myata

Yes and I'm all for that too. And having done all the reading and listening of the platform, also don't forget to take a minute to check the actual record too. Like that on the environment (one of the big five, remember?); or death penalty (being moderate, mainstream Canadian); childcare; gun control; you know all those little things that matter for your urban female voter; these people being in power for two years now, it's time to take them on their record more than their sweet talk.

No I meant silence by the major supporters of self determination and democracy on this planet on the situation of Kurds in Turkey. It looks like self determination, democracy, freedom yada yada only apply when it works for us. When we've got something of value to get from it. And if and when it's not interesting we simply forget. Ignore. Dont' notice. As if it doesn't exist.

I agree that once the majority has clearly expressed their will, neither former metropolia, nor the rest of the world should dictate them what to do. That's the presumption of freedom and self determination as they'll teach us. And I'm OK with that part. Now the devil is in applying the standard consistently, and most importantly, to them (i.e. our) selves. Here, let's consider another example: Kurds in Turkey. There's no question they're oppressed (prohibition to use native language, etc); unlike Albanians, they have no country of their own; they have been fighting for independence for years; and lo - you'll have to go with a microscope to look for supporters of their right for self determination in the high offices of the West. Why so? Different case? Freedom, etc, has no application here? Or maybe because Turkey is a strong ally of USA and has plans on joining Europe? Let's see: armed intervention in one case; and complete silence in the other. Doesn't sound like the same standard to me. So yes, while I support self determination, I don't think the case of Kosovo has anything to do with the lofty slogans. It's a matter of expediency, and again one standard is applied to "them" while a different set of rules is left for "us".

No but many Americans have to go long round ways to get to Cuba. Why so, in the land of free?

Good one ...

Their personal views on death penalty have already triggerred a change in policy, without any public discussion or parliamentary debate (talk about openness and transparency). Why would we expect anything different from their views on abortion?

I don't think it works this way. Whoever's importing human body parts has to prove that they are obtained legally and with legal purpose. These artifacts were branded "plastic models". It's certainly incorrect and maybe illegal. It's mind blowing that some museums apparently couldn't see the difference, with all their "ethics panels".

The monster didn't materialize thanks to the bunch being in a deep minority. Any wrong step and they aren't only defeated by the rest of the parties but will have to kiss goodbye to majority for a long long time. Even then, they just can't resist kicking the policies they don't like behind the door, when they think nobody's watching (e..g. in Friday afternoon releases), whether death penalty, or gun control. I'd still like Liberals to state a clear position on the issue to close it once and for all and move forward. Let Harper's bunch play their games, Canadians are smart people and will see through it (they actually do see through it, refusing to hand Conservatives anything but a very narrow minority. The bunch simply can't be trusted).

Again, at issue is not the freaky, disgusting or otherwise, nature of this "art". It's how the supplies for the "art" have been procured. Why there had to be some (many?) bodies originating from China and the like? I.e. places where legality of proceedings can in no way be assured. Why weren't 7,000 prospective volunteers (presumably, from the West) enough? Strange. And very suspicious. In any case, if a body is imported into the country for medical purposes, there's a lot of paperwork that goes with it. I see no reason why this "art" should fare any different. Just can't believe that these people got away with the "plastic model" dupe. What does it say about efficiency of our customs (and ethics panels that were created in some museums)? We won't allow import of some animal artifacts to prevent illegal hunting, but should they'd been molded into plastic models, that would fly too?

Please continue, why keep everybody intrigued when you have such a wealth of insight and original thought (as per your usual self), and even directly on the subject of discussion? Come one, don't be shy now, everybody's waiting!

For the record I think that both proposed legislations are wrong and should go straight into waste basket. All parties should state their positions on the issue clearly and unequivocally. The legal vacuum created by the Supreme court decision only encourages people like Steckle, etc to come up with their own creative interpretations. It's a waste of time. All parties that haven't already done so should publish their position on the issue, and put it to a vote if necessary. Now Harper's PC has a record of meddling with existing government policies and practices without open discussion or even stating their position. Take their recent games around death penalty abroad.

Should anybody ask questions, how they come to be that? Through a will of their own or perhaps less so? Or does the technique of branding them "plastic models" closes all questions? As far as I'm aware, not all body parts can be imported - and those that are, tightly controlled. Should the same standard be applied for these "models"? Was it?

June 21 ... 2006 Forgot to mention? Then, the policy of Liberal party on abortion, as well as other social issues is clearly expressed - unlike that of Harper Conservatives. One wonders, what it might be?

What's nonsense? This bill is nonsense? Then why hasn't it been "manipulated" out of the public's view? Before possible election? Nope - it wasn't manipulated because it's a prime example of what's Harpers' bunch is all about - i.e sneak in backward outdated social policies without ever openly admitting it.

OK - first I admit entirely that this country is as guilty of unchecked (by ethics) want for weird eye popping entertainment as the US. The text should have read "North American" and does not imply any Canadian superiority. I did a googe on Body worlds and could find only one other international destination (London). If anybody found others, I'd appreciate information. I'm OK with anybody performing any kind of freak art as long as it doesn't cause anybody else to hurt. It's obvious to anybody with two years of school (or at least should be) that no matter what creative formula impressarios of this "art" would like to employ, these aren't thousand year old "mummies", nor they are "plastic models" for anatomic educainment. They are bodies of our contemporaries, some visibly, of healthy and not very aged individuals, cooked in a certain way, and we'd be damn well make sure that we apply same standard as when a body is found (or brought into) this country to know who they are and how they died. I'm surprised that so many bought into it without thinking. Speaks volumes about this mass consumerism culture which, if anything, will some day bring an end to this civilization. I'm also very surprised and disappointed that both museums and border agencies have been duped by the "plastic model" this part definitely needs more investigation. Every "specimen" is a human body (or a part thereof) and the same standard should be applied to these exhibitions as when a body is brought into a country.

Yes - in the best traditions of Harper's sneaky conservatism, they'll never say the whole thing clearly and at once. The point is to sneak in the notion that a fetus is a "human being". To set a foothold i.e. You may ask, what's the point, from the "justice" perspective? A crime against a woman is already prosecuted under current criminal code? Such as quoted example of assault causing bodily harm, including termination of pregnancy. What is far less clear is all the creative interpretation that can be spun around this notion of "fetus" life. Such as charging doctors performing abortions maybe? Yeah I know private member bill doesn't speak for a policy of a party. But we all know that Harpers knows very well how to control his crowd. So if something like this happen, I find it hard to believe it to be an innocent insignificant coincidence. Maybe, they are testing waters? And the absense of policy is there on purpose - for the Canadians to not know what that policy might be? It appears that everything that was said in other threads is indeed true. The bunch has their deep rooted views, and agendas, on every single social development in which a progress was made in the past years. Death penalty, gun control, abortions, gay marriage. They won't say it, but the truth is trickling out.

That wisdom is of course essentially american. To hell with everything else, as long as I pay my buck. Of which Chinese appear to be good students. And they have so much of the "resource". Looks like new age of entertainment is dawning. Like nothing you've seen before!

Well, I never said we're completely immune to everything that's coming across the border, whether bodies, or guns, or economic prosperity - it's the longest (not guarded) one in world, after all. But certainly a reason for concern in this country, thanks for the information. For once, all specimen, individually, must be confirmed to have been donated voluntarily with explicit consent for public display. Secondly, if disproportionate number originate from some less transparent third world country(ies), we should be very, very concerned. That BTW was my impression from watching the part of ABC program I was able to see - most of shown specimen appeared to be of one particular ethnicity. I just can't think of one reason, why people in that part of the world would be more willing to donate their bodies than here in the West? And how can we be sure that supplies procured back there are indeed "voluntary"? Finally, I believe it was said in the program that bodies are also available for commercial order. I haven't yet found a transcript on the Web, and won't be quoted on that (the part I was listening to dealt with internet sites and mail orders, I cannot confirm whether in question were commercial orders or/and the exhibitions). That part would be my biggest concern, as we explicitly prohibit commercial trade in human organs and tissues, if I understand it correctly. If anybody caught that part, or found the transcript, clarifications will be highly appreciated.

I believe there's been a referendum, so there's little outside world can do. In such cases it's quite usual that bigger and more powerful player does not welcome the idea of separation, so for the outside world to insist on an "amicable resolution" wouldn't be realistic. A clear will of the majority of the permananent population expressed in a free vote should be reason enough. Of course everybody will now watch the same standard applied universally throughout, not on a case by case basis, depending on whether (and where) we like it, or not. Speaking of Canada, in the highly hypothetical situation it happens, there isn't any interest on either side to make the process confrontational. So if I'd had to bet on what would follow, I'd pick "business as usual for the next five years (at least)". But even in the worst case, the sides would just keep whatever they have and take all the time they need to negotiate a resolution. There just isn't anybody else in the world to do it for them.

As seen on ABC 20/20: Bodies. Plasticized real bodies (cadavers) seem to be coming into fashion south of the border. There're several exhibitions, and as I understand they are available for private order as well. Most of the bodies shown are from people of certain ethnicity, the idea being the they were donated them "for medical research". However many seem to be those of healthy people. Which raises many questions about the origins, arrangements around this business. It appears that a market for human cadavers is developing. And market is governed solely by the laws of profit and supply/demand. Any reason for concern here? P.S. I found it somewhat telling that the fad seems to be confined to the US. Only there (of the developed world) one can find crowds eager to jump at virtually anything as long as it's eye popping and everybody else does it. Then perhaps collectively question it; collectively condemn; experience collective redemption; and come out collectively fortified in their goodness; then go preaching it to the world.

Correct. Except when a mutual agreement can't be worked out, it's not a reason to keep the status quo. Some states (and one doesn't have to go far for an example) would never agree for any of their parts to separate. Strengthening confederation should mean making it meanigful and desirable for all provinces. Not making it into a prison to hold somebody / anybody against their will. Very obviously, the lofty standard of freedom and democracy has to be applied on a univesal basis. I.e., not "case by case" as some like to see it. I.e. where we can gain, voila freedom, democracy and self determination. Where we don't like it, respecting territorial sovereignty and constitution. Every state that recognizes Kosovo also sets a standard for itself, ie. acknowledges to respect democratically expressed will of any of its minorites / parts, up to separation. Anything less would of course be a gross hypocrisy.

Certainly, "moral" outrage about real or imaginary grievance may and does drive some individuals to irrational destructive action. This is a general phenomenon of human species and I fail to see how it relates to any particular religion or ethnicity. E.g the guy who shot 30 people in a college in the US is hardly a different case from somebody blowing themselves up in Baghdad. A different situation which is also very much worthy of consideration, is when actions causing human tragedy and death on a much higher scale of magnitude, are undertaken out of pure goodness.

In all reasonable approaches, if the majority has expressed their will clearly and the government of the day insists on separation, there isn't much reason to deny it. That's that would happen in Quebec should it vote for independence. There's no way in the world Canada can dictate it not to. The conditions of separation is a different story. Preferrably they would be settled in a negotiated partition like that of Chekhs and Slovaks. If not, it may drag on for a long time. But in any outcome, independence cannot be denied simply because one of the parties (which is usually the more powerful one) wouldn't agree to it.

Our "end of the alliance" is collective defense. What we're doing in Afghanistan, fighting with one faction of the people against another, however unpleasant from our point of view (and note that we may and have, found many, absolutely and democratically elected factions unpleasant before - such as e.g left in South America; Islamic opposition in Middle East (Egypt, Algeria); Hamaz in Palestine), can be called "defense" only with a major stretch of credibility. That's the main cause of the unease on the part of some allies, as well as public in the country. I.e, the nature of the mission. I only wish it was discussed openly and broadly before committing to the combat role. If would save you and your comrades much pain and frustration.

If we're talking about blowing billions on Afghanistan, or reasonable social policies like universal daycare, crime prevention, education, I'll pick #2 anytime.