Machinations

I said Liberals on purpose. And I didn't say it just because Liberal is usually the opposite of what I see as right. I said Liberals because they were the ones that put the judges that are guilty of the type of judicial obscenity being discussed here. I said Liberals because they are the ones usually out there with the NDP arguing for more lenient sentences. And as you so eloquently pointed out because the laws we are a odds with here were drafted during a period of Liberal majority. If it walks, talks and looks like a duck ... that's what it is. Except, it isn't a duck at all. Who in their right mind would condone this sentence? I cannot think of an example, other than the judge, who clearly lives in her own, small bubble - and should face judicial review immediately. Further, why not review the section of the code covering child rape and raise the minimum sentence to life? That being said, I can certainly dredge up examples of ridiculous sentences handed out by 'conservative' judges (appointed by the Tories) and equate that to the entire conservative faction. Is that ludicrous? Of course, but it is exactly what is being done here. I guess if you want to paint me into a pigeonhole, I am 'left-leaning', but this action does not represent my thinking on criminal penalties. In fact, you go so far as to ascribe 'weakened sentences' generally as being part of 'liberal' ideology. This is a simplistic and unfair assessment. Regardless of who's in power, flakes and morons are going to end up on the bench. It's that principle you see in large organizations - the (hmm) effluent rises to the top. By all means, prove me wrong - that Conservative judge-elects and Conservative-crafted laws have never, in hindsight, proved stupid, ridiculous or unenforceable.

Pakistan? I firmly believe that if it was'nt for our friendly neighbourhood dictator we would be very, very worried. (The Economist, subscribe link but free account with email, hehe - thus, free in perpetuity) I subscribe to the belief that there is more to the geopolitical situation than Iran's jingoism aginst Israel (especially since it is reciprocated by, well, everyone else) Like, for example, the increased demand and stagnant production of oil. Edit: Further, I am not comforted by the fact that nuclear weapons are now in the hands of many nations. I certainly do not fear an attack by Iran - their ballistic delivery systems are falling off in the 300km range right now - a threat to the land of Moses and Abraham, perhaps - but not to the land of Bacon and Beer. However, painting your ideological enemy to be some horrible demon is an excess that is best left at the wayside of history - lest we be doomed to make mistake after mistake. Iran is a collection of individuals with wildly divergent interests. Best we treat it as such, and negotiate, rather than attack out of fear and ignorance.

Completely off-topic, perhaps - but would one of my esteemed colleagues be so kind as to enlighten me: What is Israel's policy on nuclear weapons? You know, the big bad ones we invade other countries for allegedly developing. Tongue is firmly-in-cheek. As an aside, I find it disturbing that none of you mention the Irgun or the various other Jewish terrorist organizations active in Palestine prior to the end of the British Mandate. Disturbing but not surprising, since very few people seem to bother to look into the actual process that created this wonderful democracy on, as you call it, 'poor land with very little water''. It is especially interesting that the Irgun commited many atrocious acts, including the massacre of civilians, yet we in the West seem to know so little of it. Pity, that.

I'll have to disagree with you on that, most Quebecois do in fact know what separation entails since they've already went through two referendum. Its kinda of a cop out to brand the opposition as ignorant to reinforce your own position. The PQ has been moving steadily to the right for the past 15 years leaving its voters party-less, but now that Quebec Solidaire is on the scene, things will be heating up. Just a quick question, in the event of a majority OUI in a referendum, would you be willing to fight and kill your fellow Quebecois to stay in Canada ? I don't believe they will be willing to fight the rest of the country to get out. If they are, then hell yes. Negotiations over a barrel are'nt negotiations - it's blackmail. I'm sure members of the Union were less-than-enthusiastic about killing their countrymen - however, under similar circumstances, it happened.

Scrib...believe it or not, but you just identified the Kaledonians with the above post. I guess that means that both parties at the blockade were terrorists, by your definition. If that is the case, then the Army needs to take out both groups, correct? Now you are blaming the VICTIMS for terrorism? The Caledonians simply want the ability to travel on a road THEY own. They expect their right to earn a living for their family not to be interfered with. The natives are denying them this right. As a result, they are committing economic terrorism. As a fascist, I say it is time to bring in the Canadian Forces. The mailed fist of fascism would remove such terrorists from Crown lands. I hate to say it, but I respect the king that reigns with his fist. They are in defiance of a court order and should be thrown off the land pending the decision of the court. The ones who dug up the road should be arrested. However, this is common sense, so don't look for it to happen.

The problems in native communities are not going to be solved by creating a bunch of mini apartheid states that can only exist if they are funded by taxpayers living and working in urban Canada. Insisting on race based rights will ultimately lead to more violence and discord. There only solution that will work is one that treats everyone Canadian equally no matter what their race happens to be. Quoted For Truth.

No, many murders take place in the Aboriginal community. I've had to live through the unfortunate experience of having relations who were either murder victims or murderers...but again, this thread is looking at serial killing and mass murder, which have non-existent Aboriginal representation in Canada, to date. If you want to discuss Aboriginal murders, start a separate thread. It might dovetail with this one if Pickton is being discussed. The focus of this thread is on Canada. Serial killing and mass murder take place all over the world, but here in canada, we have our own unique issues separate from the U.S., Britain etc. Actually, I am interested in debate, and I'm not a petty racist. I also take exception to you viewing me this way, but I realize that your perceptions are your problem, not mine. I'm sorry you feel this way, but if you don't want to participate, then feel free not to do so. other than that, there is some genuine and interesting discussion taking place. You've not made one point about Canada. To reiterate, the focus of this thread is about canada's issues with serial murder and mass killings, not any other country's. If you want to participate, please stay to topic, or go create your own "non-Canadian serial killers and mass murderers discussion" thread. Apart from the inchoate babble at the end of the quoted sentence, I would like to know more of your thoughts on racial profiling and why you disagree with the idea. I was under the impression that many people on this site were supportive of the idea of racial profiling...especially after participating in the Gwyn Morgan discussion. Could you please describe for me this unique system that categorizes serial killers by their country of origin? Oh, right..we dont do that. Are you saying that serial killers in Canada are motivated by or derived from forces that are not present in the rest of the world? Nonsense. How about this, since you require clarification on every single point: Now, is there something about Canadians that make us more likely to become serial killers? Probably not. Is it more likely one may become a narcissist in this materialist, throw-away culture? Yes - but you'll find that the world over. Are you arguing that native culture is inheriently superior to that of the rest of the world? I would argue that were natives more numerous and more empowered, there would be a native serial killer - simply put, the forces that generate such individuals are not at work in native society by virtue of their removal from the typical material focus of society. Were more natives rich and powerful, there would be mass murderers. As an aside - you might call it 'inchoate' (using dictionary.com, are we?) but you are in fact quite hysterical in your manner of argument. I would suggest to you that your ideas - as opposed to being imperfectly formed - are stillborn. Your impressions of the other people on this site matter not at all - are you incapable of distinguishing between individuals? You wonder why I accuse you of not listening - it seems you are quick to judge and slow to forgive. I don't know what the Gwyn Morgan discussion was, I only registered to the site recently, and missed it. Specifically, on racial profiling - because someone of a certain race is more likely to commit a certain type of crime does NOT give the police the right to accost people based on their race - in other words, you need to observe something suspicious. The idea that you can somehow guess the actions of an individual based on the habits of members of their race is ludicrous - people will, and always do, defy expectation. Not only is it offensive at a moral level, it is odious in that it gives us a false sense of security. Just because people are being arrested and convicted DOES NOT mean they are guilty. It's institutional racism and I believe, a substitute for doing real investigative work.

That's a lovely platitude, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Gun laws limit liberty in favour of increased security. Are you saying you're in favour of abolishing gun laws? (You could call this a red herring on my part, but you seem to have based your entire argument on this statement and I think it deserves an appropriately severe rebuttal. And you did open the door to external arguments by using such a blanket generalization.) 1. Actually, I am quoting Benjamin Franklin. I by no means base my argument on this - which is that this program is contrary to the Contitution and specific laws of the United States governing wiretapping. Here you've established that the government has been using technology to monitor communications since before 9/11. 2. Yes, which is important to establish. The idea that somehow because we havent been attacked in 5 years that these programs are successful is foolhardy. Obviously, we had robust capability before and the attacks still slipped through. I would like to see some evidence this can help before we rest out laurels in an unproven system. This is confusing. These systems don't work, unless you're trying to establish a totalitarian government? And then they work? 3. Specifically, they have far more utility to a totalitarian government than to one with benign intentions. Again, how does keeping these call logs help protect us, again? According to the wiki article you linked to, Russ Feingold introduced legislation to shut down the IAO. Why did he do that? If the IAO's work is unconstitutional and illegal, why not bring suit to have it quashed and set a precedent? The Democrats are happy to accuse the Administration of illegal and unconstitutional activities for the sake of getting on the news, but for some reason they lack the will to follow through and make a court case out of their accusations. My conjecture is twofold: they don't believe they'll win (ie. they don't really believe that the laws that the President is supposedly breaking are themselves Constitutionally valid in the face of the Presidential powers they aim to supercede), and they don't want to permanently eliminate courses of action that a Democratic president may some day wish to persue. As to the technology being unproven: are you concerned that it won't work at all, or that it will backfire and only catch innocent civilians? 4. I'm concerned that it will not work for it's 'declared' purpose, but will instead remain and continue accumulating data until sometime in the future when a political leader perhaps uses it for personal gain. You know, checking on the opponent's phone calls - just this once, honest! The Democrats lack the numbers to force the issue. How are they going to impeach when they cant get enough votes for a special prosecutor? Besides, they are spineless. You've totally lost me with these two sentences. In what way should I be concerned about the terrorists using this technology? 5. In no way at all, because the terrorists could not, and do not, have similar capability in their arsenal. I've already answered this point. 6. I guess, but like the NSA and Bush, I have yet to hear from you a clear argument why the calling records of every American is required for our safety. A coherent one, mind you. There's a lot wrong here. First of all, this is a complete red herring. Secondly, signal blocking technology has enormous potential for misuse and chaos creation. Thirdly, your last sentence fragment in paragraphs answers your own question - how do you know what technology the government is employing? 7. Yes, of course it does have potential for misuse, but not in a way that will destory the fabric of society. If you search, you will find numerous vendors selling just such items, and news articles announcing various governments deploying them. Personally, I dont care if someone james my cell phone but I do care if they have my phone records. Especially since the jammer could be proven to save lives. You can hardly say the same about the Call Registry. You haven't convinced me yet. Maybe we should just leave it at that. 8. Fair enough. If someone could advance a reason why we need the program, perhaps I could consider it. As of now, I see no evidence this does anything to help anyone stay safe.

/sigh If you don't want to acknowledge that the technologies (not necessary developed by Europeans, but certainly BROUGHT with them) that came with the settlers were absolutely revolutionary, fine. If you're not willing to recognize that, yes, Europe was leaps and bounds ahead, scientifically, fine. That does'nt mean it's not fact. I'll agree with you, in certain cases, about 'blended technology'. My point, however, stands that the majority of these advances came from overseas. As an aside, I lived at Jane / Finch for 2 years. It ain't all flowers and chocolate, but it sure is'nt Detroit (where I also lived). I love Toronto.

Don't expect a reasonable answer to this. Our elected officials in Ontario are acting like deer in the headlights. It's a complete farce.

And, thankfully so as we all know what would happen if they were not - a blood bath. So, in order to keep them that way, we should continue to support them. My argument is, esentially, they no longer need our support - they are financially solvent. Their military would defeat OURS for God's sake. Why are we sending them money for weapons we can't afford?

You are really quite a piece of work. You're right - aboriginal Canadians never murder anyone. Also, there has never been an asian or african serial killer, right? You're not interested in debate. You're a petty racist who likes to anger people by spewing antagonistic nonsense. See how easy it is to refute your sophomoric points? This is what school is for, schmuck - if only you had attended. Disclaimer: I do not agree with racial profiling, in any form. I am sick of your style of argument - it is hysterical (that is, marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion)

I don't either except I don't like to see people get killed by the thousands. And, that is what will happen if Israel is not armed and ready to protect themselves against the entire Arab world by converntional means. See, if the Israleis don't have the means to protect themselves without using nuclear weapoons, they will have to use those nukes and that means that millions of Arabs will die. I don't wish to see that so therefore, don't mind supporting Israel in their lower tier weapons systems. On the other hand, any country n the Middle East that isn't calling for the death of the Infidel should be protected and watered and, given aid to grow. Not being from the middle east and, undenieably an Infidel, they are to me, at least not calling for mine and your collective deaths. That's also a plus in my books. The situation is exceedingly complex. Its hard to get people to bury the hatchet - especially given the current geopolitcal climate. I would'nt say Israel is unable to defend itself, though - most Israeli's would dispute that assertation, also. They have mandatory military service, a highly modernized army and a robust air and naval force. The successfully prosecuted the Six-Day War and maintain a fairly militarized border. Israel is, without doubt, the eminent military force in the Middle East. Well, once America leaves.

My apologies for not specifying that the governments using said tracking technology be non-totalitarian for the purposes of the question I've posed. Assuming that we keep the discussion confined to non-totalitarian Western governments, and assuming that those governments do not degenerate into totalitarianism, I believe the onus is still on you to show, as per my earlier question, why such a database would be harmful. To humour you, though, I'll re-iterate that the most obvious use of multi-level data mining techniques on phone records is to flush out terrorist networks. If a government agency targets an individual for investigation it would be helpful to know that from a data mining of his phone records there appears to be a larger network of co-conspirators that might also be worthy of investigation. If a terrorist cell slips through the cracks and perpetrates an act of terrorism, it would be helpful to be able to quickly root out whatever support networks they had in order to prevent potential connected cells from activating. If data mining techniques used in this way are successful, how can you question whether or not they've kept people safe? There is of course the question of whether the government agencies given these tools will use them for purposes other than the investigation of terrorism. They almost certainly will. The potential for such abuse is enormous. The DEA for instance would have a lot of use for such a tool when tracking drug gangs. So my next question is, which is worse: allowing the government to use such tools in the hope that they will be effective in preventing terrorism (despite the potential for misuse or the targeting of innocent friends and aquaintences of targeted individuals), or preventing the government from using such tools in order to placate the privacy concerns of people who will never be targeted (despite the possibility that data mining will in fact be an effective tool for terrorism prevention)? (For you fans of logical fallacy: please note that this is not a false dichotomy. This is not an either / or scenario, merely a comparison of potentially negative consequences.) I'm sorry that the whole situation has an Orwellian ring to it. We live in a world where technology has enabled invisible government forces to quickly look into many previously private aspects of our lives. This is an unfortunate side effect of modern convenience, the same convenience that allows terrorists to quickly organise themselves and pass information over great distances in real time. The two conditions are made mutually inclusive by the techonolgy involved. Telling the government to piss up a rope and expecting the terrorists will do the same is nothing short of sticking your head in the sand hoping it all just goes away. It won't. When we are willing to exchange liberty for security, we are no longer deserving of either. Specifically, we have enormous surveillance capacity. This is really a repackaged version of Total Information Awareness. The capacity of this data to help track down terrorists is dubious, at best - while the applications for the same system in a totalitarian system are everywhere. I do not understand the compelling need for such a system, nor why it should circumvent the law. As you yourself recognize, the technology is unproven - HOW then should we accept it, in this clearly unconstitutional and illegal state? For that matter, why? The terrorists do not have the capacity to map out the calling patterns of the entire United States in perpetuity. Do you realize the technical hurdles required? Yes, the advantages that asymmetrical opponents enjoy currently are not easily countered. That being said, little advantage seems to be gained from this course of action. Why, for example, are we not developing spread-spectrum frequency jammers with some kind of cell phone spam to detect/detonate IED's near roadsides - this seems a more practical application of technology, and one that is feasible, with little to no potential for misuse. There are devices such as this, but none in use currently (at least, officially). It is clear to me the potential for misuse of the system greatly outweighs any possible advantage.

Actually, most separatists (being one of them myself) are, inside, socialists or left leaning capitalists. It's only recently that the PQ started moving to the right. Hopefully in 50 years, Quebec will be a society modelled in the quebecois image. Most separatists have, at best, a vague idea of what a 'seperate' Quebec looks like. I disagree also that most seperatists are socialists - perhaps the leadership is, but the base is deeply conservative - I think the leadership is just starting to clue in to this. I'm one of the hardliners on this issue, being unable to accept the proposition. Civil war - a la mort, mon frere.

You're welcome for mathematics, antibiotics, sanitation, increased average life spans, cars and personal transportation systems, public transit, electricity, electronics and a stable and reliable food supply. There are thousands more I could list, but it's so absurd as to hardly warrant mention. The Spanish conquistadors were incredible brutal - yet it is undeniable that technical advances followed conquest. Your cherry-picking of stupid, comical 'advances' muddies the actual point - the peoples in America prior to the Europeans arriving had only primitive technology. Also, where did you get the ridiculous idea that the Europeans thought fruit was poison? Perhaps you are aware the term apple, was, in Roman times, used to describe a wide variety of fruit, including pears, plums, apples and others. The reason scurvy was a problem on long ship voyages was that fruit was not brought on board - it spoiled easily, and was not replenished. Cured jerky and stale bread were the order of the day. I suspect your ancedote about Indians helping Europeans cure scurvy comes from the fact that the Indians knew which fruit was NOT poisonous, while the Europeans were fearful of what they did not know. Now don't get me wrong, there were many things learned by the Europeans from Indian peoples across America - however, the balance, by far, of the new technology was provided by Europeans.

My only addition to this thread: Anyone who does not know that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons should probably refrain from engaging in discussion about such weighty topics. It seems in this day and age every halfwit with a keyboard feels entitled to an opinion.

Well, unfortunately you suspect wrong. I know that to you people, everything in the world leads back to George W Bush, but my opinions about the insane leader of Iran and ignorant statements related to him, are based on three facts. His belief in the 12th Imam, his desire to destroy Israel, and his denial of the Holocaust. Apparently you tree-hugging people have no problem looking past all this and praising him as some respectable, sane, logical world leader. That's ridiculous, and so are you.Please, get your heads out of your collective asses. Put aside your hatred of President Bush, and see the facts for what they are. I beg you, for the good of the world. One thing I find disturbing about your post is your idea that somehow, vague threats towards Israel have anything to do with us. I cannot understand the insane amounts of military and financial aid we send Israel when the average income of an Israeli is higher than that of your average Canadian. Israel is a nation, capable of standing on it's own two (figurative) feet. If Algeria's president - having no military office, unlike the United States - were to make vague threats towards France, would we not feel it France's place to respond? Now, the Holocaust is historical fact. That being said, I'm sure you can dig up people in many governments across the Middle East who deny it happened. Is that a reason to attack them? Clearly Iran had nothing to do with the Holocaust, right? It is similar to how Israel denies attacking the USS Liberty in 1967. However, it is historical fact. Should we invade Israel? There is this knee-jerk reaction to support Israel - and I have no bias against the Israeli people - it's just I do not feel any special empathy for them either. People suffer all over the world, and genocide has happened in OUR lifetimes - think Rwanda or present-day Darfur. I do not understand why the United States sends in excess of a billion dollars a year in military aid to Israel while Darfur can't get a battalion. Please note, I am not an 'anti-Semite', and I find the practice of typically labelling critics of Israel or our foreign policy towards Israel 'anti-Semetic' truly asinine.

As a clarification, as I recall the Kazemi case highlighted Iran's repressive regime. However, let's be clear - if we're going to condemn a regime for oppressing women, let's do it to all the offenders. Saudi Arabia and some of the other Gulf states have, as you are no doubt aware, highly brutal systems of repression, particularly towards women. They are hardly alone. I seem to remember earlier this year the case of the man, apparently mentally ill (irrelevant but interesting) in Afghanistan who decided to convert from Islam to Christianity. I believe the sentence offered was death - but international pressure (money, heh) caused the court to commute the sentence. This avoided the nasty specter of our tax money going to support a, well, brutally repressive regime. What more should we expect though? Did we not 'fight' the Taliban with a proxy army made up of ragtag opium warlords? And air support, of course - that won the campaign, since the Taliban had no air forces to speak of, nor effective air defenses. I digress. By being selective in our outrage we appear, well, outrageous. Is the situation of a Jew or Christian in Afghanistan not equally precarious? Do the women there not wear Islamic dress - would you not know a Jew by his kippah? The same applies in Pakistan - which, of course is nuclear armed, but no-one seems to worry as long as a US-backed military dictator is in power. Once the inevitable revolution topples Musharraf, we will be left with a nuclear armed Pakistan squaring off with India over Kashmir, at the very least. The incoming government is likely to favor confrontation if they are radicals (also likely), which the education system incubates at an alarming rate. So, in reply to the OP and the title of this thread - the New Nazi Germany? What pompous, ridiculous blather. Attitudes in Iran, more so that the other Gulf states, are increasingly modern and Westernized. Would this not be the time to engage in serious diplomacy? As I have stated in other threads, an intervention (or invasion - semantics) in my view is likely to have a serious negative impact on the overall situation.

1. Most of your posts are characterized by your antagonism and your seeming refusal to accept lines of argument which contradict your own position. "Please, enlighten me as to where my contradictions lie. I also have people on here calling me racist, but they haven't bothered to provide examples of my supposed "racism", so I'm taking the time to ask for clarification." TG, it's not that you are self-contradicting - you are beating out a steady message, if nothing else. It is that it would seem you discard opposing arguments out of hand, without giving them any real consideration. I'll agree it could be better worded. 2. I hope what you saw in that shameful video today, as I did, was the beginning of a sea change in Canadian policy vis-a-vis the aboriginal population. what...how to beat Indians with your bare hands better? To me, I saw the failure of Canadian society, and after having pooh-poohed Jane Jacob's latest offering on why we are advancing into another dark age, i now know that it is likely she is right. I also saw the failure of the current federal government to get involved and possibly tame the errant Kaledonians. The videos I have seen certainly don't show one-sided violence. The Indians and the Caledonians seemed to both have an equal share of angry people, what I did not see was organized violence. I also saw policemen placed in a role they should not be in - one of peacekeepers. I never implied only the Indian protestors should be jailed - of course equally, the Caledonians - as soon as we cross the line into violence, property damage, etc. There are plenty of people living in the community, I have no doubt, that want nothing to do with the situation but are greatly impacted by it. According to your logic, these people, regardless of who they are or what their history is, are inconsequential. I disagree. 3. I noticed you neglected to report the use of a backhoe which has not only ruined the road, but also knocked out the power to the city of Caledonia. Look at the time of the post and you'll note that I put it up before the backhoe event. nice try though. Am I racist yet? Although much of your discussion may degenerate into pointless name-calling with others - you might have noted that I made no such implication. I did suggest that you, yourself, broadly paint huge sectors of society as 'racist' - the assumptions you make are staggering and yes, antagonistic. There is no excuse for knocking out power to the town. Like I said, I don't care who did it, arrest them. You know? Am I racist yet? 4. All acceptable actions, no doubt, to you - against the racist monolith that is the Canadian government. If a few innocents were inconvenienced, who cares - I mean, clearly their ancestors were evil racist oppressors as well, and therefore, this is karma. Yes...and never a better example of karma than the poor people of Caledonia who exalted that the blockade was down, only to have their own neighbours boo them and start calling them "Indian-lovers" and other names. I mean, I can understand racial epithets between different races, but Euro-Canadians trying to be racist towards each other!? that is the worst possilbe case of karma. You know as well as I that there will always be people in the crowd that are - let's say, not reflective of the attitudes of the population as a whole. I could easily take the behaviour of one Indian, by your logic, and extrapolate it to the entire Six Nations. Is that correct? There's always gonna be some opinionated idiot out there. 5. I would appreciate if you could expound on what exactly you would like to see the future hold for the Six Nations people. given the treatment from some Kaledonians, I'd like to see Six Nations get its land back, and become an associate of Canada, but certainly not a part of. I've been to the blockade innumerable times, and the last thing Kaledonians call me and other Six nations people is Canadian. Actually, they never call us Canadians, so i can't see a compelling reason to remain so. What does that mean exactly, leave Canada? You mean draw some more lines, right? This kind of thing causes upheaval, and generally leads to problems down the road. However, if it were a permanent solution that led to the end of Canada being responsible, seemingly, for every woe affecting Indian society, I would support it. I find that the blame for internal societial discord at the average reservation - say Tyendinaga - where, mind you, I have friends - tends to be thrown around at everything other than the Indians themselves. Thats not to say that the council is not effective at working through problems - they are. The Six Nations leadership, however, uses the precarious situation of some reserves as political leverage. The question is, how much is Canads responsible for what happens on reserves? Are they daycares, or semi-independent areas? 6. Should Canada continue to maintain what is, essentially, a two-tier society? I think your vision of the future is vague, at best, only seeing some sort of permanent relationship that involves, what, a seperate state? I'd simply prefer Canada leaving us to our own devices. Just return the land and we'll give up all the "treaty benefits" that canadians whine about ad infinitum. Unless you feel that the land shouldn't be returned, then I see no reason for us to give up what we originally exchanged for our land. What Canadians whine about? See, sweeping generalizations are for populist politicians or when you're rallying the troops. Since we're doing neither, how about ditching the rhetoric. You might notice I take great pains to clearify what I am saying. It is, often, more difficult to communicate ideas clearly in type. I see your point, but I could make my own generalization about Indians complaining about land title. Also, each individual land title we're talking about here has it's own status. You can't say 'the land' as though all the land was handed over in a single signature. Thats disingenious. Some of these transfers were clearly cut and dried - others perhaps not so much. So while claims may be laid to all of 'the land', much of it was and remains a legal transaction, supported by the courts. Further, this is still, as I earlier characterized it, a vague idea at best. If you could provide more specifics, exactly in what concrete things are done and how the relationship is set-up, in terms of say, what currency is used, defense policy, borders (where are they, basically) and a multitude of other issues. Its a pandoras box. 7. What aggravates most right-minded individuals about this the most is the double standard. No ordinary citizen could hold a protest which involved the destruction of public property (the road and the hydro lines) and not be held accountable. That is right, however, after having been told by the Federal government in 1995 that all remaining land claims would be put on hold, and a moratorium put on the lands in question (which happens to involve the Douglas Creek area), and then 10 years later a developer shows up and begins building on land that is supposed to be on hold....welll, you explain to me the legalities, machina? Thank you for conceding my point. If a cop busts me for smoking a joint, he better bust the mayor's son too, capiche? THAT is the point I am trying to make. And knocking out power to a town - inexcusable. 8. This is the single, unalienable fact - there is a rule of law in this country, and it should apply to all humans equally. Sounds absolutely utopian! However, why am I impacted by the Indian Act and you aren't? Why does your government get to decide who is and isn't an Indian? Where is this one law you speak of, machination? I know that none of my forebears wrote the Indian Act, so why do you expect me to answer for your government's decisions? I know from treaty negotiations that we never gave the Crown the right to our self-determination, nor did we give them the right to remove our children to residential schools, nor the right to determine how much money was invested in housing, So why is this now my problem? I think it's yours, if it's anyone's. I would just like to see your government maintain it's end of the agreement and leave us alone. I'm not talking about damn treaty rights or land titles. I'm talking about CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR. The Criminal Code should cover all equally, no? The idea that somehow because you object to the Indian Act you are exempt from criminal law seems a stretch. People sniff a double standard and they don't like the smell. 9. If the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty occupied a road and denied its use to ordinary citizens, they would be arrested faster than you could shout 'discrimination'. In fact, Ill cite for you: That is probably because OCAP doesn't share a treaty relationship with the Crown in Canada. What I'd like to know is why you want to compare a group of anti-poverty activists to a distinct society that is made up of Six Nations, has traditions, languages and teachings that extend back before the beginning of time, a social code, its own laws until usurped by the Federal government in 1924 and in ownership of a plot of land by deeded agreement? Because we are all governed under the same laws. No-one should be exempt from them, regardless of special 'designations'. I object to the idea that the Six Nations activists - the ones breaking the law - should somehow be exempt from all rules governing normal behaviour. You want to protest, fine, you want to convince others - go for it. You want to knock out power to a town - go to jail. (ps; sorry if I've been antagonistic, but i've answered the same questions time and time again, and it appears that no one has bothered to actually read the answers..hence my "ramblin'") You're not really sorry here - to be fair, most other posts are aggressive in tone also. Perhaps in the future we can refrain from hyperbole and insinuation, and instead honestly debate what the hell to do - I think you should realize, in fact, that most people want to find a solution that works - instead of a band-aid. Choosing to paint me as your ideological enemy you infact miss an opportunity, because there must be some room for compromise and agreement. However, as I said, throwing bread and cheese, burning things, digging up roads, and shouting epithets is embarassing and condemnable no matter WHO is doing it. The point is, justice should be blind - while this might sound utopian to you it is only through scrutiny, debate and oversight that we ensure it - and I'm not such a cynic as to concede the whole works just yet. I cannot stand the quote system, hence the above.

Whats the alternative that you propose? No dialogue, or dialogue only on our terms? How will that help resolve anything? I still don't see how excluding nations whose politcal systems we don't like - or whose government we disagree with - does anything. It's easy to take potshots at the UN, being that it is, as a large organization, inheriently dysfunctional, to some extent. Its a lot better than the League of Nations - its predecessor. If we don't have a public forum, this stuff just goes on behind closed doors - completely, instead of countries being engaged in open debate. About Fox - look, truth is NOT subjective. There is'nt a conservative way of looking at the truth and a 'liberal' way of looking at the truth. There is simply the truth - and this fallacy we have come to believe, that all news is somehow political in nature and deserves multiple viewpoints. In other words, I'm a 'Just the facts, Ma'am.' kinda guy. That's the role of the press. Try to paint Media Matters as biased or partisan - at least they do their research, unlike O'Reilly, who is made to look a buffoon nearly everytime he speaks. Was'nt the War on Christmas O'Reillys invention? Olbermann, who is'nt even a particularly good anchor, skewers him regularly. Also, could you guys provide a cite there on your US aid reference? Because from what I know, the US is the single biggest debtor to the UN, owing something over 1.3$ billion US in fiscal 2005. Here's a link to an article at the conservative (you should be happy) Cato Institute. From the article: In the United States interest. What, pray tell, happens when the interest of the world, or that of Canada for that matter, diverges from that of the United States?

The National Post posted a story without checking - completely incompetent, or purposeful omission? They know that repetition = truth, and even if half the people find out later its not true, half never will, and a perception of Iranians as hateful and backwards people will at least be gestated. A retraction would be in order, if we had any respect for Iran or Iranians, but of course it will not be forthcoming. I hope I'm not alone in being able to distinguish the actions of clerics, which rule the country, and the sentiments of the younger people (they had a baby boom) who are mostly pro-West. The law, requiring Islamic dress, was passed in reaction to many of these younger people adopting American-style dress. The clerics are deeply conservative, this is a backlash. What they need in Iran is not an intervention, its a revolution. The problem is the state is well-armed. I don't believe an attack is the most prudent action currently - if we waited, engaged in diplomacy, eventually social attitudes will soften. Trade makes money, which causes exchange of ideas. Iran will open up, and adopt some Western ideals..but these things take time. Why am I so apprehensive about intervention? Because America would presumably be in the lead, and their reconstruction efforts (we're talking present, Japan et al. excluded) are spotty, to say the least. The last thing we need is to throw more fuel on the fire that is the chaos and instability of the current Middle East. Also, so-called collateral damage (an offensive term, really) assessments - even the most conservative - are rather steep.

The same way we 'helped' Iraq?

Meaning what? That intelligence and facts are being cherry picked to support a policy doesn't make them less factual. Look, you can have this argument. I'm not going to go any farther with this, it's been too done before. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. The problem is, these 'facts' and 'intelligence' as you call them - well, they were wrong. Cherry-picking intelligence estimates that came with a red flag 'UNPROVEN or SOURCE UNRELIABLE' but were picked up because they showed what they wanted them to show. That is deliberately misleading the public to get into a war. Its bait-and-switch.

I can't believe you would ask such an insipid obvious question. As the most obvious example, I keep track of groups of connected individuals, social cliques, if you will. Who calls who, when and such. You can visually map such data to get an idea of who is talking, directly, with whom. Computers keep this database dynamic and always up-to-date...you can see when relationships ended, began, etc. This can be tracked, forever, since the data is always updated. Now imagine this in the hands of a government which is not run by carebears - for instance, Hitler's Germany, or modern China. Then, if you catch a 'dissident' or 'deviant' you can check your base, and see who they called when, they pull them in for...'questioning.' Now please tell me how keeping a dynamic database of all Americans' (and of course, by proxy, some foreigners) called numbers, length of calls and call patterns keeps us safe, again?