myata

Let's just remind that these folks are only held "without trial" because they just wouldn't go, and prefer to stick in the ugly Canadian jail. That's right. Judge, government officials reviewed their files and found, through a due process, that they aren't wanted in this country. Do we really have some kind of an obligation to hug and kiss everybody who'd show up on this doorstep? Do we need a "trial" simply to let somebody know that they aren't welcome and are free to move on - anywhere to their heart's desire - just not here?

OhMeGod.... before venturing into lofty domains, maybe we should spend a little time on our simple regular everyday concepts. Such as "on its own"; unassisted; separate? Or, indeed, just saying a word makes everything nice and clear? Like, it's a yada, so it deserves special rights.. Why? Because it's a yada. See, nice and clear. Whatever had to be proved. But wait a sec. With advances of modern science, virtually any cell from your body can be kept alive for a long time (note: that does not signify that it can survive on it's own; i.e. unassisted). Even now, or if not, then in a very near future, virtually any cell from your body could be used to create a new life. New individual, who, when born, would have exactly the same body, abilities and intellect as everybody else. So think, and answer, what exactly makes cells in a fetus, that is ready to unassisted life about as much as a severed finger (btw: unlike surviving fetuses, or fingers, examples of human children surviving in the wild, outside of human society, are known in history), special and deserving special rights? If a fetus can have special rights, separate and independent from the rights of the mother, shouldn't her finger (and by extension, any part of body) have them too? Shouldn't one be required, and failing to, made, to keep their body healthy and happy? Including consuming adequate amounts of appropriate nutrients, and not consuming inappropriate ones? We can go so very far, looking after each other's bodies! I think this debate signifies very clearly the root cause of problems the church faces in modern times. It still tries to lead by decree. From top, telling them lowly and downcast, what they should do for their salvation. All the while, everybody has already moved on.

Really? Are you making a scientific discovery here? Bother to back it with some evidence maybe? Really? You cut your finger, put it away for a couple of months, and find it alive and well. You seem to be a fountain of knowledge unbeknownst to modern science... or maybe having probliems with interpretaion of simple notions, like "on its own"? And a good question to ask would be why? Why aren't you (and people like you) bothered about one kind of life, but not another? What criteria, logic, notions do they use in determining what kind of life would merit sanctity and protection, and which - wouldn't? According to a recent study (check e.g. here: http://www.simplebits.com/notebook/2004/01...sed_wdors.html), the ability to recognise misspelt words (for which I btw apologise - must be that sticking key on my laptop) is normal for a normally functioning brain. I sure it's nothing serious, no reason to be concerned.

I can help you with that one. Or rather, the nature did. Can your severed finger survive on its own, in isolation from your body? Can aborted human fetus? There you go. So may be rather than worry about all the potential life that can be gotten from spoiled condoms, sheets, or even, in some near future, presumed to be dead cut fingernails, this huge instition could take a look around and perceive all the problems that actual, already in existence, life has on this planet? Just curious.

Just illustrates how wholly, utterly, and in most likelihood, irrepairably, this Church is out of touch with reality in this 21 century. Thanks for the info.

It won't. For the next couple hundred years the church will insist that there's only one rightful and god given way to procreate, everything else being mortal sin. And then who knows - maybe the big flood will come, or church will go out of existence. In the worst case, they will apologise - as with Galileo, some 300 years postfactum.

In the course of history, the church tried to speak for any number of people (women; savages; "poor"; etc), pretty much always with the same result: i.e their wishes and desires eventually proved very different from the chuch's grandiouse plan for them. The "unborn", surely, are the ultimate prise, in that regard. They'll never be able to speak for themselves, by definition. I find all the obsession with the potential, future, non existent life, in contrast to all the problems that exist right here and now, no less that irrational and bizzare. What if church turned the same efforts, as it now spends fighting abortions, e.g. to prevention of wars? Unless of course, in the (church's) big picture, what's happening here and now is far less essential that the future glory.

No, I heard him personally professing about it on CBC radio (some years back, before his more recent political inroads). The only thing that I could make out from lofty considerations is that he doesn't unquestionnably oppose it. OMG, blame the Bush, how novel and original! Has he been literate enough to read the inspection team reports? Or what lots of media or people, or representatives in UNSC who did not support the war, were saying (no, far less than 98%, unless in your own perception, or interpretation)? All I recall from the media I read (should I make a recommendation to our would be PM?) is that there was no evidence whatsoever of any WMD. Like the right to "defend itself" by killing a thousand of civilians (in the recent war in Lebanon, and more recent one, in Gaza)? Ignatieff seem to have learned the lesson to speak from both ends of his mouth, and keep everybody happy this way. To Palestinians, apartheid, to Israel - right to defend. Oh yeah, how's it going to work toward peace in the region. Bad question. Right. What I'm not getting is what he is / will do because he thinks it the right thing, not because he "believes" somebody, "shows" something and so on.

OMG! A greater outrage would be hard to come by, hard as one could try... The morals of this bishop (and has the Pope subscribed to that also?) are as mysterious to me, as of the divine itself.

I'm still waiting to hear from Mr.Ignatieff anything that would indicate his personal position of principle, rather than a gradient leading to higher electability. So far, my count remains, pretty much, at zero. Compare: "Torture - no torture" "Iraq - no Iraq" "Apartheid - right to defend" "Coalition, but not necessarily" etc I've no idea how he's going to react to any potential new development, other than reading opinion polls of course. Are we going to see yet another of those "leaders", whose only claim is to stick to the power for as long as they possibly can? Does anybody care?

Really, Rue? Somebody who's lived their entire happy lives somewhere on the other side of the globe suddenly finds out that they have that "inalienable right" to your backyard, Rue, where your family lived for generations? Do I too happen to enjoy the same "right", Rue? Why not, Rue? Aren't we all human, as you said previously? Or, maybe, because we are all humans, we should all have that "right" for your wallet, too? You see, Rue. Me saying "right" means nothing. Nada. Word. It's what I do about it, what matters. And what was and is being done, is out there. Right before our eyes. If I go and grab, its nothing to do with my "right", even when I say it a lot, but more likely with the fact that 1) I want it; 2) I can grab it; and 3) I don't really bother with what the result of my act would mean to the other. Packs of baboons, Rue? I'd second that. Even if some of them would consder themselves to be more civilized, democratic, sophisticated, etc - if baboons is what they are, i.e. walk and quack like.

This one time I'll agree with Argus that material responsibility simply cries to be there, for those kids who stopped taking in words, but haven't yet committed anything major. Like, from age of about 12. Tell me that 12 year old kid won't understand that breaking that window cost $$. Make their family pay if they can't. Perhaps it'll encourage family to talk to the kid, rather than teacher or police. It's the simplest, clearest and most efficient way to show them that responsibility for acts really exists. In the system that exists now, they'd only find that out if they've done something really outrageous (and were caught at that).

It comes from the perception that everybody should be, no has to be like us. Native people like us; Afghanistan like us; Iraq like us; Russia like us; Moon like us; Mars like us and so on. The only way others are allowed to be different, is if they are, in our own view, even better than us. And because nobody, in our own view, is better than us, nobody should be allowed to be different. Simple. Period. Wherever one is on this poor planet, they should be able to walk a block at most to a MacDonald, grab their favourite BigMac while communicating the transaction in English. The problem is not what happened, happens or will happen to poor children, but rather what could (and then, should) be done about it. In the long run. Because we aren't gods and can't foresee the results of our best intended acts (such as e.g. residential schools), the best strategy, and also the one that's been taught to us since times immemorial would that, simple, "love the other", "respect the other" and "don't judge". But our hands (i.e moral judgements) are so itchy and we know so very well exactly what needs to be done.

The problem with phylosophical generalizations is that they offer few ideas for practical solutions - and even fewer working ones. Other when going back in time to the good old times. If it was possible - and anybody really wanted to.

I doubt anybody could claim to have the complete solution, or maybe that one even exists (given complexity of human nature). We can only try to make sense of things, and home to improve them over time. Which in this topic could mean having a full array of measures to deal with many possible situations, rather than abstractions like "poor neglected child" or "hardened young criminal". Human situations cover the entire range of possibilities, and so should the array of sanctions, available to the judge. For a first time offender, a warning or probation may do the job. For someone getting used to unwanted behaviour, or showing persistent misunderstanding of the ways society works (by e.g. carrying an illegal weapon around) - heavy fine, and/or name in the print; and to a serious crime - appropriate jail term. I wouldn't be placing much hope on Harper's policies, because they either fail to understand, or choose to not mention, that a meaningful, efficient action against crime should start much earlier than a serious crime is committed.

And I, frankly, find the whole formula in some respects, ridiculous, and in other - outrageous. How could one "trade" something that never belonged to them in the first place? Logically, one could either try to force their ways upon others, or agree upon something that is acceptable to both parties. What kind of strategy is "land for peace"? Lets' see: the lands were never Israel's, and in the view of many many questions with the way the state was created, neither was the claim to peace. No, seriously, how could one (credibly) claim peaceful coexistence, if they just moved into somebody's house and kicked the previous owners out by force? So are they really trying to find a working solution? Or simply get something (peace) for nothing (lands that aren't their to give)? Think in long terms, historic terms. Look e.g. at Northern Ireland. It took ten generations or so, to only start approaching resolution of a similar, albeit smaller in impact and ferocity, conflict. Each time Israel attmpts to build more settlements, expropriate more Palestinian lands, they reset the hands back to square one (i.e generation 0). With the attitude the parties show, I wouldn't hope on any of the living politicians to see resolution through peaceful negotiations. Hope I'm wrong.

Sure, moving goalposts and selective reading may sound like a fun strategy - when you have nothing else to show for it. Let's see what we have: 1. The facts: homicides up 3%, at a record high; violent crime 30% up, from 91 2. Anecdotal cases, where outrageous crime was committed by offenders on probation/house arrest, etc. 3. Logical absurdity of having an array of "virtual" punishments on one side, and hard jail on the other, but nothing in between - nothing real that can actually convey to somebody not inclined to take in plain words, that "no, this is the wrong way to go". And on the other side? Some pundit opinion? Eternal belief that all problems can be solved by hugging and kissing, and throwing (somebody else's) money at them? No? Your turn, then.

The Star: StatsCan reports rise in violent youth crime Now what? I don't need a cite every time I go to the bathroom. Enough is that it's a few too many for what I consider acceptable. A colleague of mine recently went through a home invasion. A bunch of kids broke into their home's garage, then went up to the kitchen, and helped themselves to the fridge, while frightened family, with a small child, waited upstairs, afraid even to call the police. Which later dismissed the incident as "kids", not sure what (if anything) followed as a sanction. Till he moved out to another city, he didn't mention any movement on the case. If this isn't a dare, to every one in the bunch to do more exciting things, next time around, I don't know what is? Each one should have gotten a heavy fine (according to the age and degree of responsibility) and faced the music from the family, if their car or washing machine or XBOX had to be sold to pay for the little adventure. Good for the kid, who suddenly realizes that actions have consequences; good for the family who had a chance to get it that somebody will be responsible for what their offspring is doing their leisure time; good for the victims, who may at least get some compensation for their material losses, not to mention terrifying experiences; and good for the rest of community, that can be a bit more confident that at least some of those involved wouldn't attempt another fun adventure in the near future.

Like, "my" state can expropriate land from "your" state, for security, roads, etc, and call it legal and justifiable? Right. Can "their" do the same, no? Why? Or yes, they can (according to your own logic). If they can. See Rue, this isn't about legalities, but what one one can (and cannot) do. Grab-Hold-Justify. Hint: the recipe for the peace isn't a secret. It's out there. If there was one party genuinly interested in lasted peace, they would have accepted it without caveats and conditions. That's how everybody else would come to know that they are seriously and genuinly interested in lasting peace.

As a matter of fact, I do recall having heard (on a news analysis) about a raise in youth crime and violent crime in the latest crime stats. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Also, I'm not really of an opinion that action should be taken only when things "get worse". Crime levels in this country are already among the highest in the developed world, and outrageous crime often committed by underage offenders is very often on the air. Sometimes, action can and should be taken, to make things better. Especially, a few more times than one'd expect to I hear "charged with breach of probation". Each such instance indicates that probation was not an appropriate sanction for the case. Regarding what specifically needs attention, it was already explained several times (hope you took time to read and understand), but just in case, here's one more time, the problem is that the array of sanctions used in youth justice is inefficient and fails to offer sufficient deterrent to youth getting involved in serious, grave crime until it's too late. In particular, the vacuum that exists between the "virtual" sentences (police education, probation, community service, house arrest, etc) and the "hard" sentencing of jail is very disturbing. It means that somebody who's beyond the stage of verbal persuasion would only be stopped if / when they commit a serious crime. Introducing real sanctions that wouldn't send youth to jail, but at the same time, would signal cleary and strongly that behavior of that kind won't be tolerated, may be very useful in some (maybe, many) cases.

It's only my opinion, but it seems to me that the current system, with respect to youth misbehaviour, is always one step behind. Serious crime, like that IPod murder, rarely breaks out of the blue. It's starts with disruptive behaviour in school, to which we can only offer lecturing by principal, and suspension (probably long after the culprit stopped worrying about either). More serious acts, like property crime, or assaults, would be met with more lecturing, this time by the police, and in an unlikely case, a sanction like community service or probation. Almost like on every step of the ladder, the system, rather than sending a strong signal "Don't go here", is on the contrary, teasing the initiate, "Dare to do more?", "Maybe this time, the real stuff?". What if it were to be the other way around? If a 14 year old, going on a pleasure ride in a stolen car ended up (complete with their family), with a 5 K fine, plus at least some of the damage; what if a 12 year old caught on their first unprovoked assault were handed, with a lecture, a 2 K fine, to be paid out of their pocket money, if necessary, topped up by the family? 2 K won't break any however poor family, but it'll send the right signal to the offender right when it's needed most; not to mention a nudge to the family to pay more attention to what the tyke is up to. Maybe it won't stop all, but it would create that very much needed in between step between "virtual" sanctions like police lecture, probation, yada, and the hard reality of jail.

Agreed, any effective strategy will have to work in two ways, encourage kids to stay out of criminal zone and offer a strong deterrent to those who would try no matter what (and these will be with us for a long, long time, no need to get naive about that). As it appears that the existing system fails on the second point. It does not give a clear strong signal that crime, especially violent forms of it, won't be tolerated, period. Instead it eases potential offenders in with meaningless sentences as house arrest / conditional sentencing / community service / probation, etc., then slams hard if / when something really bad happens. This is not the way to create a strong barrier to enrollment into crime. If those kids knew that the response will be real, strong, and it'll hit exactly where it hurts most, perhaps they would be less apt to experiment.

Hi Rue, no amount of legalistic mumbo jumbo can make kicking people out of their homes, and proclaiming it property of a foregn state, a legal business. By the way, ownership of land, and its political sovereignty are two hugely different things. Or half of Florida would be long declared a hopscotch of foreign countries. But of course everybody already knows that.. or at least suspects.. do they? It appears that the chief idea here is the Step #3 (yes, from that (in)famous strategy, Grab-Hold-Make justifications).

No, no there's no need to blow anything up. Only add more choices in the array of deterrents for crimes committed by youth. Those deterrents (like a 20K fine) that may actually stop somebody from carrying (or even getting) a gun, for fear to lose their cherished car. Unlike "jail" or "house arrest" these are concrete and very real notions that everybody, understands, starting from elementary school. BTW it would cost nothing, unlike NDP spirited social housing developments that created long term headacke crime hotspots. Throwing money thoughtlessly never solved any problems. The example in the OP demonstrated that shared family material responsibility is actually possible (I did not know that, or would even believe it possible). If in civil legal system, then maybe, it could be tried in the criminal system as well.

Documentary is great (too bad I missed it) but doesn't the very fact that one need to take those kids to the prison, physically, for them to understand what the punishment actually means, speak volumes about absolute (in)efficiency of it, as a deterrent? Again, I agree that fighting crime is a complex problem that requires persistent long term multi-prong strategies. Here I'd like to address only one part of it, namely, the role of the criminal justice system. In my view, the system of sanctions for youth offenders, as it exists now, is simply inadequate. Not too lenient, or too tough, but simply (to a large extent) beyond the point. Youth don't get it. It doesn't do much. Like cutting a piece of bread with a see-saw.