, compensation for them in lieu of you moving. It is also possible that on certain parcels of land there can be cohabitation and co-exploitation. A classic example is a provincial or federal park or an exploration site where aboriginals are compensated with a percentage of the profit from the resource taken from the land. Now take fishing and hunting for example. I myself have no sympathy for recreational hunters who kill simply for the sport of killing. I put them in one category and say, their right to hunt as a sport, is secondary to any native hunting grounds. I then say, native hunters, like rural non native hunters who hunt out of necessity unlike sport hunters have the same needs and concerns. They need the land to provide them sustenance but it can not, if a balance is not honoured as to how much can be killed and when and where. I have travelled in the North and I do not see real hunters unable to find a way to co-exist and honour each other. Where the problem occurs, is when sports hunters come up and ignore the rules of nature and make a mess. Where the problem occurs is when commercial fishers ignore the rules of nature and scrape the bottom of the ocean and destroy the eco-system making it impossible for fish to repopulate and continue feeding both natives and non natives. Commercial fishers are their own worst enemy for having failed to honour basic rules of conservation. Their greed has destroyed fishing grounds and blaming natives for trying to stop this and protect what little was left for themselves is unfair. I again blame the federal government and politicians not your average single, commercial fisher on a small boat and family operation. I blame the federal government for cow-towing to large corporations and doing nothing to stop the Japanese, Portugese, Spanish and American commercial fishers until it was too late. I feel equally as sorry say for Newfoundland fishers who now can never fish again as much as I do for say natives like the Mic Mac whose waters have been either poisoned or depleted by too much commercial fishing. You know we can say the aboriginals were expecting unfair rights, but had we honoured their rights, we would have been able to at the same time conserve natural resources and instead of leaving natives unemployed and broke, enabled them to sell their excess fish at fair prices and become self-sufficient. You know its one thing to criticize natives for selling cigarettes or setting up casinoes, but this is directly as a result of our idiotic federal government's Ministry of Native Affairs that has insisted on treating natives like children and refuse to allow them to participate in the economy. You really think natives would be selling cigarettes if they were fairly treated and allowed to benefit from the land as we have allowed our large mega-corporations. I mean here we are questioning why aboriginals sell smokes but does anyone question how the federal government allowed the Republic of China to purchase our largest mining operation and now control most of our natural resources? We had no problem selling our resources to China and a pittance of what it is worth but we question natives for selling smokes? Sorry but the same short-sighted idiots now selling our natural resources away to China are the same politicians following a tradition of ignoring not just native rights to the resources, but the best interests of all Canadians native or not in the future. As for your comments, I respect them and have tried my best to offer some responses to your debate out of respect. I don't expect you to agree with what I said but at least you know I know it is not as easy as just telling you to pay some more taxes. On that point, you know I am listening.

Well, Canada is a pretty screwed up family - but then, isn't it great we have such a steadfast woman to represent us? I take exception though to the comment regarding "antiquated beliefs" - though this certainly isn't the first time I've heard this, it reveals somewhat of a double standard in this instance: why is it that centuries old Native traditions (many of which include hereditary leadership) are accepted, even revered, yet centuries old European and Canadian traditions are antiquated, and, by extension, irrelevant? There is indeed a long relationship between the Crown and the First Nations - one which, perhaps, has been undermined by the politicians who sit between them. That doesn't, however, alter historical and legal reality, nor give anyone the excuse to behave as some Natives have. I think the Kings and Queens of England have often, throughout history, had to worry about getting kicked out of their home. England was under threat of invasion numerous time by Spain and France, James VII/II was booted out in favour of William of Orange. Even the Queen of Australia, ol' Lizzie, came close to losing her Australian territories in 1999. That's a very interesting question that has been asked a number of times, but any answers have been tellingly absent. Your pt. as to my use of the word antiquated is well taken. I only meant by that, that some people consider the idea of monarchy as meaningless as aboriginal beliefs. I should have been more clear.

Says who? No Islamic society is static and changes over time. Iran is a different place today than it was when Kohemeni took over. It took hundreds of years for England to evolve from a feudal theocracy society to the democracy it is today. Why should Iranian society be expected to change over night? We have to deal with things as they are not how they may or not be hundreds of years from now. China is a society that is far older than ours but as yet hasn't developed into a democracy. Well if you mean democracy like in Canada of course. It has 4 billion people. If Canada ends up with 4 billion people, I think it is fair to say we will be a totalitarian police state like China. Shit happens when you have billions of people. I am not justifying China's totalitarian regime. I hate it. But I am also a realist. The sheer number of people really makes freedom of expression problematic. All democracies face that challenge if we over-populate. Freedom of expression is easier with smaller, easier to manage populations not competing for the same water or resources. Over crowd any living creature and it will get violent and intolerant. That said, no we have to deal with today. I agree with you on that. I think we can not afford to sit and do nothing waiting for the Muslim world to evolve. In the interim we have to protect ourselves and if that means pre-emptive anti terrorist strikes to take out terrorists, that is the price we pay for living the way we do. I differentiate strategic pre-emptive commando, anti-terrorist attacks, from occupying other nations with conventional armies and using those armies as political police. So for example with our forces in Afghanistan, I understand if they engage in war with Taliban and limit themselves to that. Where I have a problem is when people then say our army are social workers and should be having tea with the natives and teaching them democracy. That is b..s. to me. To me you want to encourage democracy you bring in civilians and non profit organizations and teach self-sufficiency without insulting the culture or values of the country you are in. For me yes there should be UN chartered anti-terrorist commando units that have world-wide jurisdiction to hunt and capture/kill terrorists. Where I personally have a problem, is when we expect our soldiers to be politicians, social workers, etc., or run governments. I believe in seperation between religion and state and the military and state. I guess I am old fashioned that way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm Phew. Now that I know the US is a liar, I feel secure. I have no reason to fear Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Silly for a second there, I thought there might be reasons other then what the US government may have said, that causes me to be a tad anxious about Iran having a nuclear bomb. Could it be the Iranian President stating Israel should be wiped off the map. Could it be the Iranian President who stated all Jews are infidels and the Muslim world necessarily must defeat the Zionist and Christian infidel in a show down? No. Not at all. I forget. Iran good. U.S. bad. Iran sweet innocent misunderstood. U.S. bad. I keep having these lapses and forgetting if there is a problem with Iran, it does not exist and the real problem is with Israel and the US who are liars and involved in this Zionist conspiracy. I mean how could anyone feel Iran would use nuclear fusion for anything but electricity? Thanks. I feel better now that you cleared that up. You know when you think about it, there are no problems with anyone. If we could only get rid of the US and Israel and say, myself while we are at it since I am beginning to sound like a liar.

The "Republic of East Vancouver" certainly has an agenda. The authour of the piece rewrote history, ignored facts and assigned motives to all with out regard to any evidence available. For example, he says, "Israel’s attempt to mount an American-style whack-a-mole War on Terror on Hezbollah does not mesh with the reality on the ground." completely ignoring the fact that Hezbollah initiated the attack and stated its goal was to crush Hezbollah for good so that it didn't have the continued "whack a mole" attacks from Southern Lebanon. The piece is a biased waste of time consisting of slogan shouting and repetition of the errors of others. The only value is that it reminds one to always check the facts offered in support of any argument. I agree with your response to this article although I doubt I would have been as controlled as you in my response. That said, if Israel is living in a bubble word, in what world does Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Mulsim clerics who call on the destruction if Israel...live? For that matter in what world does the writer of this simplistic article live. This article is a classic example of self-righteousness or narcissism on the part of the writer. He is so convinced that his reality is the reality of the entire world, he writes what he does. The classic definition of a narcissist is someone who believes everyone and everything thinks the way he does. This writer is a classic hippocrate. I will once again state, I have contempt for anyone who writes about the Middle East and attempts to depict it as a good guy versus a bad guy and good versus evil. There is no right or wrong on either side. There are a lot of humans however acting like idiots because they choose violence over reason. I also have nothing but contempt for anyone who says that a country that is surrounded by terrorists and governments that call for its destruction is somehow narcissistic because it is preoccupied about surviving. If I take this same idiotic writer and expose him to terrorist violence in his neighbourhood, he will be the first to write articles screaming for the police to take action.

O.k. guys here's my two cents. Remember this is not a political terrorist. This is not someone part of a terrorist cell deliberately doing this as an expression of political will. This is someone who for all intense and purposes is typical of the lone gunman who goes bezerk; a male, who felt marginalized and a failure, and who after attempts to seek approval and admittance from his peers, gave up, and in one act of suicide, decides to affirm his identity to the world he feels rejected him. The bottom line is you can say society caused it, blame his parents, etc., but the reality is, this guy was mad, and no amount of guns, preparation and precautions will ever stop a mad man intent on killing people. That is the cold scary reality just as it is with terrorists. You can try, but you can't prevent it. However there is a lot Montreal police did learn. After the horrible Lepigne massacres of women in previous shooting in Monteal, Montreal police studied and learned from it. Under the old procedures, police arriving at the scene of a mad man shooting and running loose, would hold back, form a secured zone, and wait for Swat. However because of lessons learned from the previous massacre, Montreal police changed their procedures, and now give the first police officer on the scene discretion to proceed without waiting for swat. In this case keep in mind the shootings although it no doubt seemed like ages for the students was approximately 15 minutes and was in fact successfully contained when the original officers on the scene chose to use their discretion and take the gunner down. Without lessons learned from the previous massacre, perhaps the gunman could have reloaded and killed more people while the police at the scene waited for Swat. As well, as tragic as all the injuries are, because of lessons learned in the last massacre new procedures put in place, enabled an emergency doctor to get to the scene in minutes and allowed a relatively quick arrival and transfer of injured students to the Montreal General hospital. It could very well be that lessons learned and the new emergency procedures enabling a faster delivery of injured students will save lives that might have otherwise been lost due to delays. The sad fact is this mad man probably could not be stopped but the police and emergency response teams will carefully study this terrifying event and learn from it as well and continue to develop improved methods. I personally don't think an armed guard would have stopped this. Most studies show armed guards freeze. It is very very hard to teach someone to be able to kill someone. When the police draw their guns and shoot and kill it is very unusual but they have the additional training a security guard would not. I personally think it is dangerous for anyone but a police offer to have a gun. I also down pepper spray would have taken this guy down or a phaser. Luckily police officers were already at the scene and others arrived within 4 minutes. Luckily this idiot even shooting at point blank at this time only seems to have killed one knock on wood. I went to Dawson (when it was on the old campus on Selby Street) so I sort of felt that extra punch listening to the story. I can only tell you what I learned living in Israel (temporarily) and from some of my friends who lived in Belfast and Londonderry or Derry however you say it....you can't live in fear...it will drive you crazy....you have to let the professionals, i.e., the police and emergency people do their job and learn from it...but you yourself can't give in to fear and start calling on your society to turn into a police state. Don't give your freedom away to these idiots. That said, I think this is again a reminder why we need gun control and why people should not get access to guns. Yes I appreciate people who hunt to feed themselves have a good reason for a rifle. I just think we need to make sure only certain kinds of rifles are purchased....they are stringently controlled and people who own hunting rifles are of legal age and demonstrate they are hunters. I would even say yes have a law that says people in NON rural areas or who live in cities over a certain size can only have access to their rifles during hunting season and otherwise these rifles must be stored in government licensed and controlled hunting clubs and the conditions for using the rifle is limited to a specifically licensed hunt with specific conditions as to the days and hours it is used. No one should ever be allowed to own a hand gun. You want to use one for target practice, then have government controlled gun clubs that own the guns and you are only allowed to use them at the club and the club owner is under strict conditions as to how he stores those hand guns.

Well when you put it as honestly and to the point as that, then for me, I personally feel, that since native peoples have their genuine beliefs as do you and they may conflict, it is up to me who respects both your faiths and beliefs equally and I mean that genuinely from my heart-then it us up to me to try help both sides find a way to peacefully co-exist. It is precisely because you are both idealistic and faith driven and mean no harm in your beliefs, but they are colliding, that someone like myself who is genuinely thankful to both your cultures for letting me live here, to try find a way. For me as a Jew, I am the first generation in my family to live without persecution. How can I not be grateful to the British parliamentary system and laws that have allowed me to live in freedom? At the same time how can I not be respectful and grateful to the native peoples who lived here before me and have never insulted me and simply asked I respect them? So I know I sound like I am a self-righteous bleeding heart but I am serious. I can see a solution coming from using both aboriginal concepts of fairness and Christian concepts of love and tolerance. For that matter, I could not for myself, possibly simply accept Judaism verbatum. I could not imagine mixing it with concepts from Christianity, aboriginal beliefs and many other belief systems. Ironically these same 6 nations that gave birth to warriors also have given birth to some incredible peace-makers if you read the stories of how shaymen and elders resolved conflicts-just like we know not all the British were warriors and there were people in Britain who used reason not just war to improve the quality of life. There was a time when the King of England (John) genuinely respected the native peoples and attempted to show that respect in the Magna Carta act. The current Queen as much as she represents a screwed up family and perhaps some very antiquated beliefs, genuinely has shown she has read and respects aboriginal traditions. It is not an accident that so many people of so many different faiths dialogue and learn from shaymen. On a spiritual level, aboriginal faith healers have helped many other faiths deal with conflict. Aboriginal legal concepts are now used by most mediators in family law only sometimes we don't know where we actually got the concept from until we learn where it really came from. So like I said, so say you have 2 equal and competing rights to one piece of land. What would you do if two people want the same child? Do you saw the child in half? Of course not. We find away so that both parties can have custody of the child equally. Its no more complex then that legally. We simply have to defuse the emotions and focus on a formula that compensates people fairly. So if you want to live on a pacel of land that was 500 years ago someone else's and illegally confiscated long before your time, I would expect the government not you personally, to compensate the native peoples properly for the unresolved legal conflict and yes indirectly you may end up paying some extra taxes but in the long run that would still be cheaper for all of us then costly protracted litigation suits and people bashing each others heads in. All kidding aside, yes there is ignorance and intolerance on both sides but there are also very good people on both sides. Look I know some people genuinely believe what I am saying is just not realistic. I don't expect them to feel any other way given what they have experienced. But it doesn't mean I with the tools of knowledge of law and civility can afford to walk away. I respect both sides too much to do that.

The Pope has no business scolding anyone other then Catholics. The last time I looked 33% of Canadians identified themselves as Catholics according to Statistics Canada. That would make the other 67% non Catholic although no doubt probably most Muslims and conservative and orthodox Jews and Hindus and Sieks probably agree with this kind of thinking. That said, I would kindly ask this Pople as I would anyone else to keep their religion to their own followers. It has no place in state institutions. Keep your religious opinions out of my face. If some gay person wants to marry or someone wants an abortion its none of my business and I do not need some man who spent 3 years shuffling Catholic Priests all about the world so they could not be sued for molesting children, lecturing me on what is right or wrong. Before this Pope lectures anyone he can confess for his sins and his part in covering up sex scandals.

Here is the point. When 9-11 happened, Canada was there for the Americans who had to land in Canada and we stood by the Americans in a vigil and many Canadians went to New York City to show their support on buses and to this day all Canadians share the sorrow and I would remind you Canadians died in 9-11. There are a portion of Canadians LIKE Americans who believe US foreign policy incites Muslims into committing acts of terror. People with these beliefs whether they be Canadian or American, should not and can not simply be lumped in a category as being anti-American. It is absolute arrogance and hipporcracy to simply lump people in an anti-American category because they disagree with a certain kind of approach to foreign policy. George Bush does not have a monopoly on the truth or what is good for America and people whether they are Canadians or Americans have a right to question and criticize anything. I myself make a strong arguement that there can never be an excuse for any kind of terrorism and that it is simplistic to point the finger at American ignorance and say that is what causes terrorism. Yes America's lack of awareness of how other cultures live, and America's tendency to think they are better then anyone else and simply walk into these countries and expect themselves to be welcomed incites a back-lash of hatred against them. Many Americans know their ugly Americanism is a turn off. That said however, it is not an excuse for terrorism. Terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere use America or Israel as a pretense and excuse. We need not make apologies for them nor should we ever be so naive as to think they are going away. And everyone of us who enjoys are lifestyle has to be willingt o give it up, before we condemn the US military or Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Whether we like it or not the US military and Canadian military are fighting overseas because they are defending our lifestyle. So you can see I am typical of many Canadians. I do criticize our naive beliefs that we can simply march into countries and impose democracy and I most certainly do think our presence on foreign soil contributes to a back-lash and acts that may fuel future terrorism but I am not anti-American or anti-Canadian. I am just a realist. So hold off on your labels and stereotypes. Some of us criticize US foreign policy but at the same time make no bones about our support for America. Me thinks you should develop some thicker skin. You are souding like some sort of over-pumped patriot and there is a fine line between an over-pumped patriot and an intolerant facist.

You need to re-read all of Tsi's posts. Try and put the foolish statements at the end of long winded posts and maybe people will bother to read more than the first few lines. I have read his posts and I have read yours and I stand by my comments in their entirety..and to put it in language you can understand-try hit a wolf with a stick, it will circle back and bite your ass...best to keep your distance from it. A wolf is not some dog you can tame and the sonner you learn that, the sonner you can learn to live in co-existence with it.

I ridicule all faiths. I find all are tailor made to control the weak minded, the scared and the ignorant masses. How much blood has been shed in the name of your god Rueful one? To answer your question in one word; Endless...although I love your comment "your God". I am a tad modest and don't think I own this God. If you are referring to the fact that my birth religion, Judaism and the Old Testament, when it gets right down to it, are a series of stories of killings and rampages and the God depicted in the Old Testament is angry and vengeful-yer point is well taken. Judaism like Christianity and Islam and many other organized religions has a lot of violence in it in the name of God.If yer point is I sound like a sanctimonious self-righteous twat, you would of course be right. But I am talking from my heart. I do not think I am better then anyone I am debating... I simply do not like discussions on property rights descending into attacks on aboriginals as people and against their faith. I would also suggets rather then trying to say its acceptable to be ignorant as long as we are ignorant to everyone equally, we try find a less confrontative way to acknowledge our differences and focus more time on emphasizing what we do agree on and have in common.

I chose to sit on the side-lines and read most of the posts on the property rights debate between the native nations and the Ontario government because I truly believe good legal arguements can be made from both sides of the table and it will take creative minds to find a peaceful and fair way to juggle and find mutually acceptable methods to enable both sets of rights to be recognized and properly treated. I only injected myself into the debates when I noticed the topic turned from property rights to ridiculing aborignals as people and because of their culture. Nothing in what I read Tsi in this dialogue suggested he felt he was superior to anyone or was making anti-white comments until I saw the anti-aboriginal sentiments come out in words. I also think someone who uses the post name squaw shagger and discusses all women the way he does aboriginals, with contempt and hatred, is someone whose insecurity and bigotry is transparent. I am disgusted we can not talk to native people without deliberately insulting their beliefs. The issue was property rights and Tsi's comments about shape shifting were allegories that obviously went over the heads of some of you. Now I would like to bring this back to where it started because this is one non native who will not sit by quietly and watch anyone insulted because of their heritage and I slung some back but I am the first to admit its pointless. Here is the cold hard reality of the situation. Native peoples have very strong, coherent, legal rights that are going to be inunciated in the court system. These rights will not simply go away because they are inconvenient to some business interests of some developers. The federal and provincial governments are not stupid. They know they may lose on many of these land claim arguements and so in the last twenty years have been desperately trying to avoid litigation through out of court settlements. To some of you it may look like the current provincial government is gutless. Well of course they are. That same gutless comes from internal legal opinions advising them its a no win situation for them if they push these land right issues. If you bother to actually read or listen to what native representatives have actually stated in regards to land negotiations, you would also know that what many of you think is intransigence or being entrenched in a particular position is in fact negotiation and typical and to be expected in such negotiations. I will not accept the notion that our laws and courts can not find solutions to these property right issues. I will not accept the train of thought that ridicules native people for trying to enforce historic legal rights. I do understand the majority of Canadians will choose to live segregated from native peoples and never come to understand their true beliefs and so will continue to engage in the kind of comments that I have seen on some of these posts. I can not and will not accept the fact that non natives are doomed to having to war with natives over this earth. I can not and will not because I lived in Israel and I have seen people die over land where they have competing legal rights and I will never accept war and terror and intolerance as solutions. Now if we want to get into a discussion as to the historic origins of the treaties and legal rights natives are referring to when advocating on their behalf when it comes to property rights, let us do so without insulting them as people. I would also suggest that if a non native also genuinely learn native practices, all they have to do is ask but you will never begin to understand it if you first approach it with a closed mind and believe it is stupid or does not make sense because it is different then the way you conceptualize things. And not that it matters, but if any of you are interested, you can also learn how certain aboriginal customs as to solving conflicts are being incorporated into our legal systems just as their spiritual practices are being incorporated into our medical practices. People with far more Western education and degrees then most of us on these posts are not afraid to learn from aboriginals and ask them for guidance. What I am clearly saying is before this is over, we non natives will incorporate aboriginal believes and customs into our laws and other social systems and it will make us better for it. I also truly believe some of us, not all of us, who are not native, will be able to establish with native peoples that we want to live in peace and share and not hurt or ridicule anyone. That may sound ridiculously bleeding heart or "pussy" talk to some of you posters but that is what this debate comes down to-property rights are symbols not tangible objects, they are simply symbols or manifestations of how we choose to live with each other on this planet. Think about it. Our entire legal system as to owning property is simply symbolic. We rent land from the Queen (crown) because she retains full rights to it. We pretend we own the land but in fact we lease it from Queen Liz. Then we say we own it because we go to an office and get a piece of paper that says we do after we go to a bank and get a loan to purchase it. So we in fact claim we own the land but in fact the bank owns it until we pay the bank back. Then say we clear the mortgage...then what..well we have to sell it or die. So the reality is we own butkus. Our whole legal system merely tries to have us share parcels of land in an orderly fashion until we die but no one really owns anything. Its simply fiction to stop us from killing each other over seeing who can control what piece of land. Aboriginal people do not put down our culture or our legal system our our legal practices because they challenge them. They have a right to. This same Queen Liz's great great great grandparents made treaties with them as to sharing the land. Some of you really do need to at least go back to the Magna Carta act and understand how it like so many other treaties is related directly to aboriginal claims today to exemption to certain laws or rights that would supercede other rights. Aboriginals did not go around claiming they owned anything. They may have had their own problems with each other prior to we Westerners getting here but none of them went around referring to the land being owned by a Queen. They have always described the earth as a living organism...a living, breathing organism that allows humans to live on its surface and enjoy what it has to offer if we do not ignore its intricate set of natural rules. When the French and British came to Canada, they both brought with them Chrstitianity, diseases, and concepts as to owning land completely foreign to the existing cultural norms as to sharing the land and being guests on it. We Westerners do not see ourselves as guests on a living element. We see ourselves as conquerors who own and control the earth. All our concepts are based on might and power and might and power coming from the accumulation of material and by being able to exploit the means of producing that material. Aboriginal concepts as to economic transaction differ not simply because they were hunters or farmers but because of their concepts as to material goods. Aboriginal cultures if one must generalize have one clear and different approach from that which we int he Western world accept as a given and that is that value is defined from what we control in terms of material goods. Our whole economy is based on that. Todays aboriginal nations have had to engage in our form of economy because we give them no other choice. So you want to ridicule aboriginal nations and type-cast them as being criminals for engaging in illegal tobacco sales or getting involved in casinoes then look twice at what other options we have aboriginals after we broke our treaties with them and superimposed our laws over their laws and customs. We gave them no other way to eat.Our history is replete with engaging in activities that have made it impossible for them to co-exist and whether it is something as simple as fishing, hunting, snow-mobiles, spreading diseases, forcefully kidnapping their children and placing them in Christian institutions and imposing Christian religion on them, we have failed. We have failed because quite simply we do not understand that you can not do away with aboriginals by simply shooting them or caging them in invisible cages called reservations. And no don't try for one second suggest aboriginals have refused to assimilate or make compromises. Our Canadian history is full of vivid examples of how aboriginal nations were and have been more then willing to make compromises and learn from us and borrow some of our concepts...while we on the other hand have done the same. Do not mistake refusing to erase one's culture with refusing to assimilate. Aboriginal people have as much a right to continue with their traditions as any of you do with your Christian churches and schools. I will summarize by stating it this simply. You find a mathematical formula that compensates native rights for a proper percentage of any profit derived from the exploitation of the earth in Canada. You also engage in this exploitation respecting the environmental rules of nature and in a way that does not permanently damage the earth and poison and kill people from toxic side effects. It is possible to engage in ethical, fair, environmentally safe business practices that are safe and fair to us all. This is not utopia I am talking about. I am talking about carefully planned and organized development that is as a result of community interests and not simply greed being represented as the paramount interest. There have been examples of this already and if we are to properly develop the North and have a future not just in Canada but globally we are going to have to work in this direction. The alternative is continued war and toxification of the planet and excuse me but I do not feel like gambling, having a smoke, or shitting on someone's belief system today. All I want is a nice peaceful walk and to watch an osprey catch a fish or see a moose swim across a lake after having sex with Angela Jolie. I do not ask for much.

Are you criticizing Native Royal Hawaiian tradition? Or ancient Egyptian Royal custom? For shame.......... I think he is saying incest is for shame. Does that offend you? ..him maybe not..his sister..you never know.

Are you criticizing Native Royal Hawaiian tradition? Or ancient Egyptian Royal custom? For shame.......... Lol. I just watched the old movie Hawaii with Max Van Syndow last night.

Getting back to the original postulation, racism, bias and prejudice, are all manifestations of the same phenomena, namely, pre-conceived values or beliefs or assumptions that can serve to interfere with and distort or enhance the cognitive process when trying to extract or formulate meaning meaning fom the abstract. Christianity like all belief systems states pre-conceived assumptions, i.e., there is a God, Jesus is the Messiah, the only way to be saved is through accepting Jesus as your saviour, etc. I personally reject all organized religions for the exact same reason - they are just a bit too inflexible and rigid for me. I prefer to find out my own truths without being told how to do it buy some wise-ass who then wants me to pay for his words of wisdom. I find organized religion often a collective execise in molestation and intolerance. That of course is my personal opinion.

LOL. He started it. Nyah. Nyah. My pee pee is bigger then yours. O.k. now that..this has been settled with enlightened dialogue, I feel better.

I believe the point was people who ridicule other peoples' faiths and traditional beliefs believing they are superior should look at the blood on their hands in the name of their God(s) before they ridicule others. Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold. Either that or Seymour has been drinking too much coffee and got too excited.

Today women, tomorrow off come those darned mustacheless beards. I mean who do they think they are anyways? Amish?