Rue

While the LIberals have traditionally tried to be the party for Immigrants when Brian Mulroney was in charge of the Conservatives, he set up a very active network that relied heavily on new immigrants for votes. I suppose the current Conservative regime being influenced by its Social Crediter/Reformists has quite a few wanting to return to the days of McKenzie King but the fact is in today's political climate all three parties (Tory, Liberal, NDP) pander to anyone who will support them including minorities. In my riding the Siekh people (and it is their perfect right to) flood both the Tory and Liberal riding association meetings to assure one of their people is a candidate no matter which party they run for. For me who is a minority in my riding, I find it discomforting that the candidate who runs provincially or federally is always from the same ethnic group and being chosen because of his ethnicity and not his qualifications but such is life.

Sorry Canada has zero business taking in anyone the Americans sent to Guantanomo Bay. Absolutely not. They belong back in Iraq whence they came not in Canada if they are not to be left in Cuba. Either that or someone should get off their ass and try them already.

Democracy isn't something you import and impose. Christian missionaries tried that. It may force some people into a way of belief but the majority of people resist and go right back to their roots. For democracy to be genuine, it has to come about naturally. In countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where the majority of people do not engage in critical thought but merely repeat what they are told, they are at least 100 years away from the kind of thinking process that needs to evolve for democracy to come about. The notion you can import democracy is like finding a native group in the Amazon and giving them coke and telling them they must drink it and enjoy it. For heaven's sake did we not learn what happens from our own country and how we treat our own native peoples that you can not simply invade and impose? Spin it any way you want but the current leader of Afghanistan is a U.S. puppet on a string no different then so many other puppets installed by the ruling empire of the day. Afghanistan can not and will not become democractic because our soldiers shake hands with civilians in between hunting and killing Taliban. That is absurd. The reality is this - Afghanis are dirt poor. They pay off their debts by growing poppies and selling those poppies to then buy off their debts. The only real economy in Afghanistan is poppies. The way we now keep control in Afghanistan is to prop a council of poppy growing war lords who have a direct vested financial interest in flooding our society with heroin. This is as insane as when the Americans proppped up General Somoza and then raised money to supply his troops in their war against General Noriega by allowing them to trade cocaine for money to buy weapons. This is sheer insanity. The DEA fights a ridiculous battle against heroin on its streets while the White House funds the very poppy Lords flooding the streets with heroin. People are rotting in the streets of Vancouver from heroin while our troops protect the drug lords making this shit. Sorry if I have a problem simply seeing the world in black and white and the current regime in Afghanistan being a democracy. Its not. It has never been and it won't be in our lifetimes. I will say it again. We are masking the pretense of hunting down and killing Taliban as an exercise in democracy or anti-terrorism. That sounds better for domestic consumption rather then saying we are an invading army acting as a proxy police force propping up a non democractic corupt regime that happens to be on our side at the moment because its enemy is our enemy. We have no business being a mercenary army in Afghanistan. Let's do away with the self righteous pretense and admit that what we really want to do is hunt down and kill Taliban or anyone else we deem terrorists and we want to do so without regard to other nations' sovereignty. Call a spade a spade. Get over it. Get over the Liberal guilt and get on with the hunting and killing and let's top playing with this do gooder notion that our soldiers we democratic missionaries. They are not. They are trained killers and if they do their job right they must hunt and kill.

Arg I know what you are getting at but when you generalize and attribute a negative attribute to all people in a category because of the terrorist acts of a few that is nothing more then discriminating based on stereotypes. It is the act of transferring hatred and fear of terrorism from a few in a group into a negative assumption as to the whole group's behaviour. If you incorporate such reasoning into policies or doctrines they necessarily become defective and discriminatory and result in oppression and tyranny and the end to democracy which at its pith and substance envisions tolerance of those with different opinions and characteristics. So Arg I would respond to what you are saying by stating what I really think you are raising is an issue as to security screening. How do you screen persons coming from groups where terrorists come from. Why don't we then talk about that rather then lumping all Muslims into one category because there are terrorists in their midst. Why do I worry about it so much? I will tell you why. It wasn't too long ago, say the 30's and 40's when McKenzie King refused to take in Jews because he perceived them all having negative characteristics. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, all had immigration policies excluding anyone not white or Christian unless of course they paid a head tax and were willing to build rail-roads. The problem with an immigration policy that excludes is that someone has to define the rules of exclusion. Who are those people and what criteria do they use? Usually the people who cry out for exclusionary policies come from cultural groups that are not minorities or who are too removed from the hardship their ancestors fled to appreciate the irony of what they said. Let me put it in bold human terms. My mother was born in Shaghai, China. Her parents escaped Europe and were able to survive in Shanghai where the Chinese left the Jews alone. Likewise the Japanese went nowhere near the Jews in Shanghai. My mother became a neurologist at a Jesuit medical school because of the sheer volume of Chinese men left on the streets to die from enrve damage because of torture at the hands of the Japanese. My Grandmother was missed under a pile of dead bodies when her village was arracked and everyone killed during an Easter raid in Poland which resulted from the Passion Play and Priests calling for the death of Jews for killing Christ. My grandfather was shot in his back and left for dead by fellow German soldiers in World War One when they found out he was a Jew. When the Russians found him they sent him to a pow camp in Valdivastock and that is how he heard about Shanghai and that is why he brought his wife there. My mother's family survived the Japanese and some stuff I will not get into. Then Mao Tse Tung came into power and let them go since my Grandfather saved Chinese from the Japanese. My mother was a neurologist taught medicine in French with a classification from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of England. The Jesuits had St. Justine Hospital in Montreal and were in desperate need of a pediatric neurologist. So they were only to happy to help her come to Montreal, Quebec. Not withstanding all this, the Canadian government based on its immigration policies in the early 50's tried to deport her. She only stayed because my father was a world war two air force veteran and got a friend whose father was a well known Wasp and Senator to pass a private member's bill! My mother was typical of many immigrants who come to this country. They had something to contribute and they were bloody grateful to come here and live. So please don't ask me to advocate draconian laws on immigration. I can't. I wouldn't be alive if I did. On the other hand, I fully understand you arguing there has to be a way to screen criminals, terrorists, pedophiles,etc. The real issue here is how to do we screen in a way that does not exclude good people who want to come to the country and partake in all it has to offer. That to me is the question. Look some "Christians" that came to this country have been Nazis and murderers and pedophiles. Do any of you Christians want to be lumped in the same category as them. Do we state all Serbs are evil and to be excluded because some in their midst were terrorists? Another poster said it, if you start excluding because a group has terrorists in their group, which one does NOT? Surely screening or criteria for admittance has to be a little more complex then simply stereotyping and dismissing people en masse. I think there is a way to screen for terrorists and criminals and that is what we have to focus intelligent discussion around. We can't let terrorism turn us all into hate mongering, paranoid bigots. It may be in our zeal to send people away we may by accident cut ourselves off of the discover of a cure for a disease, etc.

.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=5927[/url] "What the Hell!!!??? I get suspended from this board for like 2 months because I said "Liberals are ignorant", and this guy posts a RACCIST, PREJUIDICE, OFFENSIVE, HATE MONGORING Comment and doesnt get a warning or anything??? How could the moderator of this board allow this kind of message go without punishment!? Are the moderators raccist aswell? " He was speaking in a satirical format to show how stupid it sounds. He was not speaking literally. He is taking what he thinks is an absurd or questionable point of view to its extreme conclusion in an attempt to laugh at it. Going back to what I Love Reagan said and I covered in another reply, Reagan I mean that is what it does get down to when we pursue these kinds of arguements-who decides the test for acceptability and how to they define it? That is not a left or right wing type question but it is a question that can bring about some very confusing responses as we are seeing on these immigration issue posts. I think Canada is finding itself for the first time questioning what is its true identity after years of trying to be British then trying to be everything to everyone all the time. Man the native peoples of this country must find non natives to be hilarious with this kind of confusion.

So you are finally getting circumsized! Good luck on your operation! Just make sure the dude doing the deed isn't a commie. Seriously although I do not know you I wish you goodd health comrade. Regards, Vlad Lenin

We are mixing a lot of issues. I think the one people are trying to zero in on without trying to be racist or exclusive against any particular group is the question of whether an immigration policy that is not selective as to people's views works. The arguement I am hearing is that if immigration policy doesn't inunciated some sort of criteria for selection and just accepts everyone with their views face value, this can be a disaster recipe. I believe that is really the pt. Besty is making. If we for example, take in people who do not believe in democracy and believe in secular fundamentalism and non separation of state from religion and who believe women are inferior and should be covered from head to toe, etc., this could spell disaster in terms of taking in people who are not interested in assimilating and adapting Canadian values. They are bound to come into conflict with the prevailing beliefs of society, "feel alienated" and then perhaps use it as a pretense to engage in terrorism and violence. So how does one argue this without sounding racist? Well most of you have. It only becomes unfair if you make sweeping generalized statements. If you say ALL Muslims are a problem then it becomes problematic. However if you refrain from stating its ALL Muslims, but argue it is a problem taking in Muslims not because they are Muslim but because some of them use their religion to be intolerant of other people's views, then the arguement remains valid because you are not singling out Muslims but framing it as a problem all relgions that are fundamentalist and extreme have. I think the care we should take is in explaining it is not the religion that gives us the problem -it is in fact the method by which humans interperate ANY religion literally and fundamentally that causes the problems and in that sense I would argue a fundamentalist Muslim is as equal a pain in the ass in a pluralistic democracy as is any other fundamentalist orthodox extremist from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. So the issue we need to focus in on is a valid one-and we need to ask-is it realistic to think you can build a vision of Canada being democractic and pluralistic if you tell people becoming citizens that its o.k. for them to be secular, view other religions as imperfect and view women as inferior, etc. and that it is o.k. they can bring their hatred to Canada and expect others to back them up when they express their hatred. See to me, I know extreme fundamentalist Muslims who come to Canada and express open contempt for Jews and Christians and any other non Muslims as infidels and yes that worries men. But I also know many moderate Muslims, especially some frombelieve it or not Algeria, Morrocco, Iran, Albania and Serbia and they are not the stereotype Muslims many of you think they are. They are very liberal and tolerant and cool about stuff and are critical thinkers and do not adhere to a strict fundamentalist dogma and they are to Islam what say United Church people are to Christianity if I may use that anology. They want to live in peace and I can and do engage in dialogue with them in regards to the Middle East and no we do not hate each other or want to kill each other. Canada has given us the wonderful opportunity of being able to live in peace and yet celebrate each others religious differences. That is bloody fantastic! Mu ancestors dreamed of a country where the police would not arrest them because they were Jews. They dreamed of a country where the police helped you when you were in trouble and where you could go pray in a synagogue and not worry about being killed or shot or spit on. I live in a country that millions dreamed of and died for. How can I not be eternally grateful? O.k. so maybe I am a bleeding heart, but I really do believe most Canadians feel that way to including Muslims. Yes there are fundamentalist Muslims who come to Canada and do not believe in our way of doing things and yes we all have the right to criticize them but its not because they are Muslim - its because they choose to interperate Islam in the manner they do. I could just as easily use the Koran to preach peace as these fundamentalists use it to preach intolerance. So yes criticize them but please remember its not their religion, its how they are choosing to practice their religion. Getting back to the point many of you are trying to make, I agree it is unrealistic to think Canada can be all things to all people if we do not tolerate and respect each other. You can not build a vision in Canada that treats everyone as equals if citizens you take in do not feel they are equals and in fact feel they are superior or better then others. So should we require anyone and not just Muslims to swear an oath that they believe in certain fundamental principles and spell it out that if they accept being Canadian they must reject the concept of secularism or exlusivity and understand religion and state will remain seperate? That becomes the question. How to you spell out and apply this kind of concept? My only arguement is this - I have no problem with anyone saying immigration policy must spell out a vision it wants its citizens to pursue as long as it does it equally to everyone regardless of where they come from. Will Muslims assimiliate in Canada? Well I am not sure, you will have to ask them whether they are willing to alter or amend certain precepts. Some will not. Then the question is do we exclude those that will not just as we would exclude those who would not from every other group? I personally have a problem with anyone whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian what-ever, if they feel they can come to Canada and feel they are superior to other Canadians and can impose secularism and concepts that contradict our basic precepts of democracy. That however is a political issue. Do we look at the States and adapt a more melting pot approach or do we remain as we are trying to be everything for everybody thereby exposing ourself to extremists and terrorists....that is the question and I think there is no black and white answer and all of us regardless of where we are from need to work on what we think being Canadian is and start putting that before anything else. Now is it possible we can have a society that tolerates fundamenalists? Of course. Does anyone feel endangered by say Amish or Orthodox Jews (unless of course you are dumb enough to drive up Bathurst Street in Toronto-I am joking), of course not. If people want to be fundamentalist in religious belief it isn't a problem if they are not violent and are willing to live in peace with everyone else. For those that do not, yes Canada is now growing up. It has realized it can't be everythingt o everybody and it can't be the good guy all the time. So the question is how to we build a vision and balance that with tolerance and respect?

A long time ago, like probably twenty five years or more back, I was opposed to immigration, particularly third world immigration. I said that it would inevitably cause all sorts of problems, that people would bring their violence with them, and that with so many being brought in they would eventually come to outnumber us. People accused me of paranoia. Well, in Toronto, the foreign born now outnumber those born in Canada, and the numbers are close to that if not greater in Vancouver, with other cities rising year by year. Examine the growth of Muslim numbers so far, and where their numbers are predicted to be in thirty years. Well then imagine how native Canadians feel. I think anyone who is not a native using your logic should leave. I guess I will go to Israel but I know Black Dog will consider that racist of me to say and perhaps feels I should go back to Germany or Russia.

Holy Crap! The Left believes these Terrorists have the right to live in Canada? Yep all leftists want these people left alone. O.k. let's see if your compartmentalized brain can handle this. The issue as to how to treat terrorists (if they are in fact convicted of terrorism) is not a left or right issue - it's a legal issue. Now if you want to take people that have in fact been convicted of crimes and punish them, then yes there might be a debate on what is appropriate punishment but again how is this a left or right arguement? There are plenty of socialists and leftists who want to hang terrorists and there are plenty of right wingers who are terrorists and don't think they should be harassed. Now let's see are right wing extreme terrorists leftist once they become terrorists? Your attempt to simplify and portray this as a left and right wing issue then make a sweeping generalization that all leftists are soft on terrorists is foolish. Tony Blair the last time I looked was to the left of centre-tell me he is soft on terrorists.

You could make a very strong case that it would be better for Canada to shut the door to people from certain countries, specifically Jamaica, Haiti, and Somalia. Yeah I think you should start with people from Jamaica. Yah I could make a strong arguement. They are all evil. Everyone of them. I mean Bob Marley is and was Satan. And those Haitians, woo boy they are into voo doo and they are crazy taxi drivers. And the Somalis, well where do I start. All of them, every last one of them looks the same. And they all call themselves Omar. They are confusing I tell you. And do you notice Somalis love to buy clothes at Le Chateau! Yah I could make a good arguement about all of them. Its not a generalization either. Its a fact. They all call themselves Omar and commit crimes. Now here is my list to deport (aside from whom you mentioned above) cuz I could make a good arguement why they should not be allowed to live let alone live in Canada; 1-people with skin that has any colour in it other then pink 2-people with big noses 3-people with big lips 4-people with big pee pees 5-people with short black curly hair 6-people with earings in their nose 7-people with red dots on their foreheads (and I don't mean pimples stop being absurd) 8-people with turbans 9-people with beards and no mustaches 10-Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Siekhs, Bahaiis, Unitarians 11-Irish, Ukrainians, Polish, Bulgarians, Mongolians 12-Episcopalians, Italians, Swedish, Finish, Dutch, Serbians and people from Togo 13-Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, Filipino and Indonesians 14-gays 15-lesbians (but not pretty lesbians if they let me watch) 16-people with names that can't be pronounced 17-people who studder 18-people who are short and stubby 19-fat people 20-women with facial hair 21-people with stretch marks. There I think that would be a good start.

What kind of terrorism is that? Never heard of it. The commonthread is religious extremism. Why are Msulim extremists considerd the norm among the 2 billion or so Muslims in the world, but kooks like this guy (and Pat Robertson) are regarded as abberations?

I love Gwynne Dyer. I also love Rex Murphy. Newfoundland has produced some great writers and journalists. He has to be one of the most insightful analysts I have ever read and one would be hard pressed to find his personal biases in what he writes. So on that point don't ever mention Mr. Dyer in the same sentence as Mr. Margolis who is a raver and ranter and makes sweeping emotional generalizations and manifests his biases in everything he writes. if you read back Dyer's analysis he does not rave and rant and tell people how to think. He presents both sides of the equation equally and revels in the irony of all conflicts. I think there is something in the water that makes the people from the Rock such great orators and writers.

War even though I am Jewish, I also have to wonder whether charging him with a hate crime was the best way to deal with it. I think taking away his order of Canada and having the aboriginal leaders condemn what he said plus condemnation from leading religious leaders and politicians, to me, personally, was what was needed and was done. Prosecuting people under hate crime legislation is a sticky one. You have to show a deliberate attempt. So in a case like Ernbest Zundel using the internet and actively recruiting young Canadians or say a teacher teaching students in school or people openly inciting hatred through newspapers and magazines and at rallies, maybe. In the case of a person acting like a bafoon and raving and ranting, I am not too sure. Its a tough one. Some believe there should be zero tolerance. I believe there should be zero tolerance from society, but engaging the legal system unfortunately becomes trickier. As a Jew I take no satisfaction in convicting this man of a crime. If I thought his comments would have led to a physical crime or really incited aboriginal peoples to hate Jews I would have been concerned but when the aboriginal community was so quick to challenge it and meet with Jewish communities, I personally was relieved. Jews very much admire the aboriginal communities and their leaders for svereal reasons, particularly the spiritual approach aboriginals pursue with the land and their love of mythology. Aboriginal mythology is very close to the mysticism found in the Kabal. The aboriginal cleansing rituals have profound meaning and application to Jews trying to deal with their own despairs from past history. In any event I think its important to use the laws against hatred, but I am just not so sure in this specific case. It might have importance though in the coming months and years if things heat up due to terrorism and it being linked to Muslim Canadians.

We don't take pictures of people until after they're already hired and as far as I know that has always been the case. I first had my picture taken for a pass about thirty years ago, and it was the case then. Maybe you'd like to tell us just where and when this happened. Well without changing the subject I worked in the provincial government during the Bob rae days. I was ordered to fill out a form that delineated what ethnic group I was. The problem was it had none for Jews. It differentiated groups for Arabs, Polynesians, Mongolians, but I was told being Jewish didn't count and I was considered "white". I can tell you for a fact during the Bob Rae era departments were ordered to conform to quotas of hiring minorities. Since white women were considered a minority, they flooded the jobs creating a pink ghetto and made it easy not to hire minorities once they grabbed all the jobs. I was also advised that in an interview, because I was a white male, I would start at 1 and have to work my way to 5, but to address the inequity against minorities, in an interview they would start at 5 and work there way to 1...5 being the top mark. I also noted although I am bilingual the bilingual test was used as an opportunity to make sure Francophones who spoke English got all the bilingual jobs-the standard for Francophones speaking English was made far easier then English speaking French. In fact the standard for being considered French bilingual was pretty much one where you had to speak French as a mother tonque to pass the test...if we are being honest about it. Now I do not want to sound bitter or angry but I think there has been a lot of contraversy and b.s. from both those seeking to discriminate and those seeking to reverse discriminate. There's been plenty of b.s. on both sides of the equation and as a Jew I love it when people refer to me as an invisible minority or caucasian. Yah, until I use my last name or wear a cepah or ask for someone from CUPE to represent me at a grievance after they find out I buy Jaffa oranges! The point is I have learned to live with being a "minority" without expecting any assistance from any affirmative action program and yah sometimes I run into idiots and sometimes I don't. I certainly won't run around with a chip on my shoulder or develop a persecution complex. In fact I am typical of all Canadians. We all come from somewhere and we all learn you have to work hard to get anything - if you expect it to be delivered it aint gonna happen. Take the word Jew out and replace it with Irish, Dhoukabhor, Siekh, Chinese, Scot, etc., its the same story. We all come hear looking for a better life. If you were Irish you became a cop or fireman because no one would let you work anywhere else. If you were a Jew you went in the garment or scrap metal business for the same reasons. If you were Chinese or Siekh it was fine as long asy ou built the railroads..on and on it goes. No one was to worried about the Ukrainians and Dhoukabors out West struggling to make a living on farms. For that matter the Scots that came here were not all multi-millionaires. That said, I have no problem with programs that try assist people gain access to education and opportunities I just think there is a lot of b.s. going on and I think when it comes down to it, all of us just want a fair chance whatever the hell we are. I am just trying to give you some examples of this b.s. at the provincial level I am neutral on this topic. That said a more and more employers in the work place are asking for photoes and not hiring people when they don't send them in. t makes you wonder are they using it to screen say race or ethnicity or are they using it also to screen people who are ugly and fat, etc. There are plenty of studies that show people size you up within 10 seconds and most of that is based on your physical appearance and not necessarily whether you are white or brown or yellow but whether you are fact, funny looking, etc. I think I have been discriminated against due to my fat head but I can't prove it.

Well if you have read my replies I have been staunchly supporting Muslims and advising people not to typecast them as all being terrorists. On the other hand when it comes to this topic, sorry I am not too sympathetic with any attitude that attempts to blame Canadian society for alienating Muslim youth and suggesting it is causing terrorism or extremism. That is a crock of b.s. The fact is, young people, teens, regardless of skin colour, religion, race, creed, gender, feel alienated. It is part of growing up and being an adolescent. Its part of having one foot still in the door with Mama and Papa and trying to live by their rules and one foot out the door and thinking they are independent and free to make their own decisions. The choice youth make to join ethnic groups or gangs and identify with extremism begins and ends as individuals-individuals who have the free choice and often exercise that free choice by giving in to peer group pressure. We all have gone through it or will go through it. There is pressure to conform. That pressure to conform can take on the appearance of a bandanna and gang rules when you are 16 and then when you hit your thiries, suddenly its the corporate suit and not so different conformist behaviour in the corporate board rooms. Its b.s. to say Canadian society alienates Muslims any different then it alienates Christian youth or Hindu youth of Jewish Youth or any other youth. All youth are faced with choices. They have to balance the cultural values of their family with the cultural values of the suburbs and the shit being rammed down their throats through Nike ads, "various recording artists", athletes, movies, etc. If anything Canadian society has allowed its youth to rejoice and be what-ever they want to be. We need make no apologies to anyone in that regard. We are lenient and sensitive to our youth. If someone is a young black man and feeling alienated from mainstream society, that does not rationalize committing crime. Its a cop out to say one commits a crime because they are a victim of society. Its an insult to all the hard working people from the same black group or ethnic group or religious group who do not resort to terrorism or crime. Imagine what it is like to be black, be of Jamaican ancestry and work three jobs in Canada and then you hear someone say, they commit crime because society has discriminated against blacks. It spits in their face and everything they have tried to do. It spits in the face of all immigrants and new Canadians whether they be Muslim or any other faith who bust their butts off to make it. So sorry, I am not sympathetic to arguements about society being responsible for terrorism or crime. Yah life sucks. Yah life is unfair.....but we are not victims...how we choose to deal with the obstacles life puts before us begins and ends with us as individuals. We have choices unlike many in other countries. In the case of asking itself, what causes its youth to become extremist, Muslims have to take a cold hard look within their own religious framework and their own societies and how they have inter-related to non Muslims. I say the same thing about my own community. I say uncategorically, I do not believe my people have an excuse to commit crime or be violent against Christians because my people suffered from over 3000 years of persecution at the hands of Christians. Where would it end? I also say the same thing to alienated natives who feel no one understands their despair trying to explain their property rights. I say the same thing to them - I say its easy to become violent - the challenge, the challenge is in sitting down and trying to talk peacefully with who you perceive to be your enemies - the challenge is in resisting emotion and trying to reason and find compromise. That we all have in us. Whether we all as individuals choose to be civil and respect one another remains the question to be answered.

Read back these two quotes; "This is not a racial discussion! The overwhelming majority-sorry ALL of the terrorist plots/acts of mension these days are conducted by Muslims. Wake-up." "There are tens of millions of non-muslim people of all colors and creeds that would give their lives to become a Canadian." Hmm how is this not a racial discussion when the above two quotes clearly engage in racial discussion? Now then, when I get to this next quote; "At this point in time, there is no reason to allow Muslims into Canada.........and every reason not to. If you disagree, I'm afraid your mind is defective." I must assume the poster has done what many do. He has assumed because terrorists quote Islam or claim to be Muslims, that he can in one swoop lump all Muslims as terrorists. How about if I were to change the name of the scapegoat and phrase it as such.... "The overwhelming majority of terrorists in the world are caucasian. At this point there is no reason to allow Caucasians into Canada...". The poster may not see caucasians as terrorists but I would hesitate a guess and think many aboriginals might be tempted to think this way given the history of North America and the treatment of native peoples. I also think many non Caucasians would make an arguement that the many years of imperialism at the hands of the Caucasian Europeans would constitute terrorism. The point is the original post is nothing more then a racist slur against Muslims using the pretense of terrorism as an excuse to promote hatred. This is precisely what innocent Muslims fear. This is no different then when people condemn all Jews but couch it in discussions about Israel. This is also no different then stereotyping all Jamaican people or black people when talking about crime in Toronto. More to the point, the vast majority of Muslims in Canada agree, if someone is advocating terrorism and is quoting Islam or claiming it is part of the Muslim religion, they do not support it. What these Muslims need is our support in feeling they can denounce it without being lumped in as terrorists. Why would any Muslim feel safe to speak out against extremists in their midst if they feel society can't distinguish between them and terrorists. More to the point, the above poster is doing exactly what the terrorists want. He is hate mongering, precisely the reaction they want from their actions to alienate and divide our society and make it easier to exploit the anger and division to recruit Muslims feeling hated and alienated. You want to debate the subject then please do so without slurring all Muslims. Yes if terrorism is a problem within the Muslim community then let's talk about it openly and understand that it is not reflective of all Muslims, only a minor few deviants who can not be allowed to be portrayed as being mainstream Muslims. To portray all Muslims negatively as terrorists is racist.

One again you completely missed the point and try to use a simplistic North American concept of racism to try suggest why this law has been promulgated. This has zero to do with skin colour. This is all about citizenship and who is defined as a citizen of Israel. Yes it is about an Israeli government struggling with the idea of trying to maintain a Jewish state when its population of non Jews continues to reproduce and may become the majority. Is it racist? Well is it racist for Christian churches to forbid Christians from inter-marriage which they do? Is it racist that throughout the entire Muslim world, Muslims are not allowed to marry Christians of Jews? Is it racist in Canada or the US when Immigration laws deport people because they find the marriages to be shams designed to circumvent citizenship laws? You make it seem like Israel is the only nation that does things like that and in reverse in the Muslim world, Jews can marry Muslims. Is it unfair and discriminatory. Of course. What religious or immigration laws aren't inherently? Sounds to me you just like to knee jerk react and take things out of context to suit your fixed notion that Israel bad Palestine good. Sorry, but this law does nothing for security. Yes, it is blatantly discriminatory, and yes - you cant have it both ways. You can't criticize those same Arab nations for being racist and discriminatory and yet do the same yourself. Israel holds itself up as an example of Western democracy - when this is far from the truth. If Israel stopped calling itself a democracy then yes, I could get into this moral equivalency thing with you. Fact of the matter is Israel's policies are an embarassment to Western government and sensibilites. A wall? Yeah, cuz it worked sooooo well in Berlin. Comparing Berlin Wall to the security walls in Israel now that makes perfect sense. It's the exact same political situation. The Israelis are big bad communists keeping innocent democractic peace loving peoples from returning home. Gosh and to think I thought it was something else. Now as for your comment I can't criticize Muslim countries and Israel holds itself up as an example of Western democracy hey I got news for you pal, there is debate in your own friggin perfect country and Western democracies about inter-marriage, and inter-gender marriage-that was the point. You continually select Israel out as the only Western democracy to have laws that do such things-that was the pt. but thanks for trying to change the subject. Your comment that this law has nothing to do with security again is misguided and instead of making comments like that get on the inter-net and write the Israeli government if you do not believe me and understand how this law is inter-connected to a problem with security concerns unless you want to stay in wonderland where this one bad, this one good. You very bad country. You very innocent victims. My how the world is so simple.

I am amazed at one poster's comments about not wanting to study aboriginal history and then making sweeping statements. Here is what I will say. For me there are two academic issues. Yes you can argue, that Native Studies, is a seperate academic subject. I understand that and understand why in universities, it is referred to as Native Studies so that it can facilitate studying it. However I wish to make an arguement that it also should be taught not seperate from but as part of Canadian history and Canadian history should not be taught without it. I fail to understand how one can study Canadian history and its origins without inter-connecting the study of its native peoples to the Vikings and Cabot and Cartiers and everyone who came after that and started New France, etc. I did learn some native history as part of Canadian history but it was isolated and it gave me the impression it was just an aside as all the emphasis was placed on the British Empire and the perspective from the British eye. I would like to have been taught for example who the Northeastern Iriquoian peoples were and how they lived, i.e., the Huron and Iroquois. I also very much would have wanted to learn about the Algonquians (MicMac, Montagnais, Algonquin, Attikamek, Nippissing, Abenaki, Ottawa and Ojibway). I mean how can you study Canada and know where all the names of our cities and towns and geopgraphic areas come from and not know how they are related to these people? I would have wanted to know how all these people lived, etc. I also would have liked to have learned more about the Plains Indians such as the Cree. I did learn about the Metis and Louis Riel but again specifically in reference to his uprising but no in depth or for that matter any attention spent on the Plains Indians lives and activities. I also think to properly understand Canadian history I would have loved to have learned about West Coast natives such as the Tlingit, Tsimshian, Auxwalk, Kwakwaka'waka, Salish, and Nuu-Chah-Nulth. Yes I did learn a little bit about Haida but from what I was taught you would think only the Haida lived out on the West coast. As for the Inuit, honestly when I was taught about them, they were called eskimos and I was given a book about a little Eskimo boy who hunted seals with a spear and got lost on an ice flow. Not exactly what we would call history. I suppose you could make an arguement that the history of the Southern Algonquins (Illinois, Shawnee, Miami, Potawatami, Menominee, Saluk, Fox, Kickapoo) and Southeatern Native peoples (Calussa, Semanole, Timucaa, Creek, Choctaw, Alabama, Chickasaw, Biloxi, Catauba, Cherokee, Caddon, etc.) is more part of American history but I would have at least liked to know whether they politically influenced natives in Canada and/or Canadian history in general. Today I have to try read about it on my own and it's a bit of a piss off because I can't believe how integral it is in understanding where our current laws and political institutions come from. If you don't study the conflict resolution systems of these people for example, you get the impression British or French laws were the first laws used to settle disputes and you wouldn't understand how British common law, took into consideration and incorporated aboriginal conflict resolution models when it settled disputes in Canada, particularly in regards to equity or how the North West Mounted Police settled disputes without guns and without the need for formal trials. One absolutely integral area is the aboriginal concept of not owning land but sharing it with the mother earth and being a guest or an interactive participant with a living organism called the mother earth. Its not just a spiritual or native concept. It is now a concept used through-out the world when shaping international law and environmental laws that deal with more than one jurisdiction. Then there is the whole matter of the myriad of legal agreements or treaties entered into that have been broken before and after confederation between provinicial and federal governments and native peoples or their nations. I mean here we are discussing Quebec in terms of whether it can be a soverign nation but how many people have been taught about its native people's valid legal rights to three quarters of the province and the native peoples rights to seperate and take that land with them if Quebec tries to become sovereign? I never was taught anything about the native peoples of Quebec and their legal rights other than quick references again to who fought with the British and French. So I have been very specific because I believe all of the above should be in Canadian history courses and not seperate Native Studies. I believe Native Studies should be pursued but as an addition to or a further specialization as to the above. I think my lack of learning this history makes me a poor lawyer and very much makes me intellectually challenged in terms of having to catch up with this to properly understand a current legal dispute with native issues as to land use or ownership or rights. I mean how can we properly understand laws dealing with the off shore rights, environment, natural resources and fisheries for example without having this back-ground? So the poster's comments about encouraging guilt is ridiculous. Then again where have I heard that before....we are sick of the holocaust....why should we have to learn about it....yep....ignore what happened with our own native peoples and then you wonder why the holocaust happened and why it continues in Rawanda and Burundi or Darfur, Sudan....Cambodia, with the Kurds in Iraq, Armanians, etc. I also think it provides a valuable resource to use to resolve conflicts for current disputes with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and so many other current conflicts where competing peoples claim equal rights to the land. I also think to properly learn Canadian history and the role the Christian church played in Canadian history, it has to be examined in context to how the church operated as an agent to try obliterate native culture and forcefully move native children and proseltyze them and terrorize them etc. I mean how can you understand the current Charter of Rights and our Human Rights Codes without examining the wide spread mistreatment of natives in the school, social services and hospital systems. Its not a matter of guilt. Its a matter of understanding why we have the laws today and what led us to enacting them.

Bang on. Its like removing one large weed from the garden. Plenty more to remove and plenty more will grow back. It will have a psychological effect and probably a short term effect for operations by terrorists but it will be short lived. As well for anyone who studies terrorist cells, they will know they operate just like viruses in computers or cancer cells in a human body. Cutting off the head buys you time, but doesn't solve the problem unless you dig out the root of it all which I am afraid is impossible.

Well, actually, yes. I don't think anyone actually disputes that.Courtesy of Wikipedia: Condaleeza Rice is a dyke. George Bush's wife was riding with a Dyke. It all makes sense now.

Indeed, it seems true or not, the 'Main stream media' (which is beholden to the values of the right, and of Mammon) would have been all over this like snot on a retard had it been someone other than Bush in the 'Oval Orifice'. Schtuping, is that like plooking? Sinking the purple samurai? Riding the baloney pony? Launching his heat seeking moisture missile? Polling his electorate? Orchestrating a concerto in Labia Minora? Parking the Beef Bus in Tunatown? Flesh snorkling? LOL. Hope you lose your virginity soon. At least you have read up on it dude.

In order to crack down on CHILD PORN... Get your facts straight. Than you. Mo-Burns. A huge difference! I respectfully disagree with those trying to intellectualize and defend what Google did in China. It has to be one of the worst examples of corporate greed I have ever seen. Unfortunately the entire Western World has been only to eager to trade with China not withstanding its human rights abuses and restraint of freedom of speech. Google did not do this to reserve the right to argue it later on. Google did this for purely monetary reasons. In that respect Google is no different then when Jean Chretien took his road show to China and got down on his hands and knees and started blowing Chinese leaders for potential business. Its no different then the parade of multi-nationals visiting China everyday. Its no different then the Olympic Association looking the other way when awarding the olympics or the double standard the world has with certain nations. Israel is an evil state for what it does with Palestinians but when the Chinese invade and occupy Tibet-no problem. That's different. Israel has a nuclear bomb-ooh take it away-China, no problem. Anglo-saxons have slave labour as one poster tells us-China no problem. The US is a facist state for arresting and housing prisoners in Cuba-China which keeps millions in jail and sentences them to hard labour for political crimes-no problem. Google sold out like thousands of others for the almighty dollar. However I think it is stretching it a bit thinking boycotting Google will change anything. I also think as another poster said, that people in China and elsewhere will figure ways out to communicate not withstanding the censorship going on. Never understimate the ingenuity of humans to express freedom when they are being oppressed. As the Taoists say, freedom is like water and it always returns from where it has been dredged.

Let's go back to the McKenzie King era when men were men and people with any sort of tan, large nose or who were not Christian were made clear what was what and who was who. I mean fine, we had to bring in some of those people from China and India to build the rail-road but now who needs them. As for people with turbans, beards and names like Moe and Hamed well I mean gee how many taxi drivers does this country need. It has to end now. Deport them all. Gee can we say I now have the opportunity to express my disdain for anyone different then myself and pose it as a debate on immigration policy. I have yet on these posts hear anyone raving and ranting about immigration policy suggest anything specifically wrong about immigration regulations or laws but instead simply refer to it in imprecise rhetorical rants against people coming to the country. Got news for you. Canada does not reproduce quick enough. If it doesn't import these so called immigrants, you will have no one paying taxes. Now you want to get into a debate on who an "acceptable" Canadian is and what is "acceptable" Canadian behaviour good luck. As far as I know I have barely been able to come up with any Canadian characteristics other then; 1-Canadians wait in line even when they do not have to 2-Tim Horton's is the the symbol for Canadian culture 3-Canadians like to hyphenate themselves 4-Canadians feel they have to be liked by everyone outside Canada 5-Canadians think people admire us because we are not American 6-Canadians think they are better and different then Americans 7-Canadians love to litter and produce garbage 8-Canadians feel it is an inalienable right to drive alone in cars 9-Canadians use the winter as an excuse to grow beards and get fat 10-Canadians do not like to invest in Canadian businesses or take risks and start businesses in Canada. I guess we need cultural police wearing Maple Leaf tuques teaching us all how to be Canadian. They can start by having us all watch Red Green re-runs. Although Red Green has a beard so he looks like a Muslim or a Siekh or an Orthodox Jew so I would be careful. The point is we may have problem with security clearance procedures but that is an entirely different issue then whether Canada should continue to be a nation of immirants which is an absurdity considering we always were and always will be and only native Canadians if we are going to be perfectly logical about this since they were here first can consider all of us questionable.

Well you must love it. These idiots now give you the excuse to air your intolerance of anyone different then you and you can mask it in a political debate. Putting aside your opportunity to rave and rant about anyone you perceive different then you, I think most Canadians are intelligent enough to know this entire country except its natives are ALL immigrants and built the nation and will continue to build the nation. You want to hate monger against "immigrants" and "refugees" and look for someone to hate, got news for you. Its been done. I guess you wish you were alive in the 1920's and 30's when Immigration policies were a lot tougher and men were men and blacks and Jews were told not to use the same beaches in Toronto as real Canadians. Listen for now I would avoid any Canadian city of over 200,000 people. Also it is summer time so if you see people with sun tans calm down.