Peter F

Of course he was. What did he give up? Nothing. What did he gain? Time for re-armament. He probably should have 'appeased' on Poland too for all the good it did anyone by declaring war at that time. But on the other hand - The whole danged thing was a trainwreck from beginning to end. I don't think it would have mattered in the least wether Chamberlain held fast at Munich or appeased at Munich.

Politically correct? Unpolitically correct? WTF are you talking about? The contention here is encouraging others to see Muslims with hatred and contempt. Where do you get this Politically Correct stuff? And since when has ogling a woman's breasts been political? Should you be prosecuted? Absolutely. To the fullest extent of the law. Politics be damned.

I rest my case.

Thanks to Dogonporch for providing the link to the article. Following are the excerpts from the MacLeans article that is likely to expose Muslims to hatred and/or contempt: Mr Steyn: Relating Muslims in general to a terrorist attack. Moderate Palestinian in quotes - Whats that usually mean? Unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in Death Cult Islamism cannot be rebuffed and if they aren't rebuffed then 9/11 for all. Muslims hate America. Bloody transfer as a result of Muslims Signifigance of 9/11 is that Muslims will kill. No longer moderate muslims in south Asia - now all radicals Mosques are a support network of terrorism. Even the ''not all Muslims are terrorists '' support terrorism by being the good cop in the conquering of the west Those muslims who are not terrorists support terrorism nonetheless Muslim violence will be the democratic reality to come Again muslims = violence. Unlike us, Muslims are intolerant Muslims look forward and are willing to enter into violence with the west. I have said it before, If Mr.Steyn had contented himself with pointing out the demographics and how that will effect our future - who'd complain? Not me. But no. The Bigot Mr.Steyn has to trot out all sorts of bullshit about Muslims are violent people (with some 'obligatory'exceptions) who are, if not terrorists themselves, then certainly working hand in hand with terrorists to achieve the same ends. This MacLeans article by Mark Steyn "The future belongs to Islam" is laced with hate from beginning to end. Mark Steyn is a hate-monger. MacLeans should have, and no doubt did, realize it.

Of course its not OK. See British Columbia's Human Rights Code.

Wrong. They have gone to the HRC because they contend MacLeans published an article that contravenes section 7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code...wich states: So your contention that "They are going to the HRC because they feel 'offended'. Being offended is a fundamental right in western liberal democracies " is a pure and complete figment of your imagination. The charge isn't that MacLeans 'offended' them but that MacLeans action is illegal under the HR Code. Yes, lets revist how Ontario 'almost' brought in Sharia Law....what bill was that again? I can't find any record of the debates in the legislature concerning that bill. Oh! Make no wonder - There weren't any! Thats how perilously close Ontario came to overthrowing the constitution of the country and enacting Sharia law.

If Political Islam is incompatible with western values (I agree, by the way) in the way communism is, I must ask 'so what'?. We allow communist party's to exist and run for seats in parliament; we allow the Marxist-Leninist party to exist and run for parliament; we allow the Christian Heritage party to exist and run for parliament; we allow many partys whose outlook and/or political aims are inconsistant with Western liberal constitutions. Why should we treat any future "Islamic" party (as yet there are no such party's in canada as far as I know) any different? As far as I understand Western Liberal values, we allow people to have a political voice. So if Mr.Steyn is pointing out that "western democracies need to stand up and maintain thier liberal constitutions" then the question is: what is not being maintained that needs standing up for? On the other hand, it is may be that some future "Islamic" proponents will not seek change through the political system but seek thier political goals through the use of violence. What is the west not doing that Mr. Steyn believes it should be doing to deal with that? We have passed laws that specifically address "terrorism", that allow the police to arrest and detain suspected individuals without the usual processes. The government has been spending large amounts of cash over the last few years to increase our security capabilities. So what doe's Mr.Steyn mean? He doesn't say. Apparently our governments are not doing something/s that need be done. But no mention of what those things are. I beleive Mr.Steyn doesn't explain what 'Stand up' means because he is a typical lily-livered bigot. I think what he means is to protect our western liberal values and 'stand up', the thing not being done is restricting those of the Muslim faith from immigrating to Canada. And why? Because Muslims, by virtue of being muslims, are dangerous to our society. There is no differentiation between radical muslims and non-radical muslims...all muslims are radicals and therefore dangerous in that, at the very least, they have many children. That, I believe is Mr. Steyn's message. If it is not hate (and I believe it is) it is certainly bigotted, and his intent is to convince others in our Western Liberal Democracies to view muslims as a threat.. Actually he is right where he was before - no difference. Mr.Steyn is not being dragged before any HRC's nor is he being 'regulated' by the government. He likes to create the impression that the state and bleeding heart liberals are out to get him via the HRC's but it is a lie. Macleans magazine is being brought to the HRC's for publishing Mr.Steyns articles - and rightly so. Encouraging the belief that muslims are dangerous pepple and should be treated as dangerous people is encouraging hatred not hurting feelings. Perhaps HRC's should get dumped. Perhaps not. If so then I fully believe the charges against MacLeans are legitimate and need to be investigated and judged. If not via the HRC's then certainly via the usual courts Quite so.

Good ol' capitalist maximizing of profits! Its good for consumers. I'd drive down to Duluth but I don't have a car or a passport and fear being packed off to Scotland...

After searching through 22 pages of Google search results for "Malmo + Sweden" this is what I found that relates to jbg's contention that Malmo is in ruins: Weekly Standard, 28 Feb 2005 A Swedish Dilemma Immigration and the welfare state. by Christopher Caldwell ...no mention of what Harrigan at Fox was taling about 3 months previous , or cops scared to enter certain areas or ambulance drivers requiring police escorts etc etc etc Jihad Watch, Apr 16 2007 Riots in Malmo continue, 16 Apr 2007 Fox News on Malmo, 28 Oct 2004 And thats it... 1 fox news, 1 jihadwatch and 1 dhimmiwatch (wich is apparently a branch of jihad watch according to the url) Nothing Else. No other internet site in google references anything about the alleged horrors of Malmo.

What threats from Arab armies? Egypt isn't going to war with Israel any time soon - they have far too much to lose (US$ and US armaments). Syria is in no position to launch an invasion into the Golan hieghts and on to Haifa. Lebanon is not now, nor have they ever been, capable of launching long range offensive operations at the best of times and certainly not now or anytime soon. Jordan is not threatening anyone nor would they attack Israel without Egyptian involvment. Iranian armies will have to cross through Iraq to get to Israel. So I'm curious about who these 'Arab' armies are that people are worried about?

Well, at least the Israeli transport minister is... Israeli's Round on Mofaz's "Political" Iran threat Mofaz was caught talking out of his arse.

Unfortunately your supposition has no basis in reality. If Olga, the North Korean spy, is in custody (as she must be if she is on trial), how is Olga to reveal to her Masters in Ponyang that the CIA can read the mail? Hold a press confrence? Write a book? Phone Kim Il Jong? If the sole evidence against Olga is from her mail and revealing it will blow the CIA agent's cover - then I have to wonder what is the big rush to have Olga put on trial? If the sole evidence against Olga is her mail and she is put on trial anyways, then I suggest that there is no CIA mole at risk of being blown - because if there was Olga wouldn't be going on trial. Thus no need to keep Olga in the dark as to the evidence against her. You see, the whole legal system is set up to ensure innocent people get to offer a defence against the charges and to show publicly that the government is incarcerating the guilty for actual factual reasons. In Olga's case, the government is saying "beleive us, we have rock-solid evidence that Olga is a spy...we just cant tell you what that evidence is" That is not evidence. That is just bullshit talk and nothing more. That is called running a Kangaroo court. The credibility of the prosecuting state will suffer - because even if they are correct and Olga is a spy, there is no reason to believe them and every reason to believe the case was a setup. One thing the State cannot afford to lose in its struggle against terrorism is its credibility.

You're an idiot. "A mother who championed a national campaign against gun and knife crime has been found stabbed to death at her home." Your Link Her grandson arrested. Why doe's it seem believable to me that you would not delay in killing your own family members?

They havn't because the 'Medic' you describe no longer exists. Midics in the USMC/US Army are armed and expected to use thier weapons just like everybody else and to the same end.

Here's some info from the Quebec govt regarding the Referendums and rejected ballot rates Official Results of Referendums The three referendums 1980, 1992 and 1995. Rejection rates for 1980 = 1.7% total rejected votes = 65,012 Majority NO vote = 702,140 rejection rate for 1992 = 2.2% total rejected votes = 87,832 Majority NO vote = 527,039 rejection rate for 1995 = 1.8% total rejected votes = 86,501 Majority NO vote = 54,288

Inquiry has already been conducted. In 1996 the allegations of electoral fraud were investigated by the chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court. He found that in three particular riding there appeared to be irregularities (Chomedy riding - the worst case - had a rejection rate of 11%!) . But he also found that overall the vote counting/rejecting was legitimate except in three ridings. Some particular scrutineers were sued by the Quebec government but not found guilty because the court could find no evidence of systematic vote stealing. This verdict was appealed twice and lost both times. IE. The scrutineers in question were certainly overzealous but there was no evidence of a plot to steal the referendum by vote rejection. I'd love to supply links to the above but all this happened 10+ years ago and no links can be found outside of wikipedia and articles no longer available in the Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, Globe and Mail and probably every other newspaper in the country. Im sure these things are available in Librarys across the land however... http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/colu...b3-f9173dccd00e So Norman Webster is trying to manufacture a crisis where there is none - as per usual. I suspect he ran out of essay ideas with a deadline looming.

Certainly. But the Military Commissions Act specifically applies to 'Unlawful enemy combatants'. It has to because Lawful enemy combatants would benefit from all the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Under those conventions Lawful enemy combatants are entitled to trials using the usual court martials or civil courts as normally practiced by the holding state. It would be illegal to try enemy combatants under a newly created Military Commissions trial. Thus the need to specify that the combatants on trial must be 'unlawful combatants'. The Combatant Status Review panels are legitimate panels required by the Geneva Conventions to determine solely whether a captured person is a 'combatant' or a non-combatant. They determined Khadr to be a 'combatant'. On the day he dismissed the charges against Khadr, all Brownback had before him was an enemy combatant when the court he was presiding over required an 'unlawful enemy combatant'. Brownback concluded that there was nothing in the MCA indicating that the commission was supposed to determine lawfulness/unlawfulness of any accused combatant status. So he dismissed the charges claiming his court had no jurisdiction over the accused. The US govt appealled the decision to the Military Commissions Convening Authority who ordered the charges re-instsated and directed Col. Brownback that he himself must make the determination wether the accused combatant is unlawful or not. Brownback then determined that Khadr was combatant but not a lawful one (the two stage process) and the trial proceeded. The trial could continue under the MCA if Khadr is an unlawful enemy combatant. Just plain ol enemy combatant doesn't cut it.

Actually the term I should have used is "Unlawful enemy combatant" Charges Dismissed etc., Defenselink News

Are you saying that She's lucky we didn't kill her?

Don't forget the boiling and the eating of the flesh etc etc. What intelligence is in danger of being revealed to Al Queda? That during a battle Khadr killed an American and was captured by the Americans? Boy, that would be an intelligence coup! As for spending zillions per pop jailing each of them...The US already is. In fact they desire to do so indefinately (excepting the terrorist scumbag murdering baby killers that they have already released back to thier home countries where most of them wander the streets shopping Guatanamo abuse stories) The USofA appears to have a strange dichotomy going on. On one hand accused terrorists are arrested and tried in the usual criminal courts following the usual rules of evidence and court procedure. On the other alleged terrorists are arrested and tried through military commissions where the usual rules of evidence and court procedures do not apply. Supposedly the difference is that the Guatanamo terrorists are illegal combatants...except that most of them were not combatants at all. The only real excuse for such different treatment that I can see is that those apprehended by the American military end up in Guatanamo and Military Commissions. Those apprehended by the Police/FBI are tried in Criminal courts. The fact that the accused are terrorists really has nothing to do with it. Criminal courts in the US also have the ability to conceal sources from the public - but not from the accused. For some reason the government felt that that info need not be revealed to the accused...I guess because maybe the accused might beat the charge and go free - wich somehow is a fear that normal courts do not find of overiding concern. None of it makes any sense.

Not at all. These crimes obviously do occur. We, in Canada at least, do indeed have a long history of murders and various other crimes too. Are the crimes us Canadians commit any less heinous than the crimes committed by other cultures? You claim that other cultures (as yet only "Afghan" culture has been identified) endorse and encourage these crimes. Which cultures do so? And how do we know those cultures do so? In Canada people kill other people for various reasons: jealousy, drunkeness, money etc etc. It seems obvious to me that our culture somehow encourages such behaviour. Just like "afghan" culture encouraged - somehow - the brother to kill his sister because he felt dishonoured. Do the actions of a few allow us to label a culture dangerous? If so then Canada should be labeled a dangerous culture along with all the other dangerous cultures.

How would one determine the culture to be at fault? What would be the means of identifying which culture is guilty of these crimes against the sanctity of life and modern civilization? We non-immigrant Canadians have a long history of committing these crimes against each other too, yknow in our bars and streets and houses and schools. We rape rob and murder along with the best of em. How do we apprehend our own culture?

Arrest everybody in the culture, then? Is that the action governments should take?

What sort of Action should the govt take? I think arresting the culprit for murder would be recommended. What do you think?

But ethics do apply when it comes to Canada's legal responsibilities and commitments. It is our legal responsibility to hear can consider their reasons for thier actions and determine wether or not, under Canadian law, they have a legal right to remain in this country. America can apply American ethics and responsibilities in American and Iraq and whereever the hell else they want.