Peter F

I can see justification. Supposedly in this country, workers have the freedom to be unionized or not. Wich sortof implies that workers who choose union representation should not be punished for that choice. Walmart opened a store wich subsequently went through the certification process and once they got union certification the store was closed. Is it possible that Walmart closed the store because the employees exercised thier right of union representation? Is Walmart saying, in effect, if employees get union representation we will fire them? Is that legal? Do workers have a right of unionizing or not?

I see. This is all about saving the innocent. Politics, international relations, alliance memberships, and foriegn policy has nothing to do with it. But doesn't explain why army guy and other 'volounteers' to save mankind have not invaded cuba or North Korea or Tibet or Somalia or Darfur or Syria or Iran or ad nauseum. There are other factors at play here besides 'morality'. In fact if it was solely dependant upon morality we wouldnt be in Afghanistan - just like we didnt save the Russians from Stalin. Morality here is small potatoes when using or considering the use of a states Armed Forces. So the 'Don't you like babies?' argument is horeshit.

As a lefty I am neither 1 nor 2 but agree with "IMV, society has no obligation nor imperative to enlighten anyone. " Also my immediate neighbours don't accept me - yet I am still thier nieghbour.

None of the above

Truth is, there is no limit to what and when changes to "icons" occur. The Canadian flag changed. The Mounties change the style of the dress uniform from time to time. At some point Mounties changed thier uniform so as not to wear the red serge all the time. (Now they have a yellow stripe on their non-steston hats and otherwise look pretty much like every other police officer in the country.) So does the CAF. So do police forces across the country. Cops used to wear the bobby hat at one time. Will everyone be agreable to the change? Of course not. Must everyone be agreable? No. It is not written in stone that Mounties must wear red tunics of a certain style. It is not written in stone that they must wear stetsons either. The fact is concessions could be made for whatever reason the administration concerned thinks reasonable. There is nothing wrong with concessions especially when the concession is a small and unimportant thing. So where will it all stop? I don't know, but the truth is I have yet to see a mountie wearing a turban. I have seen mounties wearing skirts though.

Monthly temperatures at Winnipeg 2007 2007 mean max mean mean min extr max extr min january -9.8 -16 -22.2 5.8 -37.6 February -13.4 -18.8 -24.2 -0.8 -41.7 March 0.3 -5.1 -10.5 9.3 -30.8 Environment Canada

g_bambino: Your hypothetical is not reflective of reality. The reality is that headress is religiously fundementally important to a Sikh. Fez's, sari's, kimono's, boubou's, stetsons etc are not religiously fundemental to anyone's religion that I can think of. If a Sikh could get all that hair stuffed into a stetson there would be no problem. Unfortunately Stetsons just don't cut it for Sikhs. They would look really silly wearing stetsons. To deny a Sikh a position as a mountie because he would look silly wearing a stetson is to deny the man a job because of his religion. That doesn't apply to Fez's. People who like fez's normally also cut thier hiar from time to time so's to be able to wear fez's. Thus they can cut thier hair to wear stetsons. Sikhs can't without serious religious problems. So allowing a perfectly good RCMP officer to wear a Turban and look neat and tidy is a small thing. I don't see how allowing that will be the slippery slope to boubou's.

To quote from the judgement (italics mine) So the CSRT, as you say, recommended his release, then found him to be an enemy combatant anyway, and thier recommendation was ignored. So what use is a CSRT? Who ignore's thier recommendations? Is there any validity to thier decisions at all?

Yes he would

the CSRT accepted the government's statements and the guy has been held in luxurious Guatanamo Bay since 2002 because of it. You can read, right?

A Guatanamo baby-killer worst-of-the-worst terrorist appealed the Combat Status Review Tribunal ruling that classified him as an enemy combatant. Claiming the evidence presented to the Tribunal did not support the Tribunals decision. An actual court with actual judges actually agreed and actually ordered the government to release the murderous scum or conduct a new CSRT presenting the best evidence available as to why the murderous scum should be considered an enemy combatant. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT and my personal favorite quote: and Whats the score now? EDITED by MODERATOR: The title of this thread has been edited to be more descriptive of the topic. The old title used to be: Boing...Boing...Boing.., of Kangaroo's and the Rule of Law Edit by PeterF: I have no problem with moderator's changing thread titles, however I would like to point out that the Court did not determine that the terrorist was not[/] an enemy combatant but only that the CSRT failed to seriously consider the evidence presented; the veracity of that evidence and evidence in Parhat's favour was not presented. Parhat could very well be an 'enemy combatant' but considering the evidence presented the court could not support that determination. Thus ordering a proper 'do-over' CSRT or release the man.

Probably not. No body/culture/government/nation holds any monopoly on violence. But we in the west kill, murder, and blow people up too. You seem to be suggesting that we do such things more morally than others and that our justifications are more sensible. That is delusional.

If Olga is in jail (guilty after a fair trial) why wouldn't you sleep well at night? If Olga is free (not guilty after a fair trial) why wouldn't you sleep well at night? Besides that...this isn't about you. This is about "Olga the alleged North Korean spy" and wether Olga gets a fair trial after you rat her out. Here's how your version of a fair trial for Olga would go: Prosectution: "Your Honour, The Crown would gladly show that the accused is a spy. Unfortunately, to actually do so would imperil the lives of our agents abroad. Know, however, that we have ample evidence that would prove the accuseds' guilt beyond doubt if we were foolish enough t to produce it. The Crown rests." Judge: "Thank you. I shall now retire and consider my verdict. I shan't be long." Defence: "Objection, you Honour, the Defence has yet to refute the Crown's case" Judge: "Overuled. Did you not hear the Crown? They have ample evidence proving guilt."

Certainly. I have no problem with that. Still, there is the problem of trying to predict who in the future will kill thier family members over perceptions of slighted honour. Not sure what kind of screening criteria will weed those people out.

Actually, if memory serves me right, BC has consistently claimed that Oil, Power and Influence were the reasons from the get-go.

Yes. Thats what we do here, and I presume in Germany also. Are we - or more specifically to the case at hand - the Germans doing something wrong here?

Bullshit is as bullshit does. Turns out the Egyptian parliament did not "okay" female genital mutilation. It seems, rather, that the Egyptian parliament made FGM amongst other things illegal with fines and prison sentences. Children Accorded Greater Rights PA approves amendments to child law

I would say the communist party would have to show some examples of inciting hatred and not just political disagreement. I would also say that the HRC's of the land get to make that determination. Certainly people are allowed to object to individuals filing complaints and/or trying to silence others. Thus this entire thread. People are also allowed to argue that the complaints are justified and that the 'others' should not have such stuff published. There is also something vaguely frightening to the concept that the law should not be respected. Considering that these hatespeach laws are actually the results of debates and passing of acts in this countrys various legistlatures peopled with elected representatives of the public, I have a difficult time saying that these laws deserve no respect. Laws that are in force in a democratic nation have some sort of legitimacy don't you think? I think so - even laws that I don't like. On the other hand sometimes the 'law is an ass'. I don't think I have ever said "thats the law and you have to obey it". I most definately have said disobey the law at your peril. That I have said. If the law exists and you contravene it, then its pretty childish to point fingers at those who lay the charges. That is what is going on here. The three people laying the complaint are somehow out to undermine Western Liberal Society by acting within the law with the apparent aim to stop Hate against an identifiable group. I do not see them doing anything 'wrong'.

Wich one's have been misquoted? I posted direct quotes from DoP's article. Since my contention is that Mr.Steyn's article carries alot of hate within it I have left out sections where I detected no hate. The 2 or 3 paragraphs about Japan, for example. Or Russia. If I have been misquoting him I would like to be made aware of it. We have to deal with who? Good muslims or Bad muslims? According to Mr. Steyn good muslims are the exception, not the rule (and even then secretly support terrorists!) Then again, the point is neither here nor there. Mr.Steyn makes absolutely no mention of any requirement to 'deal' with muslims either good or bad. In the typical fashion of a Bigot, he constructs his article so that it leads to one conclusion but then doesn't actually write the conclusion. The conclusion left blank and the reader fills it in for themselves. There is only one conclusion to be concluded from the essay and Steyn defends himself by claims of 'I didn't say that' When it appears to be the entire point of the essay. You concluded, from the essay, that Muslim immigration is, if not the deathknell of Western Liberal Democracy, certainly a very serious problem that must be dealt with....yet Mr Steyn never ever said any such thing. So why would you conclude that that was the point of the excerpt? He wants his Hate-cake but doesn't want it to be called hate-cake. He wants it called legitimate debate. but I digress. back to your point So who's excusing terrorists or those who actively support terrorism? Who's allowing the chopping off hands of thieves? Who's allowing honour killings? Who's allowing divorces by repetitions 'I divorce you'? Britain? France? Holland? Malmo Sweden? Nobody. In fact, you are correct: we try to deal with whacko's not non-whacko's. But Steyn makes no distinction, except the 'obligatory' one. The 'obligatory' distinction is then lost in the rest of the story of busses of old europeans being oppressed by gangs of muslim youths etc. Steyn is talking about Islam and Muslims and not the wacko's amongst them. You are correct to say we need to deal firmly with militants of any religion/creed. Nor should we be changing our own society to fit the vision of those militants. To that end we arn't. Steyn, I think, never said we are! But he certainly structured the entire argument to lead to that conclusion - without actually saying it.

Almost halfway between BC and NFLD. So if you are writing from BC then, Yes I am from the middle east.

Question immigration all you want. Mr.Steyn isn't questioning immigration - in fact his thesis of the old-fart non-reproducing West pretty much demands immigration. Mr. Steyn is saying there is nothing anyone can do about it. His prophecies of doom isn't caused by immigration or political Islam or gay jokes - the doom is caused by Muslims. Or are you so mentally enfeebled to be unable to determine that from his article? I can read the words on the page. Apparently thats one intellectual step up from you.

I'm on the side of not punishing the innocent for the acts of the terrorists. Jbg is on the side of mindless vengeance. We have no effing idea what side montyburns is on.

Fine. It began then. You're point being what?

Incidentally, I never mentioned it as part of Mr Steyn's hate essay.

Certainly, for people like you, who's concept of Muslims is that they want to kill us all...or enslave us - despite what they may say and despite how they may behave otherwise. You want to criticize Islam go ahead. There's much to be critical of. But saying the horseshit you and Steyn pass off as criticism is Hate...good ol bigotted neo-nazi skinhead hate. What a shame. My heart pumps purple piss for your difficulty in marginalizing people you don't like. There should be a law making it easy to do that...How will the west ever survive? Jesus wept.