Figleaf

I have reported both of these comments to the moderator. What for?

That's totally unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of Canada is totally free to pack their bags and seek a new home.

You are profoundly confused on this matter. "De facto" is by definition not a legal status. The difficulty is not your vocabulary, it's the insubstantiality of your argument. ??? That's what I've been saying, and you've been saying something else. Here we go again. I'm perfectly aware of that, and I've already commented on it on this very thread. There are two things to bear in mind: (1) UN General Assembly resolution don't have the force of law, (2) the Arab states sought to challenge in the Int'l court the authority of the UN to create states against the wishes of a regions inhabitants but the case didn't proceed. Such authority was certainly open to question, and using it was without precedent. No. Resolution 181 specified that the Mandate would end on August 1. You've quoted it, why not be honest about its contents? Israel's unilateral declaration effectively ended the Mandate in fact, but not by legal means. The General Assembly, without the Security Council did not have legal authority to establish any state. Resolution 181 alone has no legal significance. Israel's unilateral self-creation, then had no foundation in law. Indeed. And this rule would have been a key part of the Arab case against Resolution 181. Noooo. It should have protected the Palestinian people against the 'alteration' represented by the establishment of Israel. That's nonsense. You don't create de facto anything under law. It's a contradiction in terms. (1)They were prevented from returning by Israel. (2) Absence doesn't create grounds for confiscation anyway. I've done that already for the things you've gotten wrong.

You are profoundly confused on this matter. "De facto" is by definition not a legal status. The difficulty is not your vocabulary, it's the insubstantiality of your argument. ??? That's what I've been saying, and you've been saying something else. Here we go again. I'm perfectly aware of that, and I've already commented on it on this very thread. There are two things to bear in mind: (1) UN General Assembly resolution don't have the force of law, (2) the Arab states sought to challenge in the Int'l court the authority of the UN to create states against the wishes of a regions inhabitants but the case didn't proceed. Such authority was certainly open to question, and using it was without precedent. No. Resolution 181 specified that the Mandate would end on August 1. You've quoted it, why not be honest about its contents? Israel's unilateral declaration effectively ended the Mandate in fact, but not by legal means. The General Assembly, without the Security Council did not have legal authority to establish any state. Resolution 181 alone has no legal significance. Israel's unilateral self-creation, then had no foundation in law. Indeed. And this rule would have been a key part of the Arab case against Resolution 181. Noooo. It should have protected the Palestinian people against the 'alteration' represented by the establishment of Israel. That's nonsense. You don't create de facto anything under law. It's a contradiction in terms. (1)They were prevented from returning by Israel. (2) Absence doesn't create grounds for confiscation anyway. I've done that already for the things you've gotten wrong.

I wonder what you are thinking to convey with this 'de facto' stuff. It simply means 'of fact' as contrasted against 'of law'. In other words "de facto" means 'outside the law'. This can't be unexpected, since as we all know, conquest is illegal under modern international law. With due respect Figleaf this as you call it "de facto stuff" is not what you stated it means nor is your comment that conquest is illegal under modern international law. Well, Rue, until/unless you can show different, I think I'll just stick with the facts. Sorry, Rue but I don't even understand how your challenge here differs from what I already do. I am happy to acknowledge that you're not a total extremist. But still, many of your comments seem to not apply to the essential relevant facts and appeal to chauvinistic Israeli positions. For example, your reference to 'historical claims' is irrelevant to modern international law, and so, when your raise that point, one must wonder what you think it's supposed to show. Entirely true. But there are core facts which no interpretation will change, two in particular -- (1) Israel was created against the interest and wishes of the bulk of people in the affected territory. (2) Israel is holding territory against the rights and interests of the Palestinians. I'm unaware of having disputed that. The remainder of your post is a recitation of historical points (some disputed) which, in themselves, don't add up to anything. What do you suggest I should take from your comments on the Balfour declaration. Israel decidedly did 'steal' land from the Paletinian refugees who fled in 1948. The state of Israel is arguably created on 'stolen' land, though it is open to interpretation as to who stole it. Israel's settlements on occupied land post 1967 are also unquestionably illegal. I have no idea what you think the existence of Jordan is supposed to tell me about the rights and wrongs of Israel.

Many of us feel that siding with a western democracy over vicious, brutal, misogonystic dictatorships is the moral thing to do. Your comment is strange because the choice under discussion here isn't between Israel and its neighboring dictatorships, but between Israel and the oppressed stateless Palestinians. A corrupt. self-serving, highly politicised judiciary universally panned as dishonest and incompetent? Well, you're clearly in the base-constituency, but most people don't think the judiciary is dishonest, or even incompetent. (Your claim of 'universally' is obvious nonsense.) Oh you mean like, when the Liberals howl at them about not meeting environmental targets the Tories shouldn't point out that the LIberals spent 13 years lining their pockets instead of making any attempt to live up to the accords they had signed and the love of the environment they professed? Yes. I mean voters don't care to hear about the tories resentments ... we want the government to concern itself with policies today, not policies yesterday. You mean like the liberals lied ... I suppose you mean the Liberals? Anyway, you're doing it right there ... blithering about the Liberals when the point is the government tories. Yes, it's not like they're citizens or voters or have any rights to be represented or make their wishes known. Lock them. Hell, shoot them. So we can all live in a socialist paradise. I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that the mainstream of Canada doesn't want the policies that the socon special interest group wants. When it comes to winning elections in democracies, it is the interests of the mainstream, not special interests, which will drive victories. Are you attempting to suggest differently? Didn't the Liberals question the Alliance's patriotism for wanting them to clear up their position on Quebec seperatism? Didn't they question Harper's patriotism for not breathlessly echoing the cry of how he loved Canada? There you go about the Liberals AGAIN. If you want to discuss them, why not start a thread about it? Anyway, I don't recall the things you refer to.

I wonder what you are thinking to convey with this 'de facto' stuff. It simply means 'of fact' as contrasted against 'of law'. In other words "de facto" means 'outside the law'. This can't be unexpected, since as we all know, conquest is illegal under modern international law.

Wrong yerself. Wrong YOURself. In two respects: 1) Resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution which required Security Counsel ratification to give it the force of international law. 2) Even if Resolution 181 is taken as binding, it specified that the mandate would end on August 1, three months after Israel's unilateral declaration. In fact, some believe that Israel jumped the gun specifically to avoid the possibility of China or another Permanent Member vetoing the resolution in the Security Council.

Only one problem there ... the federal government actually doesn't dictate on these thing to the provinces. Your have fallen for the rhetoric of provincialism and sovereigntism. The Feds provide money to the provinces in several of those areas, provided the money is spent to acheive the feds objectives. But it's entirely up to the province to accept the program or not.

All too true. I think the solution is to partition at least some of the province into smaller units -- bring provincial issues closer to the people and thus force national scale issues into the bailiwick of the federal government. -BC should be split into The Islands, The Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver/southern axis. -Alberta should be split into North and South. -Ontario should be split into SouthWest, Centre-East, North, and Greater Toronto Area. -Quebec should be split into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord. There may be an argument for amalgamating the maritimes, but I'm not sure.

Wow! You lost me with that line there. When the Conservatives are defeated in the next election, it will be because the Conservatives squandered the opportunity that resentment over the sponsorship scandal has given them. Squandered it how, you might ask? Regretably, by being what they are. If the CPC's prior incarnation as the Alliance should have told them, to succeed in federal politics they have to be better at reflecting the Canadian small "l" liberal mainstream. That means they must eschew picking sides in the Middle East, respect core values such as the independence of the judiciary, be responsible -- don't take cheap shots at the former government when it's now your policies that are the issue, don't lie about little gaffes in Parliament or about decisions that will destroy millions of dollars in equity value or about why an independent minded MP is ejected from caucus, don't pussyfoot with extreme social conservatism, don't play the dirty side of patriotism when someone questions your choices. These are all things that will not sit right with the Canadian mainstream and the Harper government has done them. But you mentioned losing the base, too ... I think it was very telling that at Garth's press conference he called for "Reform". Harper's style (right from his first appointments Senator Fortier and Turncoat Emerson) has been a repudiation of the Manning populism that was a key pillar of the Reform/Alliance raison-d'etre. Harper offers nothing for the civic-minded centrists who have good reasons to be looking for choices other than the Liberals (the charms of Jack Lenin Layton notwithstanding). So, I would say I disagree with you that the inability of the Harper government to appeal the the people of Canada represents a failing of the country. It is a failing of the Harper government.

No, no, no. The recognition phrases this week are: -'Long is the road that leads from home. ' and the reply is-- -'The cows reap what the farmer sows.' How is SSM supposed to actually accomplish that?

Flat wrong. Israel declared itself a state prior to UN recognition. Sure there were Palestinians ... the people living in the region called 'Palestine'. If they didn't happen to call themselves "Palestinians" it makes no never mind. So what? That's news to me. Do you have a source? "proposed"??? In what document? Since no-one had any business imposing a colonial entity on the region in the first place, it is clear enough to see that for the UN to partition the land for any use whatsoever was sort of a 'theft'. On what 'historical' 'legal' basis? De facto means not 'de jure'. 'De jure' means legally. Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank, and its interdiction of the Gaza strip are both illegal under international law. Well, I'm not a anti-Israel, but perhaps the reason some people appear to 'ignore' the Jewish refugees is that they're not relevant to the essential issues of the Palestine/Israel dispute as it exists today. I'm sure many of them were. It changes nothing about my policy position on this issue. Nasser may not have been nice, but then neither was driving them out of Israel. You need to understand that solving the crisis of Palestinian refugees from Israel was not Egypt's or the Arab League's responsibility.

Hasan! You really must submit your oeuvres for prize consideration. For example: http://www.griffinpoetryprize.com/home.php Sample competitor's work:

They do not need a right. They need only make a demand or a declaration which Rest-Of-Canada does/can/care not to oppose. Well, any territory can attempt to create de facto autonomy. I can't see Alberta attempting it successfully, unless for some reason Canada remained infirm of purpose in the face of the attempted secession.

You've got to be kidding! Oh, okay. Phew!

Since Albertans are Canadians, obvious Albertans' concerns are integral with Canadians' concerns. Once more, for clarity: you don't have that choice. The 'citizens' of Alberta have no such right.

Why? Because it's very typical of those from Ontario or Quebec to be critical of our ideals and politics without understanding a thing about our culture. The points I'm making have very little to do with culture. Please be more specific. The grievances I've been told about so far don't seem to be the kind that will make more sense with cultural familiarity. Culture familiarity won't change the economic history of the NEP, or the policy specifics of equalization payments, or the reasons for the Wheat board. Nor will cultural appreciation change the constitution. As to myself, I don't have those handicaps. But actually, none of my arguments relied on any geographical experience as their basis.

Why?

!!!!!

Court clerks, stenographers, journalists, expert witnesses ... Who has more of an axe to grind or personal incentives involved? Police. I wonder what may lie underneath your vicious anti-lawyerism.

Armed Forces? No, just the RCMP. They've got plenty of experience keeping criminalism in check.

The committees include lay people and government appointees. The police have no interests that need to be separately represented f om th public or the state. Spare us the bigotry, please.

...You said What? I meant it's a strange remedy if the concern is: The malformed part is the mingling of police and judiciary the change would involve.

How? Attack was imminent. Surrender? Ah, but attack was not at all imminent. Who are you to comment on what is substantially dependent or not? How would you know a countries needs, and thresholds. I can make educated comparisons. Ah, but how would you know an attack was not at all imminent? Were you there? I know, tea leaves and educated comparisons. AND Educated comparisons to what? That is your answer to 'How do you know'? Kind of silly if you ask me. 1. Historical records, historical results, and comments of those who would know. 2. Educated comparisons of facts and data.