jbg

Sounds good but that's facile. Palestine's predecessors repeatedly warred on Israel. Is Israel really going to commit suicide by allowing the creation of an independent nation that will inevitably butcher its citizens? That is not a serious argument.

The problem of course is that authorities wink at these practices in “multiculturally” separate communities. Whether it is political correctness or pragmatic fear of the police being under a barrage of attacks (think the shooting of police officers in Ferguson, Missouri) Canada and to a limited extent certain State and Federal authorities in the U.S. tolerate these practices. That’s called “jumping the shark.” The Charter is of somewhat recent vintage. Whether through construction or alteration it can be changed. Many unworkable parts of the U.S. Constitution have effectively been altered through construction. I see two problems: That an immigration ceremony is symbolic of the act of becoming a Canadian (or American); and That the photo with a head covering is useless for identification. When people come to a Western country they may have to make choices to shed certain religious traditions. In the U.S. in the famous “peyote” decision the Supreme Court found that people couldn’t use a substance similar to marijuana in furtherance of their Native American religion. Using ridiculous examples does not further your argument. Clearly mistakes are made. Even a Charter wouldn’t have prevented that horror. The First Amendment didn’t in the U.S.

He is for a Palestinian state that is non-belligerant, not armed and that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state.

jbg isn't necessarily talking about Canada. I was talking about both our countries. Thanks Moonlight.

What changed from when this was easy?

The issue isn't the fine distinctions among garb that people where to set themselves apart from society. The issue is, if they wanted not to be part of society why they came here or why they're staying. We do not have to conform to what immigrants want. They're the arrivers, not us.

I am not a right-winger. Is there something liberal about honor killings? I missed what part of them advances the cause. None. I don't write in the Canadian language. I am not a Canadian.

OK, what would be a "broader" approach? You seem to have no truck with nuclear energy in Japan and plenty of tolerance for it in Iran. Go figure.

That doesn't let you break up quotes to respond in segments.

Great idea to lift sanctions and allow Iran to go nuclear. </sarcasm> The question is do they turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot, or just Israel? Obama's real bright on this one. Not.

I wasn't sure whether to post this with Netanyahu, fracking, or immigration. Today I sat down, penned, and posted on Congresswomen Nita Lowey’s website about recent Obama administration policies. This letter speaks to my serious concern about the direction he is pursuing as President. His actions in so many areas are perverse and take aim at U.S. interests. At best they meet fringe agendas. At worst they're aimed at wrecking our country. Is this what he meant by "change"? An Open Letter to My Congressional Representative Regarding President Obama’s Policies Dear Representative Lowey: As a loyal, lifetime Democratic and member of the Jewish faith, I am watching with alarm our President's actions/antics concerning Israel's recent election. Currently, a very solid majority of U.S. Jews vote for the Democratic Party. Barack Obama's apparent intent to force Israel to accept both a nuclear Iran and indefensible borders cause me concern. It is entirely possible that Mr. Obama will seriously wound the Democratic Party by taking positions antithetical to U.S. as well as Israeli security. I understand Mr. Obama's desire to be considered a good and just man, and a world citizen. His oath of office and job is undying loyalty the United States. I believe he is grievously falling down on this job. Israeli policy is not the only area giving cause for alarm. His energy policies similarly show allegiance to either foreign interests or at best concerns of fringe groups. His determination to endlessly defer decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline appears aimed at pressuring a U.S. ally, Canada, on its environmental policies. It is not his place to be pressuring a fellow democracy on its policies, particularly when they involve a speculative concern on "climate change." U.S. interests are best served by having energy exports contribute to our balance of trade. Further, his unilateral decision to cease enforcing U.S. immigration law causes concern as well. His duty is not to Third World children; it is to citizens of the U.S. and localities impacted by the unfunded mandate of educating children, many of whom arrive without parents. In short, President Obama is pressing a "world" agenda at the expense of the country he has taken an oath of office to lead. This may persuade me, as well as other lifelong, loyal Democratic to "reassess" (to borrow Administration nomenclature on their intentions with regard to Israeli policy) their political home in the Democratic Party.

Here goes (showed on screen but not when posted) Will e-mail

I'm having the same problem on Firefox.

Thank you for the kind words. Stupid people don't get two degrees from MIT magna c*m (non-curse words often filtered for context) laude.

While a citizen is shooting at a police officer, at that moment, he or she is a criminal. It's up to the courts to sort it out later. Are you saying that if I point a gun at you I'm not committing a crime since no court has intervened?

I'm in suspense. What parts? Does freedom of religion for example include the right to conduct honor killings?

You don't believe that criminals should be able to combat the police on equal terms? How racist. How reactionary.

It is certainly not.OK, you win. What parts of C51 do you find objectionable?

So, Kinsella has now turned on the Liberal Party. Is dog biting man news?

The West and not just Israel are the protagonists here. You are basically saying it's OK with you if the Jewish State is the first victim, maybe they'll just leave us alone. We learned, on September 11, 2001 that is hardly true. Remember Israel's PM at that time was Labor.

I agree with that part of your post. The Arabs (and Iran) are going to get one flavor of hardliner or another as long as either poses an existential threat to Israel as a Jewish state.

I literally don't know what you're talking about. If the Arabs wanted peace they could have had it. The Arabs need first and foremost to stop teaching their children hate and murder. How can Israel accept any diplomatic solution that puts the Arabs one inch closer to their dream of annihilating Israel? Why is Obama's partisan desire to rival Nixon's "accomplishments" of surrender, err, peace or detente, with China and Russia? Why, because some mad Iranian mullahs want to incinerate their enemies. Or at best make it logistically and politically impossible to restrain them? The Obama/G5+1 negotiations are insane. Iran is not about to give up its fundamental objectives. There are two "elephants in the corner": The Iranians don't need nuclear energy; and The West is far more powerful and does not need to be pushed around. Netanyahu, for all his faults, at least talks like an adult. Others talk baby talk. Summer camp counselors can tell their 6 year old charges what a better world it would be without war. It is not an adult proposal to simply lay down arms when we all know what will happen when we do.

I'll try that joke out next time I'm in a Niagara bar debating some ignoramus who thinks we know nothing about Canada.

The New York Sun asks, in an editorial (link to article, excerpts below) “(w)ill Obama Concede” to Netanyahu. Obama essentially campaigned for Herzog, Netanyahu's opponent. A funny thing happened on the way to the forum; the IIsraeli electorate didn't enjoy foreign guidance. It may be too soon to say who won the election in Israel but it’s not too soon to say who lost — President Obama. The President threw his personal prestige, and that of his office, into undermining and defeating Prime Minister Netanyahu. Acolytes of the president were thronging to an electioneering operation called V15 in the hopes of delivering the premiership to anyone but the leader of the Likud. ************************ More broadly though, it looks like what happened is that a hardheaded electorate, in a vibrant democracy, endorsed two broadly centrist factions. Mr. Netanyahu of Likud and Isaac Herzog of the Zionist Union both were buoyed by that instinct. So, as we see it, no matter what happens, Mr. Obama’s attempt to paint Mr. Netanyahu as a marginal, rejectionist figure is shown for what it is — a mark of disrespect for Israel itself. He should have stood on the sidelines. Will Mr. Obama concede his error? From prior experience with Israel's actions, they have something in mind. I was right in 1976 when an Israeli friend was upset that Israel was negotiating with the hijackers who took the Air France plane, via Tripoli, to Uganda. We all know what happened next. The Israeli people ratified Netanyahu's hard line both on Iran and on Obama. I expect that Israel will strike, either covertly or overtly, against Iran's program. Netanyahu, in my opinion called the election to gain such approval, much the way Mulroney made the 1988 election a referendum of CAFTA.

No, the gas chamber and the Einsatzgruppen. And Gulags. And in more recent times French CarBeQues.