Rue

How do you feel about your taxes going to fund abortions? Do you object to abortion as birth control enough to demand your taxes back or at least to remove it from the list of universal health-care services? No. I have no problem with women having access to abortion. My personal opinions on abortion are irrelevant to the issue of whetehr women shoud be entitled to access to universal health care services. I think it would be ludicrous to ban abortion particularly if a woman's life is in danger or she has been a victim of rape. So then please don't ask me to start drafting laws that define when abortion is o.k., and when it is not. That becomes an absurd exercise destined to be arbitrary and unfair.

The point is government legislators should not be defining through laws when life begins. The law will necessarily be defective. The fact is no one knows for sure when an embryo becomes a life form. Most would argue under 12 weeks it is just cells. When those cells turn into an entity that is a life form no one can say scientifically but many define on religious grounds. In Poland, a staunchly Catholic nation, why would anyone be suprised that it has zero tolerance for abortions? It reflects its Catholic traditional view as to abortion and lets face it the laws on abortion are very much inter-mixed with the prevailing religious views of the society in which the laws are promulgated. Show me a strong Catholic Church or other fundamentalist religious presence or lack of seperation between fundamentalist religion and state, and I will show you an anti-abortion law. I personally think the decision to have an abortion should be made by the mother and her doctor with in-put from the father but I think the bottom line is this is an issue of doctor client privileged relationship and that no one has the right to interfere with a woman's decision as to what to do with her body and its between her and her doctor. No I do not personally believe abortion should be used as birth control and should be avoided when-ever possible but for me my personal opinion is just that and I do not believe I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, its none of by business.

This is without a doubt a very tough question. When one talks about proper compensation for native peoples one has to review an evolution of treaties signed and broken between the native peoples and the crown before and after confederation not to mention an interrelationship to treaties broken in the United States. When we talk compensation we are talking about dealing with the actions of the former British governments, the federal government, the 12 provincial governments, international disputes that cross over into the United States and of course compensation for disputes regarding land claims and other matters such as abuse at residential schools. To try lump all these issues into one big category and lump all aboriginal nations into one compensation scheme would fail to properly recognize differences and distinctions in rights between different native peoples and the appropriate government or in compensation issues more properly settled on an individual civil litigation basis. The fact is there were numerous treaties entered into with the native peoples leading up to king George the Third's Royal Proclomation of 1763 which recognized that treaties with aborginal peoples as to land use and ownership had been unfair and often broken and this prclomation recognized these treaties as constitutional rights that should be properly recognized and honoured. Twenty years later the Treaty of Paris ignored the Covenant Chain and Treaty of Stanwex when defining borders between Canada and the United States around the Great Lakes and so today we have multiple layers of issues with international, federal and provincial compensation consequences. Interestingly in 1982,s .35 of the Constitution Act recognized aboriginal treaties and in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sioui case advised legislators, governments, etc.,to interperate treaties liberally and in favour of the native peoples. The fact is however, thousands of land claims remain in dispute and who knows where to start with the thousands of potential claims for compensation for sexual abuse at residential schools which is a distinct issue and one I think is far from over and may be better handled in class action law suits. I personally think financial compensation is not the panacea for righting the wrongs. What we clearly need to do is; i-compensate natives on an individual or family level for abuses at residential schools ii-try create a uniform method that can allow native peoples to continue enjoying their land use and hunting rights while coexisting with other laws and priorities iii-in a newly constituted senate of elected officials, assuring a set number for aboriginal representation iv-in the House of Commons , recognizing the Assembly of Nations just like a province and allowing them an allotment of seats. I think the political suggestions I have mentioned would enable us not to just have to focus on paying for sins and allow a creative and symbolic way for the federal government to concretely respect the legal rights of our natives. From a compensation point of view, if we properly obey the existing laws and understand that native rights regarding access to land for hunting supercedes modern laws trying to use the same property, we wouldn't have half the problems we have. I personally think honouring native people's right to use land for hunting, also protects the environment. In any event, its a tricky issue when say non native fishers want to access the same lakes and seas as say the MicMac who technically may have superior rights to accessing the salmon. It gets tricky when oil and mineral developers want to strip the land of gold, copper, zinc, silver, etc., and this same land they want to strip and exploit also is subject to treaties as to land use and enjoyment with native peoples that supercedes the laws today's business people are trying to use to claim their rights. I mean we see classic examples of forests being cut down completely violating and ignoring the treaties with native peoples to use that same land for hunting and living. Modern commerce comes in direct conflict with the needs of rights of our natives and this is not an issue or matter of giving unfair treatment to natives its a matter of obeying the law which clearly states these treaties are in force and effect and should not be ignored by municipal or provincial governments, the federal government, international treaties or private business interests. As for compensation for the sexual abuse at residential schools this is a painful issue I think should be kept distinct and apart from land use disputes and is highly complex and I believe better belongs as part of class action or individual law suits for pain and suffering compensation. It is far different then say the Chinese head tax issue, because this deals with individuals who were raped and beaten and as individuals have a right to sue and see compensation for direct damages suffered. I personally believe not just the federal government but the Catholic Church and other Christian groups have legal liability and these churches should not be exempted from paying compensation. I also think in the Province of Quebec, you have a whole series of treaties with aboriginal groups that supercede any laws or rights Quebec seperatists think they can use to invoke for an independent nation. The fact is oif Quebec argued for independence, the native peoples of that province have the legal right to 3/4's of the land that would have to be recognized internationally and the nation of Quebec would soon find itself an outlaw nation if it tried to ignore these treaties and not let the native peoples cede with their land particularly around the Ungava Bay region. (did I spell that right) Again I am not a native rights lawyer so I am only expressing personal opinions.

Dream on! A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports can crush the evil "New Communism" of China instantaneously. A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports will liberate the people of China from oppression and human rights abuse. A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports will bring fair and honest capitalism to the people of China. There is NOTHING that the Chinese government will be able to do to combat a boycott of Chinese exports. A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports will be a PEACEFUL overthrow of the evil "New Communism" that cowardly terrorizes its own population. I appreciate your idealism and support it but I fear the cost of business human greed will protect this nation.

You've got to be kidding! Yes I am! By the way, being serious for a sec, is it dangerous if you are in China to send posts critical of the country? I hear it is and that they monitor everything. Any truth to that in your opinion?

This case should be appealed. I have worked with people with post traumatic stress syndrome and I can tell you it is an absolute pile of b.s. to suggest either this condition or severe depression is justification for raping someone. Let us be clear. Even a severely depressed person or person with pts knows right from wrong. It doesn't distort their appreciation or ability to understand right from wrong. This person was not in a psychotic state unable to differentiate right from wrong. He knew what he was doing was wrong. So for the Judge to have accepted the arguement that this prevented him from forming criminal intent is just wrong, plain wrong. I have worked with hundreds of genuine post traumatic stress victims both in Israel and in Canada and from war zones or suffering from the effects of sexual trauma, car accidents, etc. Believe me in the twenty years I have been working with people with it in the courts and privately, I can honestly tell you I have seen men who are angry and irritable but I can honestly say not one person I encountered wanted to rape anyone. Yes people who are molested can go on to molest but that is a complex reaction and far different in clinical nature then someone who may have been in a war zone and then comes back home. This decision is wrong. It basically opens up every rape case and case of sexual or other violence or crime to this defence. Its wrong. Dead wrong. Does this mean every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan can now return home and have an excuse for raping or murdering people? Nonsense. Travesty.

Couldn't disagree with her more strongly. Harper is playing to the typical Canadian right now across Canada. His social conservatism has been carefully watered down to make it palatable and he is buffering his reputation as being decisive and the only one willing to fight terrorism. I think he is playing well across the country. For him to be defeated, the NDP and Liberals have to merge and that won't happen. I also do not think any Liberal leader from the list of candidates will do well against him in debates. He will pull out the Chretien legacy, remind Canada of all the coruption, wax poetically about the need to fight terrorism and easily win the next election. He will win on three issues; i-fighting terrorism and rebuilding the armed forces; ii-managing the economy; iii-being an alternative to corupt Liberals. Campbell should go back to LA and continue to diddle with her piano playing boyfriend half her age. At least one sucker out there finds her attractive and desireable. I always found her to be one mushy mess of loser politics at its best.

I think you raise interesting points and I would say precisely for the reasons you have highlighted the Liberals will continue fudge on this issue as have Democrats in the US and Labourites in the UK. When it comes to state security and terrorism, the Left usually is afraid to say anything.

Listen you commie spy-I of course find your comments interesting. The fact is China will contonue to pollute and run a country that is full of human rights abuses and violations and oppression and extreme inequity between rich and poor. China is the largest cheap labour economy in the world and the West has totally indebted itself to it. No one will say boo about anything China says or does and if millions die from lung cancer in China no one will notice-what's a couple of million per year in a country with 2 to 3 billion. Its a minor consequence for its government and for the world. That may be unfair but that is reality. Life in China for the average person has always been cheap and it seems destined to continue that way.

It would genuinely be interesting if Canada held a referendum on becoming a republic how the majority would vote. That said, there is one interesting legal point if we did go republican. The native peoples have treaties as to land rights and use that date back to King John and the Magna Carta Act. The mechanics of dealing with native rights if the crown is abolished would be interesting. Would Canada as a republic recognize these treaties that were entered into with the crown or simply rip them up? I myself am neutral on the topic. The Queen and monarchy does not bother me. One figure head is the same as another to me. Whether you call the person a queen or a President they are still ceremonial. While I think the Queen married an idiot and has idiot children I have no problems with her or her corgi dogs. Chuck I have a problem with. The man and his spouse appropriately named Bowels make me puke. One could make a solid arguement for tradition and monarchy and suprisingly do it in a progressive way. the monarchy seems spent and old but it actually is a lot more creative then having a boring President. Besides most of the political apppointments in this country are queens anyways.

Thank you. These kinds of comments I can take seriously. You certainly raise an interesting point.

I would say "do the right thing, sometimes". This Iraq mess I would say they are doing the wrong thing. However when it comes to fighting terrorists I would say they are doing the right thing. I just disagree with them trying to turn Iraq into a proxy state. I think that is a far different agenda then in tracking down and killing terrorists and they like to confuse the two issues and use the pretense of fighting terrorism to justify their failed attempts at trying to turn Iraq into a colony. The Turks couldn't do it. The British couldn't do it. Even the Mongols couldn't do it.

Oh Black Dog I am reading back your post today!!! Man you just got to cheer these Oy-lers on. Last night theywere just awesome refusing to die and this with no supposed goalie. Since they lost Rollie man have they stepped up their game to protect their goalie. Its awesome man. And I am a Habs fan. Man you have to love Chris Pronger.

Oh hell while we are at it let's just scrap the entire criminal system and civil litigation system and simply arrest people and leave them to rot.

Your last sentence is idiotic. I say that because to equate your disapproval of bilingualism and people tring to enforce it or promote programs for it is one issue, terrorism is another and when you make such statements you seriously make a mockery of just how serious terrorists with bombs are. Man I know plenty of Israelis and Palestinians that would trade places with you and put up with your language problems rather then live where they are living. I could say that about a lot of people in a lot of conflict zones. Then there are the victims of terrorism whom I am sure would equate your anger with bilingualism as more serious then the death of their loved ones or guts flying in their face. Man I would love to see you in the midst of a terrorist attack bleeding with your bowels coming out and some French speaking medic working on you. You think you would give a sh..t at that point if he was French? I doubt it. Why do people like you reply with veiled threating dialogue when the topic is pertaining to racist sentiments concerning CSDCSO that you are supposed be addressing. Are you suggesting if the English don't agree with the French fact that Quebec will turn into a province of terrorist and attack other provinces? Not everone is like you who agrees with Official Languages, Official Multiculturalism and associated federal bilingualism, French Languages Services Act in Ontario who have had all this imposed on them in a very undemocratic manner mainly by the federal Liberals and it is Canadians democratic right to oppose what can be viewed as fraudulent discriminatory language legislation. Don't change the subject. I was calling you out for saying your concerns as to muliculturalism give you the right to equate such an issue as being as serious or more serious then terrorism. When you make such statements you show you have no credibility. I didn't make any threatening dialogue. Read what I said. I basically said get some perspective man! People would die to live in this country and fret about what you are fretting about. As for your idiotic references to Quebec turning into a province of terrorists where have you been the last 50 years. They don't need terrorists they have the Block Quebecois and thousands of federally sponsored projects...they will continue to demand more and more but Quebecers are not terrorists simply manpulative opportunists like everyone else in this country. You think Premier Kline is not opportunistic and is not a "terrorist" they way he has dealt with the medicare issue? Give it a rest. You have it too easy and too much time on your hands.

The fact is this impasse has been allowed to go on far too long. The OPP has been turned into the same charade as the Canadian Armed Forces in other such showdowns. While I sympathize and agree with many of the aboriginal arguements as to their legal rights I also think the provincial government should have dismantled the barricades and made arrests if they had to and then do what they should have done in the first place, sit down with the aboriginal leaders and address the issues that have been ignored. I personally believe all these showdowns do is create blow back or adverse reaction and racist reaction from non aboriginals. I appreciate aboriginal peoples may feel they have few choices and are forced to this action but what I am saying is the government must be pro-active in defusing such flare-ups and steer people off the streets and into meeting halls where issues can be mediated. I also bleieve anyone from either side who commits violence has to be arrested. Anyone seen Mr. Peterson?

Interesting Liberal candidate Ignatieff refers to the same tax only federally, and the entire federal Liberal party gasped thinking he has antagonized the West. Its easy for Quebec to tax oil, they don't produce oil. Of course to understand Quebec politics is to understand two things; 1-their solution to everything is another tax 2-there solution to everything is another handout from Ottawa.

"Most of those who come here as refugees are neither downtrodden nor oppressed. The downtrodden don't have the wherwithal to get here from their miserable hovels in Nigeria and Cairo and Beirut. And most of hte world is oppressed. We don't have room for them all." (quote from Argus) 1. I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that most refugees coming to Canada are not downtrodden or oppressed. I do not doubt people use our refugee determination system to by-pass the regular immigration system simply for economic or medical opportunity, but I find your choice of the words "downtrodden nor oppressed" amusing. Someone coming from China, India, Somalia, wherever, who uses the refugee determination system to seek economic advantage or medical services ...how do you know they are not oppressed or downtrodden. The last time I looked being dirt poor was and is oppressive. So while I understand you may be trying to suggest the refugee determination system is probably being exploited by persons seeking economic and medical advantage-I think it is safe to say the vast majority of the world lives in an oppressive environment and would literally die for the chance to come to Canada and so if you create a permeable refugee determination system don't be suprised if someone with cancer or in need of an operation or is in desperate need of work takes advantage of the system. You leave a pie out on your window sill, don't be suprised if some homeless person walking by with an empty stomach feels tempted to eat it. 2. " We don't have room for them all". I love this comment. It is a fairly typical one that comes up in immigration discussions. Again the fact is geographically this country has plenty of space and of course can take people in-the real issue is how do you create an immigration policy that prevents all immigrants from simply settling in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. Please don't tell me Northern Ontario and Northern Canada and numerous small towns and villages across Canada could not do with doctors, nurses, and certain categories of workers. There is a need-the problem is our current immigration policy in fact unintentionally has contributed to over condensation of new Canadians in certain cities due to a lack of cooperation and vision between federal, provinicial and municipal level governments. 3. The Refugee Determination System in my personal opinion has always been a travesty and is an invention of some soft people in Canada who feel guilty they live better then people in third world countries and conflict zones. This system created by some academics was supposed to make the first world feel better about all the conflict zones their imperialism has created. The fact is if we genuinely wanted to help refugees we wouldn't have this system we would take the money we spend on this system and fund programs on the actual refugee sites where the vast majority of refugees are trapped in tents dying from minor ailments that prove devastating to immune ravaged bodies. We like to mix our guilt for what is going on in the world with a determination system that is supposed to make up for McKenzie King turning down how many Jews who tried to escape Germany? The fact is an immigration policy should not be confused with say a foreign assistance policy. The Refugee Determination System sucks the intelligentsia from third world countries and turns them into our taxi drivers and menial labourers condemning these third world countries to perpetual poverty by draining their future potential. We are nothing more then guilt ridden idiots when it comes to how we treat refugees. We should take the money and spend it on programs to help people become self-sufficient and stabilize their countries economies because when it comes down to it, the source of all conflicts is poverty. 4.Now as for our immigration policy, and what August said earlier, many people criticize the notion that families include parents, etc. Again the problem is not in bringing grandfathers and grandmothers over. These same grandparents look after young grand-children enabling their children to work and freeing up money otherwise spent on child-care for spending on other aspects of the economy. No the problem here is in sponsorship and the fact that there is a huge defect in allowing people to bring people over and claim they will sponsor them, and then being able to get out of having to sponsor them. I think we are confusing two issues. Sponsorship indeed is a defective area in need of reform. All I am saying is yes our immigration policy needs fixing but no don't mix that issue up with this notion we do not need immigrants. Uh hello- we do not have sufficient population growth to pay into CPP and maintain the economy. Take a look at this country's demographic profile before making statements such as "we should freeze immigration". Do that and this country all ages and dies at the same time leaving no one to maintain the economy. The stats are there to back that point up. If youd on't believe me, good luck expecting your CPP to look after you 15 years from now.

I am interested how you quote new data to make a point when something tells me you never saw this data or have authenticated it actually came from al-Qaida. I appreciate you want to support what the US is doing and are looking for proof that establishes a good guy bad guy scenario but excuse me if I pass on your zeal because for me plenty of stories come out of such incursions and you and I have no way of knowing whether they are authentic or simply planted stories. Did they kill this sob? Probably. Did they find data...maybe. Does it say what you are suggesting it states, who the fk knows. I will say this - you know and I know that the reason the Americans went into Iraq was a lie. You can spin it anyway you want to be an anti-terrorist war but the fact is the Americans were sent in for two reasonns; i-this is all about revenge and George Bush Sr's ego; ii-its all about securing oil. The incursion into Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. It has cost the US quadra billions of dollars and has crippled their economy. More to the point it was nothing more then a crass opportunity for Haliburton and other companies close to the Chaney Bush empire to grab contracts to rebuild the country. These companies have gone into the country and refuse to hire Iraqis or share their wealth with them. Terrorism? The US blew up Iraq and sent it back to the stone age. The average Iraqi has no fresh water, electricity and jobs. They live in fear of al-Queda which the American military has been unable to stop. You expect Iraqis to be grateful to a power that has demolished their infrastructure and engages in a never ending war of attrition with al-Queda? Iraq as a fkng mess to start with and the Americans went in to secure oil pipelines. They had no problem using Hussein as an ally as long as he fought Iran and kept the war going on destablizing the region and requiring both sides to sell their oil cheap. This notion that the Americans are fighting terrorists is nice domestic consumption. The fact is the US armed forces have been used as security guards to try police a pipe line which any fool can get to and blwo holes in at any given time. The fact is the US has been unable to secure a safe source and passage of oil out of Iraq. The fact is oil prices have sky rocketed since the invasion. The fact is Bush was exposed as a total and utter liar. The fact is the terrorist attacks have not abated at all despite your latest spin each hour by the hour bombs go off. The fact is it is impossible for the US conventional armed forces to fight and eradicate terrorism in Iraq and the Pentagon warned Bush, Chaney and that complete idiot Rumsfeld of this fact and were ignored. The fact is it is a myth to try portray the US army as fighting terrorism in Iraq. They are in fact being asked to protect the interests of the greedy corporations now inside Iraq making a fortune off of the death and destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure. If this was truly about fighting terrorism the US would not have sent in a conventional army. They would have sent in quick moving, elite, deadly anti terrorist commando units and strategically taken out terrorist sites. The decision to keep American troops on the ground thereby creating a prolonged state of attrition is no different then what the British did in Ireland or so many other conventional troops have been asked to do. Conventional armies do not belong in cities occupying them and trying to police them. That is not their function should bever be their function and always ends up in disaster.

Your last sentence is idiotic. I say that because to equate your disapproval of bilingualism and people tring to enforce it or promote programs for it is one issue, terrorism is another and when you make such statements you seriously make a mockery of just how serious terrorists with bombs are. Man I know plenty of Israelis and Palestinians that would trade places with you and put up with your language problems rather then live where they are living. I could say that about a lot of people in a lot of conflict zones. Then there are the victims of terrorism whom I am sure would equate your anger with bilingualism as more serious then the death of their loved ones or guts flying in their face. Man I would love to see you in the midst of a terrorist attack bleeding with your bowels coming out and some French speaking medic working on you. You think you would give a sh..t at that point if he was French? I doubt it.

August, it will be very interesting to see if someone does challenge the Patriot Act in the US. It does appear to raise fundamental constitutional issues that could create a challenge but I would imagine such a challenge could take years. In Canada since non citizens have totally the same rights as Canadian citizens due to a Supreme Court of Canada decision on a refugee determination, it is possible one could try challenge the grounds for a security writ and of course use the Charter as the basis for arguement and I would imagine this would be an in camera hearing not open to the public. Immigration law however is not my area so I defer to anyone out there with more expertise. I think what suprised me with the Patriot Act was just how unconstitutional it was and how it in effect rewrites the constitution of the US and barely a peep was heard. In Canada, we have not tended to be a society that has worried about the erosion of civil rights-our focus on constitutional concerns seems to be about language or provincial government rights not freedom of expression. It wasn't that long ago the vast majority of Canadians supported a supposed left wing pinko Trudea in implementing the War Measures Act which was no different then the state of siege legislations promulgated in so many South American regimes we thought we were "better than".

Well a refugee determination decision went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which stated the Charter of Rights applies to anyone who steps foot on Canadian soil so the distinction between Canadian citizen and non citizen when it comes to guaranteeing full rights was eradicated by that decision.

Look I think the idea of applying a consistent immigration admission criteria for all people and applying it consistently is the way to go but as for what the criteria should be that is the million dollar question. I think what we all want to make sure is that people coming to this country are; 1-willing to understand that we seperate religion from state 2-that they can not bring their hatred or intolerance of others to this country 3-that in this country we deem women and men equal before the law 4-that we live in and believe in democracy 5-we do not agree with or will support terrorism or violence from anyone for any reason 6-we are not a haven for criminals 7-we are not a haven for pedophiles 8-we can not be all things to all people 9-if you believe your religion makes you better or purer then others, this is not the country for you 10-you have to be prepared to be self-sufficient and if need be move to an area of Canada that needs labourers, etc. for at least your first three years 11-some sort of test is passed that you can speak either English or French sufficiently enough to be able to work and survive 12-you have a skill that is needed. I think our current policies are supposed to do this but are not. Now the above in my opinion could easily be construed by some as unfair but I think it is pretty fair in that it does not discriminate against anyone and tries to protect the safety of the state as the paramount criteria in the selection process.

Spanking in itself is not the issue. What we are really talking about is what kind of tools should a parent engage in when disciplining a child, because of course children need to be disciplined. The notion that spanking is bad is simplistic. A slap on a child's bumb when it is screaming and trying to do something dangerous is sometimes necessary. Sometimes a child needs a concrete physical reaction to calm them down. You can not debate or reason with a child of 2 or 3 or 4. In fact trying to reason with them only makes their tantrums worse. No I can see where we have to draw a line at hurting children and using too much excessive force and/or in trying to understand that being violent or abusive or losing our tempers at children is dangerous and harmful but a simple spank on the bum or a slap on the hand if a child is trying to touch something hot may be necessary. I think what happened in the 60's is that a lot of people took Dr. Spock's book on child rearing very seriously and this is where the notion came from that we should reason with children. Well it brought up a whole bunch of spoiled baby boomers who have gone on to be large assholes precisely because no one has said no to them. I have two daughters and never raised a hand to them but their mother had a wood spoon (she never used) and they knew she would have used it so they never messed with her. Me I was a push over but there were certain things they knew I would not compromise on, i.e., their safety. So no I wouldn't worry about a spanking unless it becomes violent and an expression of anger and abuse. Used with care and control and for a specific purpose, it can be useful or helpful. Particularly if you have a child trying to touch something hot or who runs in front of traffic. In such cases they need an immediate message of negativity attached to their consequence. In that respect they are no different then a dog. If youd on't discipline them immediately they don't attach any discipline to the deed. Behaviour modification on a dog and child is similiar. Its all in the tone of your voice. A good trainer never has to hit their dog or if they do its a small tap that isn't designed to hurt. Its like a horse, if they try bite you, you have to slap them to show you are in charge but never to hurt them or humiliate them. Children too. The name of the game is not to hurt or humiliate and obviously the older they get the less necessary it becomes until the pt. where you can just rely on words and tone of voice. At least that is what I think. Then again I was severely beaten as a child many a time, so please do not think I condone abuse. But I also think some parents are very loving who give a slight spank on the bottom. I also think we should be careful to balance protecting children from violent abuse from mild incidents where this is not the case but someone intervenes and over-reacts. I know its tought to differentiate and as a child I often wished someone would have noticed my black eyes or bruises but in those days no one talked about it.