Figleaf

Anyone who recognizes that the system was already stacked with liberal hacks. You mean 'Liberal', right? The appointment advisory committees were emplaced to change that, and the tory plan essential unravels that progress. Why would that be worse than the status quo where people with multiple prior convictions are sentenced to house arrest? A wrongful conviction of an innocent person is much worse that a light sentence for a guilty person. If the tories feel sentences are not harsh enough, as the government they have a legitimate and appropriate correction available to them through changing the criminal code. Tinkering with the impartiality of the bench is an irrresponsible and dishonest approach. What do any of the current board members have to contribute to the selection of judges outside their immediate expertise? The ostensible reason for adding a dedicated police member is to bring in that expertise. The government could simply have made a practice of appointing police-types into the existing federal slots, but chose instead to add an additional member. So, examining this new policy involves examining the role of the new members, not the existing members. The fact is police members have no useful expertise to bring to the selection of non-criminal judges and this reveals the faulty justification in adding a new spot specifically for them. The only utter stupidity I see is coming from people defending the system under the liberals and trying to claim that it was any different. How about the stupidity of persistently confusing liberals with Liberals?

Thank you Argus, JBG and scriblett for your recent replies, but I must confess to a bit of frustration with them, in that they don't seem to address the main element I was hoping for. I asked, as you know, two questions: what should the Palestinian side do, and what should they expect to acheive from that course of action. Your answers to the first part of the question are more or less on point, but perhaps I have failed to pose the second question clearly. I am asking, presuming Palestinians do as you suggest, what would that lead to for them in the context of their conflict with Israel? In this regard, I am hoping for a fairly specific response on various points, such as: Would they get a sovereign state of their own? Fully sovereign, or something less (e.g. security restraints)? How soon? What territory would it occupy? Would the right of return be recognized or some other redress substituted (or none)? What about water? Etc. The reason I am asking this, particularly of Israel's boosters, is to investigate whether there is really anything in it for the Palestinians to give up their struggle. Some have already suggested that they should be rolled into existing Arab countries, or that Israel should be granted the entire territory, and it strikes me that those variations (apart from being contrary to the expressed intentions of the international community and the spirit of international law) are impractical in terms of inducing Palestinians to consider peace an option. That is to say, why should they stop their struggle if the envisioned outcome is purely negative or inadequately beneficial for them? Or put another way, do the Palestinians have a real 'partner for peace'?

Approval?! Who in their right minds would approve of stacking the courts with tory (or any party's) hacks? If the voters of this country really approve of that, they deserve the social disaster it portends. (Don't we have enough wrongful convictions on the books already?) And even assuming police input is useful for criminal judges, what the hell do police representatives have to contribute to the selection of commercial, family, and administrative law judges? The utter stupidity of this tory attack on the justice system is an affront to any thinking person.

I have no idea. I read about it in the Glob and Maul. You think that's a good example of tory cleverness? First, it's a lie that they are appointing the 'best qualified'-- they changed the rules to prevent the committees from identifying candidates by their relative level of qualifications. Second, he goes off topic with the pointless reference to the Immigration Board. Third, what the previous government did is not the issue here. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd regard that response as anywhere close to useful or appropriate. Even if we accepted your premise, the tory measures are in no way a turn to the 'centre'. It's a turn to rightist ideology and a creeping police-state.

You're not paying close attention. "Stolen" in this context is a rhetorical description for the imposition of an unwanted state over the objections of the region's inhabitants. BTW, do you have any respones to the original questions of this topic? (See Post #1, above.) The regions inhabitants were Jews as well. And they made up a lesser part of the population but they also got a lesser part of the land. 1. Yes, there were Jews living in the region. A minority. The majority of residents were Arab, and opposed the division in principle. 2. The fact is that the Palestinians got NO land from the events of 1948. And what is your reply to the second question in my original post?

Why, he is just doing what all PMs have done, he is just honest enought to admit it. Actually, he is undoing the recent innovation of autonomous advisory committees. And he is certainly not 'admitting' it, and thus is not being honest on this point. The insertion of police officials into the selection of judges, and the removal of the voice of sitting judges in the selection process is clearly an ideology-driven gerrymandering of our legal system.

You're not paying close attention. "Stolen" in this context is a rhetorical description for the imposition of an unwanted state over the objections of the region's inhabitants. BTW, do you have any respones to the original questions of this topic? (See Post #1, above.)

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

Not when a majority votes for violence. They have democracy, they can vote for peace, I eagerly await their decision to do so. 1. The election of Hamas was very very recent, compared to the long history of denial of Palestinian self-determination and so cannot be used to justify that denial retroactively. 2. The election of Hamas is no justification for denying self-determination to the Palestinians anyway, according to international law. AND they were not elected by ALL Palestinians. 3. Had Palestinian rights not been trampled for the last 50 years, they probably never would have come to the point of electing Hamas as their government anyway. BTW, Geoffrey, how would you answer my original questions at the beginning of this topic?

Yes, but I don't see where your comments are coming from. The victim's families lawyer is unethical or something? Huh? I don't get what you don't get. Every time the media takes notice of Homolka (as recently) up pops this Danson guy to blither about how wicked she is. We all know she's wicked, so I hope he's not getting paid on the public teat (or indeed at all) for such a pointless activity.

Ummm... Who are you talking to? No, there was no 'country' called Palestine, there was a Roman province called Palestine. But regardless, the name of the area is totally irrelevant to the right of the people there to self-determination. BTW, I was hoping you would reply to my question in Post#4, above.

I highly doubt that even a promo squib really had grammar that badly garbled. And how could you hear the brackets around Haziz and Abdullah?

You need some more perspective, it seems. George Washington was a gun owner and a liberal. Indeed, although I don't own a gun at this time, it is because of my liberal views that I object to many forms of gun control.

Shall ... I...... type..... real..... slow..... for......you..... to................. understand ? Take your finger and point at the words in the second post while you read. If you do not understand that then no one can help. Although I know plenty of immigrants who would have understood perfectly what Kimmy posted. Not so suprising you can't. Yup, the immigrants are a problem eh Ernst ? YES Guyser, now ...read...my...typing....too......White....Bleeding....Hearts....are...the...pro lem....like....liberals....and ....socialists....like....you. Glad we got over that one Forrest Gump...I mean Guyser. PROUD TO BE A REFORMER, BUY A GUN AND PO A LIBERAL! :angry: Wow, that's got to be one of the stupidest posts I've seen around here in a long time. There should be some kind of award we can nominate people for.

Bush also said Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and active WMDs, but that was a lie. Bush is a known liar. Maybe some IEDs are coming from Iran, but we can't take Bush's word for it. Anyway, it would be sheer madness for Bush's discredited regime to launch attacks on Iran.

Proof? And anyway, so what if the Arab states did urge them to leave? Cite? An odd promise to make to someone in the midst of being driven out by militia gangs. "Full" in what sense? There were people living in an area called Palestine. The majority had deep roots there, many from at least 800AD. Caught in your own prevarications! Jordan was a modern creation. That makes no sense. What say could the Arab nations have in such a thing? The position of the Arab states vis a vis the refugees is 100% irrelevant to the rights of the refugees. Obviously Nasser's view was that the creation of Israel against the objections of the Arab inhabitants of the area (Palestinians) was an improper action. It being improper, he viewed it as necessary to unravel that wrong. BTW, I'm still hoping you'll answer the original questions of this thread.

Hey Charlie, what's with your habit of linking to people's profiles lately?

The region was known as Palestine since Roman times. Prior to the British Mandate it was part of the Ottoman Empire, which itself had conquered the territory and ruled it autocratically. The vast preponderance of them were culturally Arab. Irgun and other Zionist military forces were active in ethnic struggles prior to the declaration of Israel, and after the declaration of Israel many Palestinians were driven out. The Arabs had no particular political objection to the presence of Jews; they objected to having someone create a foreign state in their midst. Prove that.

Bullshit. Let's see the proof. WTF??? Did Israeli forces or did they not bomb airport in Beirut last year? Get your head straight, man.

You don't know the history properly. The British mandate was supposed to expire an the UN plan was to divide the land between the two. (Even though the Arab inhabitants never accepted the idea.) In the result, it didn't play out that way; Israel declared itself a state and no-one bothered to ensure the Palestinians got theirs. How so? They got a state.

But there is in 2007. But in the 40s Black Dog, how did Israel steal land from a nation that never existed. You're getting caught up in words again. Land wasn't 'stolen' from a 'nation'. A state (Israel) was imposed over the objections of the inhabitants of a region.

What's that got to do with the word they are called by?? Anyway, it's not all of a sudden. They were recognized as an identifiable group long ago. And their land was 'stolen'. BTW, how about answering my original questions?

Certainly true. The question in itself it not a problem.

I think the outlines of la queada's plan is becoming clear. They want to scare us into bankrupting ourselves with expensive but futile security measures.

You are being disingenous. Catchme didn't mean you should know anyone personally, but merely that it was surprising you hadn't even heard of any of the prominent people on the list.