WestViking

Nonsense. When the UN set up the State of Israel in 1948, it also created a state of Palestine. The Jews agreed to the UN plan despite many misgivings. The Arabs rejected the UN plan claiming they were going to get rid of the Jews rather than set up a separate nation. The Middle East has gone steadily downhill from there. The 'desperations and hopelessness' of Palestinians is self-induced.

I generally agree. But for sports in particular Geoffrey makes a good point. There is an extent to which participation needs to be encouraged, even at the expense of victory. That changes at a certain age, obviously. Perhaps 14, as Geoffrey suggests. Participating in team sports is a reward in itself. Health benefits are a plus. The kid who grows up expecting a reward for getting off the couch is unlikely to learn enough discipline to make it to work on time or avoid taking 'sick' days because getting up and ready was a chore that morning.

Why reward kids for simply showing up? Somewhere they are going to have to learn to accept that society does not reward people for breathing. One problem I see is that there seems to be no effort to teach children that many endeavours are for self-satisfaction, for meeting personal goals and to improve personal bests. We don't spend our lives on stage, performing for an audience, nor can we expect accolades for every effort we make.

The BQ/PQ have simply run out of relevance. They have not delivered the utopia they have promised for three decades and are unlikely to ever be able to live out their fantasies. They are done. Stick in a fork.

Following the constitutional split of powers would be a good start. Federal would entail: Aboriginal Affairs Air Transport Banking Bankruptcy and Insolvency. Broadcasting Census and Statistics Citizenship Copyrrights Criminal Law Currency and Coins Employment Insurance Federal Borrowing Federal salaries Federal Taxation Ferries between provinces Fisheries Interest Interprovinvial roads Legal Tender Marriage and Divorce Military and Defence Military Hospitals Navigation and Shipping Patents Postal Service Prisons Public Debt and Property Railways Trade and Commerce Water Navigation Aids Weights and measures Items not on the Provincial list.

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose. Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation. In the decades immediately prior to WW-I almost all of North Africa or the Middle East if you prefer was under Ottoman (Turkish) rule. At the end of WW-I the powers who won decided to strip the Ottoman empire and split the area into two roughly equal portions, one under British rule, the other under French rule. So it continued from 1919 to 1945. During WW-II, the British promised tracts of what was then called the Palestine territory to both the Arabs and the Jews for different reasons. The British solved their problem at the end of WW-II by turning over the territory to the newly formed United Nation. The UN in turn created separate sectors of the old British protectorate into Israel and Palestine, subject to the approval of the respective groups. The Jews approved of the UN plan and settled into their designated territory. The Arabs refused the UN plan and declared they were going to eliminate Israel and have been trying to do so since. The whole Middle East has been partitioned along purely political lines created by mostly European diplomats ignoring traditional tribal territories. To make matters worse, many tribes were nomadic and claimed a right to different lands during different seasons. The Middle East is a real, live exercise in modern multiculturalism. The area is a seething caldron of isolationist, separate tribes who compete fiercely with one another and wage feuds dating back centuries. The tribes ignore both the geographic and political boundaries created by others and as in past engage in conflict whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Maintaining that one tribe or another has some sort of inherent right to a territory none of them have been able to rule except by brute force for over a century, torn apart by two world-wide conflicts and filled with tribal and political intrigues is a pure flight of fancy. Democratic Israel is a notable and recent exception and for that, she is criticized. The Middle East is currently in chaos, sundered by roving groups of fanatics bent on gaining control over the region by undermining whatever authorities are in place to create a dream world of Islamic might. Even the fanatics cannot gain much ground as their followers often ignore direction to engage in personal and family feuds rather than work to a common objective.

On the contrary - read the Charter, Sections 1 and 33: 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). Five year limitation (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Hillier committed the unpardonable (to the Liberals) sin of telling the truth. Our military withered under Liberal rule, ill equipped and undermanned. Chretien committed troops to Afghanistan and they arrived via rented transport in green uniforms that stood out in the desert as there was no desert clothing, without adequate body armor and a host of other equipment problems. Just because the liberal / left does not want to hear about it does not make Hillier a shill for anyone.

Hardly - but your definitions leave a lot to be desired: Moral relativism is associated with a thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Exclusiveness is the opposite of your definition; selectiveness and restrictiveness are synonyms. You may mean inclusiveness. Moral relativism is used as a club against those one disagrees with - it is rare for anyone to claim moral relativism. The Church as guardian of Christian morality is hardly open to moral relativism; one cannot sin a little bit. If you sleep with your neighbour's wife or daughter, it is hardly relevant that he somehow wronged you in the past. You are not only morally wrong, you have brought innocent people into a quarrel they had no part in. Cultures that allow wife-beating exist but their existence does not make their behaviour morally correct. I do not have to accept that cruelty to another person is allowed or to be condoned no matter what justification they may put forward. You're absolutely correct about my incorrect use of exclusiveness, I'm surprised nobody else pointed that out. Moral-relativism is worded differently, but the essence of it is the same. As for the rest of your post, I appreciate the input though I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of it to my argument. Unless of course you're agreeing with me. Moral relativism is not really morality at all in any ordinary sense of the term. Moral relativism is an effort to escape a moral code, usually the generally accepted moral code of Christian democracies. Homosexuality and lesbianism are contrary to the Christian moral code which is inconvenient to liberals; hence they preach a mantra of tolerance and inclusion in an effort to evade the moral code accepted by society as a whole. The problem with moral relevancy is that it engenders chaos; if each citizen adopts a separate moral code in accordance with personal beliefs, we wind up with no social standard at all. Morality and ethics are deeply intertwined, and a chaotic moral code results in similar chaos in ethics. Ethics and morality are the basis of trust. If you cannot trust a person to follow a conventional code of ethics and morality you can afford to trust no one and we are well on our way to a return to barbarism where leadership is based on brute strength and the capacity for viciousness. Ethical and moral codes can be misused and history is resplendent with examples of abuse and misuse; however, moral relativism is not a solution or a substitute for the compassion needed to make ethical and moral codes work. Ethical and moral codes have to be tempered by the principle of 'doing no harm' to be effective. Most people forget that the Ten Commandments were given to the tribes of Israel while they wandered in the wilderness. The rules were (and are) intended to allow people to live in peace without turning to violence as a means of addressing hurts imposed by fellow tribesmen. Some people feel that the Commandments are not relevant to modern life, but the requirement to respect others and their property is as relevant today as it ever was. For the record, I am not a keen proponent of all church teaching or of organized religion. That said I am more worried that people who want to shun moral codes as "religious teachings" are only partly right; some churches go overboard in adding to moral codes and forget the 'do no harm' principle. However a secular society without a code of ethics and morality is not a civilized society at all. Civilization requires adoption of social standards and values which allows citizens to live in peace, safety and security. Moral relativism undermines the foundations of civilization.

Hardly - but your definitions leave a lot to be desired: Moral relativism is associated with a thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Exclusiveness is the opposite of your definition; selectiveness and restrictiveness are synonyms. You may mean inclusiveness. Moral relativism is used as a club against those one disagrees with - it is rare for anyone to claim moral relativism. The Church as guardian of Christian morality is hardly open to moral relativism; one cannot sin a little bit. If you sleep with your neighbour's wife or daughter, it is hardly relevant that he somehow wronged you in the past. You are not only morally wrong, you have brought innocent people into a quarrel they had no part in. Cultures that allow wife-beating exist but their existence does not make their behaviour morally correct. I do not have to accept that cruelty to another person is allowed or to be condoned no matter what justification they may put forward.

After all Martin lost the 2006 election due to his uncompromising honesty, exemplary leadership and articulate clear policies. The people did not vote for him due to their innate stupidity.

No, you come aboard hurling insults, ask to "GIVE ME A BREAK" and take umbrage when I verbally take up your offer. Good day, and good riddance.

Personal attacks are against the forum policy. Reported again. If I attack you, there will be no doubt about it. Your unwarranted sense of chivalry is irrelevant; you chose to butt into an exchange between others. Your uneven fairness is noted without complaint. I can stand on my own two feet.

Any point you were trying to make is lost in the abuse you make on the poster. Reported. Re-read the post I responded to; then crawl back in your hole troll!

Not having permission [consent] for sex is called rape. Teens engaged is sex with peers do not ask permission from parents. Got it, or are you too thick to read the obvious? What a complete display of Ignorance. You are comparing a blow job between a 15 and 17 year old to stealing a car? Honestly I don't know what to say other then you have some really screwed up morals. Furthermore, at 17 you should theoretically be attracted to people your own age...and that is a trend to continue. As an example, I picked up my old elementary school year books and looked at a picture of a girl I was attracted to in grade 7. Do I find that picture at all attractive now? Absolutely not. It is a completely un-scientific view you are espousing to suggest that being attracted to young children when you are young means that you will be attracted to young children when you are old. It shows your absolute ignorance on these topic. Please give your head a shake. Focusing on an improbable situation as justification for sticking your head in the sand and ignoring teens who need guidance in dealing with intimate relationships is reprehensible. Casual sex is neither rewarding nor fulfilling. The notion that all teens spend their high school years screwing one another over is a fantasy you have obviously bought into. You kow how you do that? You talk to your children, develop a relationship with your children and then you explain your views. Why does the government have to be your Nany? If raising the age of consent will not stop teen sex. Then why bother, you are still free to tell your children that sex is an evil thing and will cause blindness...go right ahead. But most human beings will find it utterly disturbing to send a 17 year old to jail for 11 years over a blow job with a 15 year old. I am a father and a grandfather with some darn fine children and grandchildren. I have no fear of laws that set out community standards that my peers adhere to. You have made no case for opposing laws that protect teens from predators. Why? Bleating about the plight of some 17 year old getting it on with a 15 year old does not cut any ice with me. A great deal of social angst is rooted in people who refuse to keep their zippers done up when they know better. No pretending that teenager having sex with another teenager, means that said teenager will continue to have sex with teenagers even at age 44. Is nonsense. That is irresponsible. That is Unscientific. That is disgusting. Tell that to the pedophiles. My point is that teens who cannot or will not try to control their sexual urges are unlikely to improve over time and will continue to abuse partners in adult life. Spousal (partner) abuse is not spontaneous; it is a learned behaviour. 11 years in prison over a blow job is not long term harm? Why would we throw a teen in jail for having sex with another person of the same age? That also causes long term harm. Your fixation on this 17 year old, draconian application of law and improbable prison sentence suggests that you have a very guilty conscience. Even if your scenario could come to pass, you miss the obvious benefit of having his peers much more aware of the value of keeping their peckers in their pants. Oh I get it, in order to avoid negative psychological impacts on teenagers, we should throw them in jail for having sex...yeah. Bullshit. No, you don't 'get it' in any way shape or form and won't until you mature yourself. ------ No problem - which arm? You're the idiot opposing age of consent law to avoid having randy teens called up on the carpet and thus giving pedophiles and predators wide open access to Canadian teens. Do you know anything about human trafficking or are you just spouting off without a clue? Hundreds of Canadian girls are dragged into the sex trade every year through promises of 'modeling careers' and big money. Once they are shipped away from home and family, they are assaulted, raped, possible hooked on drugs and turned out to service customers in a bawdy house. Each year a number of them turn up dead in a ditch somewhere either due to an overdose or because they fall out of favour with their pimp. Others are lured into the pornography trade and get to 'do it' in front of video cameras - their 'pay' is not getting killed by the operators. Check out the newspapers in any major urban centre and see how may times young children are enticed into a passing car or van so that some youngsters can 'follow their urges'. When the gang is done, they toss out what is left of a young girl with a ruined life and no self-esteem or feeling of security ever again. Your useless pantywaist sniveling about age of consent and teen sex allows this crap to continue unabated. You bleat about laws to catch the "bad guys" but offer nothing whatever as to what laws to do so would be effective. If you don't have solutions, have the decency to STFU and stand aside as the grownups are going to solve these problems.

The age of consent should be raised to 18 which is the age of majority in most provinces. Teens who engage in sex with peers are not known to ask permission from anyone. The 'teenagers will engage in sex' argument is a non-starter. Teenagers will also drink alcohol, use drugs and steal cars. That does not make these actions right or mean that society has to tacitly condone such behaviour. The argument that we will be jailing teens for experimenting is sex is also a non-starter. If a 17 year old cannot maintain enough self-control to avoid sex with a 15 year old minor, what stops him from the same engaging in the same behaviour at 24 or 44? Part of maturing is to learn self-control. Why should teen sex be exempt? Please explain how this improves our society. Raising the age of consent will not stamp out teen sex. That is not the idea. However, intimate relationships are involved and can be devastating to some. There is no reason society cannot send a signal to teens that intimate relationships go a bit deeper than scratching an itch and require caution and prudence. Pretending that teen sex is an insolvable problem is nonsense. Claiming that teens should be free to do whatever their hormones leads them to is irresponsible. Some teens will engage in actions that will bring harm to themselves. That is a fact of life. However we must do what we can to minimize the instances and allow as many of our teens as possible to live long, happy and healthy lives. Taking a cautious approach to sex will not result in long-term harm to our teens. Pregnancy, STDs, HIV and AIDS can result in permanent damage or premature death. Why would we not encourage teens to be very careful in choosing a partner to engage in sex with? Why would we not warn teens of the potential psychological and health risks?

In our amazing left / liberal / libertarian society, we are far more concerned over teenagers learning to drive than teenagers who are learning to deal with emotions, hormones, sex and the rocky roads of interpersonal relationships. We realize that many teens lack the maturity to be given a cart blanch right to drive, but at the same time fail to realize they lack the maturity to spontaneously reproduce. I am thoroughly tired of the argument that teens will experiment with sex so there is no way to stop them. Some will and others won’t. We will never hear about responsible teens that listen to sex education lessons and take precautions to avoid disease and pregnancy. We certainly want to hear about and deal with adult predators who prefer to entice teens into sexual experiment rather than risk rejection by their peer group. Have we become too busy to tell teens that intimate relationships are a minefield of potential hurts and possible long-term harm? How will they know to deal with intimate relationships with caution proportionate to the potential consequences if we don’t tell them that some people never manage to find the ‘right’ partner, others suffer for years from mistreatment or rejection, some are infected with unsavoury or life threatening diseases and spousal abuse is very real and all too common? In comparison learning to drive responsibly is rather simple. I have never heard of a driver picking up an STD from her vehicle or being rejected, beaten up or murdered by her car. We need to raise the limit for legal consent to sex to age 18. I think it is ludicrous to allow teens who have restricted driving privileges and cannot legally buy a beer or cigarettes to lawfully agree to participate in intimate relationships that can seriously harm or kill them. Love may conquer all, but unchecked lust can and does do a lot of damage. WV Low age of consent luring pedophiles to Canada: report CBC News December 19, 2006 Canada is becoming a destination for child sex tourism because of its relatively low age of sexual consent, according to an international report released on Tuesday. The Global Monitoring Report on the Status of Action against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, prepared by a Bangkok-based children's advocacy group, says Canada must take action to protect its children from foreign pedophiles. It urges Canada to raise the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14 and to make the national sex offender registry retroactive, as well as more easily accessible. The Harper government has already introduced a bill that would raise the age of consent to 16. The report, by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, or ECPAT International, urges Canada to adopt 17 recommendations in all. Det.-Const. Paul Krawczyk, an undercover police officer with the Toronto Police Service's child exploitation unit, said he is well aware that the relatively low age of consent is a draw for pedophiles from other countries. He said the age of consent is a topic discussed online. "I've been in pedophile chat rooms that discuss Canada having such a low age of consent that they tell other pedophiles to travel to Canada because of that. Sixty-year-olds engaging in sexual activities with 14- or 15-year-olds is not appropriate, and we need to change that." Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews said the Conservative government is trying to amend the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent to 16 because it recognizes the current age is a problem. Bill C-22, which would raise the age of consent, passed second reading on Oct. 30. "Americans and other pedophiles are coming north to Canada because of our very lax age-of-protection laws," Toews said. "In fact, Americans are being prosecuted under American sex tourism laws for coming to Canada and having sexual relations with children over 14. It's ironic in Canada we can't prosecute them, and yet Americans coming here and taking advantage of our children, when they go back, can face criminal prosecutions and lengthy imprisonment." New Democratic party MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis said increasing the age of consent is a good move, but the government should also strengthen laws to prosecute pedophiles and develop a better system for tracking convicted sex offenders. "If a country is measured by the extent to which it protects children, Canada should hang its head in shame," she said. ECPAT International was set up to assess the progress made by 122 countries on implementing the measures they pledged to work toward 10 years ago in Stockholm at the First Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. A second congress was held in Japan in December 2001. Under Canadian law, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or situations where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent is 14 years.

I agree that more attention needs to be focussed on Tibet and the Sudan, but nobody is going to start arming nukes over them. The Middle East, on the other hand... And this has to be said. We have a nation of people (Israel) that has suffered tremendously and is carrying out an illegal process of ethnic cleansing to its own advantage. If the Israelis have suffered so much, how can they inflict the same fate on someone else? Is it really so important to take Judea and Sumeria? Israel is not looking too good here.... Your grasp of Middle East history is pathetic. At the end of world war one (WW-I), the British were given control over a huge tract of North Africa. During World war two (WW-II) British diplomats screwed up properly, promising roughly the same areas of their 'protectorate' 1) to Arab tribes in return for support in fighting against the Axis; and 2) to the Jews who had been butchered by the same Axis due to British wrongheaded policies of appeasement. Bluntly, they were paling both ends against the middle to save their own asses. When WW-II ended with the Axis broken, the Brits were caught in a diplomatic disaster and dumped the problem on the newly minted United Nations. The UN turned out to be far more inept than the Brits. The UN drew up plans for independent Jewish and Arab states, The Jews said OK and the Arabs responded with a middle finger salute. Fast forward to today. Following five unsuccessful Arab led wars to destroy Israel; the Arabs have resorted to ongoing violent harassment. North Africa, commonly refereed to as the Middle East is plagued by Tribal feudalism. Anyone not belonging to my Tribe is an enemy to be destroyed on sight. This rule is somewhat modified by a codicil that provides that Tribes may call a truce to commonly fight any outsider; however whenever the outsider shows any sign of weakness, the Tribal wars resume. You get the news daily. Afghanistan and Iraq Tribes would prefer to kill off one anther then to fight coalition forces. Given the opportunity of freedom from outside forces, rather than forming an inclusive democracy, they use the opportunity to dredge up centuries-old grievances as an excuse to murder their neighbours. Ultimately, Israel is no more and no less than an excuse for temporary and meaningless excuses for truces to fight a common enemy until they can return to settle Tribal conflicts. Without Tribal chiefs who have amassed sufficient money and arms to act as brutal dictators, the Middle East would collapse into anarchy in a heartbeat. Bluntly put, without some outside influence, these savages would rather quickly annihilate one another. If free world nations have to withdraw from the Middle East, they have to cordon off the area and allow no one in or out. In less than a decade, the Arabs will sue for peace and ask free world nation to settle Arab differences under the laws they currently shun and despise.

Why, because it's an opinion you don't share? You're calling lots of people trolls or flame-baiters lately. Global Warming is not an "opinion". It is reality. I'm sorry if you can't or aren't able to see it, but we're not talking about what someone's favorite color is here. Global warming is real - so is the sunrise and the moon. We chop down a few million acres of forest, turn thousands of square miles of prairie grasslands into farmlands, build huge cities that consume horrific amounts of energy and produce untold amounts of heat and expect our weather to remain stable. Our "solution" is to create the Kyoto accord / protocol which took over a decade and a half to agree on and then represents barely 55% of polluting nations and think that by going back to 1990 emission levels we can really make a difference to global warming. Far too little - far too late. If man-made carbon emissions were the sole cause of global warming, the eco-freaks might have a case, but they have no idea how much under ocean volcanoes or other natural occurrences are contributing to ocean current warming for example.

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah. How do you know the bible is not a work of fiction? You base your beliefs on a novel, a book written by human beings. Soddom and Gomorrah is a story, a tale, like Stephen King's books. The Bible is indeed novel as the works of men is concerned. I know of no other history of religious belief that has withstood the tests of time and doubt to anywhere near the same extent. Christians, that is believers in Christ and His teachings, drove the civilization of Europe and the continents of North and South America. That is quite an accomplishment for an alleged work of fiction.

I don't believe even jbg believes all Muslims want to kill Jews. Nor do most people believe that any religion other than Christianity is evil. What all Muslims think is irrelevant to the situation that Israel faces. The Muslim terrorist group Fattah while under Arafat's rule, the Muslim terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah have all tried their best to kill as many Jews as they can. Fattah, Hamas and Hezbollah have been and are supported by Arab nations in the Middle East. Iran and Syria are overt supporters of Hezbollah, for example. Most Middle East Arab states are populated by Arabic tribes who mistrust one another and live together peacefully only under virtual dictatorships that rule with military and police force and might. Iraqi tribes, aided and abetted by imported terrorists, have seized the opportunity to settle old scores rather than trying to rebuild a nation. Each tribe demands security from its interim government while feeling free to lay waste to members of other local tribes. The one thing that seems to get Middle East Arabs to work together even briefly is to foment hatred of Israel and Jews while dreaming of one day eliminating the Jewish state altogether and forcing any Jew who does not instantly convert to Islam into the sea. In the meantime covert attacks on Israel continue. The concept of Middle Eastern Muslims as peaceful people is not supported by the history of the region or by current events.

If someone starts a question in a deposition with "is it possible" I object to form, saying "anything's possible". Alright then, I'll try again. Do you accept that Israel has been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and do you lend any credence to those accusations whatsoever? Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are self-styed leftist shills unworthy of serious considerations by rational and sober people.

It is not possible for the widespread Aboriginal band corrution we have heard about for decades without some assistance from the bureaucracy and government. Birds of a feather .......................

Yeah, Adscam and Peppergate to name just two incidents were of no consquence internationally. Neither was his admonition to G-8 leaders to do it his way and follow Canada in running an economy. Chretien, by the way, could speak in very articulate and clear English when he chose to do so he often did at dinner speaking engagements. The personna he projected when in front of national audiences was quite different.

Well its a goddamn good thing I suggested nothing of the sort. Sure you did. You might not have outright suggested we make it illegal, but you're suggesting people should self-censor, and there's more than a hint in there that if they won't do that someone ought to do it for them. Why get excited? Muslims attending colleges in North America have learned that it is a mortal sin to offend anyone and if they are offended, the culprit must be dragged in front of a Human Rights Tribunal and forced into eternal penance for his political incorrectness. Since we are not quick enough to deal with the Pope to suit them, they will hold a riot or few to pass the time while they wait. The threats issued are intended to spur us on into doing what is politically correct.