Rue

" Quebec appears to be doing very well for a province that never even signed Canada's Constitution and has worked against the country with excessive constitutional demands with threats of separation with draconian language laws. " Rather ironic.

The moment this post started with the phrase "Anglo-Saxon" it was a dead give away. I don't know what it is that makes some people think they can legitamize hate mongering and racism by pretending its a question for discussion. By the way I have met Canadians, Americans, British, French of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and they were all non slave owners. They looked suspicious to me though. Some of them drank too much beer, and were not circumsized either but you know these things happen.

Well if you denounce Israel can you at least spell it write er right.

" What we are is a country with two official languages English and French with the province of New Brunswick being the ONLY province classed as having an 'officially bilingual' language policy. " Your above comment is a bit misleading. In the Province of Ontario, French is considered an official language in all provincial court proceedings and government services and in fact the provincial civil service and provincial courts must provide services in French if requested. So while most Ontarians are not bilingual, it does have a public policy that in effect guarantees equal services to Francophones.

I haven't heard anything about Toronto muslims telling Harper to be quiet, and I read the Star, Globe and Sun daily. Is this new, and if so, why are you decrying the "few" Islamic leaders who may have been upset with Hapah, when the many are totally against this and awaiting tonght's Stanley Cup opener? As soon as Harper made his comment 4 Muslim leaders criticized him and suggested it was unfair to the Muslim community and made a point of going on t.v. to say so. More to the point, and I will be even more specific, our PM has to speak out against terrorism as do we all.

A an act of vandalism against a synagogue or mosque or church is an act of vandalism against all religions and all peaceful people as far as I am concerned and most leaders of religions and political groups in this city and country have said as much. We all know there is more of this to come. Polarization and alienation of ethnic communities, distrust, hatred, anger, etc., they are all the inevitable consequences of terrorist behaviour and that is just what these terrorists want - people hating all Muslims and then turning on each other.

Bang on.

I would say it only becomes treasonous or crosses the line to the criminal code, if it condones and promotes hatred or violence. Even then we have to tread carefully because you know how fine the line is between freedom of speech and trying to prevent hate mongering and or a crime from being committed as a result of incitement from words or speeches. All democracies struggle with this.

Balls to that: did you watch the game? Conklin's brain-fart aside, that one could just as easily have gone Edmonton's way. The series still can. If the Oilers can dominate the play the way they did for 90 per cent of Game One and tighten up on D, they need only to get a steady performance from whoever's in net to have a decent shot. Carolina has some big question marks that the Oilers can continue to exploit. This one ain't over. I appreciate your optimism but its like a baritone getting his nuts kicked in and somebody saying, well he can still sing.....soprano. Man you could here the dejection in Lowe's voice after the game. Talk about sounding defeated. Everything was even until this development. Sorry I just don't see either Edmo goalie stepping up like Cam Ward has and remember Ward has been hot and cold. Ty Conklin? Sorry. Do I think Edmo will try even harder, absolutely. Teams rally without a goalie, but the Canes just have too many snipers who will be like wolves on a sickly colt whoever Edmon plays. Too too bad. It ruins what would otherwise have been a great series. Stranger things have happened though right?

I admire your creativity but I think its a recipe for anarchy and sheer 100% confusion. I just don't see you how you divide such things so neatly. In reality they overlap so trying to arbitrarily decide which side of the line they fall on would be impossible. I can just see the disputes over what is Conservative this and Liberal that. Ah no thanks.

SORRY I HAVE BEEN VEY VERY VERY BAD ABOUT IT AND AM TRYING TO CLEAN UP MY ACT!!!! Its driving me crazy too and I am the idiot doing it! Sorry again.

I see your valid point but I think its not accurate for this reason; if the "gang" or "group" is involved in acts of a political nature, and the political nature of those acts is to use violence as an expression of their political opinions, then both the law and all of us are correct to define it not just as crimes but as political crimes or terrorism. If this group or gangs is involved in violent activities but not to promote a specific political ideology and use violence to scare people into agreeing with this type of ideology, i.e., are doing it solely for financial reasons or non political reasons, and they are breaking the law, then I would agree with you. That said, you raise a point though. When we portray or depict terrorist or gang members, we tend to emphasize their ethnicity or religious type. In the case of say organized crime in Toronto, the press now is very careful trying not to depict many gang mambers as "Jamaicans" although they snidely still slide it they were "born' in Jamaica. I agree in such instances, if someone is home grown, their nationality and ethnicity is not relevant unless it helps us understand in a constructive way what is happening in their particular community to cause it. So me, I have no problem with it if it is done to promote something positive as oppposed to promote a negative stereotype. As for dealing with terrorists, yes it is important to distinguish home grown Canadian ones from oversees ones and from what I gather the media has been pretty clear to mention its home grown. Now that brings us to the next topic. How do you fairly describe suspected terrorists who claim to be Muslim and doing it in the name of Islam. Well the press simply uses the word Muslim terrorist. I suppose it would be politically proper to say Muslim quoting terrorist as opposed to Muslim terrorist. I agree with you that the average guy on the street continually seeing the word Muslim and terrorist linked together is basically being conditioned to think all Muslims are terrorists. Yah this is what they call blow back in the business. Every time a person who is a terrorist claims to be a Muslim, all Muslims are lumped into it. This is why young black men who do nothing wrong other then being together are immediately suspected of selling drugs or being up to no good. This is why some people who see a police officer in a uniform immediately assume they are brutal pigs. This is why some people who talk about Jews, immediately assume they are Zionists and hate Arabs. We generalize and stereotype all the time. Since we are bombarded with so much info, our minds try simplify the chaos and sometimes when we stereotype we don't even know we are doing it, or do it for benevolent reasons not evil or bigoted ones. Your pt. though remains. How do we avoid disparaging all Mulsims when talking about this topic. All I know is for me, I do it by assuring Muslims when I can, that they do not have to be afraid to speak out against terrorism or think Canadians will hate them because of the isolated acts of some nasty idiots. Yah some idiot smashed their Mosque. Synagogues and Churches have been vandalized too. I think in such cases, religious leaders from all religious movements have and to stand with each other and codemn such an act and say an attack on any one house of God, is an attack on them all. I also think most decent people feel the same way. I do think however, we all should not be afraid to say these people are referring to Islam and it flows from what they may have been taught in mosques or from certain mullahs or muftis or elders. If that is the case it has to be understood. Interestingly the Muslim community asked for funding from the feds to do a study on how they could better understand what causes Muslims in Canada to become violent or extremist but were turned down. Maybe its not up to the feds to fund such a project maybe its their responsibility but I think we all have the responsibility to speak out against terrorism and just try understand as we speak out against it, it does not justify hating a whole group of people because some in their midst are fools.

In gamblers jargon its "put my money down on". You're obviously not a heavy bettor. Oh well then since you are only guessing its o.k. to speculate that the Muslim community did it deliberately.Few. For a second there it sounded like you were spreading malicious unsubstantiated gossip. My mistake I apologize.

I think what-ever term you choose to use, INTENTION, DIRECTION, DIRECTIVE, MANDATE, OFFENSIVE, OPPOSITION, DEFENSE AGAINST, etc., all would eventually create the same reaction as using the word " WAR " against terrorism. I suppose what the US should have said was DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE or REACTIVE PREROGATIVE to terrorism. Now that would have been real correct. The point is, no words will sound right...I mean at least I don't think.

Enskat I enjoy reading your thoughts on this topic. If find there is a calmness in your words. I enjoy Tem's too. Anyways, on the topic, I am 50 so my perspective is a bit different, but I feel I was not taught enough native history. I mean we did have it in Canadian history and in British history but as you can imagine it was from a very distorted point of view. I think it is impossible to understand the history of this country without properly covering it. I will say this as well. As a lawyer, I personally think all law schools should teach a course on the history of how law evolved in Canada and how it is so heavily influenced by aboriginal customs. I don't think people realize how much aboriginal customs and traditions are inter-twined with our laws' origins. I also think aboriginal culture and its perspective on laws, values, society, etc., enrich anyone's soul if they want to try and learn and listen. I can fully understand the frustration native peoples have with us non natives because of our lack of awareness of your cultures. I sometimes get frustrated when I hear people make gross generalizations about Jewish culture or religion, etc. I myself resent not being taught enough native history and in a perspective that at least could have been neutral rather then the usual pro British point of view. I can be quite disgusted of my ignorance with my own country's origins. I also find it unacceptable as a lawyer, I wasn't properly equipped to understand the origins of my country's laws and how they then were recycled and used against the very people that came up with them. To know where you are going you have to know where you came from.

Gosh my sources told me Connie Rice is a Lesbian not that there is anything wrong with that.

I should point out to Black Dog one thing; 1-The Edmonton Oilers are clearly a Zionist team so he can not support them, think about it, think..Edmonton OY lers.

If I had to bet, I would put down my money on the vandalism being an inside job. Man you are something. Joseph Goebels would be proud of you. Yah it was an inside job. Man why didn't I see that. I thought it was the work of the illuminati and Masons and Zionists. Thanks for setting me straight.

I am by far someone who supports Harper but in this case I believe it is appropriate for the leader of the nation to speak out and say what he did on behalf of all Canadians including Muslim Canadians. As leader of the nation, he has a responsibility to speak directly to such issues and what else is he expected to say? It is absolute b.s. for a few of the Muslim leaders in Toronto to say he should shut up. That is pure b.s. He is the leader of this nation and he will speak up against terrorists whether they are Muslims or anything else. Its b.s. to say he can't say anything because it upsets Muslims who feel they might be associated with these terrorists. Nothing Harper said made disparaging comments about Muslims or suggested they are collectively responsible for these idiots who quote Islam. This knee jerk reaction that its racist to speak out against terrorism is pure b.s. These few Muslim leaders who criticized Harper are allowing terrorists when they get caught to hide behind their religion or ethnicity. That is b.s. In fact the Muslim community should applaud what Harper said and make it clear they stand by him-in that way they will counter the hatred against them that will blow back from this mess. I say to all Muslims, don't be afraid to criticize your fellow Muslims who do these things and don't be afraid when your PM speaks out against terrorists.

" We can, however, start deporting muslims that openly hate Canada and just abuse us for our health care, while wishing we'd all die openly on the media. I'm speaking about the Khadr's, and numerous other Muslim families, that openly preach the greatness of Osama and how they want us to die, but somehow we accept them openly. We should arrest all these people indefinitely, they are obviously so mentally corrupt that they will never be able to fit into western society, and they are too large a threat to our troops if we return them to their al-Qaeda training camps. Just remember, my Liberal friends in this country, that we openly accept al-Qaeda trainies. Until that changes, we are all at a very large risk." Right its all created by the Liberals. Man I hope Black Dog lectures you like he does those nasty Israeli Zionists! .Seriously, there's this thing called freedom of expression. Last time I looked the laws of this country require you proof certain things before you arrest someone. There's often a fine line between expressing an opinion and inciting violence or conspiracy to commit acts of terror so stay calm. Blaming Liberals or winding yourself up like some angry guy with a torch in a crowd in one of those Frankenstein movies screaming for Frankenstein's death won't help. Oopsy I bet you Frankenstein was a Zionist from the sounds of his name. "The Muslim Community needs to take a stronger stand and if they find Muslims in their Community who support Bin Laden and wish Death on Canadians even preaching it in their Mosques they should report their activities to the proper authorities as they would be helping their Community.." I couldn't agree more strongly with the above statement and I think most Muslim Canadians would also agree with you. Then again I am a Zionist so what do I know!

. ALL Muslims are to be deported en masse. No discussion. Do it. Nothing like a hate mongerer to get my day started. Well at least Muslims know this non Muslim Canadian (yegads I am a Jew ooh ooh come and get me) like the vast majority of Canadians don't buy into this hatred. We know these idiots arrested twist the Islam religion and quote it but are no reflection on the vast majority of Muslims. The above loves such incidents because it gives him a platform to spew his hatred. I may disagree with many Muslims on their views as to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but I respect them as citizens of Canada and I will be the first to defend them from such drivel.

Well Iran gives up the nukes, Israel should as well. Just Israel? Hmm. Seems like you remain silent on Pakistan, India, Brazil. North Korea, Russia, China, South Africa, Britain, France...why the selectivity? More to the point you don't think if Canada, Japan, Italy, Belgium,Germany, or Holland wanted to build one they couldn't? As well the Ukraine, Bulgaria and Argentina just to name three countries are rumoured to have them as well. The actual number of countries that have the capacity to build nuclear bombs is hidden. The idea that if you simply tell Israel to give up its bomb once Iran does, brings into question the debate Iran started in the first place-who decides what countries have the bomb? The bottom line is there is the same standard for all countries or none at all. You can't have it both ways and be a little bit pregnant.

Well actually at one point Winston Churchill suggested all Jews go to Uganda and at one point in Germany there was discussion of deporting all Jews to Madagasscar. Jews did politely tell Churchill they had no interest in living in Uganda. The point is, the Jewish religion believes that all Jews are spiritually connected to the land of Israel and so Zionism is about the concept of Jews merely returning to where they came from to complete the spiritual connection. In Jewish prayer there is always reference to the return to Israel and this spiritual connection. There is nothing comparable in Christianity or Islam so this is why people who can't understand the religion think its racism to believe Jews want to live in a Jewish state or feel they have a connection to the soil in Israel or to put it simpler, think its irrational to have such a connection. The so called Jewish problem in Europe is one thing. What also should be kept in mind is that in the Muslim world, Jews were also second class citizens living in a system of dhimmitude or apartheid. They were not allowed to own land, practice their faith in public or have the same rights as Muslim citizens. So to depict it simply as a modern problem caused by the holocaust is a tad simplistic. The holocaust was the culmination of over 3000 years of the Christian church teaching Christians Jews killed Jesus and therefore should always be treated as second class outcasts. As for the Jewish problem, there also always was one in the Muslim world where they had to live in ghettoes. The discrimination was different, but it was there. And yes the Muslim world has its share of mass murders of Jewish and Christian and other religious communities that were not Muslim, i.e. Bahaiis.

Sez you. I don't accept your premises. Actually I don't. But the short version is the government of Canada signed agreements in good faith with Canada's natives and is thus obligated to honour them. They are not manufacturing out of whole cloth justifications for further entrenching the privileges of an already privileged segment of osciety. As I said: the two are not analagous. I agree, except, well, the two are not comparable. Why aren't they? You have a tendency when you debate to simply make up the rules of what you will debate arbitrarily. You remind me of someone who threatens to walk away with the ball if someone won't play with it according to your rules. Your last paragraph also is impossible to decipher? Have you any idea what you were trying to say? The first sentence makes no sense. You say if someone discusses the merits of a single government policy, its reasonable to bring up similiar examples..do you mean other giovernment policies that you feel are similiar? The next part of your sentence which is a run on by the way, tsk tsk, you really should write in complete sentences, states something...but I am not sure what the remainder of the sentence means. Do you? Your last sentence seems to be subjective. If someone debates you and challenges your assertion that two policies are not similiar, how is that avoiding debate? It is in fact debating you head on. Why don't you just state; " if you don't agree with how I postulate things, you are wrong.." because that I think is the pith and substance in your response. I also agree with the other poster that you are comparing apples and oranges.