Black Dog

Now, I've long held the opinion that Rush Limbaugh is a pustulous boil on the ass of America's cultural discourse. But the pill-popping pundits really gon eoverboard this time, stating in a recent broadcast that American GI's abuse of Iraq detainees was just "blowing off steam" and the soldiers were "having a good time." The official US Army report listed all the abuses committed at the prison. "Blowing off steam" apparently now includes: Unbelievable. :angry:

Nowhere did I accuse you of bringing up the Charter. I brougt up the Charter to show that your contention that the bartender had a legal right to kick the lesbian kissers out. I demonstrated that, under the Charter, he had no such legal right. which led to you casting asprisions on the legitimacy of the Charter and my own personal credibility. And now you're just making stuff up.

There's many problems with comparing post-war Germany and Japan with present-day Iraq. While I recongize the point is basically "these things take time", using that as a rationale to justify the invasion occupation is folly, given the enormous differences between the post WW2 Axis and post-Saddam Iraq. For starters, both Germany and Japan were relatively ethnically and religiously homogeneous, a sharp contrast to the divisions in Iraqi society. Germany, prior to the rise of Hitler, had a sembleance of democratic tradition and had much of its economic and beureaucratic infrastructure intact after hostilities. Iraq has never so much as flirted with democracy and its civil and economic infrastructure is in utter shambles after 12 years of crippling sanctions, two wars and the complete dismantling of preexisiting administrative structure under the guise of de-Baathification. As well, the post-war occupation of the Axis powers had a tremendous amount of legitimacy in the eyes of the world, unlike Bush's adventure in Iraq. Germany and Japan were aggressor states in the conflict and even the conquered people of those nations more or less accepted their defeats and the subsequent U.S. occupation. In both cases, there was no armed resistance. Compare that with the rising insurgency in Iraq, which shows little sign of slowing down as the "handover" nears. Then there's the numbers. Post war Germany harboured nearly 3 million Allied troops, Japan more than 100,000 and included thousands of civil-affairs personnel which put into place reconstruction plan sthat had been in the works for many years, unlike the slapdash U.S. policy in Iraq, which seemed to focus primarily on acheiving military victory. There's many more ways in which the parrallels fall short, but suffice it to say, that while democratization is indeed a long process, conditions in post war germany and Japan were more or less favourable to the process. The realities in Iraq are decidedly less so.

Dude, this whole thread started because of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission based on the Charter. You can't have a discussion about discrimination in this country without mentioning Charter rights. "As others have pinte dout"? Who? The voices in you're head? Notwithstanding that is the fact that I regularly post studies, reporrts, links and "objective" news articles from a variety of sources. Whereas your only citations are...yourself. What. Ever. I think the Red Deer case is a prime example. Then there's the fact that same sex couples aren't given many of the same benefits (such as health benefits) as hetero ones (though that's slowly changing, thanks in no small part to legal prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation). How about the threat of violence? And what about the general disdain that most of ghetero society still has for gays (this thread is a good sampling of that). I highly doubt that. Oh? It seems to me that there are parties here who crave enforced morality, so long as that morality precludes homosxuality. Yeah, that's me: a self-hating, central Alberta cracker. No I just recognize the existence of white (male) privilege.

*throws up hands* Fine, whatever. You're right Hugo. There's no discrimination whatsoever in the world except for that put upon opressed, white, heterosexual, Christian males. I can hardly stand to walk down the street, it's so much like Disney's "It's a Small World" out ther ethat its nauseating. You know, wage discrepencies between men, women and minorities and the quality of work available is well-documented. But it seem sto me you're only interested in nit-picking and demanding "proof", when you yourself speak in nothing but blanket statements and conjecture. I asked you to back this up by providing examples. You hedged, saying "it's in the wording of the Charter", even though that is not the case. So, "show me one single example." Upon re-reading this thread, I can see your argument go from: "It's the barkeep's right to discriminate." which when shown to be wrong turned into "the Charter is stupid because it supports discrimination that I can't actually illustrate," which became "You have no credibility because you only post on gay rights' , which is incorrect and irrelevant. Now we're down to pointless meta arguments concerning documented social phemomenon. So I'm left to wonder: what's your point? What is Hugo's magic bullet for ending discrimination. I'm all ears. Oh yeah: Wages (Actually I just spen t the last 15 minutes looking for more and I've found plenty, including studies by the UN and other NGOs. ButI'm not gonna waste my time oposting them because I know they'll be shrugged off and I'm not falling for that trick again. Now I'll just sit back and await the triumphalist crowing.)

Ah, so now you just convienently ignore those threads by dissmissing them as Bush bashing. Then again I don't seee any threads started by you whatsoever, so I gues sthat means you don't give hoot about anything. Shall I start my own entire section on every single oppressed minority just to prove my credibility to a nobody like you? I think not. The answer is I don't know. Don't really care, either. The point of Pride events is for the LGBT community to celebrate their historical struggles in an overwhelmingly hertero-centric world. If straight people want to have another parade,they can go on ahead. But it amazes me that gay people get one lousy day out of the year and suddenly it's like the world is ending. You are distorting the issue and I ain't buying it. The idea behind the Charter and AA practices isn't to emphasize differences, but to correct social and institutional discrimination. And while that may unfortunately result in some discrimination against white male, the simple fact is that white, heterosexual, men have always been favored in families and schools and preferred for jobs, training, educational programs, athletic programs, military careers and job advancement and promotion. White, heterosexual, men still make more than women and members of minority groups for comparable work, are given better educational opportunities, have more leisure time and are accorded higher status in society. The solution to the relatively small amount of discrimination facing white, hetero males isn't to eliminate protections and programs for minorities, but to create more opportunities for all, educate people and provide redress for discriminatory practices. Well, you obviously missed the sarcasm in my remark, but it should be noted taht while some of the above practices were state-sanctioned, the market plays a significant role in maintaining discriminatory practices. After all, slavery was sanctioned by the state becuase the market (ie. the white-upper class) demanded it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights also protects individuals from other individuals. Quite simply they (along with their Canadian equivlents) protect idividual rights and make no distinction as to who they are being protected from.

Here's what you had to say on the Charter. Can you cite an example where an individual was denied an opportunity because of their whiteness of because they are Christian (two of the least discriminated against groups in this country)? Since the Charter prohibts discrimination based on race and religion, if such discrimination were to occur to a white Chritian outside the boundaries of specific programmes designed to "ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups", they would have every right to file a complaint to the Human Rights Commission (say, if a white person isn't served at a bar or restaurant). So your allegation that the Charter allows discrimination for certain groups is not supported by facts and is, quite frankly, nothing more than paranoid, right-wing fear mongering disguised as pseudointellectual debate. I have other pursuits outside of this forum and can't post on each and every subject. As well, there was a good spell last year (at least four months, which included the period in which both threads you linked to occurred) where I didn't even visit this board, so your feeble ad hominems only show how pathetic you really are. How many tax dollars go into pride events as oppossed to, say, the Calgary Stampede parade and other de facto celebrations of heterosexual culture? As well, there's nothing stopping anyone from holding a straight pride event. There's also plenty of examples of occassions where some radio station shock jocks or religious types have staged just the kind of event in question. [/sarcasm]But maybe your right. We should strike down the Charter. After all, there's really no such thing as racism, sexism, hompophobia or other kinds of discrimination. I mean, I'm a white male of Christian descent and I sure haven't encountered any discrimination. Besidies, historically the free market has done a bang-up job of addressing the few incidents of discrimination and persecution, such as the voluntary abolition of slavery and segregation in the U.S. South, and of apartheid in South Africa, the fair and ethical treatment of Aborginals in North America, and of course, the complete elimination of anti-Semetism in pre-war Germany. [/sarcasm]

Maybe it's not a big deal to you. But to members of the LGBT community, who experience discrimination on pracically a daily basis because of who they are, it is. And yes, the passive brand of homophobia displayed by the bartender may not be as virulent as others', nor is it violent, but it's all-too typical. So was the Stamp Act. Enough said. I see. Can't win an argument based on the law, so the law is bad. Why not explain what's so wrong with the Charter, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the Universal decleration of Human Rights. Uh...not born? Whatever. Start a thread on the systematic discrimination facing Canada's Naitve population and I'll be more than happy to weigh in. Or just keep deflecting, it's what you do after all. I was, of course being tounge in cheek. However, once again: yes the bartender has teh right to deny service to anyone on any legal basis. It just so happens that being black, Jewish or gay are not legal reasons to deny service. That's great in theory, but not always in practice. Red Deer is hardly a gay oasis, and it's entirely possible this kind of discrimination could become even more widespread if allowed to go unchecked. Which is why we need protections, even ones as imperfect as the Charter.Then again, maybe the women should just stick to more queer friendly places (what they used to call "sticking with their own kind."). Equality means equal treatment under the law and equality of opportunity, whereby individuals are not discriminated against because of who they are. Pretty basic stuff here. No. Bigotry remains a personal choice, and can be freely expressed. there's no law requiring anyonme to give anyone else the time of day, however, there is a law which says you cannot refuse to serve someone becaus eof their sexuality. I'm sure this type of issue has come up, but IANAL, so I can't comment on past cases. I expect that discrimination based on physical apperance contravenes the Charter unless it can be demonstrated that being hot is a bona fide occupational requirement. Yeah because there's no racism, sexism or homophobia at all in the States... There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here on a couple of fronts. The first is that there are very few successful complaints lodged under the Charter, which has been effect since 1982, so it's not the creeping wedge of communism some would see it as. It is simply a recognition that discrimination exists and that legal remedies are often required to address such wrongs. The second is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be gay and the discrimination that homosexuals face all the time. Exactly. They do. There's 364 heterosexual pride days a year.

Who cares? It's the most ridiculous document of it's kind. I'd give you more credit if you cited Winnie the Pooh. Hate to break the news to you, diddums, but it's the law of the land whether you like it or not. Deal with it. Mr. Homophobe Barkeep will soon have to. I would take your carping more seriously if (a) your anti-gay views weren't already well known and ( you demonstrated one iota of concern for the rights of minorities to enjoy freedom from discrimination. You're obviously only concerned with the freedom of those whom you agree with. Anyway, Mr. Barkeep's freedom of speech rights are intact, he can still express his revulsion with homosexuals, he can be a tiny-minded little bigot to his heart's content. But, like my homeboy Alliance Fanatic said, he should "just do it in (his) own home." Hey, you're the one who mentioned poop. (BTW I can always tell when you're floundering when you pull out the "Oh my virgin ears!" routine.) 'Yeah, first it was women wanting equality, then blacks, now gays. Who will be the next "fad minority" and why won't these uppity buggers learn their place? I and "those like me" will stop "shouting" about discrimination when jerkwads like Red Deeer Redneck stop practicing it. :angry: Yeah, advocating for equality is the exact same thing as whoring oneself to special interests.

People can be offended by whatever they find offensive. If people are grossed out by the sight of a same sex couple expressing affection for one another in the same manner that heterosexuals do on a daily frigging basis without reproach or rebuke, that's their perojative. But when this "offence" translates into a discriminatory action (like, oh, let's say, kicking a same sex couple out of a bar), then I get a little pissed. The fact that you link same-sex kissing with public masturbation and shitting, rather than the logical and blindingly obvious comparison with heterosexual public displays of affection is telling indeed. One more time: The Charter of Rights prohibits refusal of service on grounds that include race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation. Link. More.

I was being sarcastic. And nor do religious types have the monopoly on morality. That was my main point.

The Charter of Rights prohibits refusal of service on "proscribed grounds". Those include race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation. What the hell does this have to do with anything (aside from being a not-so-subtle shot at those "deviant" homos)? To answer you're (stupid) question, they could probably be charged under existing decency laws. Making out in a bar, however, is not a crime. It's common, generally accepted barroom behaviour. If the barkeep wanted to establish a code of conduct prohibiting PDA's that applied to everyone, fine. But that's not the case here.

Gimme a break. There's only so many hours in a day. It's not like I get paid to post here...

I wonder, does he kick heterosexual couples out for snogging and flaunting their lifestyle "choices"? I really doubt it. The bar owner is obviously a homophobic prick and this kind of discriminatory crap is why we need legal protections for minorities. I hope they win and that the bar owner pays big.

Our democratic society is based around the principles of personal freedom. If someone believes in an Invisible Superhero Sky Pixie, they have the freedom to do so, no matter how ridiculous such a concept may be. However, that belief simply has no place in public policy. I'm tired of religious types cramming their lifestyle down my throat. The "evils" of modern secular society that willy describes ar enot new, but have existed as long as mankind. Indeed, the argument can be made that the continued existence of such evil in the world is the surest sign that there is no God (as Mark Twain said: "If God exists, then He is a malignant thug."). Religion is not the cure, but another disease.

We could go around the WMD mulberry Bush again and again. Fact is, there have been no WMD found, and no evidence of active WMD programs (beyond a few scientists filing false reports and cashing cheques for nuclear work that wasn't being done). However, it is reasonable to assume they knew in advance that Saddam did not have WMD. Scott Ritter, who spent seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations said as much before the war. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that the surest way to assure victory was to disarm one's foe before the battle. That seems to be the case in this situation. Pulling out of all the settlements would be the first steps on what would undoubtebley be a bumpy road to peace. But it's necessary step. The final part of the above statement is base don sheer ignorance and is borderline racist. Freely expressed, alright: with mortars, RPGs, car bombs and bullets... I'll say this much for the US: they've managed to bring both Shia and Sunni together in common hatred of the occupiers. It took the British nearly 3 years to provoke a popular uprising in 1920. The Americans have managed it in less than 12 months. Oh really? I can. First, the idea of America as a benevolant protector of peace, freedom and democracy that has a God-given right to blow the hell out of anyone who contravines (in their eyes, and their eyes alone) these principles is predicate don the (false) belief that "US interests" and the aforementioned ideals are one and the same. However, this view completely fails to take into account a consistent pattern of behavior where by the U.S. is perfectly willing top lend its support to totalitarian dictatorships, despots, rogues and murderers, so long as they suit the very real strategic, polituical and economic interests of the United States. History has shown that, as far as teh U.S.A is concerned, when democracy and dollars clash, the dollar talks, freedom walks. Usually to the gallows. Even is I do take the stretch required to buy the whole "liberation" argument, i'd have to say that the U.S.'s handling of the Iraq situation is doing more for terrorist recruiters than anyone could have hoped. This, combined with the continued unquestioning backing of Sharon's policies in Israel and continued material and political suppport of vile, repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbeckistan and elsewhere, it appears the U.S. is trying to douse the flames of anti-US sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds by using gasoline.

What's this based on, KK? My understanding was that terrorism levels have been more or less constant. In fact teh numbe rof acts attributed to Al Q'aeda have dramatically increased in the past two years. A little more context would help.

They have a right to disagree with us. They have a right to object to our policy decisions. They do not have a right to bully us into adhering to their own policies. So, while the ramifications of liberalized drug laws should be considered, it should not be the primary consideration. The needs of Canadians should be. Were Canada take the steps to relaxing its drug laws, I would expect that in such a situation our two nations would be able to come together and work out solutions diplomatically and in accordance with existing agreements without resorting to threats and economic bullying. But then, I probably expect too much...

Let me ask you this: do you really think the U.S would close the borders to Canada if we proceed with marijuana reforms? I doubt it, as the economic costs to the States would be great (probably be greater than the costs of continuing to enforce their stupid drug policies). In other words, by punishing us, they would punish themselves. So, once we rule out that possibility as a likliehood, what's holding us back? There's no reason we can't address drug law reform while still addressing other priorities. Plus, the money saved from ceasing the pointless drug war would undoubetdly be welcome in a number of other areas.

But we do judge the criminal. We determine if the crime was intentional and premeditated. We determine the mental state of the alleged perpatrator. These are some of the factors in determining whether to charge someone with murder or manslaughter or if they are even fit to be held responsible. As far as hate crimes go, my interpretation (again, IANAL) is that a hate crime is a crime that would not have occurred had the victim not been a member of an identifiable group. What makes the firebombing of a Jewish school a hate crime is that it would not have occurred had it been a regular public school. It is the hatred of the group that motivated the crime, therefore the motive is integral; to the crime's occurance. And some of the hysterical and factualy incorrect responses to it have been used a s proof of some "politically correct" "gay agenda" war on Christianity and heterosexuals. So both sides are using it for political gain (no surprise there).

Since most of your issues are right out of the drug warriors playbook, most of my responses are coming from the Drug Policy Alliances responses to marijuana myths. We're a soveriegn country with every right to choose our own drug policy. The threat of trade reprisals from the puritans to the south shouldn't deter us from making policy decisions that are good for our citizens. Besides, think of the amount of extra tourism dollars we'd get from Americans visiting Amsterdam north. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs cognitive functions. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are unlikely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first. None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study. Nor sure what you mean by this. Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild. There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior. Sez you. Who made you arbiter of what forms of personal entertainment or enlightenment are acceptable or enjoyable?

What makes you think he cares? What possible interest would the U.S. have in regime change here when they already have a pliant pal in Martin? Why not? Martin has already expressed support for missile defense and for other ways of "strengthening ties" between the U.S. and Canada. Both Bush and Martin are rich, white businessmen. They talk the same language and have the same interests at heart. Hmm. Then the P.C's utter decimation in 1990 must have been a figment of my imagination.

As long as he's not smoking up before he operates, I don't care.

I can't say for sure, but it's quite likely Robinson's motion was reflective of NDP policy, which calls for equal treatment uder the law for everyone (again, the age itself was not the issue, rather the activity itself). (Maybe someone could start a seperate thread on the Age of Consent issue?) back to topic... Can you provide a link or some additional background? It's hard to judge an issue base don one (biased) sentence. McGill undergrad and post grad, PhD from York. What's your degree in?

I've yet to see you incite any hatred against anyone. While I find your views on homosexuality to be repugnant, they do not constitute hate speech in that they don't incite viloence or hatred against a identifiable group. they are just one man's opinion which, along with $1.25, will be lucky to get you a cup of coffee. The fact of a commission of an act is not the only criterea the legal system judges actions. We have different categories of crimes (ie. manslaughter vs. first degree murder, commercial burglery vs.residential burglery) that reflect differences in targets, intent, negligence and so forth. Some crimes are dealt with more harshly once the intent is considered. Thus hate crimes. Don't tell me you can't see the difference between common arson and, say, the firebombing of a Jewish school? 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. This implies that a limitation on freedom of speech can be justified if it is reasonable limit. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it is shown that it is not a reasonable limit. This has been debated, appealled and upheld. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. I Am Not A Lawyer, so I'm not sure how "hate crimes" such as assault are prosecuted. We're dealing specifically with hate speech here. In other words, I dunno. This is addressed above.