Catchme

Yes, the NIS is formed from the MP ranks but are highly specialized and trained, as well as working in accompaniment of others. I had thought you meant regular MP's.

Wrong. Why can't the loony left figure this out?..wants back to back majorities... You can rest easy, when/if he achieves his goals Some how I doubt there would be any resting easy for Canadians if he was to achieve his goals. Thankfully, he won't. Particularily because, the "loony left" his supporters speak about are in the majority and there is really nothing too loony about them, unlike those who call them names. You do not see the left majority, making laws based upon the premise the earth is NOT rotating, and evolution is not occuring, and that science is a Jewish conspiracy decades old that is to undermine the Old Testament, in face of the fact the Old Testament is about Jews, compiled by Jews, and considered Holy by Jews. You do not see the left majority wanting to take others freedoms and rights away based upon mythology and personal beliefs in them. You do not see the left majority brining the world to the brink of nuclear war because they believe the end of the world should happen so they can be swept up in the rapture. Another myth. You do not see the left majority depriving those of condoms in AIDS ravaged areas because it might breed immorality. You do not see the left majority wanting to know what goes on in the bedrooms of the world.

What whole group of people there were only 2 people mentioned by me? And if you are inferring that the initial poster was off base, then reply in quotes to that poster, or you are smearing other posters. However, the initial poster is not without some justification on the subject. It is readily documented that condoms are not being distributed by Christian organizations distributing aide in AIDS ravaged areas, even though they receive funding for it, because they feel it is morally wrong. It is also readily documented that some believe that AIDS is a plague from God sent to punish and/or is part of Armageddon. Having said that, by no means are all CPC's against those with AIDS, or condemning of them. One would have to look at their religious affiliation groups to see where they were on the continuim. But that really means nothing either unless they are on record for being anti-homosexual and/or racist to the point they want them dead. For example, those who follow James Dobson and the Focus on the Family network, may well not care about AIDS and those with it. But even within that framework, I am sure not all agree even. I have a girl friend who is an ardent supporter of Dobson, and she heartily disagrees with him and the position he, and others within Focus on the Family network, have taken. Though she agrees with them on most all other things, except child punishment. So, truly broad brushed steortypes really shouldn't play into this, it is too importment to not create divisions. But for sure, people should be investigated as to their leanings in this regard if they are in government, or have a impact on what happens with this country and its systems.

Appointed judges who were determined by law societies and lawyers, do/did not seek to erode other people's rights because of personal beliefs in myths.

I was making reference to Baylee's comment's which many criticized. He went on to call it "blind patriotism". It's not a majority, it's been around 50-50 for quite some time now. Because you refuse to take into account the statement's made by member's of the military over there. Korea, and the airstrikes in Kosovo. When it comes to engaging a person who is considered a threat. If you are in a situation where you see wires on a person's body, and the person refuses to stop, you don't really have much of a choice like some seem to think. If you were referring to baylee's comment then why did you attribute it to me, that is slander. No, support for the mission in Afghanistan is around 35%. Those who suppot the mission are in a minority. Of course, I refuse to take into account what military personal are saying in Afghanistan. They have NO say. And they have no right to say anything. I covered this in the Afghan thread. No one cannot include Korea for the very same reason one cannot include Kosovo. They were NOT "pre-emptive" engagements. Notwithstanding of course, is the fact that pre-emptive engagements are illegal under International Law. Military personal, are governed by their ROE's and within that specified framework, you can choose to use lethal force, or NOT.

Ya right, he is supposed to let politicians stick up for the military. That's how they got so run down in the first place. Fascistic impulses aside, folks, do you really not get why the military should stay out of government? What do you think? Should fire chiefs be allowed to publickly say they have a funding crisis? How about cops? Water supply technicians? Chief Medical Officers? Shouldn't they all be slient and let the politicians take care of us>? Apparently they do not get it figleaf, nor do they get why there are rules against military partisanship commentary and actions. There is a difference between saying there are funding crisis, which many before Hillier did say, than chastizing a former government in order to make the current government appear better. Hillier ignored the fact that it was the Liberals and Martin who stated the resupplying of the military, and placed all the gratuity for this, upon the CPC, when the military has NOT even yet received what has been ordered. Not only was he breaking the rules he was being disengenuous. Then his fullout Gord is wonderful took it well over the top. One does not hear Chief Medical Officers, fire chiefs, or the RCMP saying such things. Yes, they say there are monies needed, and they say they got money they do not prostrate themselves to the government, or officials, who did so, nor do they berate those who didn't in a partisan way. Again, those that think this is okay are extremely partisan.

Of course he does not care about AIDS, and those it affects, anymore than he cares about the environment. He does however care about about the photo op with Bill Gates, and the massive amount of money Gates is donating.

Is it not the National Investigation Service that does it now? As I believe that is who the Ottawa law professor, is having issues with, for not conducting them. Please do reread the commentary of his on this aspect. The National Investigation Service is supposed to run independantly from the DND operational chain of command. If MP's are conducting them again, it would seem that the investigative rules are not being followed, as designed and outlined in Bill C-25 that ammended the National Defense Act in I believe, 1998 or 1999, in this regard.

Leafless, that notion of the WMD's being moved was debunked long ago, in the early stages of the war, by the US military personal in Iraq, they stated there could be no way, that they could've moved them ouut, the borders at the time were too strictly controlled and there were satillites positioned everywhere watching. Do you not remember seeing them zoom in on farmers in fields irrigating at night, and attacking those semis units they thought contained them, that were identified by satillite? Furthermore, are the inquiries have shown the intell was either false or, or ramped up to be more than what it was. The UN inspectors and the next 2 Americans, that were sent in by Bush all said there was no wmd's. That you now give a blogged commentary from a year ago, that does NOT say there were WMD's but in actual fact says Saddam wanted them, is not evidence. Nor can one take the recent declarations of Saddam' military as evidence of anything. they could be paid to say whatever anyone wants them to, after all Saddam is dead. And if the evidence was forth coming to prove this as the blogger said, where is it a year later? No where.

Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than this religion. Can you give us examples of how mainstream christian fundamentalist's are violent. I don't feel particularly threatened by people who go to church on sunday, and believe in the literal interpetation of the bible. As for the abortion killing's, that was what, maybe at best a few people who were actually involved. I'm more along the lines of spiritual, however I don't feel threatened by people who believe in Jesus Christ. That's one man. I personally don't like this kind of talk, since it does nothing but breed fear. It's similar to the debate were Robert777 was saying all muslim's want to destroy Canada and take it over. No Can Blue, there is more than one man involved in all of the things mentioned. And there are even more that advocate violence against targeted peoples. And there are many others who have conducted acts of terrorism or verbally advocated for them. To shrug them off, as being different than other fundamentalist radicals who want to harm others who do not believe as they do, because they profess to be Christian, is wrong. Personally, I am just as fearful of them, as I am other extremists and fundamentalist of other religions. perhaps even more so. That's nice that you do not feel particularily threatened by those who self process to believe in, what they call the literal interpretation of the Bible. As we can see from the examples here, some's fanatic's beliefs, are really NOT based upon the literal interpretation of the Bible, they are cherry picking the parts they want to use, and are distorting a good many other points. They would like to take away others rights and freedoms, and have no compunction with being deceitful to do so. There were just not a "few bad apples" who targeted abortion clinics, people seeking abortions, and abortion providers, there was MANY. And those that did so are terrorists.

It is difficult to understand committing long term to a government that is of a type that most here could never understand. Fundamentalist with religious police and Women covered head to toe in the burka, No music, dancing women, but its ok to have child brides. They can have their government and even fight for it. I see no reason for our military to run around with limited resources trying to be everything to everybody in Afghanistan. We appear to be the proxies for the Afghan government, yet when the war first started the Afghans were the proxies of the American Invasion. That said, the British are going to pull out of Iraq. Maybe they will divert some troops to Afghanistan. There is some noise that Austraila may commit more troops to Afghanistan, but Howard is facing stiff opposition to this and to increasing presence in Iraq by only 80 or so persons. There was a documentary about Malalai Joya on Newsworld last Sunday that showed how oppressive life is for women in Afghanistan. And it also showed that the men doing the oppressing were of course not the Taliban. They were the warlords and the other men that are running the government and society and these are the people that our military personal are fighting to preserve their power, of course in the name of freedom for Afghan women. It is not our military personal's fault they are supporting the oppressors of women, and they should not be condemned for this propping of the Karzi government. In this situation, our enlisted military are also the victims. We cannot turn them into scapegoats for unscrupulous perhaps even criminal current government foreign policy. To do is shortsighted and ill informed at best. Their actions regarding ROE's can be questioned, to see if adherence is sufficient, but they are only complying to deployment orders given, and to the ROE's given as well. If the ROE's are not following national policy, and/or the legal parameters of the engagement, nor Canadian and International law, it is the government and commanding officers who are at fault, not the front line personal. Perhaps, I have not been clear enough, when I have been making criticisms of what the Canadian military is doing. In no way, can we blame the enlisted personal, nor can they be held accountable for anything, unless some are not following their ROE's in regards to Afghan civilians. And that is only limited to the some and not the all. Moreover, I do apologize if my failure to be clear, on exactly whom I was holding accountable, and in what circumstamce, has harmed the moral of our enlisted personal. This was not my intent. Truly, there is a considerable difference between supporting the mission and supporting the welfare of the military personal. IMV, in this case, real support for the military personal means pressuring the government to abort the wrong mission and bring them home. We have no business being there and any progress that is needed in Afghanistan is a cultural one, and that is NOT our military's mandate or responsibility to change the culture. Nor is it canadians as a whole. Also, I will go on record as saying, in regards to our military personal killing/injuring civilians, it is a very complex issue especially when there is very little distinction between combatants and non-combatants. There is no actual other identifiable military they are fighting. From this perspective each and every incident must evaluated based upon its own merits. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect them not to take whatever precautions that he or she may feel required to do to protect their own life in accordance with their ROE's. Having said that, investigations of each incident must be done to ensure the correct action was taken, and there are some reported cases, that as of yet appear where this was NOT the case. Nor were investigations being done. However, under pressure now the military brass is looking into these cases, and hopefully we will get full disclosure. That investigations were not happening until recently is my second largest complaint. The largest is that the Canadian government and top military officals may not be following the dictates of law and national policy. Truthfully, the actual blame lies with the people who make the decisions to place our military personal in harm's way, to begin with. Afghanistan is not our battle, it is not our cause and deployment should've ended IMV in 2003 when the USA stopped looking for Osama. Our NATO commitment ended then. Karzai and his people are on the take from the drug mafia and war lords. Dispite the war on opium, that is suposedly going there, opium production is 80+% and it is the Karzi government that is controlling it. (yes I can provide proof) There is no doubt that there are Canadians on the take too, and that Canadian businesses and banks are profiting from the war and from the drug business as there is lots of money to be made and really, according the powers that be, what are a few thousand or more Afghan lives and the lives of Canadian military personal, if there is profits to be made. And thus it seems it has always been the same, war for the profit of a few. That is why I believe real support for the military personal means pressuring the government to abort the mission and bring them home.

More on david brown's theo-con ideology, and he believes his religous beliefs should factor in and trump others freedom of conscience and self determination. Brown is a member of the Christian Legal Fellowship, which opposes SSM and the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, which supported the homophobic high school teacher and Christian Heritage Party supporter Chris Kempling when he got into trouble with the BC College of Teachers for his public homophobic rants. and still more: It is no accident that Harper is thus stacking the judiciary and the judicial committees. But if you were wondering how Mr. Harper will contain the restlessness of the social conservatives in caucus, here, in part, is your answer: judicial appointments. And remember: Mr. Harper doesn't have to placate the social conservatives in his caucus. He is one of them himself

This is the first time since WW II that the Canadian military rules of engagement include actively seeking out and killing the "enemy" or, as the Brigadier General excitely puts it "pre-emptive offensive operations." Of course, one could include our airforce's bombing of Yugoslavia, but it is not actually the same now is it? Moreover, the ROE's are not the same in any given deployment, nor do they always remain the same through any given deployment period. It is disengenuous to suggest they are rigid and to suggest that they are the same for each and every deployment. First, they define the degree and manner of the force to which soldiers may resort. Second, they delineate the circumstances and limitations surrounding the application of that force. ROE's are developed for each and every Canadian military operation, on an individual operational basis. Some operations may not even have ROE's when they commence, and have to be officially requested at a later date. Some operations have NO ROE's at all. While still others may have ROE's at the beginning, that are later withdrawn. And ROE's must be framed around ALL legal obligations the government has, and they must be made inconjunction with national policy.

Hydraboss is realistic, you are an ideologue. You believe that you are the only one who is right, and it doesn't matter what anybody else think's. The funny thing I find about people who say that they support the troop's but want to pull out is that they never ask the troop's what their opinion is. Can blue, I never accused Canadian soldiers of any such thing, please provide proof of your accusation as it is spurious. Just as spurious as saying I believe they are no different than murders back home Again provide proof please, or withdraw your commentary. One could say the same thing then Can Blue about your position, and those like you, that you feel that you are the only one right and it does not matter what anyone else thinks. Condemning me for what you yourself does is incorrect and it is also fallacious. You are acting as if I am the only Canadian in Canada stating the military needs to be brought home. And this flies in the face of the actual of majority of Canadians who perceive the same way as I do. Of course nobody is asking the Canadian military personal in Afghanistan what their opinion is. Such is the nature of an enlisted persons life. Moreover, it really isn't up to them whether there is a pull out, or not, now is it? That type of thing is not done either by civilian employee rules and definitely not by military rules, where military personal goes where they are told, and do as they are told, no questions asked. In fact, I find it strange that you would say such a thing, as a military person. A military enlisted person knows full well, that enlisted personal would never be asked for their opinions on pulling out, or not pulling out. That type of decision is made by the top brass, commanding officers and the Canadian government, either with the Canadian government acting alone, or at the behest of the Canadian peoples.

White doors, I would ask respectfully that you please refrain from this type of personal commentary, it is both against the rules, and it is erroneous. Moreover, I have lied about nothing, apparently you and others have failed to note, that I gave my regiment out here. Can Blue noted it, and has never made this type of false statement against me, that you have just made, again.

A "push poll" is a poll which deliberately attempts to bias results by phasing questions a certain way. Again, the numbers from Strategic Council do not even show Harper getting as much as a minority as what he currently has, the numbers are lower than what Harper and CPC were polling at before the last election and they are lower than what they received at the election. You just gotta love the false hype/propaganda surrounding this, and then a poll here presented to show the validity of the Strategic Council's poll.

Well, I certainly am glad we have these type of people in our military today! The best way Canadians can stand up for our military is to demand they be removed from Afghanistan. The bluster and bravado that brooks no criticism of the military, and touts that criticism of the military is wrong, is actually wrong headed thinking. Of course, to question and seek answers is acceptable and moreover, it should occur. We have a good many examples around the world of peoples not questioning the actions of their military, and operating on blind trust, only to find out later, when it is too late, they should not have been. The military are our employees. Employees that have voluntarily taken a job that is paid for by Canadian taxpayers. It is our responsibility to know what they are doing and to ask questions, if things do not appear to be functioning properly and/or improper conduct is being reported. Just as it is for us to question the RCMP's, public works, human resources, and every other type of Canadian government personal/employee about their actions and conduct, to suggest otherwise is irrational and wrong. We can plainly see where blind patriotism got Americans with their military, and it seems the Canadian military is sounding more like the American one everday, by demanding/expecting blind support, as tif they are above reproach, and can do no wrong. Unfortunately, hydraboss is a fine example.

What the hell are you talking about? What Christian Fundamentalist has attacked anyone in Canada? I'm sure that no other ethnicities were on board the Air India flight that their feuding blew up? I think this is a crosses burning on the lawns of Prince George type story. What Mosque and Synagouge has been torched recently? The attacks on the Jewish United Talmud Torah school in 2004. in Montreal for example, was a Muslim attack in reprisial for the Israeli's elimination a Hamas leader. Pretty sick that they can't even leave their old world conflict behind? I also didn't see the Jews retaliate. Freedom of Religion should also never be a defence to harms committed to another, regardless. That includes oppression of women IMO. Although Terlesky became pro-life, he has spoken out against violence in the movement, and condemned the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic and attacks on abortion doctors in Vancouver and New York. On the other hand, during a presentation he made to the B.C. budget committee (date unknown), he called "bubble zones" - a law that restricts protestors from rallying too close to abortion clinics and prohibits blockades near clinics - unconstitutional. On September 21, 2000 Terlesky attempted to hand deliver a letter to Morgentaler asking him to stop performing abortions...In September of 2002, Terlesky was sentenced to one year of probation for violating the "bubble zone" outside Everywoman's Health Centre in Vancouver in January 2001. Other Charges of uttering threats were dropped and he was issued a recognizance order to stay out of Everywoman's access zone for one year. Terlesky claims to be against racism and discrimination and that he tolerates other's religious beliefs. However he abhors Astrology, Channeling, Black Magic, White Magic, Witchcraft, Palm Reading, Numerology, Tarot Cards, Water Witching, Silva Mind Control, New Age, Hypnosis, Goddess Worship, Wicca, Eckankar, Clairvoyance, Buddhism, the Bahá'í Faith, Bestiality, Yoga, and Blood Covenants claiming that they are "not in accordance with the Holy Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ". Terlesky also allegedly sent several letters to the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre threatening to sue the Centre if it didn’t remove a link to an unflattering article about a right-wing men's group Promise Keepers from its website, and later tried to get the Centre’s funding removed because it provides support for gays and lesbians. Allegedly Terslesky attended CBC's counterSpin program, but before taping began, he screamed at Native people in attendance to "Go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban." He also posted on the CounterSpin website discussion area, saying "The US helped get rid of the Taliban and will now rid us of the despot in Iraq and I say Praise God." After a gay man was brutally beaten to death in Vancouver's Stanley Park, Terlesky told a B.C. newspaper that the man was "engaging in inappropriate behaviour." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merle_Terlesky http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1108-06.htm Plus, of course the other "negative aspects" of Christian fundamentalism that impact negatively upon Canadians. The Air India attack, may well be considered an act of terror, I agree, but it was not against ALL Canadians, or Canadian Values, it was infighting apparently between them, and yes there was collateral damage, it does not fit Noah's parameters that he set out, so I did not include. No, there was another attack upon the same school in 2006. But one can find no where that those who did were Muslim. Lot's of spurious accusations, of course. Moreover, I never said Muslims were targeting Jewish places, nor that Jews were retailiating. The only thing I said was that attacks against both were occuring. Much more frequently against Muslims than you appear to recognize, so please stop with the Crosses Burning kinda stuff as an attempted put down. It is erroneous and mean spirited. http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann04152004.html http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=briefs&item=33

Okay, how about this. We don't change the charter, we merely pass a law that would hold preachers of any religion to account to what they preach. For example, holding someone like Elmasry in Vancouver accountable for his preachings of martyrdom and murder when one of his congregation acts upon his teachings. Would this be any different than holding Charles Manson responsible for the killing of his disciples? Ah, so you did have a specific target group in mind, thought as much! That would already be covered under criminal law, directing/inciting acts of hate/racism/violence/murder and all of that kinda stuff. So really, again why would we need another law, when we already have one?

You are discounting Amnestity Internationals calls for an investigation? And now you are discounting what Canada's military heads are saying in Afghanistan? If those, who the Canadian military is handing over, are being tortured and/or killed, which is what the Afghan human rights section of the government is saying that is happening, which the US state department is saying also, as well as the UN, then yes we are breaking our agreement with them and the Geneva Convention. Obviously, the Canadian military is not happy with the conduct of their personal or they would not have made the statement they did today. Canadians should be concerned. Canadian Military in Afganistan get spoken to and investigations continue

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/200...3648256-cp.html http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/20/afghan-weapons.html

The poll was conducted by the Allen Gregg from the Strategic Council, the same polling firm whom Harper just paid 76k to conduct the focus groups on how to sell Canadians war. The questions though not really a push poll, were scripted to elicite a particular response and future outcome. As I noted, the opposition party leaders cannot really be judged upon their decisiveness, as they are not in the decision making process. In particular Dion cannot be judged by much, as he was just elected to leader and has not even passed, what would be a normal probationary period in the working world yet. Furthermore, in some questions the other section people outnumbered the % of those who did. That is a huge empty unknown. And I already explained my perceptions surrounding the clearest vision, and why that also was a scripited/loaded question geared for a particular result in the electorate's minds. Stats and polls can be, and often are, used for a band wagon effect. And IMV, this one is saying, or trying to say: "hey this many people feel, so and so, in this case Harper is got a clear vision for Canada and is decisive....so he can't be that bad. When indeed the decisive question cannot not even really ask that type of question from those polled. It is apples and oranges, because the others have NO history of making decisions while in power. Those are the disagreements I have with the poll, the polling firm and its results, plus the outrageous margin of error in Ontario. It has absolutely nothing to do with diasagreeing with it, because of political views. As I said, when you truly look at it, it is actually bad for the CPC, those numbers are a few points lower than what they went into the last election with, and lower than what they got a weak minority from. Selling Harper's charisma is apparently not working either, as Jack is considered the most charasmatic, so I should be cheering, if I was responding in a partisan manner, and was disagreeing simply because I did not like the results. It makes no matter, if it was regarding the environment, or not. First of all, the environment is the top most issue on Canadian minds, and that is telling in itself isn't it? Secondly, most people only hear/read the points of the question asked, and not the entire thing. Either way the results speak for themselves in that regard. And again, if I was critiquing the poll, and its results, from a partisan perspective, I would be whoo hooing. In fact, one could say those who are touting this as a good thing for the CPC,are definitely the ones being partisan, because in reality, it shows nothing different than the other recent polls. The Liberals and the CPC are neck in neck, and the CPC are still polling lower than what they won their minority with. Moreover, the numbers he has for the Greens are NOT supported by the recent ON by-election results. The truth about Green Party supporters, was exhibited in the 3 ON by-elections, just a couple of weeks back. Just after SES released the last poll on ON provincial party politics, that showed the ON Green Party at 11%, they actually went on to get an average of 3% in the 3 by-elections, including 3% for Frank Dejong, their "star" candidate.

The Canadian Jewish Community, like the Jewish Community in the British Isles, are stepping forward and reclaiming their voices from Zionist Israel. For those who would like to attend here is an upcoming meeting Not In Our Name Jewish Voices Against Israel's Wars Thursday, March 15 7:30 PM Room 2211 Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) 252 Bloor Street West (at St. George Subway) Hear a diverse panel of Jewish Canadians speak out against Israel's wars and occupations, and address how to build solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for human rights, freedom and justice. Moderator: Khaled Mouammar, President, Canadian Arab Federation Speakers include: Abbie Bakan, Smadar Carmon, Charnie Guettel, Clare O’Connor, Henry Lowi, Herman Rosenfeld, Suzanne Weiss and bh Yael. Organized by NION (Not in Our Name) [email protected]

Quite true, Harper's objective is just that of Bush's, so no matter whether Harper is a beliver in this, or just capitalizing on those who do, for as you say political does not matter, the results would be the same. Embarassing superstitious drivel, is perhaps not strong enough of a description in regards to the anti-semetic ravings and position taken by these evangelical State Representatives. They are in positions of power and have control of people lives. so,you are correct, it is dangerous and destructive. Moreover, anti-semetic ravings is against the law both in the USA and Canadian. And they are the law makers! It would only be the ones on the far right of the spectrum, who would not realize the serious parameters of this type of behaviour. But then of course they are the ones who believe this false tripe.

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected. Perhaps, the Greater Vancouver Area Sikh community, but only around election time. But then again, they are only arguing amongst themselves, so really they would not apply either, as they do not impact the rest of Canadians with their election bickerings. I mean, after all, we do not know, who torched and ripped apart, the Mosques and Synagogues, so there is no one religion really there to accuse of being non-peaceful and with having negative aspects. Who is going to define what peaceful is in this context? set the parameters so to speak? Agnostics? Buddists And just what negative aspects do you mean? And who would be the judge and jury on the decision of whether these negative aspects were in fact negative aspects? Athesists? Buddists? Then of course is the actual changing of the Charter? Who would be the ones asking to change the Charter? Do we really want to go down that road, because after all, Freedom of Religion can't really have a rider can it? Remember, NOT all, within any one religious sect, are radical, so really the whole group, and in fact all religious people in Canada, would be tarred by the actions of just a few. Do you have a specific religious group in mind, other than Christian fundamentalists?