Catchme

I disagree. There are lower qualifications for status Indians and women in the RCMP for example. red herring There is no affirmative action in Canada, it is a American term and action. Prove this lower qualitifcations statement please. All workplace job positions require lower qualifications adjustments. For example, a small man is not allowed to lift what a bigger man can, by law. Should small men be excluded from competing for jobs that require heavier lifting than they are capable of? No, accommodations are made.

I don't wish you to believe in my faith, that's not my desire. This is the point of conflict between our view points, at least the moralistic ones (like I said, I don't think abortion should be legally banned as it causes far more death, pain and suffering if it is... I'm pragmatic in that sense). You believe that a pregnancy can be terminated by a woman because it is part of their person. I don't agree. I believe that a fetus is protected by that same security of the person argument. A fetus is a seperate 'entity' in some important regards. It doesn't share a mother's DNA for example, it's unique in that sense. Not a strong argument, but regardless of that. Personally, I think until we can reach a ethically (and morally from a secular philosophical point of view) suitable line of when a human gains personhood then abortion should be regarded as immoral. Pragmatical philosophy would require us to spare the lives until a truth has been found in regards to where that line needs to be drawn. Where do you draw the line Catchme? Where do you get your basis for logic and ethics geoffery, as they are not based in Canadian Law? The Law of Canada already determines when there is "life" and that is at birth, based upon legal, scientific and medical reasoning, not upon emotionally based individiual morals and ethics founded upon a religious premise. It does share the mothers DNA. DNA existence is NOT life and means nothing in consideration of right of conscience, right of self determine/liberty. No, perhaps you don't want me to believe in your faith, which was not actually my point, but you want your religiouslly based beliefs to supercede my rights. There is a reason why Freedom of Conscience is entrenched in our Rights. The definition of Conscience: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conscience This means each individual determines/judges their own conduct by Right. I have already stated where I drawn the line, at the Legal Canadian Definition of When Life Begins, at Birth. Prior to that there is no "Life" to have rights.

Wilbur, the whole RAWA site is worth reading, these women have been openly fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan since 1977, they know what they are speaking off and face murder everyday. Those International organizations were admitting that the elections were going to be corrupted because of what the NA and taliban were doing. Drs Without Borders have left Afghanistan because of this. http://www.rawa.org/election_e.htm http://www.rawa.org/zoya_oct7-06.htm http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-06_e.htm

red herring. Your example does not prove women have gained equality, nor that we have gone beyond. There is NO affirmative action in Canada.

It is not a moral argument. Your morals come from your belief in religion. My Right to Freedom of Conscience stands right beside your right to freedom of religion. Your religious beliefs cannot trump MY Right of Conscience Think about what that says and means geoffrey. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ... 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b ) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived

Excellent t presentation of the pro-choice perspective: http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001450.shtml#more Bolded points mine. Also, interesting perspective: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/...cate.php?page=1

Your article is out of date it says January 11 and I read it very slowly and it said this: Nor does it say where the reinforced marine battalions will come from as: Then Bush seemed to single out: for praise at Fort Benning when he was on his selling "The surge" talks. Further, I would believe Hilary knows what she is saying, she would not say things untrue now she has stepped forward and being "in to win" and all.

Drea, they do not want to hear that, nor do they want others to read that, because they want others to believe that is what feminists think. Of course that is not, but heh, they want to keep status quo, it benefits them.

Why do we need a national dream of a strong armed forces?

HRW, Amnesty International and the UN all said that there were attempts by the Taliban and different war lords to influence the election through intimidation and violence. None of those organizations has said the elections were rigged. Who are the Afghan Observer and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan? ..Women have a tough go in Afghanistan. I believe it but tougher than before? How would you improve that, give the place back to the Taliban? If you have ideas to make life better for Afghan women and children lets hear them because there are Canadians putting their lives on the line trying to do that right now. Yes, you just answered your question and supported my point. Those organizations told how the election was rigged. And who is in power in the Karzi goverent? The war lords! When you read RAWA you will see what the Karzi government war lords aka Northern Alliance, are doing to the women and children there. RAWA is the voice of Afghanistan women, please do read their site, they have all the answers you need about what they feel and perceive will make their lives better and their childrens. It is NOT what I feel and perceive, unless I am using their words expressing how we in the world can help them. They say we can help them by getting out. 2 problems solved, our military will not have to put their lives on the line, and the Afghans would have what they want, foreigners out of their country. Afghan Observer is a news blog devoted to observing what is going on in Afghanistan.

Canadian's are evenly divided, and the UN sanction's what the Canadian Forces is doing there. From obviously biased sites, I have shown that many people in Afghanistan want us to stay out of fear of the Taliban coming back. The government in Afghanistan is corrupt, what do you think the Taliban was all about. Obviously biased sites? RAWA is biased? It is Afghan women's voice. Amnesty International? A biased site? Human Rights Watch a biased site? Afghan Watch a biased site? As opposed to the 1 BBC link you provided. And no respectfully, you have NOT shown any such thing. And please do provide proof that says Canadians are an even split. The recent Canwest poll is a canard waste of time so please do not bother posting it. The fact that they say it is exclusive poll and will not let anyone access the questions and the answers means they were selective in order to get what they wanted from it. O'Connor won't even say Afghans want us there, his words were: " the Karzi government wants us there", just yesterday when speaking to the military in Edmonton. He basically said because after the retribution aspect of it, it benefits us. How does it benefit us? Retribution? Excuse me, if Canadians were polled asking if they felt we were there for the sake of retribution they would be quite upset. Thousands of innocent Afghans dead, the country littered with depleted uranium casings, 10's of thousands Afghans starving, Canadian military personal killed, , how many 100's of our military injured and/or permanently disabled, hundreds of family members and friends affected, 1.5 billion in Canadian tax dollars a year to be there, plus all the new equipment on top of that, all for the sake of retribution? Retribution for what? Retribution against whom?

It was done with the approval and support of the Taliban who made up the government of Afghanistan at the time and are the people our troops are fighting. Our presence there is more like self defense but those who attack us and our allies should fear retribution. What organizations? As opposed to the Taliban who took power by force and have never held or taken part in an election, ever? A government that brutalized women, anyone and anything else which didn't conform to the letter of their vision of Islam? A government which was recognized by only three other countries, the Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Human Rights Watch Amnesty Inter. RAWA UN Afghan Observer Read RAWA, wilbur find out how the Karzi government abuses women, and read how the elections were corrupt. Reaf Human Rights Watch see the autrocities occuring even now against women and how the elections were corrupt. This government and its puppet masters are doing worse Afghans think. It doesn't matter if the world recognizes the government so much, as the actual people in the country recognizing it. Now you do remember that al qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who are being blammed for 911, are NOT the Taliban, don't you? Though they were sympathetic to one another it is alleged. Canadians reallly aren't about retribution and retribution for what? Being there is self defense? Hardly! Also, O'Connor doesn't even have the guts to say we are there for the women and people of Afghanistan, if you read his words he said the Karzi government wants Canadians there.

Of couse, some men are going to be happier if the world remains the way it is, with most all things being in favour of patriarchy. Why would they want it to change in fact?

Of course, Canadian public opinion matters we are the ones footing the bill, some more so than most. Suggesting that Canadians should change our opinion that we should not be in Afganistan, so soldier moral is higher is not logical, nor even supported by any rational facts The best way we can protect our military's lives is to get them out of Afghanistan, a place where we have NO right being, a place where we are not wanted and a place where we are NOT doing what we went there to do. How Candian public opinion reflects upon Taliban tactics is even more spurious of a comment, nor does it reflect upon the facts on the ground. Talibam numbers are increasing because the regular Afghans do not like the actions of those occupying their country in propping up a corrupt government plus other reasons. There has been much information provided here attesting to this.

So, what O'Connor said was we Canadians are in Afghanistan for retribution purposes and nothing else. I wonder if Canadians actually feel that way, or believed that to be the reason? I believe, that Canadians would be extremely upset if they felt we were in Afganistan for purposes of retribution. Particularily, seeing as how Afgans had nothing to do with 911, except by having those accused of masterminding it run and hide in their mountains without Afghans approval, or even ability to do something about it. Moreover, I do not believe Canadians would be supportive of acts of retribution by our government upon innocent peoples and countries. Now above is the 3 fold reasons why O'Connor, the former military defense industry lobbyist, talk about Cheney and halliburton all over again, now turned defense minister, said we are in Afghanistan. Let's look at the first O'Connor reason, beyond of course hisprimary one of retribution: The Democratically elected government wants us there. This is the first glaring mistruth he spoke. They were not democratically elected, organizations around the world have attested to the fact the election was not a free or democratic one. Indeed NATO is propping up Karzi and nothing more. The next mistruth is that Canada has a responsibility to help as one of the world's richest countries. Actually, no we don't, if that was the case there would be at least another 100 countries where would have to be doing the same thing. Plus, what is his definition of "help"? Help what? Also he just presents the assumption that what we are doing there is help, with NO concrete proof or support of his contentions that indeed our military being there is "helping" Afghanistan at all, or that even it will help sometime in the future. It is an empty statement at best. Now the final reason actually might be a partial truth, but is still not a good enough reason to destroy a country and allow the further oppression of Afghans by propping up a corrupt murdering government. O'Connor states: "because the war is in Canada's own interest". Oh? And what best interests would that be? What exact Canadian interests are being met, by our having a war with Afghans who do not want us in their country propping up a government they do not want?

It is not about "winning" an argument, it is not even about an argument, it is about legal and medical facts, rights of equality, and a right to equal access of universal health care. People have a right of course to their "religious" beliefs, they even have a right to express those beliefs. However, their personal "beliefs" do not have factual premise, nor do people's personal beliefs make a right to set aside, legal and medical facts, nor others peoples rights. That is why there can be no discussion on equal rights, they just are. Most certainly, there can be discussion as to why 31% hold personal beliefs, that are not based upon facts and legalities, that would cause them to want to strip strip others of their rights. But why bother? The fact that they think their personal beliefs shoud trump others peoples actual legal rights say enough. Thank goodness 69% of Canadians understand that rights of; privacy, universal access to medicare, and equality, are a truth that need no addressing.

Letting fear control one's life is not good and even worse when it is unsubstantiated and implausable. Who would you be afraid of regarding the FLQ? Again according to the Macdonald Commissionon:

Oh, I could kick holes all over that flimsy rebuttal and redefinging of the questions, and excluding results because a woman admits she has further intercourse with an identified raper. Excuse me, just because a woman, lets say a wife has sex, after her partner her husband rapes her, does not mean she was NOT raped. Nor excluding those who were raped under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There was no evidence to suggest it was remorse when they answered yes. What Hoff has done is parse tell she can proves what she wants to prove. I will share something with you, I ask every woman who I come to know, if she has been sexually assaulted, or forced to have sexual intercourse against her will. I have yet to find one who hasn't been, not even my grandmother, or mother could report they had not been sexually assaulted at one point during the course of their life. I come from a moderately priviledged WASP family where spousal abuse was not a factor, and lived community in Bible belt prairies. The women that I have asked cover ALL walks of life and economic classes. This saddens me. It saddens me even more that women still have to far to go.

Ok then, we are more in agreement then you might believe. Catchme, you've got to see it from the other side for a second to see how it becomes one's business. If someone believes that life begins at conception, No, we are not in agreement in anyway. No, I do not have to see it from the other side, there is no other side. No actually, I know life commences at birth. Prior to that everything is potential to be, but is not being there are too many variables for life to commence prior to birth. Yes, she would be assaulted only, there is no killing of a fetus at 3 months gestation, the variables around why the fetus became unviable are many. But you are making a strawman argument trying to present an emotional juxposition to bias perception away from the real laws, logic and facts. You have absolutely no idea how offensive your comment above is. It is about a womans right to self determine, to call the insistence on having no discussions on equality rights whining is reprehensible. It is not about a fetus's rights, it has none, nor should it until it is born. Something that has NO life, cannot override the rights of one who is alive. The law states life begins at birth and logic upholds this fact as being correct. You need to get over yourself, I can tell you in this regard NO feminists gives any thought to making anti-choice look bad. We simply do not care enough what you look like. It is NOT about you. It is about individual rights. Euthanasia, is not a cross discussion with individual choice rights. That is your opinion based upon your emotional and personal "belief" structures. Your emotional beliefs do not trump my legal right to self determine. Plus, making such a strongly irrational and biased comment, after you pretend to give consideration and you implore me to look at the other side, makes you look bad. Women's right to self sdetermine are not up for discussion and 69% of Canadians appear to agree.

There is no rape in Canada, it is classified as a sexual assault. Sexual assault stats have long shown 1 out of every 4 women have reported to have been sexually assaulted. However, other stats show that only about 10% of sexual assaults are reported. Statistics on violence against women http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Initiatives/Sex.../Statistics.htm http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/sexual_assault.html Now, there are also the passive aggressive sexual asaults that are not accounted for. So, when all things are factored in: the former, and the 1 of 4 who report, that are actually only representative of 10% of those who are sexually assaulted, it would not be unrealistic to say; "most likely the figure is close to 100% of women have experienced, or will experience, sexual assault within their life time". It is something that concerns ALL women, and the problem is men. The largest % is men victimizing women and the largest % is men victimizing other men. It is not women victimizing women by sexual assault in the largest numbers, nor women victimizing men in the largest numbers. Women are justified and correct in their gender group concern of high level of violence against their female gender by the male gender.

This really should be put in perspective currently and historically. FLQ info Let's hop forward to today, looking back at 2002: Now here is a PQ site detailing what happened when and outcome.

There is no killing of anything as there is NO life at that point, and nothing fundamentally changes other than cell division until the 1st spark of brain activity happens around 5-6 months. It is not about justification, there is nothing to justify. If they thought about long and hard they would most likely decide that it was none of their business. Also, I would suspect that they said 3 months, as that is what it currently is, and human nature means comfort zones. Most likely, if the 23% were educated to the fact that there is no brain activity until 5 months they would move their choice access limits up to 5-6ths, or as I said most likely realize it is none of their business.

Logic says, that they would be willing to support the 23% who want abortion to be limited within three month's, since that it more according to what they believe and reduce abortion rates. Yes it can, it's called compromise, obviously a term you have never heard of before. LOL, no sorry there is NO "let's say this", there was no strongy opposed questions or somewhat opposed questions in that poll! That is a hypothetical poll, you are creating and slotting answers to completely different questions into it. It is strawman propaganda. Again: The poll states there was 23% of Canadians saying they believe in access to abortions up to 3 months, they do want any change because that is what it is. It states 10% believe believe in abortions up to 6 months It states 30% believe in abortions up to the point of birth. It states 31% do not believe in abortions for any reason Logic does not say they would support the 23% who agree with the current 3 month limit because they already do not. Again: 40% of Canadians want the abortion access laws increased beyond the current 3 month limit. 23% of Canadians want abortion access to remain the same 31% want NO access to abortions 6% do not care As you should be able to see, compromise has nothing to do with it, because the 31% already do not agree with the 23% who want it to stay at the current 3 month access limit. There are NO abortions in Canada over the 3 month limit. The 23 % cannot desire it to be changed to 3 months access limit because it ALREADY is 3 months. One would even be safe to say that the 6% would be added to the pro-choice 63%, for a total of 69% of Canadians are pro-choice, because if the 6% were against current access they would say so, it is most likely they feel, and correctly so, it is NONE of their business, so they give NO response.

What small c conservatives brought Chretien his budget surpluses? Now you are really stretching it!

I don't think I'd hate someone that appointed me a citizenship judge. There is no cushier spot... This is way too funny, what a load of lies that guy is spouting. Wonder how much he is getting paid to do it? Excuse me, he is whining because he got a paid position as a citizenship judge, instead of an unpaid advisory position? And he is speaking out now for his integrity? LOLOLOLOL He just lost it!